Palatinus' OverPower Forum

Off Topic => General Topics => Topic started by: BigBadHarve on August 10, 2015, 02:08:19 PM

Title: Testing a new Rule for possible implementation
Post by: BigBadHarve on August 10, 2015, 02:08:19 PM
Since the multi-activator dump on DoW rule change has proven wildly successful and accepted, we are toying around with an errata to one card. If it works out, it might be implemented for the K2 event next year.

The Errata:

Team Overpower's inherent ability will now read: Team Overpower may place Any-Character Specials, Activators, and Any-Homebase Aspects to Team OverPower, using normal placing rules.  Only one of each card may be placed.  Any-Character specials and Activators may be played by Any Character on Team.

The idea is to help combat the place-card advantage Any-Heroes maintain with the Team OverPower. By allowing the advantage to apply to both Any-Heroes and Battlesites, we edge the system a little closer to balance. Allowing a battlesite user to place activators is slightly more advantageous given the versatility of the site, but risky because there's a chance of duplication.

So, in your games, please try it out and report back what you find. Try not to let personal opinions of what might occur cloud it, if you're game just try it out and let us know what you find in practice.

Title: Re: Testing a new Rule for possible implementation
Post by: chuu on August 10, 2015, 03:20:18 PM
would there be any restrictions to placing Beyonder?
Title: Re: Testing a new Rule for possible implementation
Post by: BigBadHarve on August 10, 2015, 03:33:32 PM
No. Though if we felt it became too much of an imbalance we might. But for the time being test it without restriction on that front.

Phil Keffer and I talked briefly about it, and the immediate thoughts were: why is the player with the Site's ability to place a wildcard draw for any site special any more powerful than the Any Hero  user's ability to place the means of killing the site?

And of course, the spot might be taken when Beyonder comes up. So I think it's a wash. Great when you can get it, but not a guarantee.
Title: Re: Testing a new Rule for possible implementation
Post by: justa on August 10, 2015, 04:09:42 PM
IMHO, to achieve the parity you desire, the last sentence of the errata should read "Any-Character specials and activators may be played by Any Character on Team."
Title: Re: Testing a new Rule for possible implementation
Post by: BigBadHarve on August 10, 2015, 04:32:04 PM
Quote from: justa on August 10, 2015, 04:09:42 PM
IMHO, to achieve the parity you desire, the last sentence of the errata should read "Any-Character specials and activators may be played by Any Character on Team."

Yes, that is the intent of course. Minor oversight when I typed it up earlier. I'll make that adjustment above.
Title: Re: Testing a new Rule for possible implementation
Post by: justa on August 10, 2015, 04:48:53 PM
justa tryin' to help   :)
OP LIVES!
Title: Re: Testing a new Rule for possible implementation
Post by: mr brown on August 10, 2015, 06:32:42 PM
i would like to play test the tweek in upcoming Toronto tourny.
Title: Re: Testing a new Rule for possible implementation
Post by: Kyoujin on August 10, 2015, 08:47:52 PM
Great idea!  I'll implement the new rule into my play tests and provide any relevant feed back.
Title: Re: Testing a new Rule for possible implementation
Post by: odbjosh on August 16, 2015, 01:21:45 PM
The Oklahoma boy's have been trying this out with great success reguarding balance vs any hero's. There hasn't been a game where the placement of a activator has swung a great advantage, however when getting Beyonder in the first hand or two it becomes a bit of a advantage. But the same can be said for getting DOW early. I think it has evened it out a bit more for the players that enjoy battlesites.

-Josh, Mark, Lance, and the rest of us Oklahoman's.
Title: Re: Testing a new Rule for possible implementation
Post by: Nostalgic on September 14, 2015, 03:18:30 AM
Quote from: BigBadHarve on August 10, 2015, 04:32:04 PM
Quote from: justa on August 10, 2015, 04:09:42 PM
IMHO, to achieve the parity you desire, the last sentence of the errata should read "Any-Character specials and activators may be played by Any Character on Team."

Yes, that is the intent of course. Minor oversight when I typed it up earlier. I'll make that adjustment above.

A less 'wordy' way to put it could be, "Placed cards may be played by Any Character on Team."

Also I understand the concept of the "activator dump" for DoW, but has anyone written an official rule for it. I tried searching old posts, but couldn't find were its first mentioned. I understand it's an unofficial rule, but it would be nice if it was written somewhere as if official.
Title: Re: Testing a new Rule for possible implementation
Post by: Jack on September 14, 2015, 08:43:40 PM
Quote from: Nostalgic on September 14, 2015, 03:18:30 AM
Also I understand the concept of the "activator dump" for DoW, but has anyone written an official rule for it. I tried searching old posts, but couldn't find were its first mentioned. I understand it's an unofficial rule, but it would be nice if it was written somewhere as if official.
https://overpower.ca/wiki/Devourer_of_Worlds#New_Rulings
Title: Re: Testing a new Rule for possible implementation
Post by: BasiliskFang on September 21, 2015, 04:30:25 AM
Quote from: Jack on September 14, 2015, 08:43:40 PM
Quote from: Nostalgic on September 14, 2015, 03:18:30 AM
Also I understand the concept of the "activator dump" for DoW, but has anyone written an official rule for it. I tried searching old posts, but couldn't find were its first mentioned. I understand it's an unofficial rule, but it would be nice if it was written somewhere as if official.
https://overpower.ca/wiki/Devourer_of_Worlds#New_Rulings
I don't dig this rule. Battle sites are way more powerful than AH decks. There's no reason for this.
Title: Re: Testing a new Rule for possible implementation
Post by: chuu on September 21, 2015, 08:36:02 AM
Quote from: BasiliskFang on September 21, 2015, 04:30:25 AM
Quote from: Jack on September 14, 2015, 08:43:40 PM
Quote from: Nostalgic on September 14, 2015, 03:18:30 AM
Also I understand the concept of the "activator dump" for DoW, but has anyone written an official rule for it. I tried searching old posts, but couldn't find were its first mentioned. I understand it's an unofficial rule, but it would be nice if it was written somewhere as if official.
https://overpower.ca/wiki/Devourer_of_Worlds#New_Rulings
I don't dig this rule. Battle sites are way more powerful than AH decks. There's no reason for this.
This is not what tournament stats show from the win Percentages of Any Hero Vs. Battlesites
Title: Re: Testing a new Rule for possible implementation
Post by: AO user on September 27, 2015, 07:49:03 PM
Corollary issue: in a game today in Buffalo, DOW was out and the fatal attraction down but not out event showed up: no specials this battle.  Normally activators become bluff cards since no specials but can they still be used against DOW?  Also if event is no energy icon attacks, can activators still be played against DOW or is that an attack with energy icons?   Thanks for feed back
Title: Re: Testing a new Rule for possible implementation
Post by: chuu on September 27, 2015, 10:58:11 PM
My take is that you can still attack dow with activators when the no specials event is out but you can't attack it when the no energy icons event is out.
Title: Re: Testing a new Rule for possible implementation
Post by: BigBadHarve on September 27, 2015, 11:36:01 PM
Quote from: chuu on September 27, 2015, 10:58:11 PM
you can't attack it when the no energy icons event is out.

Incorrect actually - you CAN attack DoW even if events like 'Shockwave Rocks the World' are in play. This came from Nick Williams - the wording on DoW confuses the issue but the activators used aren't considered 'attacks.'
Title: Re: Testing a new Rule for possible implementation
Post by: BasiliskFang on October 17, 2015, 06:39:51 AM
Quote from: chuu on September 21, 2015, 08:36:02 AM
Quote from: BasiliskFang on September 21, 2015, 04:30:25 AM
Quote from: Jack on September 14, 2015, 08:43:40 PM
Quote from: Nostalgic on September 14, 2015, 03:18:30 AM
Also I understand the concept of the "activator dump" for DoW, but has anyone written an official rule for it. I tried searching old posts, but couldn't find were its first mentioned. I understand it's an unofficial rule, but it would be nice if it was written somewhere as if official.
https://overpower.ca/wiki/Devourer_of_Worlds#New_Rulings
I don't dig this rule. Battle sites are way more powerful than AH decks. There's no reason for this.
This is not what tournament stats show from the win Percentages of Any Hero Vs. Battlesites
Care to cite your argument?
Title: Re: Testing a new Rule for possible implementation
Post by: Jack on October 17, 2015, 09:38:40 AM
Quote from: BasiliskFang on October 17, 2015, 06:39:51 AM
Quote from: chuu on September 21, 2015, 08:36:02 AM
Quote from: BasiliskFang on September 21, 2015, 04:30:25 AM
Quote from: Jack on September 14, 2015, 08:43:40 PM
Quote from: Nostalgic on September 14, 2015, 03:18:30 AM
Also I understand the concept of the "activator dump" for DoW, but has anyone written an official rule for it. I tried searching old posts, but couldn't find were its first mentioned. I understand it's an unofficial rule, but it would be nice if it was written somewhere as if official.
https://overpower.ca/wiki/Devourer_of_Worlds#New_Rulings
I don't dig this rule. Battle sites are way more powerful than AH decks. There's no reason for this.
This is not what tournament stats show from the win Percentages of Any Hero Vs. Battlesites
Care to cite your argument?

http://www.beenhereandthere.com/SMF/deck-construction/deck-stats-from-2013-2014-tournaments/

Though I do need to run numbers to include 2015.
Title: Re: Testing a new Rule for possible implementation
Post by: chuu on October 17, 2015, 01:48:50 PM
Thank you good Sir.
Title: Re: Testing a new Rule for possible implementation
Post by: Jack on October 17, 2015, 04:56:26 PM
Somehow I had weird numbers and can't replicate them, but the data should be accurate now.

From March 2013 until October 2015, there were 663 matches played in total (30 byes as well).

From those 292 Battlesite vs Anyhero matches:



Just counting this year's tournaments only (March 2015 to October 2015), 295 matches were played in total (+7 byes).

In those 113 Battlesite vs Anyhero matches:

The numbers don't lie, it's still about 58 to 42.

That said, I should have a new page on the site that should generate these on the fly for whatever numbers you need.