Fun question for debate

[DiceK]

I'm of the opinion that, "By playing lethal tester, am I forcing my opponent to make the attack".

Therefore, if you lethal test Ultimate Potential, Post can essentially rob his opponent from perhaps killing one of his teammates, and instead attack someone that has a placed avoid 1 attack.  The effect (X-Man's Team May not attack frb) would still fall upon the actual X-Man's team and not Post's team.

I do not believe that by lethal testing Ultimate Potential that the card essentially becomes a Post Level 11 + Team may not attack. 

I mean, if you were to Lethal Test Wolverine's special Stand Off, does that then mean that because Post played Standoff, only Post and one of his teammates may attack, be attacked, or defend this battle, and neither person may concede?  I would love it that only Post and one of his teammates may do anything and I can just wipeout Post's opponent's team w/o them having a say in it at all. 

[BigBadHarve]

I'm of the opinion that, "By playing lethal tester, am I forcing my opponent to make the attack".

Therefore, if you lethal test Ultimate Potential, Post can essentially rob his opponent from perhaps killing one of his teammates, and instead attack someone that has a placed avoid 1 attack.  The effect (X-Man's Team May not attack frb) would still fall upon the actual X-Man's team and not Post's team.

I do not believe that by lethal testing Ultimate Potential that the card essentially becomes a Post Level 11 + Team may not attack. 

I mean, if you were to Lethal Test Wolverine's special Stand Off, does that then mean that because Post played Standoff, only Post and one of his teammates may attack, be attacked, or defend this battle, and neither person may concede?  I would love it that only Post and one of his teammates may do anything and I can just wipeout Post's opponent's team w/o them having a say in it at all.

I agree totally.

There was another thread, where it was discussed and decided that you had to treat it as though Post played the special. I'm looking for it to link. I can't recall why it was decided, but that seemed to be the consensus. But that creates the scenario I outlined - with finite power et al.


UPDATE:

I found the thread where this came up, at least, one of them:

http://www.beenhereandthere.com/SMF/specific-cards/post's-gh-(lethal-tester)/

[breadmaster]

put me in the 'play card secondary (or primary) conditions as if opponent made the attack' column

though I DO like the idea of playing it the other way.  nothing wrong with fresh interpretations on old cards!

[Hot Rod]

I'm of the opinion that, "By playing lethal tester, am I forcing my opponent to make the attack".

Therefore, if you lethal test Ultimate Potential, Post can essentially rob his opponent from perhaps killing one of his teammates, and instead attack someone that has a placed avoid 1 attack.  The effect (X-Man's Team May not attack frb) would still fall upon the actual X-Man's team and not Post's team.

I do not believe that by lethal testing Ultimate Potential that the card essentially becomes a Post Level 11 + Team may not attack. 

I mean, if you were to Lethal Test Wolverine's special Stand Off, does that then mean that because Post played Standoff, only Post and one of his teammates may attack, be attacked, or defend this battle, and neither person may concede?  I would love it that only Post and one of his teammates may do anything and I can just wipeout Post's opponent's team w/o them having a say in it at all.

This is honestly how I've always seen it as well.

The problem is; if we can say that Alpha Flight playing Snowbird would incur the secondary effects of a special upon Alpha Flight, then would not Post playing Lethal Tester do the same?

Essentially, if you play Snowbird, and the character that owns the special is dead, does that mean any potential negative effects of the special would then be completely ignored?

[BigBadHarve]

This is honestly how I've always seen it as well.

The problem is; if we can say that Alpha Flight playing Snowbird would incur the secondary effects of a special upon Alpha Flight, then would not Post playing Lethal Tester do the same?

Essentially, if you play Snowbird, and the character that owns the special is dead, does that mean any potential negative effects of the special would then be completely ignored?

Yup. Therein lies the inconsistency.

But within the ruling, the results must remain constant.

If we say the Lethal Tester makes said special a 'Post' special then the effects, wherever they fall, must also remain constant. If Post plays the special, then anything that affects the opponent would affect Posts opponent. (POwer Leech, Finite Power). Anything that affects the user's team (Ultimate potential) would now affect Posts team, not the original character.

Or, truly keep it simple and say that Post is simply activating the opponent's placed card, not actually playing it himself. (My vote, for the record, is this interpretation)

[Hot Rod]

This is honestly how I've always seen it as well.

The problem is; if we can say that Alpha Flight playing Snowbird would incur the secondary effects of a special upon Alpha Flight, then would not Post playing Lethal Tester do the same?

Essentially, if you play Snowbird, and the character that owns the special is dead, does that mean any potential negative effects of the special would then be completely ignored?

Yup. Therein lies the inconsistency.

But within the ruling, the results must remain constant.

If we say the Lethal Tester makes said special a 'Post' special then the effects, wherever they fall, must also remain constant. If Post plays the special, then anything that affects the opponent would affect Posts opponent. (POwer Leech, Finite Power). Anything that affects the user's team (Ultimate potential) would now affect Posts team, not the original character.

Or, truly keep it simple and say that Post is simply activating the opponent's placed card, not actually playing it himself. (My vote, for the record, is this interpretation)

Agreed, it's an inconsistency.

I'm of the belief that "Opponent" in this case is simply poor, if not obsolete wording.  It should be "Target Player," to coincide with "Target Character."

As to whether or not the special becomes a Post special, I think it has too.  Having 2 specials with the exact same print incurring completely opposite effects is ridiculous.

Of course if we use the "assumed" interpretation of the played special not effecting Post in the case of a primary/secondary effect, that would mean Beyonder is not effected by specials he plays, as they do not have his name on them.

[BigBadHarve]

Agreed, it's an inconsistency.

I'm of the belief that "Opponent" in this case is simply poor, if not obsolete wording.  It should be "Target Player," to coincide with "Target Character."

As to whether or not the special becomes a Post special, I think it has too.  Having 2 specials with the exact same print incurring completely opposite effects is ridiculous.

Of course if we use the "assumed" interpretation of the played special not effecting Post in the case of a primary/secondary effect, that would mean Beyonder is not effected by specials he plays, as they do not have his name on them.

In this case, I don't believe the use of the word 'opponent' is obsolete - it's specific.

The Beyonder example doesn't apply, because the Beyonder is playing the specials in order to attack the opponent. The same is true of Alpha Flight's Snowbird. The wording changes, but you're still following the standard model of attacking your opponent with your own cards.

The wrinkle with Lethal Tester is that you're attacking your own people with the opponent's cards. In doing so, if you apply the 'special becomes the character's special' rule, then you create this situation of 'Who is affected by secondary effects?'

And IF Lethal Tester makes the special in question a 'Post' Special, then you have to reverse the polarity (so to speak) on where the effects land (in some cases). If the effect is on the 'Opponent' then that means Post's opponent. Not the opponent of who the card original belonged to.

Effects that target wouldn't change, because that's specific. Target character may not attack. Target character must discard... who plays the special is irrelevant, the target suffers the effect.

Finite Power is interesting, because it states both. Play on Target as an attack, Target may not attack unless 'opponent' discards. That's not obsolete wording, I think it was chosen deliberately so that the victim of Finite Power could pitch any card they want to enable the attack. If it said 'unless Target also discards' then that would limit what you could drop in order to enable the attack.

And there are other cards that affect the opponent to fuel this question, even if Finite power was, in fact, just a case of obsolete wording.

[Hot Rod]

Agreed, it's an inconsistency.

I'm of the belief that "Opponent" in this case is simply poor, if not obsolete wording.  It should be "Target Player," to coincide with "Target Character."

As to whether or not the special becomes a Post special, I think it has too.  Having 2 specials with the exact same print incurring completely opposite effects is ridiculous.

Of course if we use the "assumed" interpretation of the played special not effecting Post in the case of a primary/secondary effect, that would mean Beyonder is not effected by specials he plays, as they do not have his name on them.

In this case, I don't believe the use of the word 'opponent' is obsolete - it's specific.

The Beyonder example doesn't apply, because the Beyonder is playing the specials in order to attack the opponent. The same is true of Alpha Flight's Snowbird. The wording changes, but you're still following the standard model of attacking your opponent with your own cards.

The wrinkle with Lethal Tester is that you're attacking your own people with the opponent's cards. In doing so, if you apply the 'special becomes the character's special' rule, then you create this situation of 'Who is affected by secondary effects?'

And IF Lethal Tester makes the special in question a 'Post' Special, then you have to reverse the polarity (so to speak) on where the effects land (in some cases). If the effect is on the 'Opponent' then that means Post's opponent. Not the opponent of who the card original belonged to.

Effects that target wouldn't change, because that's specific. Target character may not attack. Target character must discard... who plays the special is irrelevant, the target suffers the effect.

Finite Power is interesting, because it states both. Play on Target as an attack, Target may not attack unless 'opponent' discards. That's not obsolete wording, I think it was chosen deliberately so that the victim of Finite Power could pitch any card they want to enable the attack. If it said 'unless Target also discards' then that would limit what you could drop in order to enable the attack.

And there are other cards that affect the opponent to fuel this question, even if Finite power was, in fact, just a case of obsolete wording.

"Opponent" is obsolete wording.  If it was "Target Player," there wouldn't be any confusion. 

The Beyonder issue absolutely applies to this scenario.  If I'm a judge, and I walk over to a table with someone complaining about Beyonder playing Focued Fire in a previous round, but in a later round not incurring the effect, how would I ever know who the special originally came from?

It's painfully obvious that the effect in the case of Finite Power applies to the "Target Character," and of course if we had "Target Player" instead of "Opponent," it would be even more obvious.

I can see an argument with Ultimate Potential not effecting Post's team if he plays it due to the fact it's difficult for a judge to determine who played it.  At least in this case we have Lethal Tester as evidence of who played what.

I think this can be summed up as: when the specials are first played, the effect takes place on the character/player playing the special, after that, they revert to whomever owns the special.

I can't see this working any other way, because we still have the issue of Beyonder playing Inspiration.  If you can't track the specials, then they must revert.

So then we come back to: whomever plays a special, incurs the possible negative effects of that special.  The target of the special is irrelevant.  Names on special cards only imply ownership, not who can actually play the special.

[BigBadHarve]

"Opponent" is obsolete wording.  If it was "Target Player," there wouldn't be any confusion. 

The Beyonder issue absolutely applies to this scenario.  If I'm a judge, and I walk over to a table with someone complaining about Beyonder playing Focued Fire in a previous round, but in a later round not incurring the effect, how would I ever know who the special originally came from?

It's painfully obvious that the effect in the case of Finite Power applies to the "Target Character," and of course if we had "Target Player" instead of "Opponent," it would be even more obvious.

I can see an argument with Ultimate Potential not effecting Post's team if he plays it due to the fact it's difficult for a judge to determine who played it.  At least in this case we have Lethal Tester as evidence of who played what.

I think this can be summed up as: when the specials are first played, the effect takes place on the character/player playing the special, after that, they revert to whomever owns the special.

I can't see this working any other way, because we still have the issue of Beyonder playing Inspiration.  If you can't track the specials, then they must revert.

So then we come back to: whomever plays a special, incurs the possible negative effects of that special.  The target of the special is irrelevant.  Names on special cards only imply ownership, not who can actually play the special.

'Opponent' is certainly NOT obsolete wording. There are even rules specifically differentiating them. That's why you can target a battlesite with 'opponent' affecting cards, as opposed to 'targeting' cards.

If you use White Tiger on my site, I don't have to pitch two cards if it hits. If you target my site with Harpoon, I must still discard all specials. Both differentiate target vs. opponent.

The only obsolete terminology is from Original - where cards say 'Target Opponent' which has been officially address to read 'target character' The 'target' take priority.

BUT, this doesn't apply to Finite power, because it's different wording. It says Target character on the initial attack, then 'Opponent' is defined when factoring the effect. 

Do you follow?

If we play the way you propose, it creates confusion because there's no consistency. The ruling is all over the map. One special affects as though POst played the card, others do not. It makes no sense.

[Hot Rod]

"Opponent" is obsolete wording.  If it was "Target Player," there wouldn't be any confusion. 

The Beyonder issue absolutely applies to this scenario.  If I'm a judge, and I walk over to a table with someone complaining about Beyonder playing Focued Fire in a previous round, but in a later round not incurring the effect, how would I ever know who the special originally came from?

It's painfully obvious that the effect in the case of Finite Power applies to the "Target Character," and of course if we had "Target Player" instead of "Opponent," it would be even more obvious.

I can see an argument with Ultimate Potential not effecting Post's team if he plays it due to the fact it's difficult for a judge to determine who played it.  At least in this case we have Lethal Tester as evidence of who played what.

I think this can be summed up as: when the specials are first played, the effect takes place on the character/player playing the special, after that, they revert to whomever owns the special.

I can't see this working any other way, because we still have the issue of Beyonder playing Inspiration.  If you can't track the specials, then they must revert.

So then we come back to: whomever plays a special, incurs the possible negative effects of that special.  The target of the special is irrelevant.  Names on special cards only imply ownership, not who can actually play the special.

'Opponent' is certainly NOT obsolete wording. There are even rules specifically differentiating them. That's why you can target a battlesite with 'opponent' affecting cards, as opposed to 'targeting' cards.

If you use White Tiger on my site, I don't have to pitch two cards if it hits. If you target my site with Harpoon, I must still discard all specials. Both differentiate target vs. opponent.

The only obsolete terminology is from Original - where cards say 'Target Opponent' which has been officially address to read 'target character' The 'target' take priority.

BUT, this doesn't apply to Finite power, because it's different wording. It says Target character on the initial attack, then 'Opponent' is defined when factoring the effect. 

Do you follow?

If we play the way you propose, it creates confusion because there's no consistency. The ruling is all over the map. One special affects as though POst played the card, others do not. It makes no sense.

White Tiger has nothing to do with Opponent, as it's Target Character.  Harpoon's Opponent can easily be changed to Target Player.

You still haven't addressed the issue of Beyonder playing Focused Fire, or Inspiration.

My reversion idea for specials is to lessen confusion, as again, tell me how a judge in that situation can tell Beyonder played Focused Fire?  If Beyonder is effected by Focused Fire then clearly Post, and Posts team would be effected by Ultimate Potential.

The logic with ruling a card with the exact same use intentions as others, but have it act in completely different manner is complete utter insanity designed to create nothing but confusion.

[BigBadHarve]

White Tiger has nothing to do with Opponent, as it's Target Character.  Harpoon's Opponent can easily be changed to Target Player.

You still haven't addressed the issue of Beyonder playing Focused Fire, or Inspiration.

My reversion idea for specials is to lessen confusion, as again, tell me how a judge in that situation can tell Beyonder played Focused Fire?  If Beyonder is effected by Focused Fire then clearly Post, and Posts team would be effected by Ultimate Potential.

The logic with ruling a card with the exact same use intentions as others, but have it act in completely different manner is complete utter insanity designed to create nothing but confusion.

Yes. Exactly. White Tiger doesn't affect the opponent. It affects the Target. It says so. The rules say so. Harpoon affects the opponent. It says so, the rules say so.

There are provisions for both, which means, the term 'opponent' is current and specific. Not some abstract, obsolete definition.

Also, Beyonder is not relevant to all this because he is playing specials on his own side of the table against the opponent. So if he plays Focused force, then he is barred from defending with specials for the rest of the game. It is up to the players to keep track. That's just the way it is.

Inspiration doesn't apply because it has nothing to do with the secondary effects. It simply adjusts venture for <character> specials. So yes, while Beyonder can play anyone's specials, he has none of his own. So inspiration means nothing if played through him. But any 'effects' played through Beyonder (or on to him) still apply.

The bottom line with Lethal Tester is this -

If you play that the special activated by lethal tester is now a Post special used against his own team, then you must adjust the secondary effects accordingly. But you can't pick and choose what affects which side.

If you play the the special is simply being activated by Post, but still considered to be played as though the opponent played it (Best option for simplicity) then you change nothing.

But which is it? And with option A, you can't have it both ways - You can't tell me that Post must always suffer the penalties in any instance - which is what you're suggesting.

[Hot Rod]

White Tiger has nothing to do with Opponent, as it's Target Character.  Harpoon's Opponent can easily be changed to Target Player.

You still haven't addressed the issue of Beyonder playing Focused Fire, or Inspiration.

My reversion idea for specials is to lessen confusion, as again, tell me how a judge in that situation can tell Beyonder played Focused Fire?  If Beyonder is effected by Focused Fire then clearly Post, and Posts team would be effected by Ultimate Potential.

The logic with ruling a card with the exact same use intentions as others, but have it act in completely different manner is complete utter insanity designed to create nothing but confusion.

Yes. Exactly. White Tiger doesn't affect the opponent. It affects the Target. It says so. The rules say so. Harpoon affects the opponent. It says so, the rules say so.

There are provisions for both, which means, the term 'opponent' is current and specific. Not some abstract, obsolete definition.

Also, Beyonder is not relevant to all this because he is playing specials on his own side of the table against the opponent. So if he plays Focused force, then he is barred from defending with specials for the rest of the game. It is up to the players to keep track. That's just the way it is.

Inspiration doesn't apply because it has nothing to do with the secondary effects. It simply adjusts venture for <character> specials. So yes, while Beyonder can play anyone's specials, he has none of his own. So inspiration means nothing if played through him. But any 'effects' played through Beyonder (or on to him) still apply.

The bottom line with Lethal Tester is this -

If you play that the special activated by lethal tester is now a Post special used against his own team, then you must adjust the secondary effects accordingly. But you can't pick and choose what affects which side.

If you play the the special is simply being activated by Post, but still considered to be played as though the opponent played it (Best option for simplicity) then you change nothing.

But which is it? And with option A, you can't have it both ways - You can't tell me that Post must always suffer the penalties in any instance - which is what you're suggesting.

So if you're saying Beyonder gets no effect from Inspiration, then that must mean SuperPatriot doesn't either, as SuperPatriot does not have any specials of his own?  So if you put SuperPatriot into a deck without Captain America, Inspiration is a completely unplayable card?

You also say that Focused Fire would effect Beyonder, who is playing a card that is not his, but Post playing the same card would not be effected?  All I see here is inconsistency.

I must have missed the part where attacking your own teammates is a routinely beneficial play, and to say that it's nothing but a penalty is over the top.  Clearly Lethal Tester has use as a preemptive shift, and it can also be used to Leech yourself for the least amount of cards.

I don't see the reasoning behind turning it into some fanciful card that contradicts all similar effects.  Which will yet again add more inconsistency, and confusion.

[BigBadHarve]

So if you're saying Beyonder gets no effect from Inspiration, then that must mean SuperPatriot doesn't either, as SuperPatriot does not have any specials of his own?  So if you put SuperPatriot into a deck without Captain America, Inspiration is a completely unplayable card?

You also say that Focused Fire would effect Beyonder, who is playing a card that is not his, but Post playing the same card would not be effected?  All I see here is inconsistency.

I must have missed the part where attacking your own teammates is a routinely beneficial play, and to say that it's nothing but a penalty is over the top.  Clearly Lethal Tester has use as a preemptive shift, and it can also be used to Leech yourself for the least amount of cards.

I don't see the reasoning behind turning it into some fanciful card that contradicts all similar effects.  Which will yet again add more inconsistency, and confusion.

The Superpatriot question bring an interesting point. I would agree that the rules would have to be consistent. Though, Superpatriot is Playing Captain America Specials, and the card doubles Captain America specials. So you'd slip through a loophole there - but Beyonder would only benefit from said specials if he was playing the listed specials - it wouldn't convert all of the cards he plays. So if beyonder plays Captain America specials and uses Inspiration, then he gets the benefit.

Personally, I think this whole issue warrants its own thread. But for the record Meta 98 kind of spells it out: "All (Character) Special cards" refers only to Specials which belong to that Character. Any Hero/Character Specials and Specials played via Activators are not counted as belonging to the Character.

I think 'belong to that character' sums it up, and unfortunately opens the door for variant characters like superpatriot being ineligible to benefit from The Inspiration card. As I said, worthy of another debate thread.

Now, back to the Post Point -

Okay, if you want to play that way, and Lethal Tester makes the special in question a 'Post' Special, then you MUST play the effects properly. Below are some examples of how it should work out:

I lethal test your Power Leech. I target my teammate and let it hit. The 'opponent' must now discard 4 cards. Since Post played the card, you must factor Post's opponent, not the character hit by leech. (My understanding of the errata on Leech is this "Play on target as an attack. If successful, opponent must discard...." though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that)

I lethal test your White Tiger (HY code). I block it, because letting it hit would mean I have to discard. It affects the target, meaning whoever played it is irrelevant to the effect.

I lethal test your 'Apache Warrior' (NK code). I then block it, and because it's now a POST special, I am the one who gets to draw, not the other player using Thunderbird.

I lethal test your Ultimate Potential (MC code). I am now prevented from attacking for the remainder of the battle because the stipulation is now POST's team may not attack for remainder of battle.

I Lethal Test your Harpoon (EG code). I let it hit, and now YOU must discard all of your specials as the effect his the 'opponent' not the target. Since Post played the card, you must factor Post's opponent, not the Marauders.


That is the only fair and logical result of playing the special activated by lethal tester as a 'post' special. If the effect is against the 'opponent' then it's Post's opponent who takes the bite.

I'm not trying to turn Lethal Tester into some super card. I want a consistent consensus. The best option for that is to play that it's NOT a post special. That takes away guesswork. I am simply activating my opponent's card. But if the choice is to have Lethal Tester make the card in question played as though it belongs to Post, then you have to account for the complicated results that follow.

And that includes the crazy situation of Finite Power being activated by Lethal Tester.

As I've said before - you can't have it both ways.

[Hot Rod]

So if you're saying Beyonder gets no effect from Inspiration, then that must mean SuperPatriot doesn't either, as SuperPatriot does not have any specials of his own?  So if you put SuperPatriot into a deck without Captain America, Inspiration is a completely unplayable card?

You also say that Focused Fire would effect Beyonder, who is playing a card that is not his, but Post playing the same card would not be effected?  All I see here is inconsistency.

I must have missed the part where attacking your own teammates is a routinely beneficial play, and to say that it's nothing but a penalty is over the top.  Clearly Lethal Tester has use as a preemptive shift, and it can also be used to Leech yourself for the least amount of cards.

I don't see the reasoning behind turning it into some fanciful card that contradicts all similar effects.  Which will yet again add more inconsistency, and confusion.

The Superpatriot question bring an interesting point. I would agree that the rules would have to be consistent. Though, Superpatriot is Playing Captain America Specials, and the card doubles Captain America specials. So you'd slip through a loophole there - but Beyonder would only benefit from said specials if he was playing the listed specials - it wouldn't convert all of the cards he plays. So if beyonder plays Captain America specials and uses Inspiration, then he gets the benefit.

Personally, I think this whole issue warrants its own thread. But for the record Meta 98 kind of spells it out: "All (Character) Special cards" refers only to Specials which belong to that Character. Any Hero/Character Specials and Specials played via Activators are not counted as belonging to the Character.

I think 'belong to that character' sums it up, and unfortunately opens the door for variant characters like superpatriot being ineligible to benefit from The Inspiration card. As I said, worthy of another debate thread.

Now, back to the Post Point -

Okay, if you want to play that way, and Lethal Tester makes the special in question a 'Post' Special, then you MUST play the effects properly. Below are some examples of how it should work out:

I lethal test your Power Leech. I target my teammate and let it hit. The 'opponent' must now discard 4 cards. Since Post played the card, you must factor Post's opponent, not the character hit by leech. (My understanding of the errata on Leech is this "Play on target as an attack. If successful, opponent must discard...." though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that)

I lethal test your White Tiger (HY code). I block it, because letting it hit would mean I have to discard. It affects the target, meaning whoever played it is irrelevant to the effect.

I lethal test your 'Apache Warrior' (NK code). I then block it, and because it's now a POST special, I am the one who gets to draw, not the other player using Thunderbird.

I lethal test your Ultimate Potential (MC code). I am now prevented from attacking for the remainder of the battle because the stipulation is now POST's team may not attack for remainder of battle.

I Lethal Test your Harpoon (EG code). I let it hit, and now YOU must discard all of your specials as the effect his the 'opponent' not the target. Since Post played the card, you must factor Post's opponent, not the Marauders.


That is the only fair and logical result of playing the special activated by lethal tester as a 'post' special. If the effect is against the 'opponent' then it's Post's opponent who takes the bite.

I'm not trying to turn Lethal Tester into some super card. I want a consistent consensus. The best option for that is to play that it's NOT a post special. That takes away guesswork. I am simply activating my opponent's card. But if the choice is to have Lethal Tester make the card in question played as though it belongs to Post, then you have to account for the complicated results that follow.

And that includes the crazy situation of Finite Power being activated by Lethal Tester.

As I've said before - you can't have it both ways.

I think meta 98 is fairly simple, it basically states that Any Hero specials, and specials from a battlesite don't count as 'named' specials by the character that played them.

After going through this debate I'm now of the opinion that any special played by Beyonder would become a Beyonder special, and thus would be counted for Inspiration.  I don't see how Beyonder could be penalized at all for playing Focused Force when it clearly states that Cyclops is the effected character.  Again it also brings up the point of Beyonder playing specials of dead teammates.  If the specials don't belong to Beyonder, and the teammate in question is dead, then how does he play them at all?

The list you assembled is solid and reinforces my thought process towards 'Opponent' being obsolete in that it doesn't coincide with 'Target Character' very well.  I believe that the 'Opponent' is the player in control of the character being effected.  Essentially the administrator for the characters, or you could say the next step up, in a global sense.  A character is simply a character, but player/opponent is also the battlesite; hand, homebase, deck, discard piles, reserve character and missions.

Wherever I see 'Opponent' on these examples I just mentally change it to 'Target Player' and they all make crystal clear sense to me.

Leech for example if being played by Post with Lethal Tester would come out as: 'Target Character' being your character; 'Opponent' being you the target player, and 'Leech' being Post.

This to me looks like the same debacle with other old tournament misplays such as: placing A-next to Marvel Universe, not attacking characters with activator cards; and of course not playing teamwork followups correctly.

[BigBadHarve]

Wherever I see 'Opponent' on these examples I just mentally change it to 'Target Player' and they all make crystal clear sense to me.

Very well - the next time you force me to discard with your 'Bat Out of Hell' or Spontaneous Combustion' I'll gladly defend with my 'avoid 1 attack' because Opponent means target.