Venture Total - Removing hits

[Nostalgic]

It should be noted, though, that in a typical contradictory ruling (OverPower was plagued with these) cards with a penalty to the player who used them still carried the penalty even if the card was removed (though a negate always removed the penalty as well.) An example is Human Torch's 11 energy attack, which states that Human Torch can't attack for the remainder of the battle. That penalty applies to the player using Torch even if the attack is defended, or taken then removed. Only a negate cancels out the penalty on that card.

Clear as mud?  

-BBH

With rulings like that the tournament scene must have been...interesting back in the day.    Thanks for the info.

[Nostalgic]

Also I have an unrelated question about what affects venture total.  Once an attack lands its value counts toward the current battle's venture total.  However, if it is removed later by a card like the morlock's special 'run from slaughter' which can remove a hit from the current battle, doesn't its value still count toward venture total.  I believe the card removing the hit would have say it affects venture total like Hawkeye's 'Field Dressing' special for the value of the special to not count anymore.  This also relates to a negate played to remove a special card that is in the character's 'hits from current battle.'  Would the negate also take away the numerical value of the special as it counts toward venture total or only the damage to the character the hit was on?

No, only cards that are in play when the round is over are counted. So whether or not the special says 'may affect venture' any card that is removed from the hits to current battle no longer counts to venture. There was some debate over HD specials (Mojo - caught on film) at tournaments I played in, regarding removal of those cards. The secondary effect states that if successful the opponent is -4 to venture, and even if removed the -4 venture should remain. Ultimately it was ruled (officially) that removing any card also cancels out the secondary effect.

While looking at Jack's site I the meta rule below.  I don't know the specific special it applies to, but it seems to refer to something similar to what I was getting at. 

(91) Specials which affect damage done to a Character do not affect Venture Total unless they specifically say so.

[Jack]

Say for Cyclops' EN special:

[Nostalgic]

Thanks for the example.  In looking over it again, I think the answer is in the fact that venture total is calculated when the battle is over and the hits as they stand at that point are what matter, not what was hit and then removed.   

[Jack]

I would argue against BigBadHarve with a new understanding of the removed hit rule in conjunction with the meta rule #91. Since removing the hit would be affecting damage, it does not necessarily change what the venture total is.

Within our circle of play, we've established venture (aside from inherents and other non-special cards) as the sum total of hits that landed. Negates remove all traces of the card, including damage and effects.

There are really only 7 cards that would be contradicting:

[BigBadHarve]

I would argue against BigBadHarve with a new understanding of the removed hit rule in conjunction with the meta rule #91. Since removing the hit would be affecting damage, it does not necessarily change what the venture total is.

Within our circle of play, we've established venture (aside from inherents and other non-special cards) as the sum total of hits that landed. Negates remove all traces of the card, including damage and effects.

That's a very interesting interpretation based on the existing meta-rules. It would certainly change the strategy behind those cards.

But you're right, if you adhere strictly to the printed rules outlined in the OP rulebook and the meta rules, any card removed from damage by one of those 7 seven examples (Don't forget Sentinel's Master Mold to that (And other equivalents), would NOT remove the venture gain, only the damage.

As far as I'm concerned (as well as almost any other OP player on this board, I'd warrant) only cards in play when venture is added qualify to the venture.


-BBH

[Jack]

Yes, I forgot about EE's and some others, I only did a quick search for 'Current Battle' and picked out those. I'd like to hear Onslaught's thoughts.

[Palatinus]

I think that because there are specials that affect hits from the current battle which do specifically say they affect venture, because the meta rule states that unless the card says it affects venture that it does not, and because, although venture is calculated at the end of battle, the wording is actually "To figure out your Venture Total, add the Values of all of the Hits from the Current Battle inflicted on any of your opponent's Characters."  This doesn't say hits from the current battle that are still in play.  Added to this, when a hero is KO'd, the hits from the current battle that were on that hero are still counted toward venture.  I think all of this makes a very strong case for removed cards still counting towards the venture.  I would tend to agree that negated cards have ceased to exist for any purpose and so should not count.

[BigBadHarve]

Actually, I can further strengthen the argument that it doesn't apply to these cards, and venture would be removed with the hit.

If you look at the meta-rules associated with each of these cards, you'll see that Meta-rule #91 is not attached to any of them, ergo it doesn't apply to them. The meta rules only apply to the cards with which they are associated.

-BBH

[Jack]

But there are many meta rules that are like that, for example, with GL cards (Lady Deathstrike)

that should be attached to meta #26

When a Special allows one to look through a specific set of cards, it is for not more than one minute.

but is not.

[BigBadHarve]

But there are many meta rules that are like that, for example, with GL cards (Lady Deathstrike) that should be attached to meta #26

When a Special allows one to look through a specific set of cards, it is for not more than one minute.

but is not.

You could argue it one of two ways - either it's an oversight in the meta-rules or an oversight in the printing on the card. I would argue that the makers intended that they affect venture, and simply forgot to add the text 'may affect venture' and as such would qualify as an erratum. And there's plenty of precedent for the card makers goofing on the text of a card and fixing it after the fact. Either way, the simplest and most direct way to play is to simply play so that any card removed doesn't count for venture. It's logical, and trust me, will cause a lot less argument. Also - do you really want to de-power a bunch of good cards to make them unappealing, given the state of many other cards? I think there's enough of that already.

There are also plenty of examples where the meta rules contradict the text on a card or other meta rules. This is primarily the reason I HATE the meta rules. They are redundant, confusing and contradictory. Not to mention overwrought.

Let's take one of my beefs with rules in the book -  the duration meta rule – (#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."

As a rule itself, it's good. I like it a lot, because if you play it straight up - then it actually strengthens some existing cards. But, like many rulings in Overpower, it seems to be arbitrary. It only applied to certain cards rather than being a blanket rule.

For example - Brood's Brood Spawn. "Play in front of Brood, Brood may not be attacked until that card is attacked."

A lot of people don't like these cards, but I think they're great. At least I did until some idiot told me that it only lasts a friggin' battle! But wait, there's a duration printed - it says 'until this card is attacked.' That implies that the card remains 'until this card is attacked,' it doesn't get much clearer. But no, I was told, it doesn't apply to that card. WTF?!? Same goes for Mole Man's Social Outcast which clearly states that all attacks must be made against him UNTIL HE IS KO'D or CANNOT BE ATTACKED.... but someone arbitrarily decided that it would only last the battle.

Another example is with Sabretooth's Blood Hunt - "Make one attack after opponent has conceded battle." It's an OPD! There's no duration printed, ergo, it should remain in play for the whole game - and thus giving Sabretooth a good OPD, as with Carnage and the Anyhero version - Urban Hunters. But again, in a moronic contradiction of that Meta rule, that answer is no.

You see what I'm getting at? Back in the tournament days, I would bet that if you argued that removed hits still count to venture, and even had a copy of the Meta rules on hand, it would still be ruled that the venture no longer applies once the hit is removed. Many people used these cards and removal as strategy.

Here's another good one for you - Meta rule #21 - "If a special calls for another card to be played with or after it, then the card must be playable by the character who contributes the card - even if the special indicates otherwise."  WTF!?!  So, if a special says character A may follow up with character B's special card, you still may not follow up with character B's card because of this meta rule. Unless character A could also normally play Character B's cards. That would mean Black Panther could only play his own cards with his African Monarch card, to add to venture, instead of ANY special as the text would indicate. Grunge wouldn't be able to follow up his Martial artist with a teammate's special because they aren't playable by him - despite the text. The meta rule overrides the text on the card.

That would be the literal interpretation of the rule. Obviously, that's absolutely retarded. Common sense must be applied here.

One could also argue that the rule makes Marauder's Malice an illegal card. You exchange the card for another card not playable by Marauders and play immediately. Well, taking this rule literally, that action itself is an illegal action. Obviously, this rule is not meant to be applied to such cards, which is why the meta rule # doesn't appear on the list of rules that apply to Malice. Again, common sense needs to be applied.

Part of the problem with OverPower is that it got overly complicated with the stupid meta rules and an unending host of errata. I found trying to teach new players excruciating because I had to stop and inform them of a thousand little inconsistencies.

To add to that complication by saying that removed cards still count to the venture is uneccesary and as you can see, it's both supported AND contradicted by the rules themselves creating conflict and argument.

I say, keep it simple - if a card is present when venture it totalled, it counts. If not, it doesn't. There's no argument, no debate, just simple numbers.

My two cents, plus interest.

-BBH

PS: If anyone is interested in my house rules, which basically chuck out the need for the meta rules for easier play, let me know, I'm happy to share.

[Palatinus]

In regards to what BigBadHarve is saying, I feel like you are making a different, completely valid point about this discussion.  On the one hand, there is the question of what best fits the rules as they are written, and on the other hand, there is the question of what makes the game easiest to play.  I don't necessarily agree that having to keep track of the venture total separately from the cards that are in play is very difficult, but I do agree that it is important to come to a conclusion that makes the game better.  For all we know, all the cards we are talking about not having the "affects venture total" on them would have been errated at some point to say that they do affect the venture total.  Also, clearly, the rules exist to make the game consistent and fair.  In that regard, so long as everyone can reasonably understand how something should be done and is aware of those rules upon deck construction, it should be fine.  I still think that the discussion about how the rules apply can be had as a separate conversation.  Part of that, though, is that I am heavy into rules theory about any system and therefore I enjoy these kinds of debates about rules, meta-rules, card texts, and such.  I think there are strong points on both sides of what the rules intend.

[bamf!]

If playing specials based solely on the text on the card, Dr. Doom's AH special (No Energy cards may be played against Doctor Doom for remainder of battle) would be used on an offensive turn. However, Vision's AH special (Avoid 1 attack with a Strength icon. No Strength Power cards may be played against Vision for remainder of battle), would be played defensively.

If we allow Dr. Doom's AH special to have a similar property as to Vision's AH special, we would open up a card to be more playable, this is good. This doesn't break the game, in fact it adds more to the game.

Using the same logic, if all current battle hit removing specials affect venture, then we would have a few more playable cards, which will increase the character pool, and ultimately more unique decks and strategies. Isn't this the overall goal of our small community?

Side note:
I believe the meta-rules (regarding specials) were created to assist judges with resolving disputes at tournaments. I never thought of them as an extension to the main-rules of the game. If every meta was applied universally across the specials, then there would be a lot of unplayable/contradicting specials, hence why they were grouped per code. They should be referenced when there is disagreement of how a certain special code should be played.


bamf!

[BigBadHarve]

Doom's AH special is playable defensively, even under official rules.

-BBH

[bamf!]

Official rules, do you mean the table of meta where it list out offense/defense? If so, I always thought that defense=yes for AH code was referring to Vision's version of the special. However, applying defense=yes to all AH specials does make more playable cards, which is fine with me. Learned something new.

Maybe it was a bad example choice, but I was trying to say how we shouldn't take the card text too literally, especially if doing so shrinks the overall usable card/hero pool.


With that out of the way, the new understanding of how AH specials works got me thinking about other specials that are flagged defense=yes, and I came up with this.

Let say I have a Morlock Tunnels battlesite, with one hero left and I drew both a Storm and Dark Beast activators. You attack my hero with a powercard, I exchange Dark Beast for his CD special (Only attacks made with Universe cards may be played against Beast for remainder of battle.) and play it to avoid the powercard. On your next turn, since you are restricted to universe cards, you launch a teamwork on my hero, and I exchange Storm for her AH special (No Universe cards may be played against Storm for remainder of battle), successfully avoiding the attack. Is this played correctly? and if so, has my hero shut out all attacks for the battle, unless negated?

bamf!