Let's say that Overpower were going to be brought back. If they decided to make the old cards legal, but with erratta to make them consistent with however they revamped the game, what card fixes would you implement to either a specific card, class of cards, or card type.
I know that there have been some posts about certain cards, but I'd like to collect all of this type of idea here.
One thing I was thinking was everyone should have an inherent ability whether it significantly affects gameplay or not. I think this could go a long way to making your characters feel more closely related to their comic origins. Another thing I was thinking along those lines was give hero cards a couple more characteristics. Even if they are not sure what to use them for, give them codes like the H/V codes. Just in case later they want to make cards that could make use of these codes. Maybe an Mu for Mutant, Mg for magic user, and so on.
One card in particular that I think would be better if it was adjusted is the Ultimate Nullifier. I think in addition to the current text it should cause all special cards in play that are not hits to be discarded as well. One main reason for this is because this would make it much more Ultimate than just getting rid of the few artifacts that anyone might have out at the time.
I think the problem with the nullifier is that there aren't enough artifacts that you KNOW will appear in an opponent's deck, thus warranting the risk of using it. More usable and interesting artifacts would be good.
-BBH
As I mentioned in another thread, I think a meta rule to make all artifacts game-lasting would be good. To compenate, include more specials that negate artifacts to join Nullifier and the handful that exist.
Quote from: metaphist on April 11, 2011, 01:21:13 PM
As I mentioned in another thread, I think a meta rule to make all artifacts game-lasting would be good. To compenate, include more specials that negate artifacts to join Nullifier and the handful that exist.
I agree. I am really surprised to find that they applied the duration rule to artifacts.
Quote from: Palatinus on April 11, 2011, 01:35:32 PM
Quote from: metaphist on April 11, 2011, 01:21:13 PM
As I mentioned in another thread, I think a meta rule to make all artifacts game-lasting would be good. To compenate, include more specials that negate artifacts to join Nullifier and the handful that exist.
I agree. I am really surprised to find that they applied the duration rule to artifacts.
I believe the image inducer was one of the reasons for the rule. I think it's a good rule, personally. I've found that only having it for one battle makes it worth using in a deck, but doesn't make it overly powerful. In rounds where I'm going for the win, an inducer on hand is a really nice thing.
Though, I was disappointed when they nerfed it's ability to play it defensively. Single round, but with the ability to use it defensively is good.
-BBH
Quote from: metaphist on April 11, 2011, 01:21:13 PM
As I mentioned in another thread, I think a meta rule to make all artifacts game-lasting would be good. To compenate, include more specials that negate artifacts to join Nullifier and the handful that exist.
I like this line of thinking much better for limiting the power of Artifacts though. Forcing people to strategically prepare for cards versus just making good ones weaker to compensate for people not wanting to prepare for certain cards or strategies. I think BBH has put it will that the best way is to open up as many possible strategies as you can instead of weakening cards to stop particular strategies. If there are 30 different strategies to prepare for you can't prepare for them all but that works both ways so it is its own form of balance.
Defensive Image Inducer doesn't seem to be too bad. I haven't done a lot of testing with it yet though. I think it's a bit weak with the official rules, but it may be too strong defensively in the right deck, due to it not being an OPD.
Quote from: Hot Rod on April 11, 2011, 05:28:35 PM
Defensive Image Inducer doesn't seem to be too bad. I haven't done a lot of testing with it yet though. I think it's a bit weak with the official rules, but it may be too strong defensively in the right deck, due to it not being an OPD.
It's very handy, let me tell you. But the cost of overusing it can catch up to you as well....
-BBH
I always thought that defensive personal specials or specials that allow a teammate to "avoid 1 E/F/S/I attack" should be 'upgraded' to mean avoid one attack that contains that particular icon.
Yeah, Image Inducer can get away from you quick, with it being a -1 right off the bat along with all the cards you'll burn. But it's still potentially abusive with the ability to increase it's probability of occuring in your deck due to not being an OPD.
I like that idea of upgrading those avoids to avoid an icon, Like the Hawkeye avoid.
I'd also like to see AT's being upgraded to HQ's.
Quote from: Nostalgic on April 11, 2011, 06:37:02 PM
I always thought that defensive personal specials or specials that allow a teammate to "avoid 1 E/F/S/I attack" should be 'upgraded' to mean avoid one attack that contains that particular icon.
That's something I think about quite a bit! I have been playing a lot with the original set teaching someone how to play and I think of that every time I am confronted with one of these specific avoids.
Quote from: Palatinus on April 11, 2011, 07:29:56 PM
Quote from: Nostalgic on April 11, 2011, 06:37:02 PM
I always thought that defensive personal specials or specials that allow a teammate to "avoid 1 E/F/S/I attack" should be 'upgraded' to mean avoid one attack that contains that particular icon.
That's something I think about quite a bit! I have been playing a lot with the original set teaching someone how to play and I think of that every time I am confronted with one of these specific avoids.
Yea it gives those cards usefulness against most teamworks, tactics, multipower cards/specials, and
any attack from a battlesite.
With some of the talk about the worse locations needing something to help them be good homebases, I was thinking that 1) If a site has a negative inherent it should have a positive inherent as well. 2) Maybe homebases need to have 8 characters to chose from, two of which are differentiated in that they cannot be used when playing the location as a battlesite. With 8 characters to chose from it allows for the sites to remain thematic but also give you the opportunity to build better teams.
Quote from: Palatinus on April 12, 2011, 01:14:12 PM
With some of the talk about the worse locations needing something to help them be good homebases, I was thinking that 1) If a site has a negative inherent it should have a positive inherent as well. 2) Maybe homebases need to have 8 characters to chose from, two of which are differentiated in that they cannot be used when playing the location as a battlesite. With 8 characters to chose from it allows for the sites to remain thematic but also give you the opportunity to build better teams.
I've also tried to come up with something to address this. Two things I thought about where using the shift mechanic for location based teams we talked about in another thread, but making you burn a card of your choice from you hand to do it. (new target must till defend with a power card) I've also thought about making personal 'avoid 1 attack' cards also count as 'teammate may avoid one attack of 6, 5, or 4 or less.' (which ever isn't broken.) Probably "4 or less" since it would still be quite useful against those smaller teamwork follow up attacks used to spectrum KO...
I know you favor the shift idea for homebases and I do see why you like it. The main reason I am against that even though I get what you mean by it making sense is that there are so many cards that exist to allow you to shift attacks. This is a particular strategy and I think that by making it inherent to all homebases you would remove a lot of the skill involved in making a shift deck work. If anything, I'd say remove it from FFP rather than give it to every base. But I may be wrong on this. The idea of a basic ability inherent to the fact that you are using a homebase does seem like a decent start to balancing them.
Its the only way I could think of to deal with mismatched power grids. Unless something like Reyes's inherent ability was applied to them.
All cards that say: Draw 1 do not discard duplicate change to Draw 3 discard duplicate.
Another card fix- the CM-coded specials...
Way, way, more useful if they are defensive. As I noted elsewhere, I'd use 3+ of Iceman's if they were playable defensively. Also, it'd give Comm.Gordon another playable card (which he desperately needs, in light of his expensive Grid and max-6 stature).
I was thinking about AA/AB specials and then GJ specials and I think that more AA/AB specials should actually be GJ specials. For example, Wolverines AA would be better suited for him if it acted as a level 4FS attack. I know they started doing this more in later sets as they seemed to be more conservative with this sort of thing earlier in the game, but I would think that going back over these cards a lot of characters would wind up with GJ versions of their AA/AB instead.
I was also thinking about AC specials. The power to shift your opponent's attack is nice. Not as nice as a teammate or universal avoid, obviously, but it is more in keeping with certain characters styles. What I was thinking about this is that if you are doing something like Colossus and you are jumping in front of an attack that you know you are better suited to take than your teammate doesn't that logically mean that you would have an advantage defending that attack? Along those lines I was thinking "Attack made on teammate is now made on [character], who may defend at +2. I'm not sure how this would swing with the other type of AC where you are redirecting the attack to a teammate. It almost seems like there would be a -2 in those cases. Or maybe a "may not defend".
Quote from: Palatinus on April 19, 2011, 11:34:43 AM
I was thinking about AA/AB specials and then GJ specials and I think that more AA/AB specials should actually be GJ specials. For example, Wolverines AA would be better suited for him if it acted as a level 4FS attack. I know they started doing this more in later sets as they seemed to be more conservative with this sort of thing earlier in the game, but I would think that going back over these cards a lot of characters would wind up with GJ versions of their AA/AB instead.
You could include HF and the level 4 AR specials in that too.
As a side note the level 4 AR is one of the most baffling specials they created. I mean why would that in any way be a good idea? :P ???
Quote from: Nostalgic on April 20, 2011, 11:54:54 AM
You could include HF and the level 4 AR specials in that too.
As a side note the level 4 AR is one of the most baffling specials they created. I mean why would that in any way be a good idea? :P ???
Agreed! And to give a level 4 AR to some of those characters was really disgraceful. Superman with a special wasted on a level 4 attack in one of his two 7 stats? What the hell?
Quote from: Palatinus on April 20, 2011, 12:41:54 PMSuperman with a special wasted on a level 4 attack in one of his two 7 stats? What the hell?
LOL! I almost want to sig this. :D
Superman should have been the "Spawn" of DC.
Quote from: Nostalgic on April 20, 2011, 02:36:08 PM
LOL! I almost want to sig this. :D
Superman should have been the "Spawn" of DC.
Yes, he should have been Super powerful. With an inherent like "Cannot be cumulative or spectrum KO'd." You know, because he is INVULNERABLE! He should only have been able to be TKO'd by the dead is dead rule. He should have a teammate or superman can avoid 1 attack or 9 or less because that is most of what he does in the comics. His two good specials have stupid names that are just nick names for him and have nothing to do with actually attacking. Batman/Superman was such a frustrating set.
I'd like to see an inherent of "May only be KO'ed by The Dead is Dead Rule". Seriously this guy DID come back from the dead after the Doomsday incident. It would be the perfect fit for story line and would override some abominal special card choices.
Quote from: CoS on April 20, 2011, 05:24:47 PM
I'd like to see an inherent of "May only be KO'ed by The Dead is Dead Rule". Seriously this guy DID come back from the dead after the Doomsday incident. It would be the perfect fit for story line and would override some abominal special card choices.
Exactly! Certain characters are way to strong for conventional killing. It is a bit silly to think that what would KO Jubilee would also KO The Hulk. Or Galactus.
Also, I thought of another card that needs help. BU cards. In a good hand, let's say you get a 1-4, you can do a 10, but it's only against one character so forget spreading the wealth for spectrum KO and it can be blocked in parts or as a whole, so one avoid and it's done or two power cards. You lose so much card advantage. Now, let's say an extreme circumstance where you have the card placed and draw a hand of all level fours of the correct power type and an event where you don't discard duplicates. Now you can do a level 32 attack! That can be avoided by one card. I'm thinking something along the lines of making it one per deck and having it last the game and be usable for attack or defense.
A "simple" fix would be to draw to replace the difference between the number of cards used to defend and the number of cards used in the attack. So if you combined the 1-4 to make a level 10 attack (combining 4 cards) and it was defended with an AG special (1 card) you would draw 3 cards. (discard dups) :)
Quote from: Palatinus on May 03, 2011, 09:46:33 AM
Quote from: CoS on April 20, 2011, 05:24:47 PM
I'd like to see an inherent of "May only be KO'ed by The Dead is Dead Rule". Seriously this guy DID come back from the dead after the Doomsday incident. It would be the perfect fit for story line and would override some abominal special card choices.
Exactly! Certain characters are way to strong for conventional killing. It is a bit silly to think that what would KO Jubilee would also KO The Hulk. Or Galactus.
Also, I thought of another card that needs help. BU cards. In a good hand, let's say you get a 1-4, you can do a 10, but it's only against one character so forget spreading the wealth for spectrum KO and it can be blocked in parts or as a whole, so one avoid and it's done or two power cards. You lose so much card advantage. Now, let's say an extreme circumstance where you have the card placed and draw a hand of all level fours of the correct power type and an event where you don't discard duplicates. Now you can do a level 32 attack! That can be avoided by one card. I'm thinking something along the lines of making it one per deck and having it last the game and be usable for attack or defense.
Keep in mind that the defensive action on this card is a one-card defense. So, yes, an AG will avoid the whole thing. However, if you come at me with 1-4 and I'm holding a level 4 and a level 6 power card,
I can't combine my power cards, so I'd have to choose which to use to "block in part". I could use my 6 and defeat your 2 & 4, which would allow the 1 & 3 to stick. I could use my 4 to defeat your 4, and the 1-3 would all stick.
Not that I'm trying to defend this card. The worst part is when they give it to some one, then nerf it more! (see Catwoman).
Quote from: ncannelora on May 03, 2011, 01:10:09 PM
Not that I'm trying to defend this card. The worst part is when they give it to some one, then nerf it more! (see Catwoman).
That's a relief! ;D
This card ranks up/down(?) there with the level 4 AR specials we talked about earlier. I mean they could have at least let it combine multiple power types! Not that 'that' would redeem it, but it would be slightly more useful, potentially, in part, sort of....
:D
Quote from: Nostalgic on May 03, 2011, 01:28:18 PM
Quote from: ncannelora on May 03, 2011, 01:10:09 PM
Not that I'm trying to defend this card. The worst part is when they give it to some one, then nerf it more! (see Catwoman).
That's a relief! ;D
This card ranks up/down(?) there with the level 4 AR specials we talked about earlier. I mean they could have at least let it combine multiple power types! Not that 'that' would redeem it, but it would be slightly more useful, potentially, in part, sort of....
:D
The remainder of the battle is a sucky part too because the card is worded as if you might try to do this trick more than once in the same hand. Plus, you lose your turn for playing it so you might not ever get to use it if something happens on your opponent's turn like playing an AV or AX on the character.
Quote from: Palatinus on May 03, 2011, 02:42:52 PM
Quote from: Nostalgic on May 03, 2011, 01:28:18 PM
Quote from: ncannelora on May 03, 2011, 01:10:09 PM
Not that I'm trying to defend this card. The worst part is when they give it to some one, then nerf it more! (see Catwoman).
That's a relief! ;D
This card ranks up/down(?) there with the level 4 AR specials we talked about earlier. I mean they could have at least let it combine multiple power types! Not that 'that' would redeem it, but it would be slightly more useful, potentially, in part, sort of....
:D
The remainder of the battle is a sucky part too because the card is worded as if you might try to do this trick more than once in the same hand. Plus, you lose your turn for playing it so you might not ever get to use it if something happens on your opponent's turn like playing an AV or AX on the character.
maybe you could use it as a decoy/bait? :P
Quote from: ncannelora on May 03, 2011, 03:33:55 PM
Quote from: Palatinus on May 03, 2011, 02:42:52 PM
Quote from: Nostalgic on May 03, 2011, 01:28:18 PM
Quote from: ncannelora on May 03, 2011, 01:10:09 PM
Not that I'm trying to defend this card. The worst part is when they give it to some one, then nerf it more! (see Catwoman).
That's a relief! ;D
This card ranks up/down(?) there with the level 4 AR specials we talked about earlier. I mean they could have at least let it combine multiple power types! Not that 'that' would redeem it, but it would be slightly more useful, potentially, in part, sort of....
:D
The remainder of the battle is a sucky part too because the card is worded as if you might try to do this trick more than once in the same hand. Plus, you lose your turn for playing it so you might not ever get to use it if something happens on your opponent's turn like playing an AV or AX on the character.
maybe you could use it as a decoy/bait? :P
Maybe. I still feel like this was a poorly thought out card that does not work in practice the way it was intended. I really like the idea of combining power cards to do things as a power though, so I'd like to see a good way to use that feature.
Quote from: ncannelora on May 03, 2011, 01:10:09 PM
Keep in mind that the defensive action on this card is a one-card defense. So, yes, an AG will avoid the whole thing. However, if you come at me with 1-4 and I'm holding a level 4 and a level 6 power card, I can't combine my power cards, so I'd have to choose which to use to "block in part". I could use my 6 and defeat your 2 & 4, which would allow the 1 & 3 to stick. I could use my 4 to defeat your 4, and the 1-3 would all stick.
I was under the impression that the statement "Can be blocked as a whole or in parts" implied that, yes, my AG can block ALL of the attacks as a single attack, if I didn't have a single defense card, I could block EACH part of the attack with powercards. It doesn't say you can block "part," it says "parts" which I always took to mean, I could use multiple defensive maneuvers to block each of the incoming attack.
I honestly think the best way to errata this card to make it playable is to remove the part that states "Can be blocked as a whole." If I used 4 cards to attack, my opponent shouldn't be allowed to use 1 card to avoid the whole thing.
It's the same principle as teamwork cards vs Confusion. Before there was a ruling, my friends and I used to play Confusion AFTER the 3rd attack of the teamwork, and toss the whole lot. The ruling prevents that kind of hand-advantage gain by forcing you to Confusion on the FIRST attack and negate the subsequent incomming attacks.
BU's should have that kind of errata. It wouldn't make the card top tier, but it's certainly better then a DTR ruling. You shouldn't be able to draw new cards every time you opt to play a crappy card. But if my opponent can't just AG away the entire attack, or AO it after the attack is on it's way, then it makes it more fair under the mechanics of the game, without giving YOU an unfair hand-advantage over your opponent.
Honestly, I like the BU specials, though I'm don't use them often, Rhino's has seen play in my past decks. Similar to Shrapnel Bomb, it can be used to gain a venture advantage. But just cause you are capable of a lvl 10 attack, doesn't mean that's the smartest way to play it. 2 lvl 5 attacks can be just as detrimental to your opponent, if they are close to death by 5 pts or just need that stat for a spectrum kill. It can be a great way to pull tricks, especially if you begin the hand with an advantage due to duplicate discards and unusables from your opponents hand. It's also a KILLER card to have in the Power Pack, even played as written.