Fun question for debate

[Hot Rod]

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.

Even though you continue to use ad hominem as a crutch from which to defend your baseless argument, I forgive you.

For me it has always been about the game.  For you it seems to have turned personal.

[TheBradness]

What credentials exist for this "Norm Barth" person of whom you speak?  He sounds like a card from the Star Wars CCG.

And just to REALLY stir crap up, BBH isn't exactly using ad hominem incorrectly, as he is citing your perceived inability to comprehend, which would be credible to the argument, as it pertains to interpreting the rule.  This is actually an example of a decent use of ad hominem.  Whether or not he's right about your schooling... well, that's a different topic. 

That being said..

[Pass the Gestalt]

Hi All,

I read through this thread, and I find that BBH asked for lively discussion on the matter, which Hot Rod engaged in. I think its got a little personal, when we should be talking about resolving inconsistencies in the game.

Norman B. was on rules support for a long time with Marvel, so frankly his ruling is terrible, because if enforced, it would break a number of things in the game that I have already mentioned. Again, since most of us ignore this ruling, there is clearly precedence that the NB ruling may have no relevance.

Here's my take on Lethal Tester. Since the card explicitly uses the term "use", we have to dig around in the game system for how the term "use" works within the game system. Meta rule 98 gives us some guidance, since it talks about how Any Heroes and Battlesite specials works i.e. the character gains the benefit of the black text, but does -not- gain ownership. Ergo, if you play Lethal Tester on Finite Power, Post is playing the special, but garners no benefit or penalty from the card. However, since "use" does not give Post ownership, ownership remains with Spawn and his team, and the Opponent remains Post's team. However, if you Lethal Tester the X-Man 11 across the table, then Post gains the benefit/penalty and it is Post's team that can no longer attack.

If Lethal Tester simply said "attack own front line character with target special", then the benefit/penalty would remain with X-Man, and it would X-Man's team that could no longer attack. I go by what precedents and metarules show me in the game, I don't attribute wishful thinking to how I think Lethal Tester should work.

So yes, it has gotten a little personal when lively discussion was asked for, and that is what we've got. We clearly have some issues in the game, since we have a number of cards that use the term "use", it needs to be codified, and work consistently for all cards that use that use that term. We can't pick and choose. They all work the same.

The "May Play" inherent and "May Play and Place" special -must- have more importance that the term "use", since by precedent we allow Beyonder to use specials with teammates with inherents, and activators with inherents to fetch non-Character specials from Battlesites. So clearly these terms bring in the concept of virtual ownership of these specials. All that flies in the face of Norman's ruling. If we tried to enforce this over the table at any tournament, the players will politely laugh in your face, and continue playing. So my recommendation was to simply amend Meta rule 98 to be better in differentiating between "use" and "play", and clarifying ownership. All of that would make the game better, less complicated, and consistent. Hot Rod is simply being passionate about the game, and wanting to improve it, which I agree with.

The reality is Marvel left us a great game, but with a mass of metarules, rules, and rulings that have inconsistencies, and a number of holes. It might be incumbent on us to review that structure and perhaps put more things into new metarules i.e. how Beyonder works etc. Do we say what was left to us is an inviolate "Sacred Cow", or are we unafraid to fix what is broken through the Rules Committee?

PtG

PtG

[Hot Rod]

What credentials exist for this "Norm Barth" person of whom you speak?  He sounds like a card from the Star Wars CCG.

And just to REALLY stir crap up, BBH isn't exactly using ad hominem incorrectly, as he is citing your perceived inability to comprehend, which would be credible to the argument, as it pertains to interpreting the rule.  This is actually an example of a decent use of ad hominem.  Whether or not he's right about your schooling... well, that's a different topic. 

That being said..

Your desire to be cheeky is noted, and I did indeed get a laugh out of your post.  Mission accomplished.   

There really is no incorrect use of ad hominem as long as the intent is to detract from the original subject.  I won't expand on this further because I feel it would not only undermine the subject, but also rob people of their own opinion.  It's not a matter of popularity, it's a matter of principal.

I stand by the fact I was the first one on the scene with the intent to preserve the card in it's original form.  I was also the first to have a grasp of how the card functions.  If anyone questions my reading comprehension, I stand by the fact that the people wanting to change the card, never grasped how it's played in the first place.

[drdeath25]

Im not getting into this. But i think BBH is wrong.

[Pass the Gestalt]

To be fair to BBH, it ain't a question of anyone being wrong here. Marvel left us with a mess in some aspects. We have a bunch of cards that use the terminology "use", so we have make sure those cards all have the same effect, and get played the same way. We can disagree on some of the points, but I believe BBH, Hot Rod and the rest of us have improving the game at heart. So we will get there.

PtG

[TheBradness]

The biggest issue here is consistency.  Whatever we decide the rule is, it has to apply across the board.  Even if it's not the way that I may interpret it, if that's the consensus, then so be it.

[Hot Rod]

The biggest issue here is consistency.  Whatever we decide the rule is, it has to apply across the board.  Even if it's not the way that I may interpret it, if that's the consensus, then so be it.

You just now figured this out after 3 days and 4+ pages of debate?

[Pass the Gestalt]

Awww, c'mon be nice. First of all, he's probably an American, so he needs at least four pages to digest. <g>

Okay, okay just kidding. Just putting some gasoline on the fire for the annual team USA vs. team Canada
match in Buffalo. Always fun, and entre amis as they say. Hope everyone can make it.

No matter how violent the discussion gets, we are all friends here and will remain so. We have nothing but the best intent for this great game.

PtG

[TheBradness]

The biggest issue here is consistency.  Whatever we decide the rule is, it has to apply across the board.  Even if it's not the way that I may interpret it, if that's the consensus, then so be it.

You just now figured this out after 3 days and 4+ pages of debate?

Just reiterating the point, homeboy.  No need to get pricky.

[Hot Rod]

The biggest issue here is consistency.  Whatever we decide the rule is, it has to apply across the board.  Even if it's not the way that I may interpret it, if that's the consensus, then so be it.

You just now figured this out after 3 days and 4+ pages of debate?

Just reiterating the point, homeboy.  No need to get pricky.

I shall leave you with this quote.

Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something.
-Plato


Cherish it.

[TheBradness]

Whatever, bro.  If that's what you need to do to feel accomplished, then there ya go.

"Arguing on the internet is like racing at the Special Olympics.  Even if you win, you're still retarded"
- Abraham Lincoln

True story.