Thing: Aunt Petuna (FA)

[DarKBladE09]

So, Thing's card says "Thing may not attack or be attacked for remainder of battle". This is similar to Nightcrawler's DZ card which says "Target hero may not attack or be attacked for remainder of battle" and also similar to the Reavers' Pretty Boy (CJ, OPD) which says "Reavers may not be attacked for remainder of battle". Can someone help me to understand why you cannot play the thing card defensively? It is essentially the same as the Reavers card but without the OPD. I assume it's not OPD because it makes Thing unable to attack also. That part makes sense. I can also see why the Nightcrawler card cannot be played defensively, because it can be used as an attack on one of the opponent's teammembers. If the Thing card is only allowed to be played offensively, which is what I was told,  doesn't that make it a really shi**y card? Not only can you not use it to avoid an attack like the Reavers card, but you also waste an entire turn making a defensive action.

I realize that a thread involving FA's was started and that it was determined that they cannot be played defensively. My main question is why? and then the followup would be why can Reavers card be played defensively? I know they are different, but they are so similar it's rediculous.

[BigBadHarve]

It used to be playable defensively, but then someone decided that it would be too easy to create a 'block off' effect so they ruled that it was offensive only.

One of many counter-intuitive, stupid rulings.

-BBH

[CoS]

by "block effect" BBH is referring to a "lock down" where the opponent has no front line targets, yet has a hand full of cards since you ventured for the win. (usually you play a small add to venture special from a battlesite) and you win the game.  It was used with some success at nationals during the heyday of X-Babies and Marauders pre-vertigo/pre-dead is dead....

[DarKBladE09]

Yes but the reavers card has locked me down or my opponent in many games. So once again, why reavers and not this one? Who makes these rulings?

[Jack]

Wouldn't've been better to blanket DZ/FA specials to OPD status like they did with HQ?

[thetrooper27]

I like that idea... OPD status.

[CoS]

yea, OPD them and let them be played on defense! Woot!

[Nate Grey]

yea, OPD them and let them be played on defense! Woot!

I'm all for it! Someone write that into the metarules on the OP Wiki site. 

[BigBadHarve]

It doesn't even need to be OPD. It should just be playable defensively.

-BBH

[Jack]

I see a lot of similarities between HQ and DX/FA and the HQ were made OPD. I cannot see why DX/FA and also LN shouldn't suffer the same fate and remove the stupid errata.

[Steino]

I like the idea of challenging some of the Meta Rules.  I agree that it seems like they were a counter-intuitive way to "fix" problems.

Why should the Meta Rules be set in stone?  They were added and I imagine amended as needed to solve problems.  The official rules committee left the game over 10 years ago.  The players haven't.

It would be nice if a committee was set up to look over some of the rulings and maybe change some, remove some or even add some new ones.


On a side note, I am not a fan of the duration rule.  I liked what BBH posted about battle, game or until an effect has been met.  That would make KC specials more fun to play with.

[BigBadHarve]

We had an attempt at a rules committee. Didn't quite work out.

-BBH

[DarKBladE09]

I agree that the FA doesn't need OPD status since it provides a disadvantage in not being able to attack also. The DZ one (nightcrawler, Human torch) should probably remain offensive only, at least if you use it on the opponents team. But overall I love the idea of a rules committee.

[thetrooper27]

What about the LN special Jack mentioned?  How good is that one?  OPD good?

[steve2275]

"Thing may not attack or be attacked for remainder of battle"
its good for when he is hurt
especially it its 1 vs 1
perhaps play clobbering time
then defend the the incoming attack
play petuna
win venture

i wonder tho if attacks can still be shifted to thing...making the attack incomplete?
my thanks to rucker for answering my question