Beyonder and the issue of Focused Force/Inspiration

[Hot Rod]

I would like to bring this issue that arose from the Lethal Tester debate into it's own thread.

The text on Focused Force: Acts as a level 9 energy attack.  If successful Cyclops or Cyclops's teammates may not defend Cyclops with special cards for remainder of game.

The text on Inspiration: All Captain America special cards are doubled when determining venture total this battle.


As you can all see, we have a gross inconsistency here between how these specials effect Beyonder.  Another situation to note is playing Beast's Acrobatics on Beyonder, or even Dark Beast playing Acrobatics.


Discuss.

[BigBadHarve]

I think this one is worthy of discussion. Marcel brought it up prior to K2, and we decided that Inspiration was not valid on Beyonder.

The argument for:

Inspiration played through Beyonder (Or any character) should apply to all of his cards. This would maintain the consistent rule that a character who plays a card takes ownership of all effects (positive or negative). It does make sense on that front.

The obvious problem, is that it simply means you have to be diligent in tracking who played what.

But it's no different than Beyonder playing Quiver of Arrows.

The Argument against:

Inspiration doesn't technically say that the character is receiving a benefit. It simply states that all Captain America specials are doubled for venture. If that 'Captain America specials' sentence is a fixed sentence, meaning it doesn't change based on who plays it, then it wouldn't matter who played the card - it would always mean Cap specials, and only Cap specials are doubled.

That would obviously make it a very lame battlesite card, and only usable if you were running said character on a team.

Conversely - The '<character> specials are doubled' line is malleable, but take to its absolute literal meaning. So Beyonder Specials are doubled, but as there are no 'Beyonder' Specials it's meaningless in the end. This would also mean that variant characters would receive no benefit. There are no Dark Beast specials, so beast cards wouldn't be doubled. Playing through Storm: Neutralized, would only double the Storm specials, not the Morlock ones etc.

You would have to apply the literal words, so that only specials that belong to the 'Inspired' character are affected. And ownership due to having been played doesn't matter. It's really only the name on the card.

[Hot Rod]

The conclusion I reached with my dad (Pass the Gestalt), is that 'Use' only changes the black text on a card, but that 'Play' effects the black text, and the ownership.  In the case of 'Play' it adds an 'additional' ownership clause, which does not overwrite the original ownership, but simply adds to it.

Thus, Beyonder can indeed use Inspiration, the same way that he can use Acrobatics, and that Dark Beast can also use Acrobatics.

Of course if we say that Beyonder cannot use Inspiration, then we also have to that Dark Beast cannot use Acrobatics, SuperPatriot cannot use Inspiration, and that Crystal cannot use Lockjaw.

This further carries on with cards such as Dazzler's Longshot Love, which means Longhot's Roll With The Punches would therefore be unplayable by Dazzler.

Another case is that Any Heroes and Battlesite cards are 'Use' and not 'Play.'  Which is the reason for meta rule #98.  If the case for 'Use' not allowing a change of the black text, then the original Power Leech would have been completely unplayable, as it clearly states that 'Leech' is the one choosing the icons.  Of course there is no 'Leech' hero from which to actually play Power Leech.

There's a huge pile of cases for this conclusion if anyone feels they need to see more.

[BigBadHarve]

So, I think this thread will be a short one: I found the rules specifically tied to things like this, which state that ownership does NOT pass to the character using the card. It specifically references a CQ special.

That opens a can of worms regarding penalties, such as focused force. *sigh*

This ruling would also imply that Post does not take ownership via Lethal Tester. (I'll post to the other thread).


---------------

The Special Access Inherent
"May Play any (character name) Special cards."

Activated: From the onset of the game.

Rules:
•Inherent Abilities that grant the use of other cards always allow the character to both play them as well as place them.
•The cards usable through an Inherent Ability may be put into the Draw Pile without having a character on the team who can use the card without an Inherent Ability or other modification.
•Special cards which are usable through an Inherent Ability are not considered as that character's Specials. For example, if Storm: Neutralized were to play a CQ Special via an Activator, which would double all Storm Specials, any Morlock non-OPD Specials that Storm: Neutralized plays would not be doubled by the effect of the Special.

Character Examples:
•Bastion (3-2-4-7) "May play any 'Sentinels' Special cards. Attacks made with Intellect Power cards may not be moved or shifted from Target Character."
•Batman Detective (4-4-4-8) "Batman may play Comm. Gordon & G.C.P.D. 'Sting Operation' Special."
•Beta Ray Bill (5-4-7-6) "May play any 'Thor' Special cards."
•Beyonder (i-i-i-i) "May play any Special cards."
•Black Canary (3-7-3-5) "May Place and play any Hero Intellect Ally cards."
•Black King (3-3-6-7) "May play any Hellfire Club Special Cards."
•Callisto (2-6-3-5) "May play any 'Morlocks' Special cards. May play 'Caliban' from Reserve."
•Crystal (7-4-3-3) "May play any Inhumans Special Cards."
•Daemonite Voodoo (3-6-7-2) "May play any Voodoo Specials"
•Dark Beast (1-6-5-7) "May play any Beast Specials."
•Dark Beast (1-6-5-7) "Dark Beast may play any Beast Specials."
•Deathbird (3-7-3-3) "May play any 'Shi'ar' Special cards. May defend Front Line with Power cards from Reserve."
•Donald Pierce (4-2-6-7) "May play any 'Reavers' Special cards."
•Doppelganger (1-3-6-0) "Doppelganger may play any Spider-Man Specials."
•Doppelganger (3-6-6-1) "May play any Spider-Man Specials."
•Falcon (3-6-5-4) "May Place and play any Fighting Basic Universe card."
•Future Backlash (6-4-3-7) "May play any Backlash Specials"
•Golden Age Wolverine (3-7-4-5) "May play any Wolverine Special Cards."
•Storm: Neutralized (1-6-4-5) "May play any 'Morlocks' non-One-Per-Deck Special cards."
•Superpatriot (3-6-7-2) "May play any 'Captain America' Special cards."
•Team X (5-7-6-5) "May play any Non-One-Per-Deck Wolverine, Sabretooth, or Maverick Special Cards."
•X-Men: Original Team (7-2-4-5) "May play any 'Professor X' One-Per-Deck Special cards."

Exceptions:
•The following characters should not be considered to have an Inherent Ability - they are clones, not variants: Future Backlash, Daemonite Voodoo, and Golden Age Wolverine.

[Pass the Gestalt]

Yes, as I posted in the other thread, this ruling on how "May Play" inherents don't add an additional virtual ownership will break a lot of Beyonder decks, and make certain activators useless if liberally applied. This ruling clearly isn't correct based on precedence in the game prior to the ruling, and how people continue to play the game now.

We shouldn't be afraid of clinging to the past. In think if we have holes in the rules, or contradictions, then we shouldn't be afraid of striking up a Rules Committee, and perhaps look at amending metarules to clear up ambiguities, fill in holes, and make the game consistent. Metarule #98 could be easily extended to clarify how "to use" situations work with regards to Any Heroes, Battlesites, and "use" conditions on the field i.e. character gains the benefit, but not ownership.

Further "May Play" inherent and "Play and Place" Specials grant an additional virtual ownership of the special. The inherent is permanent for the entire game, based on team selection. If the inherent is suppressed, it limits the ability to play, not the ability to place, which is based on ownership. The inherent also grants ownership in terms of battlesites.

"use", "May Play" also grant the ability to gain the benefit [or penalty] associated with a special i.e. hack in on the black text.

This amendment to MR #98 then ensures Acrobatics works, Activators work, Any Heroes work, Beyonder teams work, and we know how Lethal Tester and things like the Captain America 6E work, or the Cyclops 9E.

PtG

[TheBradness]

I'm only going to simply point out that the difference referenced between "Play" and "Use" that HotRod and PtG are using for the argument is being defined by interpretation of "Play" and "Use" by HotRod and PtG. 

It seems a little "off" to define the terms yourself and then use those definitions as the crutch in your own argument.  PtG brings up some good points with "May Play" with regards to Beyonder, but I think that (especially in this game) the literal interpretation is often the wrong one.  While it can be fairly ambiguous to determine the "spirit" of the card when figuring out how it is supposed to be used, that "spirit" needs to be taken into account.

That being said, I've searched and searched and can't determine a clearly definitive example of "Play" vs "Use".  Anyone else come across any?

[Tussin]

i think and feel in regards to balance and utility...

Beyonder and Battlesites should be able to use this special to double bonuses of value for venture because it would just reduce a card to nothing even if each character could only use it for self, Captain America? his 3F OPD becomes 6 for venture? for 2 cards? even if he uses his 4F that would become 14 venture if they land for 3 cards

for Beyonder the most non on per deck is typically a 7 (AR) code, so 2 cards to make 14 venture, its like having another 7 (AR) minus the damage, yes if you get a good hand of specials for Beyonder this can multiply the bonus, but if you are playing a situational card you should be rewarded for strategy and risk.

it also gives people incentive to negate the special, and/or actually block it to reduce this from going down. its not difficult to stop

for Battlesites it gives regular users a chance to beef up their high value OPD's for a big venture total if it all lands with no negations.

[Pass the Gestalt]

> I'm only going to simply point out that the difference referenced between "Play" and "Use" that HotRod and PtG are
> using for the argument is being defined by interpretation of "Play" and "Use" by HotRod and PtG. 

With respect, I'm saying that the difference in the terms has been defined by the play of of the game since 1995, which as you say is "in the spirit of the game". I'm merely suggesting by precedent there is a clear difference between the terms "use" [Any Heroes and Battlesites seem to be an example of that] and the "May Play" inherent and "May Play and Place" special effect, since Beyonder teams use it, and activators are used to fetch specials pointed to by the inherent, and not the character name. That is all we have to go from. I'm not putting my own take on it, that is simply the way the game is being played by the players, which goes completely in the face of this ruling by Norman.

So I think I'm reasonably asking that Meta Rule 98 be amended to clarify/reinforce the terms "use" and "May Play",
and "May Play and Place".

"Use" is well defined in Norman's ruling:

"The cards usable through an Inherent Ability may be put into the Draw Pile without having a character on the team who can use the card without an Inherent Ability or other modification.
Special cards which are usable through an Inherent Ability are not considered as that character's Specials. For example, if Storm: Neutralized were to play a CQ Special via an Activator, which would double all Storm Specials, any Morlock non-OPD Specials that Storm: Neutralized plays would not be doubled by the effect of the Special."

But again, the problem with this ruling is not with the term "Use", but that fact that he treats the "May Play" inherent [and by implication the "May Play and Place" special effect] as no better than "Use". If this was true, why would a Beyonder team be able to use Inhumans special from Beyonder with only Crystal on the team? Why am I able to fetch a Beast Negate from the Citadel with a Dark Beast Activator? Please rationalize that one away, somebody please.

> Question: I was recently playing against my friend. He had The Inhumans and THe Marauders on his team. The
> Inhumans were out of the game and he had "Malice" placed on the Marauders. He used "Malice" to get "Lockjaw"
>  from the dead pile. Playing "Lockjaw" immediately he got "Black Bolt" from his draw pile. He played that right away
>  and got the win, since I didn't have any cards and couldn't concede. I want to know if this is legal since The
> Inhumans were dead. (1998-02-07)

>    Answer: What your friend did was definitely not legal. Whenever a Special says the name of the Character on it, it > is because that is the style they use when wording the special. If a different character were to play the special,
> then it is as if it were their name on the special. This principle generally is used when explaining how specials from
> Battlesites are played, but applies here as well. When your friend played Malice, he was indeed allowed to get
> Lockjaw from the dead pile and play it for the Marauders. But when he followed the effect of the special, it only
> allowed him to go in and get a Marauders Special from the Draw Pile - not an Inhumans one.

>    Consider the following - if the above logic were true, then if Dark Beast was on your team, then he couldn't use
> the Acrobatics Special since it would prevent any attacks but Universe attacks from being targetted on Beast - and > would still leave Dark Beast open to attack!

>    But even if it did allow him to get an Inhumans one, what would allow him to play it on his next turn if the
> Inhumans were already KO'd? Because it was drawn because of Malice? Not likely - they are taking effect on 2
> different turns

Using Norman's ruling piecemeal is like using arguments from religious tracts, you can find something to support your own argument, and someone else can find something completely contradictory to support theirs. The above piece shows how Lockjaw works from a Battlesite [a fetch card] and how Acrobatics works for Dark Beast if they are frontline. It clearly states that all references in the special text to the character are replaced by the playing character. But that should also mean if Lockjaw is played by Crystal frontline, then Lockjaw essentially is changed to "Crystal fetching a Crystal special", and the game starts to break again. Oops. Rules Committee.

PtG

[drdeath25]

And to think i Used to use Gambit's Charm from my battlesite in tournaments and it used to work!

You guys are crazy making up your own rules....

[Pass the Gestalt]

> You guys are crazy making up your own rules....

That's what started the spirited debate. BBH wanted to interpret Lethal Tester,  yet the game clearly defines
under the "Use" condition Post takes his name and hacks it into the black text of the card he is lethal
testing. Hot Rod got accused of not reading the rules, when the rules are even given in the example BBH gave
for characters with the "May Play" inherent, and Hot Rod was actually recommending we stick by that.

Ditto for Charm from the Battlesite. The character playing it hacks in his or her or its name in place of
Gambit, and can't be attacked for remainder of battle. You are playing it absolutely correctly.

So where the game is breaking down now, is if Crystal plays Lockjaw. Instead of it reading "Inhumans
may fetch an Inhumans Special", it is supposed to be hacked to "Crystal may fetch a Crystal Special"
which is flatly impossible. So Norm's ruling that "May Play" characters don't own those specials will
cause a number of problems in the game, how Lockjaw plays is one of them. Since the players themselves
aren't playing Lockjaw that way, then we need a metarule amendment to fix it so it "plays right".

So I'm not making up my own rules. I'm trying to fix it so the set of rules we have for OverPower is
consistent, makes sense and is easy to apply. Least of all, I don't want to do anything to make the
game less playable, I prefer to make it more playable for everyone i.e. Crystal can use Lockjaw
to get one of the specials she owns i.e. the Inhumans 9 for example.

Which rule-set is easier in your estimation:


a) all "May Play" inherent characters implicitly own all the specials from another character
b) we hack all black text when a "May Play" inherent character plays a special

OR

a) all "May Play" inherent characters do not own the specials they may play from another character
b) we hack all the black text when a "May Play" inherent character plays a special, unless
they are on the field when we don't hack the second term on a fetch, however if the card is
used as an activator from a battlesite, then you do hack the second term on a fetch
special. Likewise, if the card is a venture doubler, then you don't hack the second term if
the character is on the field, however if the card is used as an activator from a battlesite,
then you do hack the second term on a venture doubler special. [And on and on for every
special in the game requiring a specific exception...]

Um, I tend to lean a tiny bit towards the former rule-set, not the latter. Guess it's just me.

PtG

[BasiliskFang]

You fucking guys know how to fucking play overpower. Now stop trying to fuck up all we have left.

Beyonder really fucked up the game, but it is easier to infer how cards played onto or by him affect him.

Battle sites are adaptable, we know how to play them correctly.

The borrowed specials (activators or ability given) should be played as if the character on the special is actually on the front line. Does this help?

[drdeath25]

You fucking guys know how to fucking play overpower. Now stop trying to fuck up all we have left.

Amen.

[Pass the Gestalt]

So judging by the number of uses of the F word, BF is leaning towards a simpler interpretation of the rules? No? Am I misunderstanding something?? Beyonder is really simple. He can play all teammates specials, and he is not allowed to play one-per-deck specials. Norm screwed up the ownership ruling, I'm just recommending we unscrew it. Game works. I just want it to work the same way in Hemet, Buffalo, State College and Toronto, when we're playing in tournaments. We all agree on that at least.

[BasiliskFang]

i'm done.