Fun question for debate

[Hot Rod]

Wherever I see 'Opponent' on these examples I just mentally change it to 'Target Player' and they all make crystal clear sense to me.

Very well - the next time you force me to discard with your 'Bat Out of Hell' or Spontaneous Combustion' I'll gladly defend with my 'avoid 1 attack' because Opponent means target.

Because personal avoids from front line characters clearly work on the reserve character.

Even though it seems BBH has given up the debate I would still like to point out Jubilee's Wisecrack special card.

The text on Wisecrack: Target hero must make as many attacks as possible.  Jubilee's team may defend.

The text on Lethal Tester: Post may attack any front line teammate using 1 of opponents placed cards.  Teammate may defend.

Case closed.

[Pass the Gestalt]

Hello all, I read a lot of these post with amusement, good rules lawyering by all. Again, OverPower has its inconsistencies, which often were not well resolved by Fleer/Marvel at the time. Norm Barth's QA on Inspiration clearly says it can be used from the Battlesite, to double the owning character's specials. The question of ownership is an interesting one, since it is clearly held that we "hack in" the name of the character when they are using an inherent, Dark Beast and Storm Neutralized come immediately to mind there are plenty others.

However, it is clear to me that Inspiration played from a Battlesite doubles the specials for playing character.

So the only question is do we rehack the character name on a special when they use an inherent ability? Yes, that must clearly be true, since Dark Beast frontline can play Acrobatics, even when the card specifically says "Beast" in the text.

Further, Inspiration as a special does say "Captain America", so if this implicit rehacking occurs, then in order for it to be playable by Superpatriot, then obviously the implied ownership of his Captain America specials changes as well. Since we have been playing the game this way forever, then that is the agreed upon ruling.

Ergo, when Beyonder plays any team specials with his inherent, he owns all those specials, and Inspiration is acceptable to play from the Battlesite for him. Do I think that is broken? No, but just another reason to get value from a 28 point character on a team, and duck his hits.

The Post Special clearly says "use" vs "target another frontline teammate". Although not as strong as an inherent, use does imply ownership, and there are other specials in the game that allow a character in game to play another teammate specials for the remainder of game. In these cases, "use" has always implied ownership and all that entails.

[BigBadHarve]

Because personal avoids from front line characters clearly work on the reserve character.

Even though it seems BBH has given up the debate I would still like to point out Jubilee's Wisecrack special card.

The text on Wisecrack: Target hero must make as many attacks as possible.  Jubilee's team may defend.

The text on Lethal Tester: Post may attack any front line teammate using 1 of opponents placed cards.  Teammate may defend.

Case closed.

So you've completely muddied the rules.

According to you - Opponent/Target mean the same thing (They do not, the rules for each definition are clear.) And if you can't grasp that concept, we're going to have some fun arguments when we play in the future.

But, if you use Bat Out of Hell on me, according to your interpretation of opponent/target, I should be able to use a personal avoid for the appropriate character. But we both know that is simply not the case. Alternate AI specials, like Iceman's Ice Tactics say target, and follow different rules.

If characters take ownership of the specials they play, then all applicable secondary effects must also now (when applicable) go along with that ownership.

And what does Wisecrack have to do with this discussion? It's clearly defined. TARGET! The target of wisecrack must make as many attacks as possible. Only the target. Any card you possess by the TARGET must be used to attack. Cards placed to, or exclusively usable by other characters are exempt.

Also, you're forgetting one key equation in wisecrack vs. Lethal Tester - Wisecrack is forcing the target to attack. So the opposing team retains ownership of any specials they play even though they are forced to attack, whereas Lethal Tester potentially changes ownership of an opponent's card because POST is the one playing it. If Lethal Tester said: 'Opponent (or even target) must attack with one of opponent's placed cards...' this whole discussion would be a non-issue, but it doesn't. It implies ownership.  That's where this whole thing starts.

And the question hasn't been answered.

Which is the correct ruling?

And if the correct ruling is that Post takes ownership, then I maintain the correct rules would be to swap who receives the bonus or penalty of any relevant secondary effects.

[Hot Rod]

Because personal avoids from front line characters clearly work on the reserve character.

Even though it seems BBH has given up the debate I would still like to point out Jubilee's Wisecrack special card.

The text on Wisecrack: Target hero must make as many attacks as possible.  Jubilee's team may defend.

The text on Lethal Tester: Post may attack any front line teammate using 1 of opponents placed cards.  Teammate may defend.

Case closed.

So you've completely muddied the rules.

According to you - Opponent/Target mean the same thing (They do not, the rules for each definition are clear.) And if you can't grasp that concept, we're going to have some fun arguments when we play in the future.

But, if you use Bat Out of Hell on me, according to your interpretation of opponent/target, I should be able to use a personal avoid for the appropriate character. But we both know that is simply not the case. Alternate AI specials, like Iceman's Ice Tactics say target, and follow different rules.

If characters take ownership of the specials they play, then all applicable secondary effects must also now (when applicable) go along with that ownership.

And what does Wisecrack have to do with this discussion? It's clearly defined. TARGET! The target of wisecrack must make as many attacks as possible. Only the target. Any card you possess by the TARGET must be used to attack. Cards placed to, or exclusively usable by other characters are exempt.

Also, you're forgetting one key equation in wisecrack vs. Lethal Tester - Wisecrack is forcing the target to attack. So the opposing team retains ownership of any specials they play even though they are forced to attack, whereas Lethal Tester potentially changes ownership of an opponent's card because POST is the one playing it. If Lethal Tester said: 'Opponent (or even target) must attack with one of opponent's placed cards...' this whole discussion would be a non-issue, but it doesn't. It implies ownership.  That's where this whole thing starts.

And the question hasn't been answered.

Which is the correct ruling?

And if the correct ruling is that Post takes ownership, then I maintain the correct rules would be to swap who receives the bonus or penalty of any relevant secondary effects.

I will spell it out for you very clearly: YOU.ARE.BREAKING.THE.GAME.

When Post plays Lethal Tester he is the one using Ultimate Potential not X-Man.  This is evidenced by Wisecrack, which does force X-man to attack with Ultimate Potential.

Again very clearly: X-MAN.DOES.NOT.MAKE.THE.ATTACK.WHEN.LETHAL.TESTER.IS.PLAYED.BECAUSE.HE.NEVER.PLAYS.THE.CARD.

It can be determined that 'Use' effects the black text on a card, and 'Play' effects the black text, and the ownership.  In the case of 'Play' is adding an additional implied ownership to the card.  Further discussion on this particular topic should be moved to the Beyonder Thread.

[BigBadHarve]

I will spell it out for you very clearly: YOU.ARE.BREAKING.THE.GAME.

When Post plays Lethal Tester he is the one using Ultimate Potential not X-Man.  This is evidenced by Wisecrack, which does force X-man to attack with Ultimate Potential.

Again very clearly: X-MAN.DOES.NOT.MAKE.THE.ATTACK.WHEN.LETHAL.TESTER.IS.PLAYED.BECAUSE.HE.NEVER.PLAYS.THE.CARD.

It can be determined that 'Use' effects the black text on a card, and 'Play' effects the black text, and the ownership.  In the case of 'Play' is adding an additional implied ownership to the card.  Further discussion on this particular topic should be moved to the Beyonder Thread.

And how, exactly, have I broken the game? Your flair for hyperbole aside - I don't care which interpretation we use- but if we go one route, it must be all the way.

If Lethal Tester makes the special in play a POST card, then, as I said you can't pick and choose how the effects work. If I'm locked down when I play your Ultimate potential, then I will accept NO. OTHER. RULING. stating that other effects won't penalize the opponent. If I leech myself with your power leech, then YOU. MUST. DISCARD. End of story. That is the only consist way to play that version of events. If Post takes ownership, it's ALL. THE. WAY.

[Hot Rod]

I will spell it out for you very clearly: YOU.ARE.BREAKING.THE.GAME.

When Post plays Lethal Tester he is the one using Ultimate Potential not X-Man.  This is evidenced by Wisecrack, which does force X-man to attack with Ultimate Potential.

Again very clearly: X-MAN.DOES.NOT.MAKE.THE.ATTACK.WHEN.LETHAL.TESTER.IS.PLAYED.BECAUSE.HE.NEVER.PLAYS.THE.CARD.

It can be determined that 'Use' effects the black text on a card, and 'Play' effects the black text, and the ownership.  In the case of 'Play' is adding an additional implied ownership to the card.  Further discussion on this particular topic should be moved to the Beyonder Thread.

And how, exactly, have I broken the game? Your flair for hyperbole aside - I don't care which interpretation we use- but if we go one route, it must be all the way.

If Lethal Tester makes the special in play a POST card, then, as I said you can't pick and choose how the effects work. If I'm locked down when I play your Ultimate potential, then I will accept NO. OTHER. RULING. stating that other effects won't penalize the opponent. If I leech myself with your power leech, then YOU. MUST. DISCARD. End of story. That is the only consist way to play that version of events. If Post takes ownership, it's ALL. THE. WAY.

With the recent conclusion that 'Use' effects the black text, but not the ownership, it can therefore be determined that Power Leech still belongs to the other player.  Any idea of playing Power Leech on yourself effecting the opponent in a negative way is simply fantasy.

[BigBadHarve]

I'm sorry, bud, but you can't have it both ways. It has to be all or nothing, or the ruling isn't fair.

Which reminds me - what is the OFFICIAL ruling on this? Does anybody know?

UPDATE. I have found the official rules regarding Special card Access inherents which apply to Beyonder et al. While it doesn't say anything about Special access via other means, it's not a stretch to imply that the same rules would apply.

---------

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]

My concern is this ruling brings up inconsistencies in the game. For example, Dark Beast can clearly use Acrobatics, even though the card text explicitly says Beast. Saying that characters don't have explicit ownership means using Dark Beast/Crystal/Storm Neutralized as an Activator should not get Beat/Inhumans/Morlocks non-OPD specials, since the character doesn't own them. I'm also concerned they are going back on early precedents already established in the game i.e. Dark Beast can play Beast Acrobatics, and Superpatriot can play Inspiration.

I'm also concerned since it has already been established by long precedent since 1998 that Beyonder can play Morlock non-OPD specials if Storm Neutralized is on the team. Beyonder was errrated to only non-OPD specials playable by his team, to avoid special stuffing.

I'd like to suggest to the Rules Committee we meet sometime in Buffalo to talk things over, perhaps Friday night dinner.
My recommendations are as follows:

a) A "use" condition [Special/Battlesite/Any Hero] implies you modify the black text of special to use the using characters name, but no ownership is implied i.e. Inspiration doesn't work to double

b) To Play Inherent and To Play and Place special assign an additional virtual ownership to a special. The Inherent is for the duration of the game when the team is established. The special is negatable, so so is the virtual ownership. If the Inherent is negated, only the ability to Play is negated, not the ability to Place i.e. the virtual ownership remains established.

c) That CQ specials like Inspiration be erratted to only doubling specials specifically played by that character during the battle.

I think those rulings solve a lot of specific issues in the game. For example:

If the Original X Team uses Thor's special fetch from a battlesite, then they can clearly fetch a Professor X OPD with this card. [Right now they would be barred by this ruling, when precedent has already established this is  not the case.]

If Post uses Lethal Tester on the X-Man 11, then since it is a "use" condition, the black text is hacked, but X-man still owns the special. Post's own team is barred from attacking if the attack hits. If Post uses Lethal Tester on Power Leech, then the black text referring to Power Leech is hacked so Post can name the icon, but ownership doesn't change, so the Opponent affected remains Post's team.

In OverPower when a card is broken the tendency is to errata it until it works, rather than ban it outright. The ruling on not having an implicit extra ownership for the "May play" inherent and "Play and  place" specials creates more problems that it solves in my view. So I'd like to send it to our Rules Committee. I just want to make sure we have a consistent ruling in place for all three tournaments.

PtG

[BigBadHarve]

I am all for a sit down with the regional organizers to hash out some rules clean up, but:

If Post uses Lethal Tester on the X-Man 11, then since it is a "use" condition, the black text is hacked, but X-man still owns the special. Post's own team is barred from attacking if the attack hits. If Post uses Lethal Tester on Power Leech, then the black text referring to Power Leech is hacked so Post can name the icon, but ownership doesn't change, so the Opponent affected remains Post's team.

I will not get behind this interpretation of the card. At all. It doesn't make sense. It's a double standard.  Using the same philosophy, allow me to illustrate in another situation:

I want to bet on a sporting game. So, I ask you to call a bookie friend of yours and make the bet for me. And, if the team wins, you keep my winnings, but the if the team loses I still have to cover the cost of my bet.

[Hot Rod]

I am all for a sit down with the regional organizers to hash out some rules clean up, but:

If Post uses Lethal Tester on the X-Man 11, then since it is a "use" condition, the black text is hacked, but X-man still owns the special. Post's own team is barred from attacking if the attack hits. If Post uses Lethal Tester on Power Leech, then the black text referring to Power Leech is hacked so Post can name the icon, but ownership doesn't change, so the Opponent affected remains Post's team.

I will not get behind this interpretation of the card. At all. It doesn't make sense. It's a double standard.  Using the same philosophy, allow me to illustrate in another situation:

I want to bet on a sporting game. So, I ask you to call a bookie friend of yours and make the bet for me. And, if the team wins, you keep my winnings, but the if the team loses I still have to cover the cost of my bet.

I most humbly cannot accept your interpretation of how Lethal Tester should be played.  Creating 'pet' rulings that not only don't reflect the wording on the card in the slightest, but also break the game as a whole is ridiculous, and cannot be taken seriously.


In regards to variant characters and Beyonder.

(Taking the deck building rule that states you cannot put specials into your deck unless the character is present on your team into consideration).

This "ruling" means that you cannot put Beast specials into your deck for Dark Beast to 'Use' according to this "ruling" unless Beast is on the team.  Due to fact Dark Beast does not own any cards, therefore you cannot put them into your deck because Beast is not on the team.

The "ruling" takes further action in limiting battlesites.  If Beast is also not on a battlesite along side Dark Beast, you cannot use Dark Beast as an activator, because he does not have any cards.

Of course by some fantasy ruling (which seem to be popular here), these variant characters could be allowed to play these specials without the host character but, you wouldn't be able to use them with Beyonder.  Beyonder clearly states that he may only play teammates special cards.  If Crystal is on the team without Inhumans, using Inhumans special cards, Beyonder cannot use them because Inhumans is not on the team.

[Pass the Gestalt]

Hi,

Exactly. The contradictory ruling on how "May Play" inherents work actually does more damage to the game than the stupid concern over somehow causing Inspiration to be a somewhat more useful special in the game.

In any legal system, be it society or a game like OverPower, the rule of law is established by three things:

a) common law [or in the case of OverPower common sense]
b) statute [or in the case of OverPower the rules of the game + metarules]
c) precedent [or in the case of OverPower how the game has been consistently played since 1995]

So we have a number of precedent cases prior to the ruling about how "May Play" innate ability is purported
to work:

1) Dark Beast could successfully use Acrobatics, Superpatriot could use Inspiration, etc. etc. etc.
2) Activators for "May Play" characters can fetch the "May Play" specials from the other Characters
3) Beyonder decks can use the specials from the "May Play" characters
4) "Use" is well defined from both Any Heroes and Activators as the playing Character essentially being
the Character mentioned in the text i.e. Power Leech becomes "Character XXX" [Lethal Tester being no different]

What Sean quoted is -not- a metarule, I find it a very poor interpretation given the existing precedents in the game since 1995. If we enforce the ruling that "May Play" characters do not gain a additional virtual ownership of the specials in the question, then most Beyonder decks are broken, a good chunk of Activators are  useless, and certain specials don't work the way we are playing them. We remain out in limbo on Lethal Tester and other specials and effects.

I'm not trying to muddy the waters. I'm trying to make the game work consistently across the board, -without- having to resort to "secondary effects" vs "primary effects", or certain specials being hacked and others aren't and so on. We are considering at least three major tournaments per year, and I don't want to get burned by a referee's ruling that round because they had a bad day. My recommendation to our Rules Committee is the three points I listed add consistency, without promoting an endless list of exceptions. If it makes fetches and venture doubling more useful for Beyonder so be it, but I also recommend Inspiration be erratted to specials played by the character him, them, it or herself in that battle.

PtG

[BigBadHarve]

Hot Rod, this is not some Fantasy rule I came up with. It's copied directly from the Rules regarding Inherent abilities.

Don't blame me if they are fucked up, I didn't write them.

As for Post - you're the one creating a pet ruling. What I am proposing is consistent global rules. You want a situation where ownership has a universal meaning EXCEPT when playing that one specific card.

For the record - my stance on Lethal Tester is this: Post FORCES the activation of the card in question, but ownership remains entirely with Post's opponent. So if I lethal test you, you retain all penalties or bonuses based on the card played. I am simply making you play it on my turn. In any other regard, we treat is as though you played it. That would be my absolute preference.

This can be justified by the text of Lethal Tester, if you like, without contradicting the idea of characters taking ownership of specials they play. The text reads: "Post may attack any front line teammate using one of OPPONENT's placed cards" For me, that lends to the argument that ownership does in fact remain with the opponent.

Again, that's a matter of interpretation.

But if you shift ownership, you also MUST shift all bonuses and penalties of that ownership accordingly.

[Hot Rod]

Hot Rod, this is not some Fantasy rule I came up with. It's copied directly from the Rules regarding Inherent abilities.

Don't blame me if they are fucked up, I didn't write them.

As for Post - you're the one creating a pet ruling. What I am proposing is consistent global rules. You want a situation where ownership has a universal meaning EXCEPT when playing that one specific card.

For the record - my stance on Lethal Tester is this: Post FORCES the activation of the card in question, but ownership remains entirely with Post's opponent. So if I lethal test you, you retain all penalties or bonuses based on the card played. I am simply making you play it on my turn. In any other regard, we treat is as though you played it. That would be my absolute preference.

This can be justified by the text of Lethal Tester, if you like, without contradicting the idea of characters taking ownership of specials they play. The text reads: "Post may attack any front line teammate using one of OPPONENT's placed cards" For me, that lends to the argument that ownership does in fact remain with the opponent.

Again, that's a matter of interpretation.

But if you shift ownership, you also MUST shift all bonuses and penalties of that ownership accordingly.

You're dissension to ad hominem has already shown that you do not have a leg to stand on.  Coupled with the fact that your "ruling" on Lethal Tester works in a completely different way than it's text indicates, proves that you are indeed spouting fantasy.

Considering the fact you've completely ignored all previous posts in this ridiculous campaign, I wouldn't be opposed to adding Deranged to Fantasy.

I have not changed, or altered a single rule, or card in anyway.  Striking down Norman's ridiculous "ruling," (if you can even call it that) has nothing to do with changing or altering proper rules.  "Rules" that break the game are not rules at all, and this is a rule that breaks the game.  Your pet "ruling" also breaks the game.

[BigBadHarve]

Sorry Gary, but you need to go back to school and bone up on your reading comprehension.

I don't think there's any point in arguing this further. If quoting official rules and applying logic is 'Fantasy' to you, then I don't think anything else can be said.

[Pass the Gestalt]

Hi All,

Rather than turn this into personal shots, I'd rather talk this out rationally, and consider invoking a Rules Committee in Buffalo to talk it over. I'm looking for both consistency and simplicity in the game. I actually don't care what side of the issue we come down on, make it work for all time. We have game rules, metarules, and some rulings from Fleer/Marvel that are either inconsistent, or downright contradictory. We can either say not my problem, that's they way it is, or look at amendments so the game becomes the same across the board, no matter where we play it. Right now we seem to have bunches of specials that have different rulings.

To my mind, the "use" condition in OverPower is defined by metarule #98, which implies for Any Heroes and Battlesites that the character gets the stated effects of the special, without achieving ownership. Why would the "use" condition be any different on the field i.e. Lethal Tester or Captain America's 6E? I suspect this matter was essentially glossed over because Lethal Tester was never heavily played, and the Marvel's came out after formal rules support died.

The later ruling on "May Play" inherent and "May Play and Place" special muddies the water by essentially turning it into a "use" condition, and making it no better than that. If that were true, then Beyonder would have no access to Inhumans specials with only Crystal on the team, and Crystal could not be used in a Battlesite to fetch an Inhumans special. And again, Acrobatics no longer works for Dark Beast. But people have been studiously ignoring this later ruling, and "playing the game right", which has been fairly consistent in its application since the game started. So perhaps time to codify some of that play into a Metarule amendment.

My two metarule amendments to #98 essentially are:

a) The "use" condition essentially hacks in the Character name to the black text of a special, gaining the benefit or penalties

b) "May Play" inherent and "May Play and Place" special grant an additional virtual ownership

c) "May Play" inherent grants permanent virtual ownership for the entire game for a team or battlesite

From that point on, all specials on the field, battlesites, and Any Heroes work correctly. If Inspiration [or other specials] become broken [as Power Leech did], we issue a specific errata.

PtG