anti-concede cards and negates

[Jack]

The entry for BL was what was provided officially by the Tournament Guide, so whomever wrote it interpreted the card wrong or something and it survived a few iterations.

I haven't had much time to think about it but there might be a clause after conceding that allows the player to respond to the concede (with the BL or EI cards, etc) or accept the concede. It flows logically, in the case of EI, where the opponent can defend the attack, that would loosely violate the defend-a-defense argument however the card explicitly states that it can.

I'm guessing the same with BE cards.

[BigBadHarve]

BBH, when was this ruled, and by who? 

Please don't take my defense of my position on this topic personally.  The discussion is secondary to my main objective, which is simply to know how this card would be played if I showed up to the California tournament coming up.   Which to my understanding is "Official" rules.  I understand every group has their own flavor for certain things.  I have often (OK, not often, but I have...) thought about using that card, and am simply making sure the right ruling is being used. 

Never fear - not taking it personally, I'm simply trying to share the explanation I was given and the logic behind it. I couldn't tell you who made the ruling, and the explanation was given to me when I first started playing 15 years ago. Of course, it's not like this rule has come up in any tournaments I've played.

But it stands to reason that the card can be negated because it's an attack, there are no cards that act as attacks that cannot be defended in some way. DoW being the obvious exception to that, but of course DoW can't be played defensively.

As for EI cards that state they may be defended - they are 'targeted' attacks as opposed to 'opponent' effects. My guess is that they included that clause simply because of debates like this. If 'Taunt' had include the phrase 'opponent may defend' then a whole different argument about whether it could be 'avoided' would have arisen. After all, if you couldn't avoid it, why would the text have been printed.

I'm also confused on how this card can be played offensively.  It's clearly a defensive special.  It is listed on the wiki as both.

That's likely referring to the Savage Land any hero, which must be played before an opponent concedes. Same code, opposite method of use.

-BBH

[DiceK]

But it stands to reason that the card can be negated because it's an attack

How are you coming to the conclusion that this card is an attack? 

1.  It is played defensively - supported by Rule #70
2.  You reference that there is an "effect" on the opponent, and all "effects" are attacks.  If this is the case, then I am going to argue that the next time someone tries to play "Avoid 1 Attack, Can't be attacked for the remainder of the battle", that I will want to negate it.  There is an "effect" that affects my ability to make future attacks.  Is this not valid?

[BigBadHarve]

But it stands to reason that the card can be negated because it's an attack

How are you coming to the conclusion that this card is an attack? 

1.  It is played defensively - supported by Rule #70
2.  You reference that there is an "effect" on the opponent, and all "effects" are attacks.  If this is the case, then I am going to argue that the next time someone tries to play "Avoid 1 Attack, Can't be attacked for the remainder of the battle", that I will want to negate it.  There is an "effect" that affects my ability to make future attacks.  Is this not valid?

It is played defensively, but prevents the opponent from conceding. It affects the opponent.

Think of it this way - there is a battle line between the two players. Anything that creates a direct effect that crosses that battle line is considered an attack.

'Opponent must discard a placed card.'
'Opponent is -3 to venture.'
'Opponent is -1 to all actions.'
'Opponent may not concede.'
'Target may not attack for remainder of battle.'
'Acts as level ?? attack.."

These are all attacks, as they cross that line and create an effect that DIRECTLY impacts the opponent.

'Team is +2 to all actions.'
'<character> may not be attacked for remainder of battle.'
'Only universe cards may be used against...'
'Add 3 to venture.'
'Draw 3 cards'

These are not attacks, as they do not DIRECTLY affect the opponent. The operative word is 'directly.' In the case of the Avoid 1, may not be attacked, the card is affecting the character it is played on. The modification does NOT cross the battle line.

Team is +2 to all actions, and Opponent is -1 to all actions have similar effects, but are not the same. One is an attack, the other not. Otherwise, why could you not play the 'Opponent is -1 to all actions defensively?' (Which for the record, I think you should!) The +2 to all actions does not affect the opponent, it affects the player who is boosted. Indirectly it affects the opponent, because his cards will have a lesser impact comparatively, but the effect is not on him. The same principle applies elsewhere.

Somewhere along the way that distinction was made by the powers that be. I remember when Mr. Fantastic's object bounce (opponent may not use universe cards to attack or defend against Mr. F.) was once a defensive card, changed to offensive only by this rule. A stupid rule, but official nonetheless.

It should be noted that cards that affect both players are also considered offensive. You cannot pass with a Fortress of Solitude in hand, for instance. The reason being that the effect crosses the battle line, and is therefore an attack.

Since Taunt prevents the opponent from conceding - it is an attack, despite being a specific case where it can only be played in response to an action. Its effect crosses the line, making it an attack.

Thinking about this - it brings up an interesting question about Shang Chi's swift counter attack - that being a defensive card that also 'crosses the battle line.' I guess following the same logic it too could be negated... although I'm sure the makers (and most players) didn't intend that.

Look, as I said before - I'm all for Taunt not being negatable as it's played. I'm not arguing your logic on it. I'm justifying the official rule (as I was made to understand it). There are many inconsistencies even in this - for example - anything that affects the 'opponent' is considered an attack, and may not be used defensively (object bounce and snow blind being the good reference points for that rule). That being the case - why are negates playable defensively? Negate a card played by OPPONENT. Going by the letter of the rules, negates shouldn't be defensive. Clearly they are...

Apparently, Invisible Woman's 'Conceal' is also usable defensively, though it clearly says 'opponent' may not affect... but that card (and the aforementioned Shang Chi card) are not official, as they were unreleased Marvels that most of us have decided to adopt.

I'm wondering how much more interesting the game would become if we started playing a more open mechanic regarding negates. Allowing players to negate defensive actions. I attack, you use an avoid, I negate your avoid, you use a 2nd avoid. Or you negate my negate, to which I negate THAT negate.... you'd get some crazy fun plays that eat up huge blocks of cards.

-BBH

[DiceK]

Is Invisible Woman's - Invisible Saboteur allowed to be played defensively?  I don't remember the ruling on this card.

[BlueFire]

Here is another question regarding when you can reply to a defensive action.

If I play X-Man's multi 11 (code MC) and my opponent avoids it, I still can not attack for remainder of the battle.  However, if my opponent negates it, I can attack for the remainder of the battle. 

Clearly him negating this card would be considered an attack, as it DIRECTLY effects what I can do for the remainder of the battle as once this card has been declared I can not attack for the remainder of the battle.  I therefore feel that I should be able to negate their negate in response. 

Would you agree?


As for DiceK's last question:

Is Invisible Woman's - Invisible Saboteur allowed to be played defensively?  I don't remember the ruling on this card.

I would assume meta rule #52 applies, and this special could only be played offensively.

Also in the guide to playing specials it says the following:

CO - This Special is played during battle, on YOUR TURN, and affects your opponent, not a
specific Hero. It cannot be blocked or avoided, but can be negated by Special coded an "AO".
This Special renders all Universe cards currently held in hand as unplayable cards. These
Universe cards do not have to be discarded, but they cannot be played during a battle in
which this card is in effect.

And finally under the meta rules page, the column for defense says NO, see the following link:

http://www.overpower.ca/pages/meta.php

[BigBadHarve]

Here is another question regarding when you can reply to a defensive action.

If I play X-Man's multi 11 (code MC) and my opponent avoids it, I still can not attack for remainder of the battle.  However, if my opponent negates it, I can attack for the remainder of the battle. 

Clearly him negating this card would be considered an attack, as it DIRECTLY effects what I can do for the remainder of the battle as once this card has been declared I can not attack for the remainder of the battle.  I therefore feel that I should be able to negate their negate in response. 

Would you agree?

No, you're really stretching here.

1st - YOU are the one playing the special that is affecting your team, not the opponent and he is defensively playing a card that is not a counter-attack. So it doesn't count that his negate is now affecting you. 2nd, the card that's being negated is on the opponent's side of the battle line which means it's not an attack. That follows with the rules about holding a negate in hand and passing.

If I have a negate in hand, and you have something like Gambit: Charm in play on your team. I am NOT allowed to pass. I MUST use my turn to offensively negate your charm. It's considered an attack because the effect crosses that battle line.

On the other hand - if I have that negate in my hand, and you've played 'target may not attack' on one of my characters - I am not required to negate that offensively because the effect is on my side of the fence.

I think the term 'counter-attack' might be perfect in this case. If you concede, I Taunt you, the taunt being a counter-attack because it's played in response, much like the EI cards. If a player is attacked, he has the right to defend - that's a standard protocol.

As for Invisible saboteur -you're absolutely right - offensive only. That follows with the whole 'opponent' thing. Another thing I don't agree with, that along with many other cards would be greatly improved by making them defensive in nature.

-BBH

[BlueFire]

I still feel VERY strongly that you can not respond to taunt with a negate.  This game does not work like magic.  There is a fundamental flow to the game that does not allow a response to a defensive action.

The reason for making the point with the X-Man 11 (i agree with you obviously) is that in that situation even when the card is blocked and goes to the dead pile I still can't attack.  I does not matter where the card is in reference to said "imaginary line".

The imaginary line wording is a good way to explain why certain things work the way they do up to a point.   It is by no means a good enough explanation to completely change the fundamental flow of the game.  I would have to guess that whoever made the ruling on taunt was just simply wrong.   Whoever wrote the meta rule #70, probably Norman Barth, who I spend years discussing rules with a decade ago, would have never written the rule the way he did if you could respond to it.  I mean seriously, don't you think it would be at least mentioned if a card gave a player the right to respond to a defensive action?

Finally and basically unrelated to taunt,

Do you agree to the following:

I should be able to follow up a death from above (AA) with a negate as long as it is negating a card on your side of the board.
As far as I know, that was never allowed.
 

[breadmaster]

you can follow up AA with a negate attack

is taunt defensive ONLY?  i always assumed it was like charm, and could be played offensively AND defensively...nothing on the card seems to contradict that

[BlueFire]

Here is another answer that relates to the taunt thing from the Q and A

Question: Say I have Beast and Scarlet Witch on my team. My opponent attacks me with a 8 multi special. I negate it using Beast's special, then my opponent negates that negate. I then negate my opponent's negate with Scarlet Witch. Is this possible and legal? (1997-11-02)

Answer: No. On your turn you may take one offensive action. You r opponent may take a defensive action against your offensive action. That's it. No more actions on either part unless there is something specifically stated "allows another attack" or something like that. Your opponent's offensive action was to attack you. Your defensive action was to negate it. He may not "respond" to your negate.

Another Q and A:

Question: I have another question but I'm pretty sure you don't need to answer it, he attacked me and I avoid his attacks and he tried to negates my AG special, I told him that he can't do that, right? (1997-11-09)

Answer: Correct. You can only negate in 2 ways - (1) Offensively you can negate any Special which your opponent has played or (2) Defensively any Special your opponent is attempting to play offensively. Note that one of the things you cannot do is to negate a defensive action - so you cannot negate an avoid.

And Finally for the kill strike:

Question: This occured to me last night :Can you negate the effect of a negate the effect card. My problem is such suppose you play the any hero +3 venture and it is negated can you re-establish the +3 also would this have to be done immediately say you decide to do this two turns later. This occured to me after my brother negated my mandrin card saying that he may not be attacked until teammate is killed. Within all reason i could go three battles later and re-establish this card. What is legion and alliance ruling on this? If this is possible i can update my deck so to keep the effect of this card against a character such as beast or scarlet witch. Also this would be very very potent in keeping a power leech in tact for those lucky #$@^%#$s who actually got a hold of one. (1998-01-26)

Answer: Here we go again. Before I respond, I recommend that you check the FAQ. I believe that it deals with this issue, in case I forget something in this reply.

How to play Negates:

Offensively - on your turn you can play a negate to negate any special that is currently in play that was put in play by your opponent. This can be a Special card hit that is on someone's Permanent or Current record, it can be a Special that does no damage (like a "Target may not attack" Special), it can be a Special which is in play next to a character (like "May place an additional Special"). It may NOT negate Special cards that are placed since they have not been played. Negates may not be played offensively to negate a Special card for which is no longer in play. That is to say, if the Special has been played and it causes an effect that goes beyond the Special card (for example, it forces you to discard a placed card), and that action has been reconciled and activity has happened since the time the special has been played, in this case it is not legal to offensively negate the activity (expecting to bring the placed card back).
Defensively. Any time your opponent plays a Special you may elect to play a negate Special defensively to prevent the effects of that special from taking place. This does indeed give you the right to DEFENSIVELY negate your opponent playing a negate special. However, it does not give your opponent the right to negate your defensive action. Nothing may do that.


I am open to negate following AA possibly, but as I understand it, negate would be an offensive action and not an attack.  Under the invisible line method this would be an attack.


Sorry to be so long winded, but I feel this is very important.

[breadmaster]

i agree...i think whatever judge BBH had erred in their ruling

[BlueFire]

After thinking about the AA situation farther, I would have to agree with BBH and breadmaster.  As long as you are not allowed to pass with a negate in hand when I have acrobatics in play, then you should be able to follow AA with a negate that effects my side.


@breadmaster

Taunt says "Play when opponent concedes battle"

I believe BBH mentioned earlier that the reason BL says yes under the Offensive column is because of Savage Land which reads:

On your turn, play before opponent concedes. Opponent may not concede
            battle. This card may be placed

[breadmaster]

yeah, i was just recalling taunt from memory....my bad

[bamf!]

New Universe is played, you Taunt = battle continues, your turn
New Universe is played, you negate = battle continues, your turn
Ripclaw's Pacifist Heart (play to concede, remove hits), Taunt/Negate = battle continues, your turn

The above cases, you can see the attack/defend flow. However, adding an additional negate action as a response to the above case is not allowed. This will end up being attack/defend/defend.

Now, lets end this debate with this example:

PASSING: the battle is over when BOTH player declare they PASSED, there is no response to a PASS, that is your action for your turn and it is now the other player's turn.

CONCEDING: similarly, when you CONCEDE, your turn is over, but the opponent gets one action (in this case Taunt), you can negate it and the concession is successful. Else the battle continues.

PASSING and CONCEDING are choices made by the player, it doesn't fall under the attack/defend flow of the battle as these optional choices are not activated via specials.

bamf!

[BlueFire]

I disagree.  See meta rule #70.

Sorry, I am done with this thread.  I do not think this will ever actually happpen.