Palatinus' OverPower Forum

There seems to be a lot of confusion out there about the rules, and which rules apply to which specials, and how to play with the Any-Power stat, and... ect, ect.  I was wondering if anyone would be interested in forming a committee to sit down and maybe re-write/clean-up Overpower's current rules in an attempt to make things easier for new players.  I'm well aware that there are official rules that people not of this forum would expect opponents to play by, but since Overpower has not been officially anything but dead since 1998, I would think it would be safe to take things into our own hands, the hands of the people who still actually play, and re-work them into something that's not quite so scary and "WTF"-y.  I'm well aware that there are House rules, and everyone is entitled to their own, but I think the game would be strong if we, as a community, "weeded the unattended garden" so to speak.  Would anyone else be interested in sitting down to discuss rules, one at a time, and decide which rules are fine and which need to go, and how and when blanket rules apply, and make sure there are no exceptions, ect, ect?  You can respond here, and if enough people are interested we can decide then if we want to keep things public as we work out the kinks or just work them out through e-mails and post here what we have actually decided on.

I tend to agree, that there needs to be a clean up and consensus amongst players to play by a cleaner, and more intuitive rule-set.

Part of the plan for my own House Rule system was just that... simpler and cleaner rules. We just went a step further and got creative with some new ideas too to expand dynamics.

But I'm all for creating a group to discuss a common rule-set that's simple, fun and accepted by (in the very least) those of us who come up with it. So long as it's balanced and fair. That has to be the bottom line.

-BBH

It seems there would also be value in collecting a number of house rules together in a single document, not unlike the meta rules.

This would be a secondary priority to the proposed rules committee here.

it's a good idea, but how do we do it...by vote?

some rules i'm guessing we'd come near a consensus on (like EBs going by printed duration), but i suspect there would be quite a few disagreements regarding others

I think this idea has potential and I think the forum is an excellent place for it.  In order to have a greater general acceptance, though, we should make more of an effort to gather the overpower community to the site.  I think most of us know people who play but don't use the forum and there must be more people in the world who play or at least might want to dust off their cards if they were exposed to an active community like ours.

@Bread - Vote amongst the committee would be the simplest option.  I know other, far more important, documents have been written using a similar method.  As for the disagreements, if, as a committee, something were voted into the rules, it would have to be by majority vote, so the few who would be against something would have to simply accept and adjust to the revision.  I would like to think there would be a fair amount of back and forth discussion before a vote were called, so everyone can decide where they stand.

@Matt -  I second that notion.  I would love to know how specific house systems work, as well as that Neo(?) system, the thing that makes some of the more expensive characters cheaper, ect...

@General Topic - I didn't suggest this as an overhaul of the system as a whole, just an idea to help clean things up.

Ex- DiD should simply be part of the rules of KO.  A character is KO'd if he has taken 20 points of cumulative damage, 3 different hits with different stats (not counting AnyPower), or, if they happened to be hit by both 3 stats AND 20 cumulative damage, they are KO'd regardless of any other factors.

Maybe that's not the wording we go with, but it's a much clearer, up-front ruling, which is better then having to hunt down rules most people might not know existed.  I know I'd never heard of the DiD ruling, even though I played up until the day Overpower died.  Because I wasn't and my friends weren't part of the pro-circuit, that one never came down the line.

So, noone else interested in a committee?  Just BBH, Breadmaster, Palatinus, Mattkoz and myself?

I do wonder what Onslaught's opinion would be but he hasn't been on in like three weeks.

Quote from: Demacus on May 08, 2012, 12:34:39 PM
So, noone else interested in a committee?  Just BBH, Breadmaster, Palatinus, Mattkoz and myself?

I'm very interested, actually. If it can be somewhat slow, or deliberate. Basically, if I'm given time to really mull things over. As mentioned above, this sort of revision should take a lot of time, I think. But yeah, if there is room for a 6th, then count me in  :)

@ Pala - The clean up idea is intended for those of us who keep running into contradictions, and want just straightforward rules.  He, as anyone else, is more then welcome to contribute to the clarifying of the rules.

@ncann - I'd like as many different points of view as possible.  I know you are pretty well versed on the rules as they stand, but I also know that you, like me, have some rules that just drive ya nuts.  I look forward to your feedback.

This process will take as much time as it needs to take until things are agreeable, and more importantly, understandable.  If anyone else is interested in tossing in their 2 cents, feel free to speak up now, or just keep tabs here and as we discuss a rule that you have strong feelings about, toss your 2 in then.

I agree with taking our time. And dealing with only one issue at a time. No need to rush.

Perhaps we could have a section of the board devoted to the Rule Committee discussions and votes.

-BBH

I would be interested in participating.  From my point of view, I find it much more valuable to just have a standard.  We have so many people that "think" meta rules are in effect, or some variation of a house rule.  I ran into a situation where someone thought Vertigo was a one per deck.  I wasn't sure, to be quite honest, in today's world; however, I knew for sure it wasn't a meta rule and that it was never that way during the 90's.

For someone like myself, if I'm interested in actually winning games, I need to know I've got the rules down before I can even look at a way to maximize performance.

I for one am so glad you guys are attempting a revision of the rules to try and make the game less confusing and simpler to understand. I've always been an advocate of a new rules-governing body and this forum is the ideal place for that. Since many of you here are way more experienced at the current rules of the games and have a better understanding of what rules contradict one another or severely limit playability of certain cards and characters, I am fine with following along with what you all decide while of course sharing my opinions and thoughts. I know for a fact that I do tend to agree with many of the House Rules BBH uses and would like to see those possibly adopted into the rules. I will be glad to participate in any way I can and provide feedback.  :)

Any chance we could get a copy of your House Rules to peruse, BBH?  We should all probablly use the same resources for the Meta Rules, and the Basic Rules should be from Image, which I believe was the last basic rules update, and go from there.  Any thoughts or objections?

Quote from: Palatinus on May 08, 2012, 12:57:48 PM
I do wonder what Onslaught's opinion would be but he hasn't been on in like three weeks.

I actually was going to suggest this very idea well over a year ago, but due to the .... 'debates' people had with Onslaught and his puritanical views of the game, and his dislike for any house rules, basically saying they made the game inauthentic, I didn't even bother.

My thoughts were to have overpower have different 'play modes.'

Overpower 1.0 (Basic) Regular rules, metas, erratas, etc. (No marvels)

Overpower 2.0 (Marvels) Same as above plus Marvels.

Overpower 3.0 (Players Choice) All of the above plus a standardized set of house rules we the online community agree to. (which may change/simplify some of the above  ;))

Overpower 4.0 (Unlimited) Uses homemades in addition to the above.

Quote from: Demacus on May 09, 2012, 06:22:36 AM
Any chance we could get a copy of your House Rules to peruse, BBH?  We should all probablly use the same resources for the Meta Rules, and the Basic Rules should be from Image, which I believe was the last basic rules update, and go from there.  Any thoughts or objections?

I'm quite happy to post them again for perusal. Some people here already know them reasonably well. They're a mix of clarifying existing rules and a bunch of new stuff.

The two main things we did in developing them was to go back to basics and play all cards as written, and then decide from there which errata truly needed to stand. The 2nd being to apply all rules as a blanket rule rather than card-specific.

The goal was to eliminate the need for a meta-rule document by having all necessary rules be clearly accessible and referenced. Beyond that, the text on the cards defines the games.

For example: The duration Meta Rule (Which, coincidentally, I was going to suggest we address first as a committee) - No printed duration and OPD = remainder of game. No printed duration and non-OPD = remainder of battle. We also added 'until a specific action or circumstance takes place' as a valid 'printed duration.' (IE: Until KO'd etc.)

We applied this as a blanket to keep it consistent and intuitive to gameplay. Changing the way a whole variety of cards are played without creating exceptions.

I'll dig up and post the document a little later with all of our key adjustments.

I like Nostalgic's idea of an identifying system. Overpower 3.0, (once being discussed, confirmed and agreed to by most) becoming the standard of play would be a good, good thing.   ;)

-BBH

The duration rule is a big one that I'm more then happy to focus on early.  The KC specials being one of the main reasons, since Leader and Mole Man's are not stamped OPD, but Grunge's is, but if you look at the three of them side by side, Grunge's special acts the same as Leader and Mole Man's with the ADDED effect of making opponents attacks against Grunge's team -2.  Granted, the way all three KC's ultimately affect the game field are the same, Grunge also has that nasty I.A. which helps him eat hits and survive, while Mole Man and Leader's I.A.'s both give them the -2 bonus that Grunge's special gives, making them both weaker options, and less likely to be used as a KC special from a battlesite (unless, of course, they are the only options, which with Grunge being from a different universe, they wouldn't be in competition with his OPD KC anyway.)  The point being, Grunge's Special is stronger then Leader or Mole Man's, and would be a greater boon if played by a different character then either of the original 2, who's specials are only AS STRONG if played on themselves only.  That is enough of a distinction to make Grunge's KC OPD, and leave the other two as they are, but NOT to limit Leader and Mole Man's specials to be battle lasting.  My 2 cents on that rule, given this particular case.

At this point I think what is needed is a plan.

We need:

1.  A structure for the committee
2.  Members
3.  Format for discussions and whether these will be public or private or a combination
4.  A place for the discussions on the forum (This is easy as I can set this up to meet the needs once these are determined.)
5.  Anything I am forgetting

Quote from: BigBadHarve on May 09, 2012, 11:46:54 AM
I like Nostalgic's idea of an identifying system. Overpower 3.0, (once being discussed, confirmed and agreed to by most) becoming the standard of play would be a good, good thing.   ;)

-BBH

I concur. Obviously, we can all acknowledge the Official rules for what they are, but since the majority of us are playing eachother, it seems like making a standardized set of updated rules that we, as Forum Members, are agreeing to follow, can only be a good thing. Then, once we have them clearly defined, it'd be a simple thing for any newcomer to visit our posted rules section, clearly marking out how we arrived at Overpower 3.0 and defining it for them there as well.

Quote from: ncannelora on May 09, 2012, 03:33:12 PM

Quote from: BigBadHarve on May 09, 2012, 11:46:54 AM
I like Nostalgic's idea of an identifying system. Overpower 3.0, (once being discussed, confirmed and agreed to by most) becoming the standard of play would be a good, good thing.   ;)

-BBH

I concur. Obviously, we can all acknowledge the Official rules for what they are, but since the majority of us are playing eachother, it seems like making a standardized set of updated rules that we, as Forum Members, are agreeing to follow, can only be a good thing. Then, once we have them clearly defined, it'd be a simple thing for any newcomer to visit our posted rules section, clearly marking out how we arrived at Overpower 3.0 and defining it for them there as well.

To piggy back on that I would add that since we are really just making the game more accessible and intuitive for newcomers it really should be a good thing. In fact,that may be one of the fundamental tenants of what we're setting out to do.  The fewer metas and non card text exceptions to the rule the better.  :)

Quote from: Palatinus on May 09, 2012, 02:14:57 PM
At this point I think what is needed is a plan.

We need:

1.  A structure for the committee
2.  Members
3.  Format for discussions and whether these will be public or private or a combination
4.  A place for the discussions on the forum (This is easy as I can set this up to meet the needs once these are determined.)
5.  Anything I am forgetting

1) I'm not wrapping my head around a structure for the committee, but that doesn't mean I'm against one, just unclear on what, exactly, that means.
2) As far as committee members, I think BBH is a clear and concise choice to be a member.  Bread, and Ncann are also solid choices for this committee.
3) I'm not bias to or for having the discussions public or private (though experience has shown me that the less mouths involved, the easier it is to think and accomplish goals)
4) A place would be helpful.  I don't think Confrence calling is needed, but a chat-room type lobby where we can meet at pre-determined times to hash out the details would be cool.
5) If there's anything you are forgetting, then I can't think of it either.  Feedback folks?

Quote from: Demacus on May 09, 2012, 03:43:09 PM

Quote from: Palatinus on May 09, 2012, 02:14:57 PM
At this point I think what is needed is a plan.

We need:

1.  A structure for the committee
2.  Members
3.  Format for discussions and whether these will be public or private or a combination
4.  A place for the discussions on the forum (This is easy as I can set this up to meet the needs once these are determined.)
5.  Anything I am forgetting

1) I'm not wrapping my head around a structure for the committee, but that doesn't mean I'm against one, just unclear on what, exactly, that means.
2) As far as committee members, I think BBH is a clear and concise choice to be a member.  Bread, and Ncann are also solid choices for this committee.
3) I'm not bias to or for having the discussions public or private (though experience has shown me that the less mouths involved, the easier it is to think and accomplish goals)
4) A place would be helpful.  I don't think Confrence calling is needed, but a chat-room type lobby where we can meet at pre-determined times to hash out the details would be cool.
5) If there's anything you are forgetting, then I can't think of it either.  Feedback folks?

1.  For a structure that would just mean defining the committee as an entity.  So basically if it is a group of equal participants or if there are specific roles for people or if there is a leader or anything along those lines.
2.  I would like to also add Jack as another obvious choice.  Also I would suggest Onslaught if he were still hanging around here.
3.  My suggestion for how the discussions would be held would be to have submissions to be considered be submitted publicly while primary discussion on topics be private before being submitted to the public for approval/vote/notification.
4.  Some kind of instant messaging might be helpful but I would suggest that most discussions get done in forum format to preserve the discussions and allow for a more flexible schedule.

Quote from: Palatinus on May 09, 2012, 03:58:49 PM
1.  For a structure that would just mean defining the committee as an entity.  So basically if it is a group of equal participants or if there are specific roles for people or if there is a leader or anything along those lines.
2.  I would like to also add Jack as another obvious choice.  Also I would suggest Onslaught if he were still hanging around here.
3.  My suggestion for how the discussions would be held would be to have submissions to be considered be submitted publicly while primary discussion on topics be private before being submitted to the public for approval/vote/notification.
4.  Some kind of instant messaging might be helpful but I would suggest that most discussions get done in forum format to preserve the discussions and allow for a more flexible schedule.

I don't get your emphasis on Onslaught being in on the details of this as he as been downright hostile to just about all suggestions of rules changes.  :P

Since he treats the rules, metas, and such as unalterable biblical text I only see him shooting things down and saying leave things as they are.

Link to BBH's rules reforms and the big O's reactions.
http://www.beenhereandthere.com/SMF/index.php?topic=195.0

A few other things. . .

How big is do you guys think this committee should be?

I'd suggest Bamf! and me be apart of it.

I think the discussion should be partially private and partially public.

Don't I do too much already? bamf! will speak on my behave.

Quote from: Jack on May 09, 2012, 04:25:03 PM
Don't I do too much already? bamf! will speak on my behave.

LOL! Truer words were never spoken. Almost want to sig this.  ;D

As long as Jack's voice is present. lol

So we have BBH, Jack/Bamf!, Nostalgic, Ncann, Bread, and Onslaught(?).

Not saying he shouldn't be a part of it, but Nostalgic does have a point about him being very anti everything that wasn't officially sanctioned and officially decided more then 12 years ago when then game died.  I just don't know if he would be overly constructive of this project. So that's a 5 man committee as it currently stands.  Anyone else?

As far as the structural ideas of the committee, that should be left up to those on the committee to decide how they would like to proceed, I think.

Quote from: Demacus on May 09, 2012, 05:08:10 PM
As long as Jack's voice is present. lol

So we have BBH, Jack/Bamf!, Nostalgic, Ncann, Bread, and Onslaught(?).

That appears to be a great rules committee to me.  :) Plus I must agree with Nostalgic's view concerning Onslaught based on past history in these forums.

Oh, and the Overpower play modes is a brilliant idea!

I don't want to beat a dead horse, here, but I have to agree with the sentiment that Onslaught and a rules reform don't seem to mesh well. I'm not even sure he'd be a willing participant, let alone a constructive one...

Anyway, I am quite excited by the prospect of simplifying this game. My oldest daughter is about to turn 7 and I'm about to get her past the "War with Power Cards" phase of teaching this game. I'd love to get some of these things hammered out / defined for posterity  ;D

I think what's important to remember is that this idea of a rules committee is meant to make the game more accessible which means that it can't go too far into changes and needs to be more focused on clarity.  I think that while there will be people who will obstinately refuse to see any change this is something to reflect on as a counter-balance to too much change.  I know these kinds of people will never be truly satisfied, but the best chance to convince people like that is to do things in a way that really makes things better so that when challenged with the new versus old you can point out that yes, it isn't exactly as things were written all those years ago, but the game is still the same game it was intended to be.

I think making the rules fulfill their original intention should be the first step.  As far as things like BBH's house rules that actually change things, or homemade cards that add things, those kinds of things should be treated as a separate matter.  One approach might be to handle things the way Magic is done.  You have your core rule-set and then you have your variants.  This gives you a base game that everyone can be familiar with and comfortable with but it also allows you to have variety so that game play doesn't get stale.

Much as I love my house rule set, and would be thrilled to have a more widespread adoption of them... I also am heavily in favour of cleaning up just the 'official' rules by removing the gray areas.

When we started to adjust the rules for our House rules, that was the goal - to clean things up. But we also found things that we liked and decided to keep along the way. Such is the way of things.

Removing any mandate of 'making some cards more playable' and beefing up 'weaker' characters, the goal should be, as has been stated, to simplify the game. 

The best way to do that is to remove as much external reference as possible (IE the meta rules). A core rule book and the cards themselves should be ALL that's needed to play and answer questions along the way. Any necessary meta-rule should be incorporated into a standardized rule book for easy reference.

And secondly, to eliminate contradictory and inconsistent rulings to the cards.

But I think we're off to a good start. We should probably make a list of the things we want to address.

The aforementioned Duration rule is a good start.

What other items would you like to address first?

-BBH

Speaking of the Duration Rule, BBH, did your house rules address the BE coded Specials (including Urban Hunters)?

Quote from: Palatinus on May 09, 2012, 07:56:34 PM
I think what's important to remember is that this idea of a rules committee is meant to make the game more accessible which means that it can't go too far into changes and needs to be more focused on clarity.  I think that while there will be people who will obstinately refuse to see any change this is something to reflect on as a counter-balance to too much change.  I know these kinds of people will never be truly satisfied, but the best chance to convince people like that is to do things in a way that really makes things better so that when challenged with the new versus old you can point out that yes, it isn't exactly as things were written all those years ago, but the game is still the same game it was intended to be.

I think making the rules fulfill their original intention should be the first step.  As far as things like BBH's house rules that actually change things, or homemade cards that add things, those kinds of things should be treated as a separate matter.  One approach might be to handle things the way Magic is done.  You have your core rule-set and then you have your variants.  This gives you a base game that everyone can be familiar with and comfortable with but it also allows you to have variety so that game play doesn't get stale.

That's exactly it.  I'm not interested in making any characters stronger or weaker or more or less playable.  Simply that the rules are straight forward and clear, so that some of the more simple questions that have been asked on the forums are answered simply by double-checking the rules.

Quote from: Demacus on May 10, 2012, 11:35:32 AM

That's exactly it.  I'm not interested in making any characters stronger or weaker or more or less playable.  Simply that the rules are straight forward and clear, so that some of the more simple questions that have been asked on the forums are answered simply by double-checking the rules.

You'll find that by virtue of just cleaning up rules, cards become more playable as a side-effect. Playing many cards 'as written' while removing unprinted and unnecessary restrictions will do that.

Blanket rules that apply, you know, as a blanket(!!) will open up more options once you re-interpret how some cards are worded.

-BBH

If it happens as a side-effect, great. I more simply meant that I had no intention on re-writing to rules to a point where Nightwing would become much more then he currently is.  And I know people focus on Nightwing as being on of the worst characters in the game, but to me Supergirl is actually below him, regardless of the 1 lvl 9 special attack that she has.

Quote from: Demacus on May 10, 2012, 02:21:41 PM
If it happens as a side-effect, great. I more simply meant that I had no intention on re-writing to rules to a point where Nightwing would become much more then he currently is.  And I know people focus on Nightwing as being on of the worst characters in the game, but to me Supergirl is actually below him, regardless of the 1 lvl 9 special attack that she has.

Interestingly enough, applying the duration rule as a blanket DOES benefit Supergirl by making her OPD Shapeshift a remainder of game special rather than a battle lasting special. But that's exactly what I mean by a side effect of applying the rules in a consistent manner.

But obviously it wasn't meant as a 'let's make Supergirl marginally more appealing by making one of her crappy OPDs slightly better!' effect. ;)

-BBH

maybe not the place, but i'll list a few before i forget

1) duration: agree with the blanket rule, (opd=game, non=battle, printed durations over rule both)

2) i'd suggest a chain of command when it comes to changing rules in game: events>inherent abilities>specials (except where text on lesser card contradicts...ie: legacy regression)

3) this is a minor one, but i suggest getting rid of the rule that says you can't play fortress of solitude if you venture more than 2

Couple of things.

One, is it decided that the committee will consist of Bamf!, BigBadHarve, Breadmaster, Ncannelora, and Nostalgic?  Does everyone on the list agree to themselves and each other?  Does anyone have any objections to this being the list?

Second, I will make a new section on the forum for the committee.  I'll make a group for the members and then create both a private and public board in that section.  Does anyone in the committee volunteer to moderate the board and the group?

Quote from: breadmaster on May 10, 2012, 05:42:16 PM
maybe not the place, but i'll list a few before i forget

1) duration: agree with the blanket rule, (opd=game, non=battle, printed durations over rule both)

2) i'd suggest a chain of command when it comes to changing rules in game: events>inherent abilities>specials (except where text on lesser card contradicts...ie: legacy regression)

3) this is a minor one, but i suggest getting rid of the rule that says you can't play fortress of solitude if you venture more than 2

I agree with locking down a progression of battle-rule changes like what you posted. I don't think we need to hammer out that line right now, but it should be set firmly.
I also agree that NewUniverse/Fortress should be addressed, as well as Power Leech and some of the other Any Hero cards. That will all come, I'm sure.

Another rule that I think should be addressed is the FE-chaining rule that forces the forfeit of subsequent attacks... I'm not saying it shouldn't be the way it is now, but I think I'd like to see that explored a little. There are tons of little meta rules like that, they bear individual scrutiny.

Ok. Just to be clear, what I am proposing with this thread is to not drastically change Overpower as we've all known it since the beginning, but just to tweak the rules so as to remove confusions.  I'm not looking to build Overpower 3.0 or 4.0 but more like 1.5.  I'm not saying that in the process of cleaning up the rules we can't come up with new, more interesting rules for different variations, but the original intent of the committee was to make the game easier to understand.

Quote from: Demacus on May 26, 2012, 04:45:39 PM
Ok. Just to be clear, what I am proposing with this thread is to not drastically change Overpower as we've all known it since the beginning, but just to tweak the rules so as to remove confusions.  I'm not looking to build Overpower 3.0 or 4.0 but more like 1.5.  I'm not saying that in the process of cleaning up the rules we can't come up with new, more interesting rules for different variations, but the original intent of the committee was to make the game easier to understand.

well, I guess I'm just not sure where the line is, then. I mean, how much "cleaning up" are we trying to do? Certainly, I don't think Meta Rules #1-4 are really needed, but then it seems like #5 is probably needed... so, should we go rule by rule and discuss necessity/clarity?

I think taking the meta's one at a time and really figuring out what's nessassary and what's redundant/contradictory would be a good place to start.