conflicting events

[Demacus]

The thing is, there's no prohibition here.  Both events are active.  One changes the state of all specials in both hands into any character specials, the other keeps any specials from being played.

Also, like I said, in almost all other CCG's, whenever a card says that "something" CAN happen, and another card is played declaring that that same "something" CANNOT happen, the cannot usually wins.  (i.e. Mr. F plays his HQ, his opponent responds with an AO.  Mr. F CANNOT draw 3 cards, even though his card says he CAN.)

I guess, given the incredibly unlikely chance of these two events hitting the table on the same turn, then yes, DBNO would act as a negate for FSL, even though it doesn't say that outright.

[gameplan.exe]

how is 'FSL' in effect if it has no impact on the battle?

it seems unanimous that people feel 'DBNO' overpowers any increased effects from other events (even taking into effect the place/hand scenario i pointed out) . 

i don't play any CCGs, so is this a common theme, or just a statement on human nature in general. (ie: we believe prohibition is stronger than permission)

No, I do not believe prohibition is stronger than permission; however, you have to look at exactly what is being prohibited and/or permitted.

In these circumstances, I don't think FSL is guaranteeing a right to use Special cards. I think it is simply making it so that the Special cards in your hand are not restricted in their use, to the characters to whom they belong.

As I said above, if one of my characters is hit with a GA-Special while FSL is in play, I think they would be unable to play any Specials, regardless of whether or not the Specials belong to them. So, if Batman is hit with a GA, he cannot later use his own AD to avoid a Power card, and neither can he play Nightwing's AD to avoid a Strength attack. Even if Batman was your last Character, the GA that landed on him isn't "negating" the FSL event.

In layman's terms, or for practical purposes, DBNO "trumps" FSL, in as much as, the FSL no longer "matters", but it is technically, or literally, still in effect.

On the flip side:

A good example of the prohibition vs. permission from the other side, is Maverick's GI card. It says that he is not affected by Events. This is permission to continue each battle without adhering to the new guidelines, rules, allowances, or restrictions because of Events. That permission trumps any prohibition introduced through Events.

[Demacus]

[/quote]
On the flip side:

A good example of the prohibition vs. permission from the other side, is Maverick's GI card. It says that he is not affected by Events. This is permission to continue each battle without adhering to the new guidelines, rules, allowances, or restrictions because of Events. That permission trumps any prohibition introduced through Events.
[/quote]

In the case of Maverick's GI, would he be immune to The Crossing's KO 1 active hero event?  IF I only had 2 characters left alive, 1 was Mave with his GI in play and the other was Sabretooth, and I pulled my KO event, would I be forced to KO Sabretooth, since Mave is unaffected?

[gameplan.exe]

In the case of Maverick's GI, would he be immune to The Crossing's KO 1 active hero event?  IF I only had 2 characters left alive, 1 was Mave with his GI in play and the other was Sabretooth, and I pulled my KO event, would I be forced to KO Sabretooth, since Mave is unaffected?

yes.

[Demacus]

How come when I quote it doesn't put what I'm referencing in the nice blue box like it does for everyone else?  I must be doing it wrong.

[Jack]

How come when I quote it doesn't put what I'm referencing in the nice blue box like it does for everyone else?  I must be doing it wrong.

You're doing it wrong.

[gameplan.exe]

How come when I quote it doesn't put what I'm referencing in the nice blue box like it does for everyone else?  I must be doing it wrong.

First, are you using the "quote" button on the top-right of the other person's post? try that.

Second, if you're in the middle of a post and you want to quote something, you can use the quote button in the toolbar above the text box.

Third, if you want to simply type out the command, start your quote with this (but no spaces): [ quote ]
and end it with this (but again, no spaces): [ /quote ]

[breadmaster]

i see what you're saying, but you're changing the event to support your case

it doesn't say 'all specials become anyheroes'

it says 'All special cards in your hand may be played by any hero for remainder of battle.'

the effect on the battle may be the same, but it's not making them anys.

so, the special in my hand MAY be played, or it may NOT be played.  it's not an anyhero that can't be played

[Demacus]

may
1    [mey] Show IPA

auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person may, 2nd may or ( Archaic ) may·est or mayst, 3rd may; present plural may; past might.
1. (used to express possibility): It may rain.

2. (used to express opportunity or permission): You may enter.

3. (used to express contingency, especially in clauses indicating condition, concession, purpose, result, etc.): I may be wrong but I think you would be wise to go. Times may change but human nature stays the same.

4. (used to express wish or prayer): May you live to an old age.

5. Archaic . (used to express ability or power.)


not
   [not] Show IPA

adverb
1. (used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition): You must not do that. It's not far from here.

2. U.S. Slang . (used jocularly as a postpositive interjection to indicate that a previous statement is untrue): That's a lovely dress. Not!

"May" when used in most games, is used in the second example.  It's not granting permission, it's expressing an opportunity.  So when "May," expressing an opportunity, meets "cannot," used to express negation, the "cannot" does not allow the opportunity to occur.

I really can't find another way to put this without looking like an  asshole, but it is what it is.

[breadmaster]

by all means, be an asshole

i'm not defensive about it, nor do i care what the majority ultimately feels is the correct way to play it.  i'm just curious why they feel that way

no offense meant, or taken

[Demacus]

:-D  I'm not trying to be offensive, and I appreciate that you aren't taking the arguement to heart.  :-D

My experience in all the games I've played have shown me that this is how card games work.  I think I'm done with this topic.  lol

IF you find a ruling stating otherwise, please let me know.

[steve2275]

i'm thinking more along the lines of

any specials in hand may be played by any character VS no specials may be played this battle

play neither of em

[gameplan.exe]

Here's another way for me to state my position. Consider these 2 cards...

If Professor X has been hit with a GA Special
(Target cannot play Special cards for remainder of battle.)

But on my next turn, I use Spawn's LIVING COSTUME on Professor X
(Target Teammate may play any Spawn Special cards for remainder of game)

Does that mean that Professor can now play Spawn's Specials, but not his own? I don't think it does. I think the allowance of Spawn's card is affecting ProfessorX's ability to play some one else's Special cards - I don't think it's preserving (or restoring) his ability to play (certain) Special cards in general.

So, in the case of the Events, I think FSL is allowing your characters to play Special cards that do not belong to them - but I do not think it is protecting their ability to play Special cards under any circumstance. So, if a GA-Special comes into play, I think it's still effective, and if the DBNO Event comes into play, I think it is also still effective.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Having said all that, if you were going to say that these Events conflict with one another, I'd say that the last rule to go into effect is the rule that stands. So, if your playing group determines that only one of these can truly, practically, be effective, I'd say the last rule established is the one that is played.

[steve2275]

Here's another way for me to state my position. Consider these 2 cards...

If Professor X has been hit with a GA Special
(Target cannot play Special cards for remainder of battle.)

But on my next turn, I use Spawn's LIVING COSTUME on Professor X
(Target Teammate may play any Spawn Special cards for remainder of game)

Does that mean that Professor can now play Spawn's Specials, but not his own? I don't think it does. I think the allowance of Spawn's card is affecting ProfessorX's ability to play some one else's Special cards - I don't think it's preserving (or restoring) his ability to play (certain) Special cards in general.

So, in the case of the Events, I think FSL is allowing your characters to play Special cards that do not belong to them - but I do not think it is protecting their ability to play Special cards under any circumstance. So, if a GA-Special comes into play, I think it's still effective, and if the DBNO Event comes into play, I think it is also still effective.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Having said all that, if you were going to say that these Events conflict with one another, I'd say that the last rule to go into effect is the rule that stands. So, if your playing group determines that only one of these can truly, practically, be effective, I'd say the last rule established is the one that is played.

living costume wouldnt take affect till next turn since xavier cant play any specials

[gameplan.exe]

Here's another way for me to state my position. Consider these 2 cards...

If Professor X has been hit with a GA Special
(Target cannot play Special cards for remainder of battle.)

But on my next turn, I use Spawn's LIVING COSTUME on Professor X
(Target Teammate may play any Spawn Special cards for remainder of game)

Does that mean that Professor can now play Spawn's Specials, but not his own? I don't think it does. I think the allowance of Spawn's card is affecting ProfessorX's ability to play some one else's Special cards - I don't think it's preserving (or restoring) his ability to play (certain) Special cards in general.

So, in the case of the Events, I think FSL is allowing your characters to play Special cards that do not belong to them - but I do not think it is protecting their ability to play Special cards under any circumstance. So, if a GA-Special comes into play, I think it's still effective, and if the DBNO Event comes into play, I think it is also still effective.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Having said all that, if you were going to say that these Events conflict with one another, I'd say that the last rule to go into effect is the rule that stands. So, if your playing group determines that only one of these can truly, practically, be effective, I'd say the last rule established is the one that is played.

living costume wouldnt take affect till next turn since xavier cant play any specials

no, that's my point. Living Costume is, in fact, effective immediately upon it's successful play (i.e., if your opponent does not negate it); however, it is not practically useful until the next hand (or until the GA is removed through some other means). In the same way, I'd say that FSL is in effect, despite the DBNO, but it is not practically useful.

It's just like my argument about playing DoW even when your opponent does not have a battlesite. Just because a card has no practical use on the battle or that particular game, does not mean it is not still affecting the game. ie., you don't have to feel the effects for them to still be there.

If I get shot in the chest, but my finger is also cutoff at the same time, my finger wound will not be felt, but it still affects my body. In light of the chest wound, it's practically unimportant, but it doesn't change the fact that I've still lost a finger.