Committee Discussion topic #1: The Duration Meta Rule

[gameplan.exe]

RE: EZ

Yes, and I have to concede that for simplicity sake it's the way to go... but it's a matter of semantics and for EZ cards could be argued. For our house system we went with the more advantageous effect for the card because our secondary goal was also to boost existing cards within justification of the text.

RE: BE
For these cards I would maintain my argument that they should adhere to the duration rule.

In essence, for interpretation purposes the text on cards with no printed/implied duration should be read as "For remainder of battle/game, <insert card text>"

So OPD BE cards Should be considered: "For remainder of Game <Character> may make 1 attack after opponent has conceded the battle. Opponent may defend."

Now, it's not an errata, so the text doesn't actually appear, but it is important for interpretation.

-BBH

So, just so I'm clear, you're maintaining that the BE cards should be game/battle lasting based on their OPD status, but you're conceding that the EZ cards - strictly based on clarify the Duration Rule - should not be game lasting? Or are you still pushing for that to be included as well?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for making cards more useful, but if the goal of this revision/revisit is only to simplify the game, I still can't find any Special, aside from the BF code, that doesn't have it's own duration written into the card. And, for the BF code, it seems like it doesn't need clarification - but maybe it does...

Initially I was thinking that affecting a characters Hit Points is always game lasting, but then I thought of at least 1 card that's only battle lasting (X-Man's FF), so maybe the Duration Rule is needed - even if only for the BF card...

Anyway, I'm fine including BE, because it's duration is much less clear to me (based soley on that card's text), but the EZ i'm a little less certain about, especially because of the HS and LH codes I mentioned above.

So, as important as it is, making the Duration Rule a blanket rule, I think it's equally important to determine which cards do not have a duration printed. I think we can all agree that both the EB and KC cards have durations printed right on them, right?

[BigBadHarve]

So, just so I'm clear, you're maintaining that the BE cards should be game/battle lasting based on their OPD status, but you're conceding that the EZ cards - strictly based on clarify the Duration Rule - should not be game lasting? Or are you still pushing for that to be included as well?

For the EZ, yes, I concede that it should only be for the 1 battle. It CAN be justified as to why they should be game lasting, but such a justification would involve a convoluted explanation as to why its text should be interpreted differently than other cards, which would lead to an exception for those cards. And that is the problem we're trying to fix, not exacerbate. 

But for BE cards, I maintain that BE cards should fall 100% under the duration rule.  They clearly have no printed duration and there are examples of both OPD and non-OPD cards.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for making cards more useful, but if the goal of this revision/revisit is only to simplify the game, I still can't find any Special, aside from the BF code, that doesn't have it's own duration written into the card. And, for the BF code, it seems like it doesn't need clarification - but maybe it does...

Initially I was thinking that affecting a characters Hit Points is always game lasting, but then I thought of at least 1 card that's only battle lasting (X-Man's FF), so maybe the Duration Rule is needed - even if only for the BF card...

But again, no printed duration and OPD = game lasting. Simple and fair interpretation.

Anyway, I'm fine including BE, because it's duration is much less clear to me (based soley on that card's text), but the EZ i'm a little less certain about, especially because of the HS and LH codes I mentioned above.

So, as important as it is, making the Duration Rule a blanket rule, I think it's equally important to determine which cards do not have a duration printed. I think we can all agree that both the EB and KC cards have durations printed right on them, right?

Agreed.

-BBH

[gameplan.exe]

ok, then I think what we've determined so far (at least so far between us)

The Duration Rule will now apply to all cards as a blanket rule; however, so far we've only seen the codes BE and BF being affected, as all other cards evaluated so far have a (fairly) clear duration of their own.

Are there any other cards out there that would be affected by this ruling?

[BigBadHarve]

ok, then I think what we've determined so far (at least so far between us)

The Duration Rule will now apply to all cards as a blanket rule; however, so far we've only seen the codes BE and BF being affected, as all other cards evaluated so far have a (fairly) clear duration of their own.

Are there any other cards out there that would be affected by this ruling?

Yes, it seems that this is as simple as it will get. We just need the others to weigh in, and when the committee is finalized we vote.

One other card that could arguably be affected - Backlash - Mist Body (MM)

<Play during battle. All Hits in Backlash's Hits from Current Battle do not count for Venture Total and are subtracted from Opponent's Venture Total.>

Since 'Hits from Current' battle is a specific reference to the location of a hit that has landed not a duration, it could be argued that this card falls under the duration meta-rule making this a game lasting effect. (And a very nice one)

Also to be discussed, though probably in another thread - is the effect of the text. The text would imply that the venture is literally turned around on the opponent, though they made an errata to state that it was just redundant wording.

Thoughts on this interpretation?

-BBH

[gameplan.exe]

ok, then I think what we've determined so far (at least so far between us)

The Duration Rule will now apply to all cards as a blanket rule; however, so far we've only seen the codes BE and BF being affected, as all other cards evaluated so far have a (fairly) clear duration of their own.

Are there any other cards out there that would be affected by this ruling?

Yes, it seems that this is as simple as it will get. We just need the others to weigh in, and when the committee is finalized we vote.

One other card that could arguably be affected - Backlash - Mist Body (MM)

<Play during battle. All Hits in Backlash's Hits from Current Battle do not count for Venture Total and are subtracted from Opponent's Venture Total.>

Since 'Hits from Current' battle is a specific reference to the location of a hit that has landed not a duration, it could be argued that this card falls under the duration meta-rule making this a game lasting effect. (And a very nice one)

Also to be discussed, though probably in another thread - is the effect of the text. The text would imply that the venture is literally turned around on the opponent, though they made an errata to state that it was just redundant wording.

Thoughts on this interpretation?

-BBH

That is, indeed, a good one. I'm not sure how it escaped me... anyway, in light of the effect/wording of the FL cards (Capt Brit, Rogue, Spider-Girl), I'd agree that the effect is not limited to the Current Battle, only that those are the Hits that are affected. I agree this should definitely last for the Game. It's just a better version of the FL card, at that point.

As for the errata, yes we can definitely discuss in more detail later, but for now I completely agree that it should have a reflective property. I'll save all my arguments for a deliberation specific to that card, but for now I'd say let it be.

[Demacus]

One other card that could arguably be affected - Backlash - Mist Body (MM)

<Play during battle. All Hits in Backlash's Hits from Current Battle do not count for Venture Total and are subtracted from Opponent's Venture Total.>

Since 'Hits from Current' battle is a specific reference to the location of a hit that has landed not a duration, it could be argued that this card falls under the duration meta-rule making this a game lasting effect. (And a very nice one)

Also to be discussed, though probably in another thread - is the effect of the text. The text would imply that the venture is literally turned around on the opponent, though they made an errata to state that it was just redundant wording.

Thoughts on this interpretation?

-BBH

Though I'm not of the committee, I would have to weigh in here on the MM as affected by the blanket Duration Rule.  The card itself indicates that you must play it during battle, which was simply a way of the designers making cards more clear that they are not to be played defensively, but if you take the OPDness of the MM special into consideration, that ultimately makes Backlash supremely overpowered as once he plays that card, he's immune to giving your opponent points for venture for the rest of the game.  That's a pretty hefty special card, and if combined with a Pile It On from a battlesite, can make for 1 devistating character on the field.  Think about it from the angle of the Dead is Dead rule.  X-babies aggrivated folks to the point that they had to make that 1 rule simply for them, and then Grunge, and though DiD would still affect Backlash, being a venture void is WAY more devisating to your opponent then an unkillable character.  I would weigh in that "Play During Battle" in this instance would mean not just "can't be played defensively" but also "does not last beyond this battle."  You may want to check other cards that might have similar text with otherwise undefined durations before you guys finalize this one.

I also noticed that the AJ specials are not in question with the duration rule, but there is 1 OPD AJ special belonging to the Shi'ar.  Would their AJ special, once in play be passively usable each turn for the remainder of the game until they are KO'ed?

[Palatinus]

I agree that making Backlash's Mist Body game lasting would be very powerful.  I don't think this breaks Backlash as a character though.  I also don't think there is any indication of a duration on the card.  If the duration rule is to truly be a blanket rule; this card must be game-lasting.

[Demacus]

I seem to remember this card having an instantaeous duration.  At the time you play Mist Body, you deduct the hits from current battle that are already in play against Backlash from the opponent's venture total, but new hits this battle still count.  This special also didn't actually subtract the venture, simply didn't allow your opponent to add it into his total at the end of the battle.  It was one of those "whoopsie" specials that didn't get proof-read before it was printed and distributed.  If it actually did subtract the venture, a lvl 7 hit on Backlash would result in a -7 venture for the opponent, instead of simply not gaining the 7, which makes the card much more powerful then originally intended.  Also, we aren't discussing the "Play as Written" end of things which is a BBH house rule.  There should still be card errata out there for those few, truly confusing cards, like Mist Body, but if everyone feels that the revised Duration Rule should affect this card via the blanket instead of making this card an instantaeous effect, then I won't argue.  I DO think that's a mistake, but I won't argue it further.

Side note.  HQ specials (which is another errata I can't see undoing) also don't have a printed duration, and are OPD.  They, like Mist Body, would also be game lasting.

[Nostalgic]

I seem to remember this card having an instantaeous duration.  At the time you play Mist Body, you deduct the hits from current battle that are already in play against Backlash from the opponent's venture total, but new hits this battle still count.  This special also didn't actually subtract the venture, simply didn't allow your opponent to add it into his total at the end of the battle.  It was one of those "whoopsie" specials that didn't get proof-read before it was printed and distributed.  If it actually did subtract the venture, a lvl 7 hit on Backlash would result in a -7 venture for the opponent, instead of simply not gaining the 7, which makes the card much more powerful then originally intended.  Also, we aren't discussing the "Play as Written" end of things which is a BBH house rule.  There should still be card errata out there for those few, truly confusing cards, like Mist Body, but if everyone feels that the revised Duration Rule should affect this card via the blanket instead of making this card an instantaeous effect, then I won't argue.  I DO think that's a mistake, but I won't argue it further.

To add to your Backlash points just add in image inducer and really get ready for a venture 'black hole'.

Anyway, I thought inherent in what we were doing was to play cards as written with the exception of a few. For me those few would be cards like Power Leech and Vertigo to name a couple.

[Demacus]

I'm mostly just trying to point out that "Instantaneous" while not defined by the card text, is still an acceptable duration.  Not every card played should be Battle or Game lasting.  MM, HQ and the Shi'Ar's AJ would be 3 instances of OPD's that should simply have an Instantaneous duration, even if you play the MM as written and really screw your opponent's venture total. 

Absorbing Man's JJ special has no printed duration. This too, would be for remainder of game, and he could discard any non-multiPower card to remove all hits containing an icon which matched the discarded Powercards icon, as often as he likes/has cards in hand to discard.  He'd be really hard to kill.  His DY could also be changed each battle at will to something more useful, depending on what's on his hit record.  If he removes the copied hit with his JJ, he could simply choose a new hit for the DY to mimic.

Lack of a printed duration doesn't give us the right to make instantaneous attacks/effects Battle or Game lasting.  I would have to say that the BE specials should also remain as an instantaneous duration, and the fact that Wolverine's BE is non-OPD should either be chalked up as an oversite and thus, like the HQ's, be deemed an OPD anyways, OR a perk for Wolverine over the other characters with similar abilities.

[Nostalgic]

I'm mostly just trying to point out that "Instantaneous" while not defined by the card text, is still an acceptable duration.  Not every card played should be Battle or Game lasting.  MM, HQ and the Shi'Ar's AJ would be 3 instances of OPD's that should simply have an Instantaneous duration, even if you play the MM as written and really screw your opponent's venture total. 

Valid point. I agree.

Lack of a printed duration doesn't give us the right to make instantaneous attacks Battle or Game lasting.  I would have to say that the BE specials should also remain as an instantaneous duration, and the fact that Wolverine's BE is non-OPD should either be chalked up as an oversite and thus, like the HQ's, be deemed an OPD anyways, OR a perk for Wolverine over the other characters with similar abilities.

I see what you're saying on the BE specials. I'm comfortable with them being instantaneous or game lasting as long as they have to be played when your opponent concedes and not just anytime during the battle.  I always wondered if Wolverine's card was a mistake or a perk.

[breadmaster]

i'm with dem on this one

i think those, and the concede cards should be instantaneous only.

imo, the 'duration rule' should only apply to cards where there is a duration, but it's not printed on the card

[gameplan.exe]

I agree with the instantaneous effect of many cards, but not BE and not MM either, I think.

BE doesn't say "play when opponent concedes battle" like the BL-coded specials. There's nothing to say I can't play it on my very first turn. It affects the user directly and is not predicated on my opponent's action. The only time my opponent plays into it is when they actually concede, which allows my attack. They don't have to concede for me to be able to play the card in the first place.

MM code says "all hits" not "all hits so far" so I really don't see how this would last anything less than a full battle. In terms of its errata, yes I think it should remove the reflexive property of its wording. But then again, I really don't care about that. If we suddenly see Backlash is now a powerhouse, I don't think that'd confront me, personally. There are still tons of ways to kill and to keep Venture (see the NJ Specials, Excelsior, Holographic Attackers, Excelsior, plus you could just kill 'im).

[Demacus]

Valid points, Ncann, but in the objectivity of simplifying the rules I don't mean to make the mistake of making more situations which would cause further errata and or Meta rules that target a single card.  Why write a rule, knowing full well it leaves gaping holes to be taken advantage of, if you can just nip it in the bud beforehand but simply remembering/labeling a card's duration as Instantaneous. 

The EB, you are right, does not have any implications about being played only after your opponent has conceded, and if you want to play your EB as your first attack for that particular battle in an attempt to set up your opponent, that's great, but to imply that the EB would have a Game long duration seems really harsh, and also abusive.  Sure Carnage might not be a high tier character but Wolverine, Sabertooth and the Any Character Special can be devastating as Game long durations (and I am aware that Wolverine's isn't OPD and, therefore, would not fall under the Remainder of Game implications) but I just don't think that's what the designers had in mind when they wrote up that particular special.  We are talking about making the EB's play as BBH indicated in his earlier post, correct?  "For remainder of game, <character> may make 1 attack after opponent has conceded the battle. Opponent may defend." The other option would be to make the EB playable anytime, then it sits on the character who played it until the opponent concedes, at which point the character with the EB would have the option to make an attack, and if he does, the EB is now spent and discarded, and if he doesn't the EB simply sits and waits for the next opportunity.  Those two different ways make a big difference on the duration of the card itself.

I'm all for increasing the usability of the cards, but not as a primary focus.  If the cards happen to be improved by the cleaning up of the rules, that's awesome, but I don't think we should be bending the rules for specials which were clearly implied to have a less then Game lasting duration because we choose to be blind to our own proceedings.

[gameplan.exe]

Valid points, Ncann, but in the objectivity of simplifying the rules I don't mean to make the mistake of making more situations which would cause further errata and or Meta rules that target a single card.  Why write a rule, knowing full well it leaves gaping holes to be taken advantage of, if you can just nip it in the bud beforehand but simply remembering/labeling a card's duration as Instantaneous. 

The EB, you are right, does not have any implications about being played only after your opponent has conceded, and if you want to play your EB as your first attack for that particular battle in an attempt to set up your opponent, that's great, but to imply that the EB would have a Game long duration seems really harsh, and also abusive.  Sure Carnage might not be a high tier character but Wolverine, Sabertooth and the Any Character Special can be devastating as Game long durations (and I am aware that Wolverine's isn't OPD and, therefore, would not fall under the Remainder of Game implications) but I just don't think that's what the designers had in mind when they wrote up that particular special.  We are talking about making the EB's play as BBH indicated in his earlier post, correct?  "For remainder of game, <character> may make 1 attack after opponent has conceded the battle. Opponent may defend." The other option would be to make the EB playable anytime, then it sits on the character who played it until the opponent concedes, at which point the character with the EB would have the option to make an attack, and if he does, the EB is now spent and discarded, and if he doesn't the EB simply sits and waits for the next opportunity.  Those two different ways make a big difference on the duration of the card itself.

I'm all for increasing the usability of the cards, but not as a primary focus.  If the cards happen to be improved by the cleaning up of the rules, that's awesome, but I don't think we should be bending the rules for specials which were clearly implied to have a less then Game lasting duration because we choose to be blind to our own proceedings.

to be clear, you're referring to the "BE" coded cards (attack after concede), not the "EB" codes, which are the shield cards (also mentioned in this thread), right?

I sincerely do not think that allowing a character to attack after each battle is abusive, that's how Shadowhelmet is played right now. No one disputes/abuses it and it's not even character-specific. Even if you had a Front Line that could do this across the board, it takes set-up, plus there's the defense of negating these Specials... As for the Any Hero version, I don't consider any rule application to Any Hero cards to be broken, since ANY team can use Any Hero cards. At worst, that's getting the balance of Any Hero decks to Battlesite decks a little closer, in my view.

Having said all of that, at the minimum, I think the BE-Specials should stay in play until that character has actually made a post-concede attack. If that's when the card is "used up" then so be it; however, if that's the case then Wolverine's becomes better than the OPD counterparts, as he could have multiples that would still stay until used (just like having multiple shield "EB" cards in play).

I think I'm honestly fine with either ruling. I've played with these being game-lasting and they have never, ever, seemed broken or abusable. I've had maybe 1 or 2 instances EVER where that last little hit KO'd some one. Usually it just lets me get another jab, but it's almost never the pivotal hit.