anti-concede cards and negates

[breadmaster]

i recently learned that when a card like spider-man's taunt (opponent may not concede), is played defensively, the conceding player gets a chance to negate the taunt (also defensively...which makes little sense to me...a defensive action by each player)

could a card like sabretooth's blood hunt (may make 1 attack after opponent concedes) also be negated double defensively?

[Bios]

i recently learned that when a card like spider-man's taunt (opponent may not concede), is played defensively, the conceding player gets a chance to negate the taunt (also defensively...which makes little sense to me...a defensive action by each player

Sorry, but it sounds like nonsense to me. Where that info came from?
I am too lazy to look at the specials guide at the moment, hope it wasn't from there.

[DiceK]

Meta #70: Specials which prevent an opponent from conceding are played defensively in response to the player conceding. After the Special has been played, it is that players turn (just as it is after any other defensive actions). In other words, the sequence of events is (1) Player X concedes, (2) Player Y plays a Special preventing him from conceding, (3) Player Y then takes their normal turn (4) play proceeds as normal, except that Player X cannot concede as long as the Special preventing it is in play.

BL is a defensive action, and should not be allowed to be negated in response to it being played.

[BigBadHarve]

BL is a defensive action, and should not be allowed to be negated in response to it being played.

Except that it's considered an attack as it affects the 'opponent', and the card doesn't say that it may not be defended, ergo negating it as a defense is valid.

-BBH

[DiceK]

Except that it's considered an attack as it affects the 'opponent', and the card doesn't say that it may not be defended, ergo negating it as a defense is valid.

-BBH

How is it considered an attack, if you're doing it as a defensive action (per meta rule #70) and it's on your opponent's turn?

[BigBadHarve]

Anything that creates an effect that 'crosses' the battleline to affect the opponent is considered an attack, even in those rare cases where the attack can be played as a response to the opponent's action.

Usually cards that affect the 'opponent' cannot be played defensively... so here we have an exception to that rule that also creates the exception in the negate.

-BBH

[DiceK]

So, with that sort of logic, you can negate cards like CD (Beast - Acrobatics) when it is played defensively?

Step 1:  Player 1 Attacks w/ a level 2 Power Card.

Step 2:  Player 2 Plays Acrobatics (Only attacks made with Universe cards may be played against Beast...) This affects Player 1's ability to use attacks against Beast that are not Universe cards.  Similar to BL where the opponent now cannot concede.  It's preventing them from doing something they would normally be allowed to do.

Step 3:  Player 1 says, nah, I'll negate Acrobatics because it's affecting me.  (In response to the Acrobatics)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm open to being wrong about this, but I see this being such a slippery slope that you will have people saying they can defensively negate anything.

The only reason I argue this is because it specifically states in Meta Rule # 70 that when you play a card such as BL, it is played as a defensive action. 

The unbeatable decks back in the day were great for the simple reason that you couldn't negate defensive cards until it was your turn.

Now, I think after Taunt is played defensively, and the battle continues, that it can be negated on the conceding player's next offensive turn.

[BigBadHarve]

So, with that sort of logic, you can negate cards like CD (Beast - Acrobatics) when it is played defensively?

Step 1:  Player 1 Attacks w/ a level 2 Power Card.

Step 2:  Player 2 Plays Acrobatics (Only attacks made with Universe cards may be played against Beast...) This affects Player 1's ability to use attacks against Beast that are not Universe cards.  Similar to BL where the opponent now cannot concede.  It's preventing them from doing something they would normally be allowed to do.

Step 3:  Player 1 says, nah, I'll negate Acrobatics because it's affecting me.  (In response to the Acrobatics)

The logic is sound, but the key here is the interpretation of the card and what is considered an 'attack.'

In this case, Acrobatics is not an attack. It doesn't affect the 'opponent' directly. It affects the character it's played on, and while that indirectly affects the opponent, it's not a direct attack on the opponent's ability to play. So you could not negate Acrobatics when it's played defensively.

Taunt's effect targets the opponent, affecting his ability to concede, thus making it an attack even though it is played in response to an action. The effect actively crosses that battle line to the opponent's side. That is why it can be negated when it's played.

By this logic, though, it's fair to argue that some other cards that are played in response to conceding - (IE: Forge: The Maker (Play when opponent concedes, Forge may discard any # of cards to the top of the Draw Pile)) - could not be negated. In this case, the effect only affects the player who uses the card. Nothing happens to the opponent, ergo he could not negate that special because it's in response to the concede, and does NOT cross the line to affect him.

-BBH

[Bios]

Anything that creates an effect that 'crosses' the battleline to affect the opponent is considered an attack, even in those rare cases where the attack can be played as a response to the opponent's action.

Usually cards that affect the 'opponent' cannot be played defensively... so here we have an exception to that rule that also creates the exception in the negate.

-BBH

It makes sense now.

[BlueFire]

I have to agree with Dice K. on this one.

BL specials such as Spider-Man's Taunt and Typhoid Marry's Bloody Marry are basically a negate for the action of conceding.

EI specials such as Onslaught's Dark Thoughts all have added to them "opponent may defend". 

Both BL and EI specials were printed in many different sets.  This wording is consistent through all sets.  Clearly the addition of the wording on the EI specials was necessary because it allowed a change in the natural flow of the game.  This option was not given for responding to BL specials.

I can see BBH's logic as it is slightly different than a negate because it stays in play and can be negated on the conceding players next turn. 

That is not enough for me to allow a player to make a 2nd action on his turn.

Also, meta rule #70 is quite clear on the order of things.

[BigBadHarve]

I have to agree with Dice K. on this one.

BL specials such as Spider-Man's Taunt and Typhoid Marry's Bloody Marry are basically a negate for the action of conceding.

EI specials such as Onslaught's Dark Thoughts all have added to them "opponent may defend". 

Both BL and EI specials were printed in many different sets.  This wording is consistent through all sets.  Clearly the addition of the wording on the EI specials was necessary because it allowed a change in the natural flow of the game.  This option was not given for responding to BL specials.

I can see BBH's logic as it is slightly different than a negate because it stays in play and can be negated on the conceding players next turn. 

That is not enough for me to allow a player to make a 2nd action on his turn.

Also, meta rule #70 is quite clear on the order of things.

What? Overpower with inconsistent rules? No... I don't believe it!! 

I'm simply repeating what was officially ruled, and how it was explained to me. Officially, you can negate Taunt as it's played. Whether that makes sense or not is up for debate. For the record, any rule that makes cards (especially for Spidey!) better, I'm all for.

In terms of Breadman's original question, yes a negate would definitely be possible (even if things like Taunt were ruled undefendable) because the card specifically states opponent may defend.

-BBH

[DiceK]

I'm simply repeating what was officially ruled

BBH, when was this ruled, and by who? 

Please don't take my defense of my position on this topic personally.  The discussion is secondary to my main objective, which is simply to know how this card would be played if I showed up to the California tournament coming up.   Which to my understanding is "Official" rules.  I understand every group has their own flavor for certain things.  I have often (OK, not often, but I have...) thought about using that card, and am simply making sure the right ruling is being used. 

It has been many, many years since I have played the game on any sort of regular basis.  I did play during the heyday of Overpower in the South Central PA area, and I cannot recall a time when someone tried to concede, then play an additional card after the concession, unless they were specifically allowed by some other special, IE Wolverine's Rage.

[BlueFire]

I'm curious who made that ruling as well.  I can't think of a situation where meta rule #70 would be needed if that ruling is correct.

[Jack]

This is why I have the wiki created and populated:

After an opponent declares that he or she is conceding, playing this card prevents the concession from taking place. It is then the opponent's turn again and the opponent must continue to attack, if he or she can, following the normal rules for attacking, or may pass. This card cannot be played in response to an opponent conceding before the battle begins since cards cannot be played outside the battle phase.

I'm too tired to figure it out.

[DiceK]

After an opponent declares that he or she is conceding, playing this card prevents the concession from taking place. It is then the opponent's turn again and the opponent must continue to attack, if he or she can, following the normal rules for attacking, or may pass. This card cannot be played in response to an opponent conceding before the battle begins since cards cannot be played outside the battle phase.

Jack, the entry for BL on the wiki would appear to be wrong.  Under the description, it mentions that this card is played when an opponent tries to concede, and it is then the opponent's turn again (2 turns in a row).  It shouldn't be the opponent's turn, it should be the turn of the person that just played BL. 

I'm also confused on how this card can be played offensively.  It's clearly a defensive special.  It is listed on the wiki as both.

Meta Rule #70 (Which is referenced on the page) contradicts what is described at the top of the page.