Backlash's Mist Body

[thetrooper27]

Whats the duration of this card?  It's a OPD and the way it's worded doesn't seem to be talking about the duration but instead the location of hits (current battle).  I imagine it's remainder of battle... but this one could be debated based on the rules.

[Jack]

Battle. The card refers to "current battle" and thus limits it to just one battle.

[thetrooper27]

I figured and I'm sure that's what they meant when they made the card.  But interpretively, it doesn't specify a duration.  It's having an effect on the "hits from current battle" (the zone where you place hits landed this battle, if you will).  If you added "for remainder of game" at the end, you can see what I'm getting at.  Change the wording on this card.  "Play during battle".  Why is that text even included?  When else can you even play cards (maybe when opponent concedes battle)?  Same thing with Substitute Death (I love beating dead horses).  Play during current battle - Of course I'll play it during current battle.  When else would I play it?  After a teammate is ko'd - Of course I'll play it AFTER a teammate is ko'd.  When else would I raise a dead character???  Unnecessary text (unless they were specifying a specific time when you could use the card... but that's another ball of yarn to unravel ).

Hey, if a card "acts as a level 4 fighting power card attack" can I avoid it with Sentinels or XMan's EE?

[Jack]

The Play during battle is usually redundant and really has no effect on the card.

And no, the EE only avoids pure Power card attacks or removes pure Power card hits. The "Act as a Level 4 Fighting Power card attack" are first Special cards that then pretend to be Power cards as its effect.

[thetrooper27]

Is there a case where this is relevant that a special indicates it acts as a power card attack?  Why not just say "acts as a level 4 fighting attack" which I think in some cases it does.  But why confuse the players by putting text on the card that doesn't matter?

[Jack]

It was an old game mechanic where they wanted to make certain Specials become Power cards after they landed, namely the EJ. After much confusion, and when the meta rules came out, they decided to scrap that mechanic.

If we were to rewrite these specials today, the text about being Power cards would be replaced by attack.

--

The other mechanic was for the CC specials, which can defend attacks. It would have been very confusing to have: Act as a Level 5 Fighting attack. May be used to defend...., which is a contradiction. The Power card was a quick solution and probably the least wordy.

[steve2275]

http://overpower.ca/cards/specials/96.png can be followed by a multipower intellect attack

[thetrooper27]

It seems that they could just remove the "acts as" text from special cards.  The icon and the number pretty much tell you all you need to know.  AR's for example don't need text at all.  The fist with the 7 on it tells you what it does.  Banshee's 11 could just read "If successful..." and we know what to do with it.  Since special cards are always attacks unless they specify otherwise, when printing new specias you could save alot of space on a special card and make room for cool abilities to be printed on them.  If it's just an AR with no ability, then you could print the "acts as" text just to keep the card from looking bland.

[Jack]

When you calculate Cumulative KO, you sum up all "attacks" and check that against the threshold for a Cumulative KO, normally 20. Those attacks are made up of Power cards, Special cards, Teamwork cards, etc.

Just using attacks here because defenses are a bit confusing to bring to words.
Teamwork cards state "Acts as (Level) 6 Fighting Attack", for example. Same with Ally cards.
Power cards implicitly say "Acts as Level 4 Energy attack".
Doubleshot cards say "Acts as a Level 4 Energy Power card", which from the above, Acts as a Level 4 Energy attack.
Special cards could come in many forms, but the majority are "Acts as a Level 7 Strength attack". Others are "Acts as a Level 5 Intellect Power card", which from the above, Acts as a Level 5 Intellect attack.

So, how I understand it (for attacks): cards just encapsulate Attacks similar to how everything in the world is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons -- to be technical.

[thetrooper27]

Okay, just let me state before continuing that my aim is not to be difficult.  I want to exhaust each discussion to understand what is inherently wrong with the rules of this game, because my hope is that one day, you will host tournaments with a clearer, more comprehensive and available rule set, such as BBH's rules revisions.  I'm not purposely trying to be difficult with my inquiries, just know that.   I want to understand this game, as I plan to be playing it for quite some time.  That being said:

With teamworks and allies and such, they're uniform in their design and printing and the text fits the card for them with ease.  Plus they have different activation requirements, so a little clarity on them seems necessary because their value as an attack is different than that requirement.  But we know by the rules that power cards can be used to attack or defend.  The text "acts as a level 4 fighting attack or defense" doesn't need to be on it, and isn't.  Similarly, we know that by the rules of the game, specials are used to attack unless otherwise stated on the card.  So the text isn't necessary, except to fill space on the card.  When calculating cumulative ko, you're only looking for icons and numbers in a characters hits to current battle or permanent record.  "Acts as a level 7 fighting attack" means the same thing as 7F in the upper left corner of the card.  Blank space on a card doesn't look cool, so we can fill in that space with the text and make it look better. 

With an EJ, "Acts as a level 2 Energy attack" makes sense because it's going to change to a different icon and number if its successful, which is a fighting "power" card.  This instance, and others like it, needs the text to be clear on what the attack starts as, then what it becomes.  You could probably separate the icons with something like a slash ( 2E/8F ) and that would make it clear without any text, but you would need a rule in the book that specified what these look like.  But I don't mind the text on these cards for the reason I noted above.

But the initial question I had, and I don't know if we really got to the bottom of it, is why do any of these specials ever say acts as a _ POWER card?  It's a special card.  If a special "acts" as a power card, you should be able to defend it with an EE, or do anything else with it that you can do with a power card (such as Lucky Bounce it).  Most specials that act as power cards specify that they can't be combined with a universe card.  Got that.  They don't want universe cards combined with Bone Snap.  No big deal.  It being a special card, I couldn't do that anyway!  Other than defend with it, you can't do anything else that a power card can do, so why even say it acts as a power card?  Furthermore, the whole text of not combining it with Universe cards is there ONLY because it acts as a power card!!!"What could possibly be the purpose of putting this wording (acts as a level 5 "power" card) if it doesn't act as a power card at all?  What were they thinking???

Shifting gears slightly, here's something that hit me while I was writing this.  Goblin Legacy makes Pumkin Bombs and Gauntlet Blasters any hero specials for remainder of game.  Can I negate them with a placed Bastion any hero?  Is this because they "become" any hero specials?  They don't "act as" any hero specials, they "become" them.  How do you define "acts as"?  Cards that act as power cards have no properties of a power card except an icon and a numerical value.  So the properties of a power card, including what cards can defend power cards, aren't applicable to special cards that "act as" a power card.  "Acts as" certainly doesn't mean it has the properties of a power card. 

And if an EE can only defend a "pure" power card attack, does that mean it can't defend a power card combined with a universe card or an AE?  That whole "pure" thing makes sense in the diagram, but really... if an attack combines with a power card attack at all, it's a power card attack, however you stack it, and should be avoidable by an EE. 

I know we didn't make the rules.  You guys host the tournaments.  You judge them.  You have the power to fix these kind of annoyances, injustices, and hindrances.  Only you can prevent wildfires... and I feel better for getting all of this off my soul.  Thank you!

[Jack]

But the initial question I had, and I don't know if we really got to the bottom of it, is why do any of these specials ever say acts as a _ POWER card?

And I answered the initial question above, stating it was an old game mechanic that confused people and they stopped using it.

I'm approaching the cards from how I would presumably code OPO into a game. It makes sense that everything branches off of "Attacks", at least to me. You're basically looking for the lowest common denominator here and "Attacks" are it. Maybe halcyon1234 can help me explain what I'm trying to get at -- if he understands how I'm trying to explain state machines (below).

The reason why those cards that allow for attack/defense but explicitly says no Universe cards is because that's the same game mechanic used for power cards (e.g. using a numeric card to both attack and defend) but encapsulated in a Special card. The game creators were probably looking for the quickest/easiest way to explain the new types of cards.

--

My interpretation of "acts as" is that wraps itself around something else. So at its highest level, it's still the card it is, but also has properties of whatever it acts as.

Special that "act as" a Level 5 Energy Attack wraps around a Level 5 Energy Attack.
Specials that "act as"a Level 5 Energy Power card wraps around a Level 5 Power card, which wraps around a Level 5 Energy Attack.
Level 5 Energy Power cards wraps around Level 5 Energy Attack.

The last part of the chain is what is actually calculated for venture/cumulative KO -- if you were to look at things through a microscope. I'm breaking the mechanics of the game into a very finite level here.

If you're just looking at numbers and icons, how would you break down "Avoid 1 attack"? My explanation makes it crystal clear why you are allowed to play such a card.

And by "pure", I didn't mean lone Power card attacks, I meant Power cards that aren't wrapped around by another card type.

[thetrooper27]

I think I follow... but I'm a simple guy.  Why take it to that level when there isn't much need to?  Avoid one attack means that... if your character is attacked by a card, you can avoid it.  If it's avoid one fighting attack, any numerical attack declared as fighting can be avoided by it, regardless of what's wrapped around it.  Simplification is what makes a game appealing, and they weren't going for that back in the day of OverPower.  Even Magic at the time was interrupt windows and priority and last in first out... buncha nonsense that made new players sell what cards they had and run from the game. 

Would you agree, Jack,  that none of that technical stuff really SHOULD matter?  Does it need to go that deep?  It's a card game, and should be easy to understand with an element of challenge and strategy.  The biggest strategy of OverPower is figuring out how to speak it's language.  Multipower power card attacks and attacks made with multipower power cards sounds like exactly the same thing, but according to whoever decided that Mojo would be too good if he got multiple bonuses, they're totally different.

[Jack]

Why take it to that level when there isn't much need to?

I want to exhaust each discussion to understand what is inherently wrong with the rules of this game..

You contradicted yourself. You wanted a full explanation so I provided one.

[thetrooper27]

Oh no, my brother, when I asked why take it to that level, I wasn't referring to you and our conversation, sir.  This discussion has become about the rules of OverPower and their complexity.  I didn't mean to make myself look stupid if I did , so allow me to elaborate. 

In the context of "simplification is what makes a game appealing, and they weren't going for that back in the day of OverPower" I was talking about the guys that made the rules.  Why do you suppose any game designer would take the rules to such a deep level and create all kinds of different layers when it isn't necessary and they can be simplified for ease of play and fun?  The frustration isn't directed toward you Jack, honest.  I'm stoked to meet you in person, as I am with everyone else that will be there.  I'd do anything for any of you guys that I could, and you can take that to the bank.  I'm sure you're used to guys tripping over their posts to win a debate, but I assure you that isn't me.  At all.  I will concede any point when it's in my heart to do so, and if I disagree, I will agree to disagree.  It's always my intention to conduct myself as a gentleman.  Now I do want to exhaustively discuss the game, and I wanted to know YOUR personal opinion, because I respect it. 

So my friend:

"Would you agree, Jack,  that none of that technical stuff really SHOULD matter?  Does it need to go that deep?  It's a card game, and should be easy to understand with an element of challenge and strategy.  The biggest strategy of OverPower is figuring out how to speak it's language.  Multipower power card attacks and attacks made with multipower power cards sounds like exactly the same thing, but according to whoever decided that Mojo would be too good if he got multiple bonuses, they're totally different."

Would you change alot of the rules if you could?  Should an avoid be just that?  Should a power card attack be just that?  Would BBH's simplification of the rules make the game better or worse for you?

And please, anyone else chime in.  I'm dying to hear what everyone hates about the game we love.

[Jack]

I'm in favour of removing some (most) of the meta rules to simplify the game. I would also, if given the chance, reword every card to have clearer language.

BBH and I disagree on how to change the game. I'm in favour of taking this chunk of stone and chiselling it to craft a masterpiece. BBH also wants to do that, but he wants to add other stones into the mix to make the masterpiece shine.

--

I had to look at this complex game through a microscope because I thought about recreating OP and I need go to see it at this level to fully comprehend it. Granted, this is probably the worst way to create such a game because there are so many interpretations of the game's terminology. That's the kind of person I am, I'm extremely analytical.