Committee Discussion topic #1: The Duration Meta Rule

[Demacus]

Oops, yes I did mean the BE specials.  I must have been typing fast and gotten the code backwards.  I didn't realize that Shadowhelmet worked in that manner, but just because an artifact works a certain way, doesn't mean the similar specials should work the same way.  That being said, I can't really argue further against the BE duration change.

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).

As far as the MM situation, there are specials similar, that don't have Battle lasting durations, like Holocaust's GF - Apocalyptic Minion, which states "Move all hits from Holocaust's Hits from Current Battle into Permanent Record.  Affects Venture Total"  This card can only move the hits that have landed already, and does not affect new, incoming attacks.  Mist Body is worded similarly, "Play during battle. All hits in Backlash's Hits from Current Battle do not affect venture total and are subtracted from opponent's venture total," and should be played similarly, that it be of instantaneous duration and not battle or game lasting.  Making Holocaust's non-OPD special into a battle lasting duration wouldn't be right under the duration rule, so doing the same for Backlash's wouldn't make sense either.  The fact that Backlash's special is OPD doesn't mean it should have an adjusted duration, just that when Image released, the designers felt that it should be an OPD special.  If we get into card specific errata, and choose to take away it's OPDness, that would be a different discussion, but I don't really see how it's duration would change from Instantaneous.

Side note: Is there another Meta rule or errata somewhere linking Artifacts to Meta #145?  According to the meta ruling as written in BBH's first post, Meta #145 doesn't affect Artifacts, which brings the question "Why does the Image Inducer only last till the end of the battle?"  IS there a rule somewhere about Artifact durations?  From what I've seen of Artifacts and the "cost" to play them, I see no reason why any artifact would have less then a game lasting duration, save, of course, for the obviously instantaneous effect of The Ultimate Nullifier. 

[breadmaster]

i agree with dem

the issue isnt that BEs will be too powerful.  the text on the card opens up too many possibilites for other cards to fall under the same rule (like the mentioned holocaust card, and the shi'ar one)

[Palatinus]

I think this needs to be clarified as there are three types of timing:  battle-lasting, game-lasting, and instantaneous.  There just needs to be a clear way to identify what is instantaneous and what falls under the duration rule.

[gameplan.exe]

well, I don't see how the MM is instantaneous, still. Please explain how these two effects are seen, one as instantaneous and the other not, except that one says "for remainder of game" and the other doesn't...

Hits to Current Battle with Energy or Fighting icons do not count towards
            Opponent's Venture Total.

Hits from Current Battle do not count for Venture Total

is it the difference between "to" and "from"...? I mean, if I play an MM Special, are the later hits that land on Backlash not still "from Current Battle"? then why wouldn't they also be affected by the MM Special?

[Demacus]

What is the code for the first card you are refferencing? I don't have them all memorized anymore.

[Nostalgic]

well, I don't see how the MM is instantaneous, still. Please explain how these two effects are seen, one as instantaneous and the other not, except that one says "for remainder of game" and the other doesn't...

Hits to Current Battle with Energy or Fighting icons do not count towards
            Opponent's Venture Total.

Hits from Current Battle do not count for Venture Total

is it the difference between "to" and "from"...? I mean, if I play an MM Special, are the later hits that land on Backlash not still "from Current Battle"? then why wouldn't they also be affected by the MM Special?

The card is unique. I think it's a battle lasting card (counting all hits on backlash before and after its played) whose affect is instantaneous at the time opponent counts venture (subtracting or not counting those hits).  The card is badly worded because they didn't want it to be game lasting.  Compare the  MM to Rouge's FL which states: For remainder of game, cards of Rogue's Hits to Current Battle, with Fighting or Strength icons do not count towards Opponent's Venture Total.  They could have used the exact same wording for Backlash without specifying icons if they wanted it to be game lasting.

When I breakdown how its worded I can see how it happened.

Play during battle.
I think this is to make sure people didn't think it had to be played at the end of the battle or after battle. If you compare it to the Rouge's FL special that you referenced this is the line that would have said "For remainder of game".

All Hits in Backlash's Hits from current Battle do not count for Venture Total...
I think they didn't want to say 'for remainder of battle' here because they wanted all hits received that battle to be affected and NOT just the ones that occurred AFTER the card was played.

...and are subtracted from Opponent's venture total.  
As the metal rule states that was simply redundant wording.  Not counted for venture or subtracted from venture are the same net affect IF you don't do BOTH.

A camel is a horse made by committee... LOL!

[Demacus]

…and are subtracted from Opponent’s venture total.  
As the metal rule states that was simply redundant wording.  Not counted for venture or subtracted from venture are the same net affect IF you don’t do BOTH.

Personally, this wording is why I think it was rated an OPD in the first place.  I think, when it was designed, it was meant to do BOTH, but after it hit the tournament circuit, the judges deemed the wording to be redundant.  If the wording is redundant, how is the MM special more worthy of the OPD tag then the aforementioned GF special of Holocausts.  I still stand by the ideology that the MM special would be played similar to the GF special, being that it only affects what is on the field at the time of play, and nothing more.  The lack of duration wording on the MM special seems to support this, especially considering the "For remainder of game" note on the FL specials that DO indicate they have a duration longer then instant.  Based on what the cards do, I would say that the MM special is closer in effect to the GF specials then to the FL specials.

[Nostalgic]

...and are subtracted from Opponent's venture total.  
As the metal rule states that was simply redundant wording.  Not counted for venture or subtracted from venture are the same net affect IF you don't do BOTH.

Personally, this wording is why I think it was rated an OPD in the first place.  I think, when it was designed, it was meant to do BOTH, but after it hit the tournament circuit, the judges deemed the wording to be redundant.  If the wording is redundant, how is the MM special more worthy of the OPD tag then the aforementioned GF special of Holocausts. 

Well the GF basically make the damage done so far zero while the MM as worded would make the damage done zero AND count against the opponent's venture.  If you were hit by a level 7 power card the GF nullifies it while the MM make it a -7 to you. It's like a 14 point swing.  Also making it OPD worthy in my oppinion.

[gameplan.exe]

well it seems to me that the MM is being seen two different ways, so far...

1) instant effect AND dual purpose, both negating the Hits' Venture AND subtracting them from Opponent's V.Total.

2) Redundant wording, but lasting effect, and thus open to application of the Duration Rule...

As far as I can tell, no one is arguing that it should be lasting AND dual purpose
As far as I can tell, no one is arguing that it is instantaneous AND redundant wording

Is this right so far?

If so, I'll be honest, I don't think I care too much about this particular card to worry about it. The purpose of the Rules Committee is to reduce Meta Rules and Errata and it seems like this card is going to need errata or a Meta Rule one way or another 

[Demacus]

I'd say that you summed it up pretty nicely there Ncann.  The only reason we've discussed this card here is to try to determine if the duration rule should be applied under the "OPD means game lasting" section.  I do have 1 more point against that logic, pertaining to the FL specials that do state "for remainder of game" these specials only affect certain incoming hits that would not affect venture total (Nigh Invulnerable restricts venture from Fighting and Strength hits,) while the MM special indicates that all hits, with no restrictions, would not affect venture total, which would put the MM special in a completely different class then any other special in the game.

As far as a decisive duration, I still strongly feel that Mist Body was designed to be instantaneous, but I would be willing to discuss the option of a battle lasting effect, but not game lasting.

[BigBadHarve]

I'd say that you summed it up pretty nicely there Ncann.  The only reason we've discussed this card here is to try to determine if the duration rule should be applied under the "OPD means game lasting" section.  I do have 1 more point against that logic, pertaining to the FL specials that do state "for remainder of game" these specials only affect certain incoming hits that would not affect venture total (Nigh Invulnerable restricts venture from Fighting and Strength hits,) while the MM special indicates that all hits, with no restrictions, would not affect venture total, which would put the MM special in a completely different class then any other special in the game.

As far as a decisive duration, I still strongly feel that Mist Body was designed to be instantaneous, but I would be willing to discuss the option of a battle lasting effect, but not game lasting.

We're arguing in circles over this matter, and pretty much back to the way the game is now - unclear and unintuitive. Who ever said Mist Body was 'Instant?" It's a battle lasting special under existing official rules - in direct conflict of the duration meta rule. That makes Mist Body a special card with TWO errata that change its effect. One errata to the text, the 2nd to contradict the core rule which governs its duration.

As for FL coded cards being a point against the logic of the MM card being game lasting, I'd argue the opposite - it's a point for it. Mist body should essentially a more powerful version of the FL coded cards... available to only ONE character in the entire game. How many examples are there of characters having more powerful versions of another character's specials? It's already a common thing, why should this be different just because it's better than someone else's? That being the case we should start a nerf list to make all cards equal... 'cause you know that would make the game lots of fun!

The point of this exercise, as you say, isn't to take cards and make them usable, rather to make the game more simple and intuitive. By applying all rules in a blanket format, we will naturally change the way some of the cards are played (some for better and some worse). If we don't accept that, then there is no point is doing what we're doing. Because applying a so-called 'blanket rule' and then listing exceptions is exactly what the system currently is.

We need to explore the FULL range of implications of what applying the Duration rule as an absolute would cause, not argue about the power of a few cards. Wording is EVERYTHING. The duration rule has clear wording, as do most of the cards that SHOULD fall under it.

Playing MM, BE, and EB coded specials (among others) under this rule would not imbalance the game. So why nitpick over the change? There are far worse cards for game balance than Carnage being able to attack the opponent each round after concession, and they are perfectly legal in the existing system.

But again, that's not the big issue - the really big issue is clarity.

So rather than arguing the effect on the game due to a change in a handful of cards, I propose we list ALL cards we think would fall under this rule based solely on the printed text, and if so what the change would entail based on the exact wording of the meta rule itself. This list should be without opinion on whether or not the change is good or bad, just the change itself:

Meta #145: Specials that do not indicate their duration by their game text should be considered Game lasting duration if they are One Per Deck and Battle lasting duration if they are non-OPD. Specials with instant effects are instant duration regardless.

So, by your interpretation - with this rule in mind what cards do you think would apply based on their text? Lets get a comprehensive list so it's right in front of us.

-BBH

[Nostalgic]

Good point BBH.

You know even with that card at full power (game lasting AND subtracting numerical hits from opponents venture total) its not like it would break the game. There are alot of ways around it. First its a OPD so there's no telling when it will come up. You could use a battlesite to play a DS special to 'fish' for it, but even then it could be negated when you play it or negated in some future battle, or removed with a KL special. Even if it is put in play it's not like you HAVE to attack Backlash. Perhaps there's some 'killer' tricks that could be run through him, but I don't think so.

[gameplan.exe]

Meta #145: Specials that do not indicate their duration by their game text should be considered Game lasting duration if they are One Per Deck and Battle lasting duration if they are non-OPD. Specials with instant effects are instant duration regardless.

So, by your interpretation - with this rule in mind what cards do you think would apply based on their text? Lets get a comprehensive list so it's right in front of us.

-BBH

I agree with your summation, I really don't care if certain cards get better or worse (well, not exactly... I'd be lying if I didn't say I enjoy all cards getting better), I just want rules clarified. To me, the biggest issue with this particular meta rule is that portion I underlined in my quote. cards like EB and KC seem to have pretty clear durations printed on them. So far as I can tell, these are the only OPDs I've seen that should be affected by this rule:

BE, BF, MM

And beyond that, I haven't investigated many non-OPD cards for the duration ruling (again, beyond the EB and KC, which seem to have their durations printed).

Good point BBH.

You know even with that card at full power (game lasting AND subtracting numerical hits from opponents venture total) its not like it would break the game. There are alot of ways around it. First its a OPD so there's no telling when it will come up. You could use a battlesite to play a DS special to 'fish' for it, but even then it could be negated when you play it or negated in some future battle, or removed with a KL special. Even if it is put in play it's not like you HAVE to attack Backlash. Perhaps there's some 'killer' tricks that could be run through him, but I don't think so.

I agree (and I think I said as much). I don't care if there's a better version that one person has. Super Girl has an self/teammate avoid 4 or less, but Marrow's is DTR. But then, Nightcrawler has a self/teammate avoid 6 or less, but then Dr.Strange has it too, but it's playable from Reserve. There are tiers (in some cases, many tiers) to pretty much every type of card. Having this one, unique, OPD Special be clearly better than the FL Specials doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Besides, I've never seen anyone use Backlash. If everyone starts using Backlash, what do I care if there's more backlash?

(see what I did there?  )

[Demacus]

Meta #145: Specials that do not indicate their duration by their game text should be considered Game lasting duration if they are One Per Deck and Battle lasting duration if they are non-OPD. Specials with instant effects are instant duration regardless.

So, by your interpretation - with this rule in mind what cards do you think would apply based on their text? Lets get a comprehensive list so it's right in front of us.

-BBH

You are absolutely right, but I thought there was a guide written out on the internet somewhere that gives rulings as to when and how cards are played.  Isn't there a site like Ripayuheadoff, or something like that, that lists the durations, offensive use, defensive use, ect, ect of each card already printed?  Or did that site not touch on Image characters/cards?  Or is the committee simply not acknowledging that particular site as a viable source of information?  I don't think we should be changing OPD's which fall under the underlined section of Meta rule #145.  Maybe the MM special wasn't defined as such, and your right, 1 card being changed, for better or for worse, doesn't matter in the grand scheme of what we are trying to do here, but I did mention that the first thing the comittee should do is acknowledge what the base rules are, what documents we are drawing them from, and how they should remain unchanged before we got into making clarifications.

Any chance we could get a copy of your House Rules to peruse, BBH?  We should all probablly use the same resources for the Meta Rules, and the Basic Rules should be from Image, which I believe was the last basic rules update, and go from there.  Any thoughts or objections?

If there truly is no source out there indicating how these cards were to be played before we took up this venture, then I could understand the blanket rule affecting them as we've discussed, but I just don't think that truly is the case.  We need a clear understanding of how each rule works in the game, and how it effects the cards in the game before we can change anything.  The EB specials DO have a duration.  "Until this card is attacked/hit/negated ect IS a duration.  The BE and MM DO NOT have a duration.  THAT is the meta rule as it is currently written and as I understand it.  The BE might not go into EFFECT until an opponent concedes the battle, but I think that is a completely different scenario then adding the words "For remainder of game" simply because the card has an OPD stamped on the bottom.

The problem is in Meta #145's wording itself.  Let's break down Meta #145 as it is written.  "Specials that do not indicate their duration by their game text should be considered Game lasting duration if the are One Per Deck, and Battle lasting duration if they are non-OPD.  Specials with instant effects are instant duration regardless."
Let's start by analyzing the second part of this meta rule "Specials with instant effects are instant duration regardless."  There is not a single special card in the game that has a printed "instant effect."  That being said, if we look at the first part of Meta #145 "Specials that do not indicate their duration by their game text should be considered Game lasting duration if they are One Per Deck, and Battle lasting duration if they are non-OPD," then all special cards without an instant duration, and there are none, fall under this rule.  Therefore, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE ect, ect...  would all change how they are played, since they are now all Battle lasting duration.  A successful AA special attack under the effect of Meta #145, would add it's points to the venture total for this battle, and then be discarded to the dead pile, because it now has a battle lasting duration.  AO specials could be played on your turn, and just sit on the table until all other special cards have been played, at which time you could negate an effect retroactively, because it would now be for remainder of battle, as per Meta #145.  I'll give a little ambiguity in the wording of a special card or two, but the rules should be clear and concise.  Meta #145 is not a clear and concise rule based on the mechanics of the game that we all play, and should either be re-written to make sense with the mechanics in the game, or simply removed as a rule.

[BigBadHarve]

There is a comprehensive specials guide which outlines how to play every single card on a code-by-code basis.

Here's a link so you can download it - http://members.tripod.com/the_twinz/oopWebsite/rules/specials/specialsguidehome.html

Some of the links on that site are no longer active, but the link to download the entire document is still live.

What it all really boils down to here, is what our plan is.

The plan as I understand it, was to take the existing rule-set and clean up and simplify things to make the rules easy and intuitive. Which meant changing some rules where agreed upon by the committee.

If we are just going to play the cards as they are meant to by official rules, then we're wasting our time in all of this because it's all laid out in the meta rules (They contradict and create problems, but that's the game). This game CANNOT be simplified and have all the existing cards continue to function as-is. The only way to simplify it is to take a set of core rules that apply to everything, and implement them with minimal exceptions. (IE: a few errata.)

On that point, the core rules of this game are, in fact, very simple. And by that, I mean the core rules. Attack, defend, turns etc. The trouble starts with the wording on the specials. The duration rule is one of the key culprits in the confusion of how certain cards are played, hence my desire to start with it.

Changing the wording of the Duration Rule is a start, but first we must determine the intent so it's sparkling clear.

-BBH