Palatinus' OverPower Forum

Hypothetical Scenario:

I use Post's Lethal Tester on my opponent, and attack myself with my opponent's placed 'Finite Power.'

For the remainder of the battle, when I play an attack from the character I just hit with Finite Power, which of the players must discard?

And.... DISCUSS!

I think it would be post's teammate who pays 2 cards to attack.   I can Imagine BBH stays awake at night wondering how to ruin "those Lazy Spawn decks"... ;D   it WOULD be devastating if Spawn had to discard  :o

Quote from: AO user on April 16, 2014, 01:30:26 PM
I think it would be post's teammate who pays 2 cards to attack.   I can Imagine BBH stays awake at night wondering how to ruin "those Lazy Spawn decks"... ;D   it WOULD be devastating if Spawn had to discard  :o

Ah ha! But there's the rub! Since Post played the special, and the special affects the 'opponent' would not that player have to discard?

After all, if Post lethal tested a special with a negative effect, like  X-Man's ultimate potential, it would be Post and his team that would be unable to attack for the remainder of the battle, not the opponent. This was decided in a previous discussion.

Since you can't have it both ways - who does the effect of Finite Power penalize?

Aaaaaahhhh!  So many layers to this game!  And YOU always run deep, BBH.  Lets hear from some others on this...

I say that both players discard :D

is the ultimate potential ruling official?  it does say 'x-man's team', so if both players have x-man...maybe?

the spawn card:

Play on Target Character as an attack. For remainder of battle, Target Character may not attack unless Opponent also discards 2 cards per attack. Cards may be Placed or in Hand. (ZY)

even if you did play that the other player discards, the word 'unless' suggests to me it would be their choice. 

Ultimate potential has effect on team that launched it.  Finite power has effect on player that it lands on.

Quote from: AO user on April 17, 2014, 07:42:24 AM
Ultimate potential has effect on team that launched it.  Finite power has effect on player that it lands on.

So you are double penalizing the Lethal Tester.

I think it should be kept simple - if I launch your Ultimate Potential - your team should take the penalty as it is your card. If I launch your finite power on to myself, I should still take the penalty.

But someone pointed out that when Post plays the lethal tester, the card played essentially becomes Posts card, with all effects working as if Post played it (with the exception of the venture from damage taken). So if I play your placed Power Leech, you must discard, not me. If I play your placed Ultimate potential, I am the one blocked from attacking.

So, I think the bottom line is this - does Lethal Tester make the card played belong to Post, or does he simply activate it as if the opponent played it (which I think is the more efficient play)

does it say that anywhere?

the rule for activators is to switch the name, but it doesn't necessarily transfer to this situation.  didn't we discuss this before with beta ray bill and gift from the gods?

Quote from: breadmaster on April 17, 2014, 02:49:48 PM
does it say that anywhere?

the rule for activators is to switch the name, but it doesn't necessarily transfer to this situation.  didn't we discuss this before with beta ray bill and gift from the gods?

I can't find any official confirmation. I'm going based on a conversation that was had about it previously, as to what the ruling might be.

I recall the decision being that since Post played the special, and effects or what-have-you would be based from the perspective that Post played the card.

This has been waaaay over blown.

Finite power is obviously a Python Hold with the stipulation that if 2 cards are discarded, the target character may conduct an attack.

Simply change the "Opponent" to a second "Target Character."

Thus: Target Character may not attack unless Target Character also discards 2 cards per attack. Cards may be Placed or in Hand.

It looks to me to just be another "target" versus "opponent" debacle that we've all seen a million times by now.



As a side curiosity, is this discard mechanic interpreted the same as the HY code in the tournament guide?

Quote from: Hot Rod on April 17, 2014, 11:34:51 PM
This has been waaaay over blown.

Finite power is obviously a Python Hold with the stipulation that if 2 cards are discarded, the target character may conduct an attack.

Simply change the "Opponent" to a second "Target Character."

Thus: Target Character may not attack unless Target Character also discards 2 cards per attack. Cards may be Placed or in Hand.

It looks to me to just be another "target" versus "opponent" debacle that we've all seen a million times by now.

As a side curiosity, is this discard mechanic interpreted the same as the HY code in the tournament guide?

This is not overblown - I think the wording in this case must be very specific.

The target character vs. target 'opponent' was cleared up as only cards from the first set said target opponent.

However, in the case of something like Lethal Tester, the distinction of who suffers the effects is extremely important. Finite Power clearly states that target character may not attack unless OPPONENT also discards.

But let's go back to another effect. Say, Marauders Harpoon - If I lethal test Harpoon on myself, does the opponent have to discard all specials in hand, or do I?

By playing lethal tester, am I forcing my opponent to make the attack, or am I making the attack.

The card says 'POST may attack any front line teammate with opponent's placed card.' In saying Post is attacking, that implies that since I'm playing the card, we must treat is as though I played the special myself. So, I lethal test Leech, and my opponent discards. I lethal test Ultimate Potential, and I may not attack for the remainder of the battle. If I lethal test Finite Power, I can force a discard by attacking with the locked character.

Conversely, if I am forcing my opponent to play the card, then we must treat it from that perspective. So if I lethal test Ultimate potential, then my opponent may not attack for remainder of battle.

So bottom line - which way is it?

Quote from: BigBadHarve on April 18, 2014, 02:11:54 AM
This is not overblown - I think the wording in this case must be very specific.

The target character vs. target 'opponent' was cleared up as only cards from the first set said target opponent.

However, in the case of something like Lethal Tester, the distinction of who suffers the effects is extremely important. Finite Power clearly states that target character may not attack unless OPPONENT also discards.

But let's go back to another effect. Say, Marauders Harpoon - If I lethal test Harpoon on myself, does the opponent have to discard all specials in hand, or do I?

By playing lethal tester, am I forcing my opponent to make the attack, or am I making the attack.

The card says 'POST may attack any front line teammate with opponent's placed card.' In saying Post is attacking, that implies that since I'm playing the card, we must treat is as though I played the special myself. So, I lethal test Leech, and my opponent discards. I lethal test Ultimate Potential, and I may not attack for the remainder of the battle. If I lethal test Finite Power, I can force a discard by attacking with the locked character.

Conversely, if I am forcing my opponent to play the card, then we must treat it from that perspective. So if I lethal test Ultimate potential, then my opponent may not attack for remainder of battle.

So bottom line - which way is it?

It does indeed become a Post special card.  Which is why I changed the text on Finite Power to make it more clear.

Again: Target Character may not attack unless Target Character also discards 2 cards per attack. Cards may be Placed or in Hand.

If you attack a character with Finite Power who discards?  The defending character.

If you attack a character with Power Leech who discards?  The defending character and or the defending characters team.

If you attack a character with Ultimate Potential whose team cannot attack?  The attacking characters team.

Simple.

Quote from: Hot Rod on April 18, 2014, 12:48:29 PM

It does indeed become a Post special card.  Which is why I changed the text on Finite Power to make it more clear.

Again: Target Character may not attack unless Target Character also discards 2 cards per attack. Cards may be Placed or in Hand.

If you attack a character with Finite Power who discards?  The defending character.

If you attack a character with Power Leech who discards?  The defending character and or the defending characters team.

If you attack a character with Ultimate Potential whose team cannot attack?  The attacking characters team.

Simple.

Ummmm.. what? Not simple - You've just made it inconsistent and complicated.

You can't change the text on Finite Power, as there is no official errata. It must be played as written. It's not the target who discards, it's the opponent. If I'm locked with Finite power under normal circumstances, I can pitch another character's placed cards to attack with the locked character.

And finite power does NOT lock defense, just attacks. So you can attack a character locked with finite power, but he can defend without penalty. This is normal.

The question that needs to be answered, and no one yet has - is when Lethal Tester has been a factor in a played card, who/what team is considered to have played the card. The bonuses and penalties must be kept consistent.

If you're telling me that I am penalized for Lethal Testing Ultimate Potential, then fine. The reverse must therefore be true if I lethal test cards the affect the opponent. In that case If I am the one lethal testing Leech, then my opponent must discard.

Likewise if I lethal test finite power, ergo my opponent must discard if I attack from that character.

But if you're saying that a special activated by Lethal Tester is NOT being played from Post, then normal attacking rules apply, and I am simply activating my opponent's card as though they played it, then I can lethal test Ultimate potential and lock down my opponent's team, not my own.

But either way, the rules must remain consistent. So I ask again - which is it?

Quote from: BigBadHarve on April 18, 2014, 01:18:30 PM

Quote from: Hot Rod on April 18, 2014, 12:48:29 PM

It does indeed become a Post special card.  Which is why I changed the text on Finite Power to make it more clear.

Again: Target Character may not attack unless Target Character also discards 2 cards per attack. Cards may be Placed or in Hand.

If you attack a character with Finite Power who discards?  The defending character.

If you attack a character with Power Leech who discards?  The defending character and or the defending characters team.

If you attack a character with Ultimate Potential whose team cannot attack?  The attacking characters team.

Simple.

Ummmm.. what? Not simple - You've just made it inconsistent and complicated.

You can't change the text on Finite Power, as there is no official errata. It must be played as written. It's not the target who discards, it's the opponent. If I'm locked with Finite power under normal circumstances, I can pitch another character's placed cards to attack with the locked character.

And finite power does NOT lock defense, just attacks. So you can attack a character locked with finite power, but he can defend without penalty. This is normal.

The question that needs to be answered, and no one yet has - is when Lethal Tester has been a factor in a played card, who/what team is considered to have played the card. The bonuses and penalties must be kept consistent.

If you're telling me that I am penalized for Lethal Testing Ultimate Potential, then fine. The reverse must therefore be true if I lethal test cards the affect the opponent. In that case If I am the one lethal testing Leech, then my opponent must discard.

Likewise if I lethal test finite power, ergo my opponent must discard if I attack from that character.

But if you're saying that a special activated by Lethal Tester is NOT being played from Post, then normal attacking rules apply, and I am simply activating my opponent's card as though they played it, then I can lethal test Ultimate potential and lock down my opponent's team, not my own.

But either way, the rules must remain consistent. So I ask again - which is it?

Going by the exact text on Finite Power; it's obvious that that my second explanation applies.

If you're unable to find this simple I suggest getting some rest.  You've clearly been awake too long and you're starting to imagine things.

I'm of the opinion that, "By playing lethal tester, am I forcing my opponent to make the attack".

Therefore, if you lethal test Ultimate Potential, Post can essentially rob his opponent from perhaps killing one of his teammates, and instead attack someone that has a placed avoid 1 attack.  The effect (X-Man's Team May not attack frb) would still fall upon the actual X-Man's team and not Post's team.

I do not believe that by lethal testing Ultimate Potential that the card essentially becomes a Post Level 11 + Team may not attack. 

I mean, if you were to Lethal Test Wolverine's special Stand Off, does that then mean that because Post played Standoff, only Post and one of his teammates may attack, be attacked, or defend this battle, and neither person may concede?  I would love it that only Post and one of his teammates may do anything and I can just wipeout Post's opponent's team w/o them having a say in it at all. 

Quote from: DiceK on April 18, 2014, 02:12:07 PM
I'm of the opinion that, "By playing lethal tester, am I forcing my opponent to make the attack".

Therefore, if you lethal test Ultimate Potential, Post can essentially rob his opponent from perhaps killing one of his teammates, and instead attack someone that has a placed avoid 1 attack.  The effect (X-Man's Team May not attack frb) would still fall upon the actual X-Man's team and not Post's team.

I do not believe that by lethal testing Ultimate Potential that the card essentially becomes a Post Level 11 + Team may not attack. 

I mean, if you were to Lethal Test Wolverine's special Stand Off, does that then mean that because Post played Standoff, only Post and one of his teammates may attack, be attacked, or defend this battle, and neither person may concede?  I would love it that only Post and one of his teammates may do anything and I can just wipeout Post's opponent's team w/o them having a say in it at all.

I agree totally.

There was another thread, where it was discussed and decided that you had to treat it as though Post played the special. I'm looking for it to link. I can't recall why it was decided, but that seemed to be the consensus. But that creates the scenario I outlined - with finite power et al.


UPDATE:

I found the thread where this came up, at least, one of them:

http://www.beenhereandthere.com/SMF/specific-cards/post's-gh-(lethal-tester)/

put me in the 'play card secondary (or primary) conditions as if opponent made the attack' column

though I DO like the idea of playing it the other way.  nothing wrong with fresh interpretations on old cards!

Quote from: DiceK on April 18, 2014, 02:12:07 PM
I'm of the opinion that, "By playing lethal tester, am I forcing my opponent to make the attack".

Therefore, if you lethal test Ultimate Potential, Post can essentially rob his opponent from perhaps killing one of his teammates, and instead attack someone that has a placed avoid 1 attack.  The effect (X-Man's Team May not attack frb) would still fall upon the actual X-Man's team and not Post's team.

I do not believe that by lethal testing Ultimate Potential that the card essentially becomes a Post Level 11 + Team may not attack. 

I mean, if you were to Lethal Test Wolverine's special Stand Off, does that then mean that because Post played Standoff, only Post and one of his teammates may attack, be attacked, or defend this battle, and neither person may concede?  I would love it that only Post and one of his teammates may do anything and I can just wipeout Post's opponent's team w/o them having a say in it at all.

This is honestly how I've always seen it as well.

The problem is; if we can say that Alpha Flight playing Snowbird would incur the secondary effects of a special upon Alpha Flight, then would not Post playing Lethal Tester do the same?

Essentially, if you play Snowbird, and the character that owns the special is dead, does that mean any potential negative effects of the special would then be completely ignored?

Quote from: Hot Rod on April 18, 2014, 03:23:44 PM
This is honestly how I've always seen it as well.

The problem is; if we can say that Alpha Flight playing Snowbird would incur the secondary effects of a special upon Alpha Flight, then would not Post playing Lethal Tester do the same?

Essentially, if you play Snowbird, and the character that owns the special is dead, does that mean any potential negative effects of the special would then be completely ignored?

Yup. Therein lies the inconsistency.

But within the ruling, the results must remain constant.

If we say the Lethal Tester makes said special a 'Post' special then the effects, wherever they fall, must also remain constant. If Post plays the special, then anything that affects the opponent would affect Posts opponent. (POwer Leech, Finite Power). Anything that affects the user's team (Ultimate potential) would now affect Posts team, not the original character.

Or, truly keep it simple and say that Post is simply activating the opponent's placed card, not actually playing it himself. (My vote, for the record, is this interpretation)

Quote from: BigBadHarve on April 18, 2014, 03:32:06 PM

Quote from: Hot Rod on April 18, 2014, 03:23:44 PM
This is honestly how I've always seen it as well.

The problem is; if we can say that Alpha Flight playing Snowbird would incur the secondary effects of a special upon Alpha Flight, then would not Post playing Lethal Tester do the same?

Essentially, if you play Snowbird, and the character that owns the special is dead, does that mean any potential negative effects of the special would then be completely ignored?

Yup. Therein lies the inconsistency.

But within the ruling, the results must remain constant.

If we say the Lethal Tester makes said special a 'Post' special then the effects, wherever they fall, must also remain constant. If Post plays the special, then anything that affects the opponent would affect Posts opponent. (POwer Leech, Finite Power). Anything that affects the user's team (Ultimate potential) would now affect Posts team, not the original character.

Or, truly keep it simple and say that Post is simply activating the opponent's placed card, not actually playing it himself. (My vote, for the record, is this interpretation)

Agreed, it's an inconsistency.

I'm of the belief that "Opponent" in this case is simply poor, if not obsolete wording.  It should be "Target Player," to coincide with "Target Character."

As to whether or not the special becomes a Post special, I think it has too.  Having 2 specials with the exact same print incurring completely opposite effects is ridiculous.

Of course if we use the "assumed" interpretation of the played special not effecting Post in the case of a primary/secondary effect, that would mean Beyonder is not effected by specials he plays, as they do not have his name on them.

Quote from: Hot Rod on April 18, 2014, 04:06:14 PM

Agreed, it's an inconsistency.

I'm of the belief that "Opponent" in this case is simply poor, if not obsolete wording.  It should be "Target Player," to coincide with "Target Character."

As to whether or not the special becomes a Post special, I think it has too.  Having 2 specials with the exact same print incurring completely opposite effects is ridiculous.

Of course if we use the "assumed" interpretation of the played special not effecting Post in the case of a primary/secondary effect, that would mean Beyonder is not effected by specials he plays, as they do not have his name on them.

In this case, I don't believe the use of the word 'opponent' is obsolete - it's specific.

The Beyonder example doesn't apply, because the Beyonder is playing the specials in order to attack the opponent. The same is true of Alpha Flight's Snowbird. The wording changes, but you're still following the standard model of attacking your opponent with your own cards.

The wrinkle with Lethal Tester is that you're attacking your own people with the opponent's cards. In doing so, if you apply the 'special becomes the character's special' rule, then you create this situation of 'Who is affected by secondary effects?'

And IF Lethal Tester makes the special in question a 'Post' Special, then you have to reverse the polarity (so to speak) on where the effects land (in some cases). If the effect is on the 'Opponent' then that means Post's opponent. Not the opponent of who the card original belonged to.

Effects that target wouldn't change, because that's specific. Target character may not attack. Target character must discard... who plays the special is irrelevant, the target suffers the effect.

Finite Power is interesting, because it states both. Play on Target as an attack, Target may not attack unless 'opponent' discards. That's not obsolete wording, I think it was chosen deliberately so that the victim of Finite Power could pitch any card they want to enable the attack. If it said 'unless Target also discards' then that would limit what you could drop in order to enable the attack.

And there are other cards that affect the opponent to fuel this question, even if Finite power was, in fact, just a case of obsolete wording.

Quote from: BigBadHarve on April 18, 2014, 04:23:51 PM

Quote from: Hot Rod on April 18, 2014, 04:06:14 PM

Agreed, it's an inconsistency.

I'm of the belief that "Opponent" in this case is simply poor, if not obsolete wording.  It should be "Target Player," to coincide with "Target Character."

As to whether or not the special becomes a Post special, I think it has too.  Having 2 specials with the exact same print incurring completely opposite effects is ridiculous.

Of course if we use the "assumed" interpretation of the played special not effecting Post in the case of a primary/secondary effect, that would mean Beyonder is not effected by specials he plays, as they do not have his name on them.

In this case, I don't believe the use of the word 'opponent' is obsolete - it's specific.

The Beyonder example doesn't apply, because the Beyonder is playing the specials in order to attack the opponent. The same is true of Alpha Flight's Snowbird. The wording changes, but you're still following the standard model of attacking your opponent with your own cards.

The wrinkle with Lethal Tester is that you're attacking your own people with the opponent's cards. In doing so, if you apply the 'special becomes the character's special' rule, then you create this situation of 'Who is affected by secondary effects?'

And IF Lethal Tester makes the special in question a 'Post' Special, then you have to reverse the polarity (so to speak) on where the effects land (in some cases). If the effect is on the 'Opponent' then that means Post's opponent. Not the opponent of who the card original belonged to.

Effects that target wouldn't change, because that's specific. Target character may not attack. Target character must discard... who plays the special is irrelevant, the target suffers the effect.

Finite Power is interesting, because it states both. Play on Target as an attack, Target may not attack unless 'opponent' discards. That's not obsolete wording, I think it was chosen deliberately so that the victim of Finite Power could pitch any card they want to enable the attack. If it said 'unless Target also discards' then that would limit what you could drop in order to enable the attack.

And there are other cards that affect the opponent to fuel this question, even if Finite power was, in fact, just a case of obsolete wording.

"Opponent" is obsolete wording.  If it was "Target Player," there wouldn't be any confusion. 

The Beyonder issue absolutely applies to this scenario.  If I'm a judge, and I walk over to a table with someone complaining about Beyonder playing Focued Fire in a previous round, but in a later round not incurring the effect, how would I ever know who the special originally came from?

It's painfully obvious that the effect in the case of Finite Power applies to the "Target Character," and of course if we had "Target Player" instead of "Opponent," it would be even more obvious.

I can see an argument with Ultimate Potential not effecting Post's team if he plays it due to the fact it's difficult for a judge to determine who played it.  At least in this case we have Lethal Tester as evidence of who played what.

I think this can be summed up as: when the specials are first played, the effect takes place on the character/player playing the special, after that, they revert to whomever owns the special.

I can't see this working any other way, because we still have the issue of Beyonder playing Inspiration.  If you can't track the specials, then they must revert.

So then we come back to: whomever plays a special, incurs the possible negative effects of that special.  The target of the special is irrelevant.  Names on special cards only imply ownership, not who can actually play the special.

Quote from: Hot Rod on April 18, 2014, 05:30:55 PM
"Opponent" is obsolete wording.  If it was "Target Player," there wouldn't be any confusion. 

The Beyonder issue absolutely applies to this scenario.  If I'm a judge, and I walk over to a table with someone complaining about Beyonder playing Focued Fire in a previous round, but in a later round not incurring the effect, how would I ever know who the special originally came from?

It's painfully obvious that the effect in the case of Finite Power applies to the "Target Character," and of course if we had "Target Player" instead of "Opponent," it would be even more obvious.

I can see an argument with Ultimate Potential not effecting Post's team if he plays it due to the fact it's difficult for a judge to determine who played it.  At least in this case we have Lethal Tester as evidence of who played what.

I think this can be summed up as: when the specials are first played, the effect takes place on the character/player playing the special, after that, they revert to whomever owns the special.

I can't see this working any other way, because we still have the issue of Beyonder playing Inspiration.  If you can't track the specials, then they must revert.

So then we come back to: whomever plays a special, incurs the possible negative effects of that special.  The target of the special is irrelevant.  Names on special cards only imply ownership, not who can actually play the special.

'Opponent' is certainly NOT obsolete wording. There are even rules specifically differentiating them. That's why you can target a battlesite with 'opponent' affecting cards, as opposed to 'targeting' cards.

If you use White Tiger on my site, I don't have to pitch two cards if it hits. If you target my site with Harpoon, I must still discard all specials. Both differentiate target vs. opponent.

The only obsolete terminology is from Original - where cards say 'Target Opponent' which has been officially address to read 'target character' The 'target' take priority.

BUT, this doesn't apply to Finite power, because it's different wording. It says Target character on the initial attack, then 'Opponent' is defined when factoring the effect. 

Do you follow?

If we play the way you propose, it creates confusion because there's no consistency. The ruling is all over the map. One special affects as though POst played the card, others do not. It makes no sense.

Quote from: BigBadHarve on April 18, 2014, 06:20:26 PM

Quote from: Hot Rod on April 18, 2014, 05:30:55 PM
"Opponent" is obsolete wording.  If it was "Target Player," there wouldn't be any confusion. 

The Beyonder issue absolutely applies to this scenario.  If I'm a judge, and I walk over to a table with someone complaining about Beyonder playing Focued Fire in a previous round, but in a later round not incurring the effect, how would I ever know who the special originally came from?

It's painfully obvious that the effect in the case of Finite Power applies to the "Target Character," and of course if we had "Target Player" instead of "Opponent," it would be even more obvious.

I can see an argument with Ultimate Potential not effecting Post's team if he plays it due to the fact it's difficult for a judge to determine who played it.  At least in this case we have Lethal Tester as evidence of who played what.

I think this can be summed up as: when the specials are first played, the effect takes place on the character/player playing the special, after that, they revert to whomever owns the special.

I can't see this working any other way, because we still have the issue of Beyonder playing Inspiration.  If you can't track the specials, then they must revert.

So then we come back to: whomever plays a special, incurs the possible negative effects of that special.  The target of the special is irrelevant.  Names on special cards only imply ownership, not who can actually play the special.

'Opponent' is certainly NOT obsolete wording. There are even rules specifically differentiating them. That's why you can target a battlesite with 'opponent' affecting cards, as opposed to 'targeting' cards.

If you use White Tiger on my site, I don't have to pitch two cards if it hits. If you target my site with Harpoon, I must still discard all specials. Both differentiate target vs. opponent.

The only obsolete terminology is from Original - where cards say 'Target Opponent' which has been officially address to read 'target character' The 'target' take priority.

BUT, this doesn't apply to Finite power, because it's different wording. It says Target character on the initial attack, then 'Opponent' is defined when factoring the effect. 

Do you follow?

If we play the way you propose, it creates confusion because there's no consistency. The ruling is all over the map. One special affects as though POst played the card, others do not. It makes no sense.

White Tiger has nothing to do with Opponent, as it's Target Character.  Harpoon's Opponent can easily be changed to Target Player.

You still haven't addressed the issue of Beyonder playing Focused Fire, or Inspiration.

My reversion idea for specials is to lessen confusion, as again, tell me how a judge in that situation can tell Beyonder played Focused Fire?  If Beyonder is effected by Focused Fire then clearly Post, and Posts team would be effected by Ultimate Potential.

The logic with ruling a card with the exact same use intentions as others, but have it act in completely different manner is complete utter insanity designed to create nothing but confusion.

Quote from: Hot Rod on April 18, 2014, 08:06:25 PM
White Tiger has nothing to do with Opponent, as it's Target Character.  Harpoon's Opponent can easily be changed to Target Player.

You still haven't addressed the issue of Beyonder playing Focused Fire, or Inspiration.

My reversion idea for specials is to lessen confusion, as again, tell me how a judge in that situation can tell Beyonder played Focused Fire?  If Beyonder is effected by Focused Fire then clearly Post, and Posts team would be effected by Ultimate Potential.

The logic with ruling a card with the exact same use intentions as others, but have it act in completely different manner is complete utter insanity designed to create nothing but confusion.

Yes. Exactly. White Tiger doesn't affect the opponent. It affects the Target. It says so. The rules say so. Harpoon affects the opponent. It says so, the rules say so.

There are provisions for both, which means, the term 'opponent' is current and specific. Not some abstract, obsolete definition.

Also, Beyonder is not relevant to all this because he is playing specials on his own side of the table against the opponent. So if he plays Focused force, then he is barred from defending with specials for the rest of the game. It is up to the players to keep track. That's just the way it is.

Inspiration doesn't apply because it has nothing to do with the secondary effects. It simply adjusts venture for <character> specials. So yes, while Beyonder can play anyone's specials, he has none of his own. So inspiration means nothing if played through him. But any 'effects' played through Beyonder (or on to him) still apply.

The bottom line with Lethal Tester is this -

If you play that the special activated by lethal tester is now a Post special used against his own team, then you must adjust the secondary effects accordingly. But you can't pick and choose what affects which side.

If you play the the special is simply being activated by Post, but still considered to be played as though the opponent played it (Best option for simplicity) then you change nothing.

But which is it? And with option A, you can't have it both ways - You can't tell me that Post must always suffer the penalties in any instance - which is what you're suggesting.

Quote from: BigBadHarve on April 18, 2014, 09:44:30 PM

Quote from: Hot Rod on April 18, 2014, 08:06:25 PM
White Tiger has nothing to do with Opponent, as it's Target Character.  Harpoon's Opponent can easily be changed to Target Player.

You still haven't addressed the issue of Beyonder playing Focused Fire, or Inspiration.

My reversion idea for specials is to lessen confusion, as again, tell me how a judge in that situation can tell Beyonder played Focused Fire?  If Beyonder is effected by Focused Fire then clearly Post, and Posts team would be effected by Ultimate Potential.

The logic with ruling a card with the exact same use intentions as others, but have it act in completely different manner is complete utter insanity designed to create nothing but confusion.

Yes. Exactly. White Tiger doesn't affect the opponent. It affects the Target. It says so. The rules say so. Harpoon affects the opponent. It says so, the rules say so.

There are provisions for both, which means, the term 'opponent' is current and specific. Not some abstract, obsolete definition.

Also, Beyonder is not relevant to all this because he is playing specials on his own side of the table against the opponent. So if he plays Focused force, then he is barred from defending with specials for the rest of the game. It is up to the players to keep track. That's just the way it is.

Inspiration doesn't apply because it has nothing to do with the secondary effects. It simply adjusts venture for <character> specials. So yes, while Beyonder can play anyone's specials, he has none of his own. So inspiration means nothing if played through him. But any 'effects' played through Beyonder (or on to him) still apply.

The bottom line with Lethal Tester is this -

If you play that the special activated by lethal tester is now a Post special used against his own team, then you must adjust the secondary effects accordingly. But you can't pick and choose what affects which side.

If you play the the special is simply being activated by Post, but still considered to be played as though the opponent played it (Best option for simplicity) then you change nothing.

But which is it? And with option A, you can't have it both ways - You can't tell me that Post must always suffer the penalties in any instance - which is what you're suggesting.

So if you're saying Beyonder gets no effect from Inspiration, then that must mean SuperPatriot doesn't either, as SuperPatriot does not have any specials of his own?  So if you put SuperPatriot into a deck without Captain America, Inspiration is a completely unplayable card?

You also say that Focused Fire would effect Beyonder, who is playing a card that is not his, but Post playing the same card would not be effected?  All I see here is inconsistency.

I must have missed the part where attacking your own teammates is a routinely beneficial play, and to say that it's nothing but a penalty is over the top.  Clearly Lethal Tester has use as a preemptive shift, and it can also be used to Leech yourself for the least amount of cards.

I don't see the reasoning behind turning it into some fanciful card that contradicts all similar effects.  Which will yet again add more inconsistency, and confusion.

Quote from: Hot Rod on April 18, 2014, 10:41:46 PM

So if you're saying Beyonder gets no effect from Inspiration, then that must mean SuperPatriot doesn't either, as SuperPatriot does not have any specials of his own?  So if you put SuperPatriot into a deck without Captain America, Inspiration is a completely unplayable card?

You also say that Focused Fire would effect Beyonder, who is playing a card that is not his, but Post playing the same card would not be effected?  All I see here is inconsistency.

I must have missed the part where attacking your own teammates is a routinely beneficial play, and to say that it's nothing but a penalty is over the top.  Clearly Lethal Tester has use as a preemptive shift, and it can also be used to Leech yourself for the least amount of cards.

I don't see the reasoning behind turning it into some fanciful card that contradicts all similar effects.  Which will yet again add more inconsistency, and confusion.

The Superpatriot question bring an interesting point. I would agree that the rules would have to be consistent. Though, Superpatriot is Playing Captain America Specials, and the card doubles Captain America specials. So you'd slip through a loophole there - but Beyonder would only benefit from said specials if he was playing the listed specials - it wouldn't convert all of the cards he plays. So if beyonder plays Captain America specials and uses Inspiration, then he gets the benefit.

Personally, I think this whole issue warrants its own thread. But for the record Meta 98 kind of spells it out: "All (Character) Special cards" refers only to Specials which belong to that Character. Any Hero/Character Specials and Specials played via Activators are not counted as belonging to the Character.

I think 'belong to that character' sums it up, and unfortunately opens the door for variant characters like superpatriot being ineligible to benefit from The Inspiration card. As I said, worthy of another debate thread.

Now, back to the Post Point -

Okay, if you want to play that way, and Lethal Tester makes the special in question a 'Post' Special, then you MUST play the effects properly. Below are some examples of how it should work out:

I lethal test your Power Leech. I target my teammate and let it hit. The 'opponent' must now discard 4 cards. Since Post played the card, you must factor Post's opponent, not the character hit by leech. (My understanding of the errata on Leech is this "Play on target as an attack. If successful, opponent must discard...." though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that)

I lethal test your White Tiger (HY code). I block it, because letting it hit would mean I have to discard. It affects the target, meaning whoever played it is irrelevant to the effect.

I lethal test your 'Apache Warrior' (NK code). I then block it, and because it's now a POST special, I am the one who gets to draw, not the other player using Thunderbird.

I lethal test your Ultimate Potential (MC code). I am now prevented from attacking for the remainder of the battle because the stipulation is now POST's team may not attack for remainder of battle.

I Lethal Test your Harpoon (EG code). I let it hit, and now YOU must discard all of your specials as the effect his the 'opponent' not the target. Since Post played the card, you must factor Post's opponent, not the Marauders.


That is the only fair and logical result of playing the special activated by lethal tester as a 'post' special. If the effect is against the 'opponent' then it's Post's opponent who takes the bite.

I'm not trying to turn Lethal Tester into some super card. I want a consistent consensus. The best option for that is to play that it's NOT a post special. That takes away guesswork. I am simply activating my opponent's card. But if the choice is to have Lethal Tester make the card in question played as though it belongs to Post, then you have to account for the complicated results that follow.

And that includes the crazy situation of Finite Power being activated by Lethal Tester.

As I've said before - you can't have it both ways.

Quote from: BigBadHarve on April 18, 2014, 11:43:36 PM

Quote from: Hot Rod on April 18, 2014, 10:41:46 PM

So if you're saying Beyonder gets no effect from Inspiration, then that must mean SuperPatriot doesn't either, as SuperPatriot does not have any specials of his own?  So if you put SuperPatriot into a deck without Captain America, Inspiration is a completely unplayable card?

You also say that Focused Fire would effect Beyonder, who is playing a card that is not his, but Post playing the same card would not be effected?  All I see here is inconsistency.

I must have missed the part where attacking your own teammates is a routinely beneficial play, and to say that it's nothing but a penalty is over the top.  Clearly Lethal Tester has use as a preemptive shift, and it can also be used to Leech yourself for the least amount of cards.

I don't see the reasoning behind turning it into some fanciful card that contradicts all similar effects.  Which will yet again add more inconsistency, and confusion.

The Superpatriot question bring an interesting point. I would agree that the rules would have to be consistent. Though, Superpatriot is Playing Captain America Specials, and the card doubles Captain America specials. So you'd slip through a loophole there - but Beyonder would only benefit from said specials if he was playing the listed specials - it wouldn't convert all of the cards he plays. So if beyonder plays Captain America specials and uses Inspiration, then he gets the benefit.

Personally, I think this whole issue warrants its own thread. But for the record Meta 98 kind of spells it out: "All (Character) Special cards" refers only to Specials which belong to that Character. Any Hero/Character Specials and Specials played via Activators are not counted as belonging to the Character.

I think 'belong to that character' sums it up, and unfortunately opens the door for variant characters like superpatriot being ineligible to benefit from The Inspiration card. As I said, worthy of another debate thread.

Now, back to the Post Point -

Okay, if you want to play that way, and Lethal Tester makes the special in question a 'Post' Special, then you MUST play the effects properly. Below are some examples of how it should work out:

I lethal test your Power Leech. I target my teammate and let it hit. The 'opponent' must now discard 4 cards. Since Post played the card, you must factor Post's opponent, not the character hit by leech. (My understanding of the errata on Leech is this "Play on target as an attack. If successful, opponent must discard...." though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that)

I lethal test your White Tiger (HY code). I block it, because letting it hit would mean I have to discard. It affects the target, meaning whoever played it is irrelevant to the effect.

I lethal test your 'Apache Warrior' (NK code). I then block it, and because it's now a POST special, I am the one who gets to draw, not the other player using Thunderbird.

I lethal test your Ultimate Potential (MC code). I am now prevented from attacking for the remainder of the battle because the stipulation is now POST's team may not attack for remainder of battle.

I Lethal Test your Harpoon (EG code). I let it hit, and now YOU must discard all of your specials as the effect his the 'opponent' not the target. Since Post played the card, you must factor Post's opponent, not the Marauders.


That is the only fair and logical result of playing the special activated by lethal tester as a 'post' special. If the effect is against the 'opponent' then it's Post's opponent who takes the bite.

I'm not trying to turn Lethal Tester into some super card. I want a consistent consensus. The best option for that is to play that it's NOT a post special. That takes away guesswork. I am simply activating my opponent's card. But if the choice is to have Lethal Tester make the card in question played as though it belongs to Post, then you have to account for the complicated results that follow.

And that includes the crazy situation of Finite Power being activated by Lethal Tester.

As I've said before - you can't have it both ways.

I think meta 98 is fairly simple, it basically states that Any Hero specials, and specials from a battlesite don't count as 'named' specials by the character that played them.

After going through this debate I'm now of the opinion that any special played by Beyonder would become a Beyonder special, and thus would be counted for Inspiration.  I don't see how Beyonder could be penalized at all for playing Focused Force when it clearly states that Cyclops is the effected character.  Again it also brings up the point of Beyonder playing specials of dead teammates.  If the specials don't belong to Beyonder, and the teammate in question is dead, then how does he play them at all?

The list you assembled is solid and reinforces my thought process towards 'Opponent' being obsolete in that it doesn't coincide with 'Target Character' very well.  I believe that the 'Opponent' is the player in control of the character being effected.  Essentially the administrator for the characters, or you could say the next step up, in a global sense.  A character is simply a character, but player/opponent is also the battlesite; hand, homebase, deck, discard piles, reserve character and missions.

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

Leech for example if being played by Post with Lethal Tester would come out as: 'Target Character' being your character; 'Opponent' being you the target player, and 'Leech' being Post.

This to me looks like the same debacle with other old tournament misplays such as: placing A-next to Marvel Universe, not attacking characters with activator cards; and of course not playing teamwork followups correctly.

Quote from: Hot Rod on April 19, 2014, 12:42:51 AM

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.

Quote from: BigBadHarve on April 19, 2014, 12:13:04 PM

Quote from: Hot Rod on April 19, 2014, 12:42:51 AM

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.

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.

Quote from: Hot Rod on April 19, 2014, 12:35:35 PM
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.

Quote from: BigBadHarve on April 19, 2014, 01:59:24 PM

Quote from: Hot Rod on April 19, 2014, 12:35:35 PM
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.

Quote from: Hot Rod on April 19, 2014, 02:47:56 PM
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.

Quote from: BigBadHarve on April 19, 2014, 02:56:43 PM

Quote from: Hot Rod on April 19, 2014, 02:47:56 PM
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.

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.

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

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

Quote from: Pass the Gestalt on April 20, 2014, 02:09:20 AM


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.

Quote from: BigBadHarve on April 20, 2014, 10:10:04 AM
I am all for a sit down with the regional organizers to hash out some rules clean up, but:

Quote from: Pass the Gestalt on April 20, 2014, 02:09:20 AM


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.

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

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.

Quote from: BigBadHarve on April 20, 2014, 12:57:38 PM
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.

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.

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

Quote from: BigBadHarve on April 20, 2014, 02:23:05 PM
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.

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.  ;D

That being said..

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

Quote from: TheBradness on April 20, 2014, 03:49:15 PM
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.  ;D

That being said..

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

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.

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

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

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.

Quote from: TheBradness on April 21, 2014, 07:40:23 PM
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?

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

Quote from: Hot Rod on April 21, 2014, 08:28:57 PM

Quote from: TheBradness on April 21, 2014, 07:40:23 PM
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.

Quote from: TheBradness on April 22, 2014, 12:46:02 AM

Quote from: Hot Rod on April 21, 2014, 08:28:57 PM

Quote from: TheBradness on April 21, 2014, 07:40:23 PM
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.

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.