Follow ups to "May make additional attack"

[steve2275]

can combo into

[Jesse]

IMO you can. Both are considered offensive attacks, but I have been wrong before 

[Bios]

Jesse is right. Siberian Strength affects the opponent, so its an attack.

[Jesse]

Thanks Bios.

I just came back to *Edit because I was reading the rules (still trying to refresh comfortably) and it states: If a Secial card or Aspect affects your opponent's Characters or your opponent's team of Characters, even if it does no damage, it is considered an attack. 

[steve2275]

it won my battle for me
altho only 2 discards occured

i wonder about bw specials following the same path as oc's

[gameplan.exe]

it won my battle for me
altho only 2 discards occured

i wonder about bw specials following the same path as oc's

Yeah, it's the same. BW, EP, GL... these are all affecting the Opponent's cards, and are therefore attacks. I've used Huntress' DG -> GL -> EP. not a particularly strong string, but still a lot of fun 

[steve2275]

its a negate worthy card

what about the any characher aa to the -3 venture af special

[gameplan.exe]

its a negate worthy card

what about the any characher aa to the -3 venture af special

no. affecting the Venture total is not considered an attack, either + or -

[breadmaster]

i was told any attacks on your opponents total were in fact attacks

[Jack]

Meta #5 says if it effects the opponent, it's an attack.

So only AF cards that are -3 count, +3 don't. I guess that's one way where -3's are better.

EDIT:
Interesting thought, if you played the AB specials that require a target character ("opponent" before they changed the term), you shouldn't be able to play something that affects your actual Opponent.

[gameplan.exe]

Meta #5 says if it effects the opponent, it's an attack.

So only AF cards that are -3 count, +3 don't. I guess that's one way where -3's are better.

EDIT:
Interesting thought, if you played the AB specials that require a target character ("opponent" before they changed the term), you shouldn't be able to play something that affects your actual Opponent.

You are correct regarding the AB to Opponent-targeted attack being a no-no.

as for the other, I do not believe that affecting your opponent's venture total is not an attack against your opponent. It's not affecting the opponent, it's changing the point total. I do not agree that either AF is an attack.

[steve2275]

I forgot about this thread
can go into or

[BasiliskFang]

i think GG and LA are both valid follow ups.