Might as well get this one started.
Since it was already discussed in our previous conversation, I figure this is a good one to get going.
The duration meta rule:
Meta #145: Specials that do not indicate their duration by their game text should be considered Game lasting duration if they are One Per Deck and Battle lasting duration if they are non-OPD. Specials with instant effects are instant duration regardless.
The problem/reason we need to address it is: It only applies selectively to some cards, not all cards.
Proposed Change: Apply it as a blanket rule to ALL cards. Add a line about cards that state they last 'until <fill in requirement>' counting as a 'duration.'
Why the change: A consistent rule that's easy to apply based on actual card text.
What this would affect:
Certain cards would become game lasting cards, despite being non-OPD.
Examples:
EB specials - (Brood Spawn, Allies from the Deep) would last until hit, not for only one battle.
KC specials - (Mole Man Social outcast) would last until the printed condition is met, and not be discarded at the end of battle.
BE specials - (Blood Hunt, Urban Hunters) would become game lasting effects if they are OPD.
EC specials - (Shapeshift) would become game lasting specials instead of battle lasting specials.
Note: The errata on Maverick's Freelance spy should stand, so the card is considered to retain the phrase 'for remainder of battle.'
Thoughts?
-BBH
I have a problem with the duration rule applying to artifacts. There are only 5 non-OPD artifacts. Of those, 1 states that it is game-lasting, 1 removes itself immediately, 1 cannot be used ever if it is only battle-lasting so must be game-lasting even though it is non-OPD and doesn't have a stated duration. The other 2 both have a cost associated with their use so can't really be abusive.
Yes.
One of the reasons for the duration rule in the first place was to nerf the image inducer.
So, in applying the meta rule as a blanket to specials only - we'd need another rule for artifacts.
As it stands, Linkstone and Avenger's ID are pretty weak as battle lasting artifacts, and a game lasting non-OPD image inducer can be pretty abusive, despite the cost to use it.
Well, we have a couple of options to consider:
1. Apply the duration as a blanket to all cards, as proposed. Making the rule simple will boost some cards and diminish others, there's no way around that. It will likely happen again as we discuss other adjustments.
2. Apply the Duration rule to specials only, deal with Artifacts at another time as a separate ruling.
3. Errata.
I'm loathe to add errata, when the purpose of this is committee is to simplify. But applying the duration rule to ALL cards and adding an errata to Linkstone and Avenger's ID to make them game lasting would solve it.
-BBH
Quote from: BigBadHarve on May 11, 2012, 11:15:29 AM
One of the reasons for the duration rule in the first place was to nerf the image inducer.
So, in applying the meta rule as a blanket to specials only - we'd need another rule for artifacts.
Let's say you wanted to abuse the image inducer. You could put three in your deck so that you could have one on each front line character. You are limited to the ability to play the card by stats so you could only include characters that this combination would work on. Second, let's say you're shifting all your opponent's attacks around. It's not granting you additional defense so you still will have to deal with the damage and venture. Additionally, your cards are going to the dead pile. This means that 1. Your power pack is going to be very lacking and 2. You will be getting to the power pack fairly quickly. Thirdly, there are cards for dealing with tactic and artifact cards so that if the Image Inducer did become abusive. That would mean that an Image Inducer deck was just another strategy that people would have to consider when deck building. If it is limited and counter-able why does it need to be nerf-ed?
Alternatively, don't apply the duration rule to Aftifacts, make it OPD, leave it battle-lasting. I think the Image Inducer should be play-tested though. Let someone make the most abusive Image Inducer deck they can and prove it beats any deck most of the time.
I've seen a few image inducer based decks. Though it was a long time ago before the Nerf. They were pretty infuriating. A permanent image inducer on Grunge or the X-babies made all the difference in some cases. You're not using it to shift all attacks, only key ones. That's all it takes sometimes.
I tend to agree with you - open the options and let come what may. The more game-winning strategies there are, the better. But the trick is to not have one strategy dominate. If there are always multiple counter-strategies balance will be maintained.
-BBH
Quote from: BigBadHarve on May 11, 2012, 11:55:01 AM
I've seen a few image inducer based decks. Though it was a long time ago before the Nerf. They were pretty infuriating. A permanent image inducer on Grunge or the X-babies made all the difference in some cases. You're not using it to shift all attacks, only key ones. That's all it takes sometimes.
I tend to agree with you - open the options and let come what may. The more game-winning strategies there are, the better. But the trick is to not have one strategy dominate. If there are always multiple counter-strategies balance will be maintained.
-BBH
But even with Grunge or X-babies, there are plenty of cards that will KO them regardless of their IA or cards that remove IA's entirely. And again, shifting the attack won't win the venture. I do think there are plenty of ways to handle Image Inducer without changing the cards or making erratta.
Putting that aside though, applying the duration rule to all specials without exception seems like a good idea, but I have a question about that. With the old way it was used or the new, you are
effectively adding the words "for the remainder of battle" or "for the remainder of game". In the past has this allowed KL specials or other cards that affect cards that affect the remainder of battle or game to affect these cards?
Yes, there are plenty of cards that can kill them, but if you are able to selectively absorb the ineffective hits, you leave plenty of options for defending the effective ones.
As for your question - officially under the current rules it does NOT add the text, therefore KL specials do not affect cards like that unless the text is printed. It's a fair point though and one we should address.
I personally think no, we should stick to them 'as written'. The Duration meta rule is simply a reference point for when a card without a printed duration comes into play. Not a mass errata for all such cards.
-BBH
Well, I'm still in favor of a game lasting Image Inducer. The abuse that has been listed seems like it's not really abuse and just a valid strategy. It takes setup, multiple cards, luck, and limits other choices. It can be countered and even if it isn't it still won't win a game by itself. In that regard there is nothing that makes it stand out as an abuse any more than any other trick that can be pulled off in the course of a game.
On the issue of the "remainder of battle/game" text and KL cards, I agree that a mass errata of cards affected by the duration rule would be counter-productive. I do think addressing how the KL cards are played is worth examining. At the moment they are not actually being played as written. They are being played as inferred. What I mean by that is that they have the "remainder of battle/game" text in quotes. It is thus inferred that they affect cards with that text written on them. If the duration rule states that cards with no printed duration remain in play for the remainder of the battle or the game based on being OPD or non-OPD then they do "affect the 'remainder of the battle' or the 'remainder of the game.'" as the KL specials state. They are actually doing that whether they say they are or not. I think a more intuitive way to play the card would be to play it to remove all such cards because both players must know that the cards are either battle or game lasting. Because they must have this knowledge there is no need for further clarification. If a card in play affects the remainder of the game or battle it is removed as per the card text.
I'd like to weigh in a few points here...
First, when the Duration Rule was put in place with cards like Image Inducer and the KC Specials in mind, was that before or after Dead Is Dead?
Second, with or without a blanket ruling on the Duration Rule, applying to OPD and non-OPD cards, I don't see anything that should make Image Inducer a game-lasting effect. Even before the Duration Rule, I'm not sure how anyone came to the conclusion that it should remain in play for the whole game, since it doesn't make any reference to how long it can remain in play... In fact, just based on the wording of the card, it seems like you could make the argument that it's only good for 1 attack... with the other non-OPD Artifacts, it seems like they're seldom used and limited in their usefulness anyway. I guess it'd be helpful if they were game-lasting, but again, the argument could be made that they're one-time-use, only, and don't actually have any duration either way.
Third, I do not think that the use of KL Specials should change. For example, they are officially ineffective against KC-Specials and I think they should remain that way. I think the most intuitive interpretation of the KL-Specials is that they only affect other Specials that include the actual quoted text. That's why there are quotes. If there were no quotes, that'd be quite a different story, but as it's written, I think it's expressly only intended to affect cards that literally contain those words. I don't want to see KL's become pseudo negates. Otherwise, you're essentially creating an errata for the KL cards, I think.
I think ;)
Quote from: ncannelora on May 11, 2012, 04:05:11 PM
I'd like to weigh in a few points here...
First, when the Duration Rule was put in place with cards like Image Inducer and the KC Specials in mind, was that before or after Dead Is Dead?
Simultaneously, as far as I remember.
Quote from: ncannelora on May 11, 2012, 04:05:11 PM
Second, with or without a blanket ruling on the Duration Rule, applying to OPD and non-OPD cards, I don't see anything that should make Image Inducer a game-lasting effect. Even before the Duration Rule, I'm not sure how anyone came to the conclusion that it should remain in play for the whole game, since it doesn't make any reference to how long it can remain in play... In fact, just based on the wording of the card, it seems like you could make the argument that it's only good for 1 attack... with the other non-OPD Artifacts, it seems like they're seldom used and limited in their usefulness anyway. I guess it'd be helpful if they were game-lasting, but again, the argument could be made that they're one-time-use, only, and don't actually have any duration either way.
I think one way or the other, whether we want artifacts to remain for the game or the battle, it should be discussed in another thread/proposal.
The goal of this forum was to clarify and adjust the rules so they are simple and consistent. As it stands, a shift to make the Duration rule a blanket application doesn't change artifacts in any way from how they are currently played. They already adhere to the meta rule. All it does is adjust the way many special cards are played.
The impact on artifacts is worth a discussion, but has little bearing on the impact of the Duration Rule.
Quote from: ncannelora on May 11, 2012, 04:05:11 PM
Third, I do not think that the use of KL Specials should change. For example, they are officially ineffective against KC-Specials and I think they should remain that way. I think the most intuitive interpretation of the KL-Specials is that they only affect other Specials that include the actual quoted text. That's why there are quotes. If there were no quotes, that'd be quite a different story, but as it's written, I think it's expressly only intended to affect cards that literally contain those words. I don't want to see KL's become pseudo negates. Otherwise, you're essentially creating an errata for the KL cards, I think.
Also agreed. Again, even if we want to discuss such a change, I think that should be its own thread.
The real question for this thread is - can anyone think of any way where applying the Duration rule as a blanket will imbalance the game in any way, or create confusion?
Use of Artifacts remains unchanged by this rule. As far as KL specials go, a line in the wording clearly stating that the specials are NOT considered to bear the 'text' should be sufficient to put that question to rest should it arise.
Further thoughts?
-BBH
So, i've gone back and looked at, I think, literally every OPD Special (at least per the checklist on Jack's sight). It seems to me that, upon more careful consideration, all of the OPD Specials give some duration or another (the only exception seemed to be the BF-Special, increasing hits to K.O. to 30, which seems like it's indefinite). It seems to me that the whole OPD/non-OPD issue is almost moot.
------------------------BE:
The BE Specials all say "the battle" and the use of the word "the" seems to indicate that it's singular. It's the difference between,
"<Character> may make 1 attack after opponent has conceded the battle. Opponent may defend."
and simply saying,
"<Character> may make 1 attack after opponent has conceded. Opponent may defend."
that is to draw the definition and ask, does the word "the" actually mean "this"? Or does "the" actually mean "a"?
The other point of clarification on the BE Specials is to say that they would have a lasting effect beyond the current battle, if the opponent does not concede. For example, if Carnage plays his BE, and down the line Carnage then concedes the battle, does the BE stay out, since it has not yet been effective? In otherwords, is the "after opponent has conceded the battle" actually the duration? Or what if Carnage plays the BE, then the battle goes down and his opponent doesn't actually concede, but simply loses the Venture in the end?
------------------------ EZ:
This one also seems to have it's duration printed on the card. The only indication that there even is a duration involved is the fact that it says, "in the next battle" and that it's affecting a character. But, the wording it uses seems to indicate a singular battle. It doesn't seem open-ended to me. It's the difference between saying,
"Play in the current battle. <Character's> [type] and [type] ratings are increased to 7 in the next battle."
versus saying
"Play in the current battle. <Character's> [type] and [type] ratings are increased to 7 after this battle."
I'm not saying that the EZ should not have a game-lasting effect, but that draws my attention to 2 similarly worded OPDs...
------------------------ HS:
"Play in current battle. Do not discard duplicates in next battle."
Like the EZ card, the indication of duration is that the effect will not take place in the current battle, but in (at least) the subsequent battle. If anything, it seems like the HS card is a little more open-ended than the EZ card, since it removed the word "the" from "in the next battle." - now again, i'm not advocating that HS should be a game-lasting card, but it seems awfully similar to the wording on the EZ cards... and then there's this:
------------------------ LH:
"Play during battle. Next battle <Character> may Venture up to 4 Mission cards with no penalty. May not Venture more than 4 Mission cards."
It's pretty much the exact same issue as the HS card presents...
-------------------------
The other card codes that were brought up were the KC and EB cards. To me, these already have clearly defined durations in them. They say pretty clearly:
EB: until this Special is attacked
(except XM edition versions, which state "remainder of battle" maybe an indication of change to the Duration ruling?)
KC: until <Character> is K.O.'d or cannot be attacked.
SUMMARY:
It seems to me that we don't need the OPD/non-OPD definition. We just need to clarify that these lasting effects have durations on them.
It seems that the EB/KC cards should go well beyond 1 battle, as applicable.
It seems (to me, at least) that the BE Specials should also last until the Opponent actually concedes, regardless of the OPD versions or Wolverine's version. - BUT, that once the opponent concedes and the Character makes their attack, the Special would then be discarded -
It seems like the EZ Specials have a duration limited to the next battle (as would the HS and LH cards)
thoughts?
(btw, I couldn't think of any non-OPD specials that have undefined durations, if we consider that EB/KC have durations printed)
EDIT:
More evidence regarding the EZ/HS/LH would be the CL coded specials. Their duration surely seems limited to the next battle, regardless of the fact that they are non-OPD.
Quote from: BigBadHarve on May 11, 2012, 10:01:13 AMCertain cards would become game lasting cards, despite being non-OPD.
EB specials - (Brood Spawn, Allies from the Deep) would last until hit, not for only one battle.
KC specials - (Mole Man Social outcast) would last until the printed condition is met, and not be discarded at the end of battle.
BE specials - (Blood Hunt, Urban Hunters) would become game lasting effects if they are OPD.
EC specials - (Shapeshift) would become game lasting specials instead of battle lasting specials.
Note: The errata on Maverick's Freelance spy should stand, so the card is considered to retain the phrase 'for remainder of battle.'
I thought our default setting here was following the text of the card. With that in mind I think despite being a OPD the Supergirl EZ has to be battle lasting if we're going by printed text and our interpretation of the "Duration Rule" is only to clarify a card when the duration is unclear. How else do we square Supergirl's special with a Hydra's (AY) special that has the same stat increase affect, but specifically states 'for remainder of game' as opposed to the (EZ) saying 'next battle' ?
Quote from: ncannelora on May 11, 2012, 05:37:54 PM
The other point of clarification on the BE Specials is to say that they would have a lasting effect beyond the current battle, if the opponent does not concede. For example, if Carnage plays his BE, and down the line Carnage then concedes the battle, does the BE stay out, since it has not yet been effective? In otherwords, is the "after opponent has conceded the battle" actually the duration? Or what if Carnage plays the BE, then the battle goes down and his opponent doesn't actually concede, but simply loses the Venture in the end?
I was under the impression that the BE special must be played with the attack after the opponent has conceded. I didn't think it could be played at any point during the battle 'in case' the opponent conceded. If the word 'may' is the issue what about a card like Quicksilver's marvels (CA) special? Could he play that at anytime and once hits actually get to the characters' permanent records switch them at will?
Quote from: Nostalgic on May 11, 2012, 10:20:12 PM
I was under the impression that the BE special must be played with the attack after the opponent has conceded. I didn't think it could be played at any point during the battle 'in case' the opponent conceded. If the word 'may' is the issue what about a card like Quicksilver's marvels (CA) special? Could he play that at anytime and once hits actually get to the characters' permanent records switch them at will?
maybe that's how, but I've never played it that way. I've always played it just like Shadowhelmet, which is not reactionary. So, i've only played it up-front. Now, it's worthwhile to say that in my group, we only really started using the BE Specials when we also adopted the Duration Rule - so playing it anytime during battle would have been fine since it would continue to last. Does a tournament guide explain the use of this Special? I don't see any reason why I couldn't play it mid-battle, since the timing of its effect is still defined by the card.
When a card says "may" do something, it usually doesn't give any timing for when you "may" do it, leaving us all to infer that it's instantaneously (i.e., during this turn). The BE specifies that the attack is only after the concession, that's clearly
when you may make the attack.
Quote from: BigBadHarve on May 11, 2012, 10:01:13 AM
Might as well get this one started.
Since it was already discussed in our previous conversation, I figure this is a good one to get going.
The duration meta rule:
Meta #145: Specials that do not indicate their duration by their game text should be considered Game lasting duration if they are One Per Deck and Battle lasting duration if they are non-OPD. Specials with instant effects are instant duration regardless.
The problem/reason we need to address it is: It only applies selectively to some cards, not all cards.
Proposed Change: Apply it as a blanket rule to ALL cards. Add a line about cards that state they last 'until <fill in requirement>' counting as a 'duration.'
Why the change: A consistent rule that's easy to apply based on actual card text.
What this would affect:
Certain cards would become game lasting cards, despite being non-OPD.
Examples:
EB specials - (Brood Spawn, Allies from the Deep) would last until hit, not for only one battle.
KC specials - (Mole Man Social outcast) would last until the printed condition is met, and not be discarded at the end of battle.
BE specials - (Blood Hunt, Urban Hunters) would become game lasting effects if they are OPD.
EC specials - (Shapeshift) would become game lasting specials instead of battle lasting specials.
Note: The errata on Maverick's Freelance spy should stand, so the card is considered to retain the phrase 'for remainder of battle.'
Thoughts?
-BBH
These all sound great to me! I especially would love if EB cards like Brood Spawn would last until hit. Its how we've always played them and I was quite dismayed when the official ruling was that it only lasted the battle. I've always found these duration rules quite frustrating, especially since the text of a number of cards don't make the duration clear. The Blanket Rule for these specials presented here is what I always envisioned for these cards anyway so I'm all for it. :)
Quote from: Nostalgic on May 11, 2012, 10:20:12 PM
Quote from: BigBadHarve on May 11, 2012, 10:01:13 AMCertain cards would become game lasting cards, despite being non-OPD.
EB specials - (Brood Spawn, Allies from the Deep) would last until hit, not for only one battle.
KC specials - (Mole Man Social outcast) would last until the printed condition is met, and not be discarded at the end of battle.
BE specials - (Blood Hunt, Urban Hunters) would become game lasting effects if they are OPD.
EZ specials - (Shapeshift) would become game lasting specials instead of battle lasting specials.
Note: The errata on Maverick's Freelance spy should stand, so the card is considered to retain the phrase 'for remainder of battle.'
I thought our default setting here was following the text of the card. With that in mind I think despite being a OPD the Supergirl EZ has to be battle lasting if we're going by printed text and our interpretation of the "Duration Rule" is only to clarify a card when the duration is unclear. How else do we square Supergirl's special with a Hydra's (AY) special that has the same stat increase affect, but specifically states 'for remainder of game' as opposed to the (EZ) saying 'next battle' ?
Yes, and I have to concede that for simplicity sake it's the way to go... but it's a matter of semantics and for EZ cards could be argued. For our house system we went with the more advantageous effect for the card because our secondary goal was also to boost existing cards within justification of the text.
Quote from: ncannelora on May 11, 2012, 05:37:54 PM
So, i've gone back and looked at, I think, literally every OPD Special (at least per the checklist on Jack's sight). It seems to me that, upon more careful consideration, all of the OPD Specials give some duration or another (the only exception seemed to be the BF-Special, increasing hits to K.O. to 30, which seems like it's indefinite). It seems to me that the whole OPD/non-OPD issue is almost moot.
------------------------BE:
The BE Specials all say "the battle" and the use of the word "the" seems to indicate that it's singular. It's the difference between,
"<Character> may make 1 attack after opponent has conceded the battle. Opponent may defend."
and simply saying,
"<Character> may make 1 attack after opponent has conceded. Opponent may defend."
that is to draw the definition and ask, does the word "the" actually mean "this"? Or does "the" actually mean "a"?
The other point of clarification on the BE Specials is to say that they would have a lasting effect beyond the current battle, if the opponent does not concede. For example, if Carnage plays his BE, and down the line Carnage then concedes the battle, does the BE stay out, since it has not yet been effective? In otherwords, is the "after opponent has conceded the battle" actually the duration? Or what if Carnage plays the BE, then the battle goes down and his opponent doesn't actually concede, but simply loses the Venture in the end?
For these cards I would maintain my argument that they should adhere to the duration rule.
In essence, for interpretation purposes the text on cards with no printed/implied duration should be read as "For remainder of battle/game, <insert card text>"
So OPD BE cards Should be considered: "For remainder of Game <Character> may make 1 attack after opponent has conceded the battle. Opponent may defend."
Now, it's not an errata, so the text doesn't actually appear, but it is important for interpretation.
-BBH
Quote from: BigBadHarve on May 16, 2012, 12:13:40 PM
RE: EZ
Yes, and I have to concede that for simplicity sake it's the way to go... but it's a matter of semantics and for EZ cards could be argued. For our house system we went with the more advantageous effect for the card because our secondary goal was also to boost existing cards within justification of the text.
RE: BE
For these cards I would maintain my argument that they should adhere to the duration rule.
In essence, for interpretation purposes the text on cards with no printed/implied duration should be read as "For remainder of battle/game, <insert card text>"
So OPD BE cards Should be considered: "For remainder of Game <Character> may make 1 attack after opponent has conceded the battle. Opponent may defend."
Now, it's not an errata, so the text doesn't actually appear, but it is important for interpretation.
-BBH
So, just so I'm clear, you're maintaining that the BE cards should be game/battle lasting based on their OPD status, but you're conceding that the EZ cards - strictly based on clarify the Duration Rule - should not be game lasting? Or are you still pushing for that to be included as well?
Don't get me wrong, I am all for making cards more useful, but if the goal of this revision/revisit is only to simplify the game, I still can't find any Special, aside from the BF code, that doesn't have it's own duration written into the card. And, for the BF code, it seems like it doesn't need clarification - but maybe it does...
Initially I was thinking that affecting a characters Hit Points is always game lasting, but then I thought of at least 1 card that's only battle lasting (X-Man's FF), so maybe the Duration Rule is needed - even if only for the BF card...
Anyway, I'm fine including BE, because it's duration is much less clear to me (based soley on that card's text), but the EZ i'm a little less certain about, especially because of the HS and LH codes I mentioned above.
So, as important as it is, making the Duration Rule a blanket rule, I think it's equally important to determine which cards
do not have a duration printed. I think we can all agree that both the EB and KC cards have durations printed right on them, right?
Quote from: ncannelora on May 16, 2012, 01:11:58 PM
So, just so I'm clear, you're maintaining that the BE cards should be game/battle lasting based on their OPD status, but you're conceding that the EZ cards - strictly based on clarify the Duration Rule - should not be game lasting? Or are you still pushing for that to be included as well?
For the EZ, yes, I concede that it should only be for the 1 battle. It CAN be justified as to why they should be game lasting, but such a justification would involve a convoluted explanation as to why its text should be interpreted differently than other cards, which would lead to an exception for those cards. And that is the problem we're trying to fix, not exacerbate. ;)
But for BE cards, I maintain that BE cards should fall 100% under the duration rule. They clearly have no printed duration and there are examples of both OPD and non-OPD cards.
Quote from: ncannelora on May 16, 2012, 01:11:58 PM
Don't get me wrong, I am all for making cards more useful, but if the goal of this revision/revisit is only to simplify the game, I still can't find any Special, aside from the BF code, that doesn't have it's own duration written into the card. And, for the BF code, it seems like it doesn't need clarification - but maybe it does...
Initially I was thinking that affecting a characters Hit Points is always game lasting, but then I thought of at least 1 card that's only battle lasting (X-Man's FF), so maybe the Duration Rule is needed - even if only for the BF card...
But again, no printed duration and OPD = game lasting. Simple and fair interpretation.
Quote from: ncannelora on May 16, 2012, 01:11:58 PM
Anyway, I'm fine including BE, because it's duration is much less clear to me (based soley on that card's text), but the EZ i'm a little less certain about, especially because of the HS and LH codes I mentioned above.
So, as important as it is, making the Duration Rule a blanket rule, I think it's equally important to determine which cards do not have a duration printed. I think we can all agree that both the EB and KC cards have durations printed right on them, right?
Agreed.
-BBH
ok, then I think what we've determined so far (at least so far between us)
The Duration Rule will now apply to all cards as a blanket rule; however, so far we've only seen the codes BE and BF being affected, as all other cards evaluated so far have a (fairly) clear duration of their own.
Are there any other cards out there that would be affected by this ruling?
Quote from: ncannelora on May 16, 2012, 04:41:28 PM
ok, then I think what we've determined so far (at least so far between us)
The Duration Rule will now apply to all cards as a blanket rule; however, so far we've only seen the codes BE and BF being affected, as all other cards evaluated so far have a (fairly) clear duration of their own.
Are there any other cards out there that would be affected by this ruling?
Yes, it seems that this is as simple as it will get. We just need the others to weigh in, and when the committee is finalized we vote.
One other card that could arguably be affected - Backlash - Mist Body (MM)
<Play during battle. All Hits in Backlash's Hits from Current Battle do not count for Venture Total and are subtracted from Opponent's Venture Total.>
Since 'Hits from Current' battle is a specific reference to the location of a hit that has landed not a duration, it could be argued that this card falls under the duration meta-rule making this a game lasting effect. (And a very nice one)
Also to be discussed, though probably in another thread - is the effect of the text. The text would imply that the venture is literally turned around on the opponent, though they made an errata to state that it was just redundant wording.
Thoughts on this interpretation?
-BBH
Quote from: BigBadHarve on May 17, 2012, 12:02:24 PM
Quote from: ncannelora on May 16, 2012, 04:41:28 PM
ok, then I think what we've determined so far (at least so far between us)
The Duration Rule will now apply to all cards as a blanket rule; however, so far we've only seen the codes BE and BF being affected, as all other cards evaluated so far have a (fairly) clear duration of their own.
Are there any other cards out there that would be affected by this ruling?
Yes, it seems that this is as simple as it will get. We just need the others to weigh in, and when the committee is finalized we vote.
One other card that could arguably be affected - Backlash - Mist Body (MM)
<Play during battle. All Hits in Backlash's Hits from Current Battle do not count for Venture Total and are subtracted from Opponent's Venture Total.>
Since 'Hits from Current' battle is a specific reference to the location of a hit that has landed not a duration, it could be argued that this card falls under the duration meta-rule making this a game lasting effect. (And a very nice one)
Also to be discussed, though probably in another thread - is the effect of the text. The text would imply that the venture is literally turned around on the opponent, though they made an errata to state that it was just redundant wording.
Thoughts on this interpretation?
-BBH
That is, indeed, a good one. I'm not sure how it escaped me... anyway, in light of the effect/wording of the FL cards (Capt Brit, Rogue, Spider-Girl), I'd agree that the effect is not limited to the Current Battle, only that those are the Hits that are affected. I agree this should definitely last for the Game. It's just a better version of the FL card, at that point.
As for the errata, yes we can definitely discuss in more detail later, but for now I completely agree that it should have a reflective property. I'll save all my arguments for a deliberation specific to that card, but for now I'd say let it be.
Quote from: BigBadHarve on May 17, 2012, 12:02:24 PM
One other card that could arguably be affected - Backlash - Mist Body (MM)
<Play during battle. All Hits in Backlash's Hits from Current Battle do not count for Venture Total and are subtracted from Opponent's Venture Total.>
Since 'Hits from Current' battle is a specific reference to the location of a hit that has landed not a duration, it could be argued that this card falls under the duration meta-rule making this a game lasting effect. (And a very nice one)
Also to be discussed, though probably in another thread - is the effect of the text. The text would imply that the venture is literally turned around on the opponent, though they made an errata to state that it was just redundant wording.
Thoughts on this interpretation?
-BBH
Though I'm not of the committee, I would have to weigh in here on the MM as affected by the blanket Duration Rule. The card itself indicates that you must play it during battle, which was simply a way of the designers making cards more clear that they are not to be played defensively, but if you take the OPDness of the MM special into consideration, that ultimately makes Backlash supremely overpowered as once he plays that card, he's immune to giving your opponent points for venture for the rest of the game. That's a pretty hefty special card, and if combined with a Pile It On from a battlesite, can make for 1 devistating character on the field. Think about it from the angle of the Dead is Dead rule. X-babies aggrivated folks to the point that they had to make that 1 rule simply for them, and then Grunge, and though DiD would still affect Backlash, being a venture void is WAY more devisating to your opponent then an unkillable character. I would weigh in that "Play During Battle" in this instance would mean not just "can't be played defensively" but also "does not last beyond this battle." You may want to check other cards that might have similar text with otherwise undefined durations before you guys finalize this one.
I also noticed that the AJ specials are not in question with the duration rule, but there is 1 OPD AJ special belonging to the Shi'ar. Would their AJ special, once in play be passively usable each turn for the remainder of the game until they are KO'ed?
I agree that making Backlash's Mist Body game lasting would be very powerful. I don't think this breaks Backlash as a character though. I also don't think there is any indication of a duration on the card. If the duration rule is to truly be a blanket rule; this card must be game-lasting.
I seem to remember this card having an instantaeous duration. At the time you play Mist Body, you deduct the hits from current battle that are already in play against Backlash from the opponent's venture total, but new hits this battle still count. This special also didn't actually subtract the venture, simply didn't allow your opponent to add it into his total at the end of the battle. It was one of those "whoopsie" specials that didn't get proof-read before it was printed and distributed. If it actually did subtract the venture, a lvl 7 hit on Backlash would result in a -7 venture for the opponent, instead of simply not gaining the 7, which makes the card much more powerful then originally intended. Also, we aren't discussing the "Play as Written" end of things which is a BBH house rule. There should still be card errata out there for those few, truly confusing cards, like Mist Body, but if everyone feels that the revised Duration Rule should affect this card via the blanket instead of making this card an instantaeous effect, then I won't argue. I DO think that's a mistake, but I won't argue it further.
Side note. HQ specials (which is another errata I can't see undoing) also don't have a printed duration, and are OPD. They, like Mist Body, would also be game lasting.
Quote from: Demacus on May 19, 2012, 12:50:08 PM
I seem to remember this card having an instantaeous duration. At the time you play Mist Body, you deduct the hits from current battle that are already in play against Backlash from the opponent's venture total, but new hits this battle still count. This special also didn't actually subtract the venture, simply didn't allow your opponent to add it into his total at the end of the battle. It was one of those "whoopsie" specials that didn't get proof-read before it was printed and distributed. If it actually did subtract the venture, a lvl 7 hit on Backlash would result in a -7 venture for the opponent, instead of simply not gaining the 7, which makes the card much more powerful then originally intended. Also, we aren't discussing the "Play as Written" end of things which is a BBH house rule. There should still be card errata out there for those few, truly confusing cards, like Mist Body, but if everyone feels that the revised Duration Rule should affect this card via the blanket instead of making this card an instantaeous effect, then I won't argue. I DO think that's a mistake, but I won't argue it further.
To add to your Backlash points just add in image inducer and really get ready for a venture 'black hole'.
Anyway, I thought inherent in what we were doing was to play cards as written with the exception of a few. For me those few would be cards like Power Leech and Vertigo to name a couple.
I'm mostly just trying to point out that "Instantaneous" while not defined by the card text, is still an acceptable duration. Not every card played should be Battle or Game lasting. MM, HQ and the Shi'Ar's AJ would be 3 instances of OPD's that should simply have an Instantaneous duration, even if you play the MM as written and really screw your opponent's venture total. :D
Absorbing Man's JJ special has no printed duration. This too, would be for remainder of game, and he could discard any non-multiPower card to remove all hits containing an icon which matched the discarded Powercards icon, as often as he likes/has cards in hand to discard. He'd be really hard to kill. His DY could also be changed each battle at will to something more useful, depending on what's on his hit record. If he removes the copied hit with his JJ, he could simply choose a new hit for the DY to mimic.
Lack of a printed duration doesn't give us the right to make instantaneous attacks/effects Battle or Game lasting. I would have to say that the BE specials should also remain as an instantaneous duration, and the fact that Wolverine's BE is non-OPD should either be chalked up as an oversite and thus, like the HQ's, be deemed an OPD anyways, OR a perk for Wolverine over the other characters with similar abilities.
Quote from: Demacus on May 19, 2012, 02:00:59 PM
I'm mostly just trying to point out that "Instantaneous" while not defined by the card text, is still an acceptable duration. Not every card played should be Battle or Game lasting. MM, HQ and the Shi'Ar's AJ would be 3 instances of OPD's that should simply have an Instantaneous duration, even if you play the MM as written and really screw your opponent's venture total. :D
Valid point. I agree.
Quote from: Demacus on May 19, 2012, 02:00:59 PM
Lack of a printed duration doesn't give us the right to make instantaneous attacks Battle or Game lasting. I would have to say that the BE specials should also remain as an instantaneous duration, and the fact that Wolverine's BE is non-OPD should either be chalked up as an oversite and thus, like the HQ's, be deemed an OPD anyways, OR a perk for Wolverine over the other characters with similar abilities.
I see what you're saying on the BE specials. I'm comfortable with them being instantaneous or game lasting as long as they have to be played when your opponent concedes and not just anytime during the battle. I always wondered if Wolverine's card was a mistake or a perk.
i'm with dem on this one
i think those, and the concede cards should be instantaneous only.
imo, the 'duration rule' should only apply to cards where there is a duration, but it's not printed on the card
I agree with the instantaneous effect of many cards, but not BE and not MM either, I think.
BE doesn't say "play when opponent concedes battle" like the BL-coded specials. There's nothing to say I can't play it on my very first turn. It affects the user directly and is not predicated on my opponent's action. The only time my opponent plays into it is when they actually concede, which allows my attack. They don't have to concede for me to be able to play the card in the first place.
MM code says "all hits" not "all hits so far" so I really don't see how this would last anything less than a full battle. In terms of its errata, yes I think it should remove the reflexive property of its wording. But then again, I really don't care about that. If we suddenly see Backlash is now a powerhouse, I don't think that'd confront me, personally. There are still tons of ways to kill and to keep Venture (see the NJ Specials, Excelsior, Holographic Attackers, Excelsior, plus you could just kill 'im).
Valid points, Ncann, but in the objectivity of simplifying the rules I don't mean to make the mistake of making more situations which would cause further errata and or Meta rules that target a single card. Why write a rule, knowing full well it leaves gaping holes to be taken advantage of, if you can just nip it in the bud beforehand but simply remembering/labeling a card's duration as Instantaneous.
The EB, you are right, does not have any implications about being played only after your opponent has conceded, and if you want to play your EB as your first attack for that particular battle in an attempt to set up your opponent, that's great, but to imply that the EB would have a Game long duration seems really harsh, and also abusive. Sure Carnage might not be a high tier character but Wolverine, Sabertooth and the Any Character Special can be devastating as Game long durations (and I am aware that Wolverine's isn't OPD and, therefore, would not fall under the Remainder of Game implications) but I just don't think that's what the designers had in mind when they wrote up that particular special. We are talking about making the EB's play as BBH indicated in his earlier post, correct? "For remainder of game, <character> may make 1 attack after opponent has conceded the battle. Opponent may defend." The other option would be to make the EB playable anytime, then it sits on the character who played it until the opponent concedes, at which point the character with the EB would have the option to make an attack, and if he does, the EB is now spent and discarded, and if he doesn't the EB simply sits and waits for the next opportunity. Those two different ways make a big difference on the duration of the card itself.
I'm all for increasing the usability of the cards, but not as a primary focus. If the cards happen to be improved by the cleaning up of the rules, that's awesome, but I don't think we should be bending the rules for specials which were clearly implied to have a less then Game lasting duration because we choose to be blind to our own proceedings.
Quote from: Demacus on May 19, 2012, 06:18:35 PM
Valid points, Ncann, but in the objectivity of simplifying the rules I don't mean to make the mistake of making more situations which would cause further errata and or Meta rules that target a single card. Why write a rule, knowing full well it leaves gaping holes to be taken advantage of, if you can just nip it in the bud beforehand but simply remembering/labeling a card's duration as Instantaneous.
The EB, you are right, does not have any implications about being played only after your opponent has conceded, and if you want to play your EB as your first attack for that particular battle in an attempt to set up your opponent, that's great, but to imply that the EB would have a Game long duration seems really harsh, and also abusive. Sure Carnage might not be a high tier character but Wolverine, Sabertooth and the Any Character Special can be devastating as Game long durations (and I am aware that Wolverine's isn't OPD and, therefore, would not fall under the Remainder of Game implications) but I just don't think that's what the designers had in mind when they wrote up that particular special. We are talking about making the EB's play as BBH indicated in his earlier post, correct? "For remainder of game, <character> may make 1 attack after opponent has conceded the battle. Opponent may defend." The other option would be to make the EB playable anytime, then it sits on the character who played it until the opponent concedes, at which point the character with the EB would have the option to make an attack, and if he does, the EB is now spent and discarded, and if he doesn't the EB simply sits and waits for the next opportunity. Those two different ways make a big difference on the duration of the card itself.
I'm all for increasing the usability of the cards, but not as a primary focus. If the cards happen to be improved by the cleaning up of the rules, that's awesome, but I don't think we should be bending the rules for specials which were clearly implied to have a less then Game lasting duration because we choose to be blind to our own proceedings.
to be clear, you're referring to the "BE" coded cards (attack after concede), not the "EB" codes, which are the shield cards (also mentioned in this thread), right?
I sincerely do not think that allowing a character to attack after each battle is abusive, that's how Shadowhelmet is played right now. No one disputes/abuses it and it's not even character-specific. Even if you had a Front Line that could do this across the board, it takes set-up, plus there's the defense of negating these Specials... As for the Any Hero version, I don't consider any rule application to Any Hero cards to be broken, since ANY team can use Any Hero cards. At worst, that's getting the balance of Any Hero decks to Battlesite decks a little closer, in my view.
Having said all of that, at the minimum, I think the BE-Specials should stay in play until that character has actually made a post-concede attack. If that's when the card is "used up" then so be it; however, if that's the case then Wolverine's becomes better than the OPD counterparts, as he could have multiples that would still stay until used (just like having multiple shield "EB" cards in play).
I think I'm honestly fine with either ruling. I've played with these being game-lasting and they have never, ever, seemed broken or abusable. I've had maybe 1 or 2 instances EVER where that last little hit KO'd some one. Usually it just lets me get another jab, but it's almost never the pivotal hit.
Oops, yes I did mean the BE specials. I must have been typing fast and gotten the code backwards. I didn't realize that Shadowhelmet worked in that manner, but just because an artifact works a certain way, doesn't mean the similar specials should work the same way. That being said, I can't really argue further against the BE duration change.
Quote from: ncannelora on May 19, 2012, 05:58:10 PM
MM code says "all hits" not "all hits so far" so I really don't see how this would last anything less than a full battle. In terms of its errata, yes I think it should remove the reflexive property of its wording. But then again, I really don't care about that. If we suddenly see Backlash is now a powerhouse, I don't think that'd confront me, personally. There are still tons of ways to kill and to keep Venture (see the NJ Specials, Excelsior, Holographic Attackers, Excelsior, plus you could just kill 'im).
As far as the MM situation, there are specials similar, that don't have Battle lasting durations, like Holocaust's GF - Apocalyptic Minion, which states "Move all hits from Holocaust's Hits from Current Battle into Permanent Record. Affects Venture Total" This card can only move the hits that have landed already, and does not affect new, incoming attacks. Mist Body is worded similarly, "Play during battle. All hits in Backlash's Hits from Current Battle do not affect venture total and are subtracted from opponent's venture total," and should be played similarly, that it be of instantaneous duration and not battle or game lasting. Making Holocaust's non-OPD special into a battle lasting duration wouldn't be right under the duration rule, so doing the same for Backlash's wouldn't make sense either. The fact that Backlash's special is OPD doesn't mean it should have an adjusted duration, just that when Image released, the designers felt that it should be an OPD special. If we get into card specific errata, and choose to take away it's OPDness, that would be a different discussion, but I don't really see how it's duration would change from Instantaneous.
Side note: Is there another Meta rule or errata somewhere linking Artifacts to Meta #145? According to the meta ruling as written in BBH's first post, Meta #145 doesn't affect Artifacts, which brings the question "Why does the Image Inducer only last till the end of the battle?" IS there a rule somewhere about Artifact durations? From what I've seen of Artifacts and the "cost" to play them, I see no reason why any artifact would have less then a game lasting duration, save, of course, for the obviously instantaneous effect of The Ultimate Nullifier.
i agree with dem
the issue isnt that BEs will be too powerful. the text on the card opens up too many possibilites for other cards to fall under the same rule (like the mentioned holocaust card, and the shi'ar one)
I think this needs to be clarified as there are three types of timing: battle-lasting, game-lasting, and instantaneous. There just needs to be a clear way to identify what is instantaneous and what falls under the duration rule.
well, I don't see how the MM is instantaneous, still. Please explain how these two effects are seen, one as instantaneous and the other not, except that one says "for remainder of game" and the other doesn't...
Hits to Current Battle with Energy or Fighting icons do not count towards
Opponent's Venture Total.
Hits from Current Battle do not count for Venture Total
is it the difference between "to" and "from"...? I mean, if I play an MM Special, are the later hits that land on Backlash not still "from Current Battle"? then why wouldn't they also be affected by the MM Special?
What is the code for the first card you are refferencing? I don't have them all memorized anymore.
Quote from: ncannelora on May 21, 2012, 01:40:34 AM
well, I don't see how the MM is instantaneous, still. Please explain how these two effects are seen, one as instantaneous and the other not, except that one says "for remainder of game" and the other doesn't...
Hits to Current Battle with Energy or Fighting icons do not count towards
Opponent's Venture Total.
Hits from Current Battle do not count for Venture Total
is it the difference between "to" and "from"...? I mean, if I play an MM Special, are the later hits that land on Backlash not still "from Current Battle"? then why wouldn't they also be affected by the MM Special?
The card is unique. I think it's a battle lasting card (counting all hits on backlash before and after its played) whose affect is instantaneous at the time opponent counts venture (subtracting or not counting those hits). The card is badly worded because they didn't want it to be game lasting. Compare the MM to Rouge's FL which states: For remainder of game, cards of Rogue's Hits to Current Battle, with Fighting or Strength icons do not count towards Opponent's Venture Total. They could have used the exact same wording for Backlash without specifying icons if they wanted it to be game lasting.
When I breakdown how its worded I can see how it happened.
Play during battle. I think this is to make sure people didn't think it had to be played at the end of the battle or after battle. If you compare it to the Rouge's FL special that you referenced this is the line that would have said "For remainder of game".
All Hits in Backlash's Hits from current Battle do not count for Venture Total... I think they didn't want to say 'for remainder of battle' here because they wanted all hits received that battle to be affected and NOT just the ones that occurred AFTER the card was played.
...and are subtracted from Opponent's venture total. As the metal rule states that was simply redundant wording. Not counted for venture or subtracted from venture are the same net affect IF you don't do BOTH.
A camel is a horse made by committee... LOL!
Quote from: Nostalgic on May 21, 2012, 02:30:33 PM
…and are subtracted from Opponent’s venture total.
As the metal rule states that was simply redundant wording. Not counted for venture or subtracted from venture are the same net affect IF you don’t do BOTH.
Personally, this wording is why I think it was rated an OPD in the first place. I think, when it was designed, it was meant to do BOTH, but after it hit the tournament circuit, the judges deemed the wording to be redundant. If the wording is redundant, how is the MM special more worthy of the OPD tag then the aforementioned GF special of Holocausts. I still stand by the ideology that the MM special would be played similar to the GF special, being that it only affects what is on the field at the time of play, and nothing more. The lack of duration wording on the MM special seems to support this, especially considering the "For remainder of game" note on the FL specials that DO indicate they have a duration longer then instant. Based on what the cards do, I would say that the MM special is closer in effect to the GF specials then to the FL specials.
Quote from: Demacus on May 21, 2012, 02:52:44 PM
Quote from: Nostalgic on May 21, 2012, 02:30:33 PM
...and are subtracted from Opponent's venture total.
As the metal rule states that was simply redundant wording. Not counted for venture or subtracted from venture are the same net affect IF you don't do BOTH.
Personally, this wording is why I think it was rated an OPD in the first place. I think, when it was designed, it was meant to do BOTH, but after it hit the tournament circuit, the judges deemed the wording to be redundant. If the wording is redundant, how is the MM special more worthy of the OPD tag then the aforementioned GF special of Holocausts.
Well the GF basically make the damage done so far zero while the MM as worded would make the damage done zero AND count against the opponent's venture. If you were hit by a level 7 power card the GF nullifies it while the MM make it a -7 to you. It's like a 14 point swing. Also making it OPD worthy in my oppinion.
well it seems to me that the MM is being seen two different ways, so far...
1) instant effect AND dual purpose, both negating the Hits' Venture AND subtracting them from Opponent's V.Total.
2) Redundant wording, but lasting effect, and thus open to application of the Duration Rule...
As far as I can tell, no one is arguing that it should be lasting AND dual purpose
As far as I can tell, no one is arguing that it is instantaneous AND redundant wording
Is this right so far?
If so, I'll be honest, I don't think I care too much about this particular card to worry about it. The purpose of the Rules Committee is to reduce Meta Rules and Errata and it seems like this card is going to need errata or a Meta Rule one way or another :-\
I'd say that you summed it up pretty nicely there Ncann. The only reason we've discussed this card here is to try to determine if the duration rule should be applied under the "OPD means game lasting" section. I do have 1 more point against that logic, pertaining to the FL specials that do state "for remainder of game" these specials only affect certain incoming hits that would not affect venture total (Nigh Invulnerable restricts venture from Fighting and Strength hits,) while the MM special indicates that all hits, with no restrictions, would not affect venture total, which would put the MM special in a completely different class then any other special in the game.
As far as a decisive duration, I still strongly feel that Mist Body was designed to be instantaneous, but I would be willing to discuss the option of a battle lasting effect, but not game lasting.
Quote from: Demacus on May 23, 2012, 09:35:34 PM
I'd say that you summed it up pretty nicely there Ncann. The only reason we've discussed this card here is to try to determine if the duration rule should be applied under the "OPD means game lasting" section. I do have 1 more point against that logic, pertaining to the FL specials that do state "for remainder of game" these specials only affect certain incoming hits that would not affect venture total (Nigh Invulnerable restricts venture from Fighting and Strength hits,) while the MM special indicates that all hits, with no restrictions, would not affect venture total, which would put the MM special in a completely different class then any other special in the game.
As far as a decisive duration, I still strongly feel that Mist Body was designed to be instantaneous, but I would be willing to discuss the option of a battle lasting effect, but not game lasting.
We're arguing in circles over this matter, and pretty much back to the way the game is now - unclear and unintuitive. Who ever said Mist Body was 'Instant?" It's a battle lasting special under existing official rules - in direct conflict of the duration meta rule. That makes Mist Body a special card with TWO errata that change its effect. One errata to the text, the 2nd to contradict the core rule which governs its duration.
As for FL coded cards being a point against the logic of the MM card being game lasting, I'd argue the opposite - it's a point for it. Mist body should essentially a more powerful version of the FL coded cards... available to only ONE character in the entire game. How many examples are there of characters having more powerful versions of another character's specials? It's already a common thing, why should this be different just because it's better than someone else's? That being the case we should start a nerf list to make all cards equal... 'cause you know that would make the game lots of fun! :P
The point of this exercise, as you say, isn't to take cards and make them usable, rather to make the game more simple and intuitive. By applying all rules in a blanket format, we will naturally change the way some of the cards are played (some for better and some worse). If we don't accept that, then there is no point is doing what we're doing. Because applying a so-called 'blanket rule' and then listing exceptions is exactly what the system currently is.
We need to explore the FULL range of implications of what applying the Duration rule as an absolute would cause, not argue about the power of a few cards. Wording is EVERYTHING. The duration rule has clear wording, as do most of the cards that SHOULD fall under it.
Playing MM, BE, and EB coded specials (among others) under this rule would not imbalance the game. So why nitpick over the change? There are far worse cards for game balance than Carnage being able to attack the opponent each round after concession, and they are perfectly legal in the existing system.
But again, that's not the big issue - the really big issue is clarity.
So rather than arguing the effect on the game due to a change in a handful of cards, I propose we list ALL cards we think would fall under this rule based solely on the printed text, and if so what the change would entail
based on the exact wording of the meta rule itself. This list should be without opinion on whether or not the change is good or bad, just the change itself:
Meta #145: Specials that do not indicate their duration by their game text should be considered Game lasting duration if they are One Per Deck and Battle lasting duration if they are non-OPD. Specials with instant effects are instant duration regardless.So, by your interpretation - with this rule in mind what cards do you think would apply based on their text? Lets get a comprehensive list so it's right in front of us.
-BBH
Good point BBH.
You know even with that card at full power (game lasting AND subtracting numerical hits from opponents venture total) its not like it would break the game. There are alot of ways around it. First its a OPD so there's no telling when it will come up. You could use a battlesite to play a DS special to 'fish' for it, but even then it could be negated when you play it or negated in some future battle, or removed with a KL special. Even if it is put in play it's not like you HAVE to attack Backlash. Perhaps there's some 'killer' tricks that could be run through him, but I don't think so.
Quote from: BigBadHarve on May 23, 2012, 11:08:01 PM
Meta #145: Specials that do not indicate their duration by their game text should be considered Game lasting duration if they are One Per Deck and Battle lasting duration if they are non-OPD. Specials with instant effects are instant duration regardless.
So, by your interpretation - with this rule in mind what cards do you think would apply based on their text? Lets get a comprehensive list so it's right in front of us.
-BBH
I agree with your summation, I really don't care if certain cards get better or worse (well, not exactly... I'd be lying if I didn't say I enjoy all cards getting better), I just want rules clarified. To me, the biggest issue with this particular meta rule is that portion I underlined in my quote. cards like EB and KC seem to have pretty clear durations printed on them. So far as I can tell, these are the only OPDs I've seen that should be affected by this rule:
BE, BF, MM
And beyond that, I haven't investigated many non-OPD cards for the duration ruling (again, beyond the EB and KC, which seem to have their durations printed).
Quote from: Nostalgic on May 24, 2012, 12:03:03 AM
Good point BBH.
You know even with that card at full power (game lasting AND subtracting numerical hits from opponents venture total) its not like it would break the game. There are alot of ways around it. First its a OPD so there's no telling when it will come up. You could use a battlesite to play a DS special to 'fish' for it, but even then it could be negated when you play it or negated in some future battle, or removed with a KL special. Even if it is put in play it's not like you HAVE to attack Backlash. Perhaps there's some 'killer' tricks that could be run through him, but I don't think so.
I agree (and I think I said as much). I don't care if there's a better version that one person has. Super Girl has an self/teammate avoid 4 or less, but Marrow's is DTR. But then, Nightcrawler has a self/teammate avoid 6 or less, but then Dr.Strange has it too, but it's playable from Reserve. There are tiers (in some cases, many tiers) to pretty much every type of card. Having this one, unique, OPD Special be clearly better than the FL Specials doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Besides, I've never seen anyone use Backlash. If everyone starts using Backlash, what do I care if there's more backlash?
(see what I did there? ;))
Quote from: BigBadHarve on May 23, 2012, 11:08:01 PM
Meta #145: Specials that do not indicate their duration by their game text should be considered Game lasting duration if they are One Per Deck and Battle lasting duration if they are non-OPD. Specials with instant effects are instant duration regardless.
So, by your interpretation - with this rule in mind what cards do you think would apply based on their text? Lets get a comprehensive list so it's right in front of us.
-BBH
You are absolutely right, but I thought there was a guide written out on the internet somewhere that gives rulings as to when and how cards are played. Isn't there a site like Ripayuheadoff, or something like that, that lists the durations, offensive use, defensive use, ect, ect of each card already printed? Or did that site not touch on Image characters/cards? Or is the committee simply not acknowledging that particular site as a viable source of information? I don't think we should be changing OPD's which fall under the underlined section of Meta rule #145. Maybe the MM special wasn't defined as such, and your right, 1 card being changed, for better or for worse, doesn't matter in the grand scheme of what we are trying to do here, but I did mention that the first thing the comittee should do is acknowledge what the base rules are, what documents we are drawing them from, and how they should remain unchanged before we got into making clarifications.
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?
If there truly is no source out there indicating how these cards were to be played before we took up this venture, then I could understand the blanket rule affecting them as we've discussed, but I just don't think that truly is the case. We need a clear understanding of how each rule works in the game, and how it effects the cards in the game before we can change anything. The EB specials DO have a duration. "Until this card is attacked/hit/negated ect IS a duration. The BE and MM DO NOT have a duration. THAT is the meta rule as it is currently written and as I understand it. The BE might not go into EFFECT until an opponent concedes the battle, but I think that is a completely different scenario then adding the words "For remainder of game" simply because the card has an OPD stamped on the bottom.
The problem is in Meta #145's wording itself. Let's break down Meta #145 as it is written. "Specials that do not indicate their duration by their game text should be considered Game lasting duration if the are One Per Deck, and Battle lasting duration if they are non-OPD. Specials with instant effects are instant duration regardless."
Let's start by analyzing the second part of this meta rule "Specials with instant effects are instant duration regardless." There is not a single special card in the game that has a printed "instant effect." That being said, if we look at the first part of Meta #145 "Specials that do not indicate their duration by their game text should be considered Game lasting duration if they are One Per Deck, and Battle lasting duration if they are non-OPD," then all special cards without an instant duration, and there are none, fall under this rule. Therefore, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE ect, ect... would all change how they are played, since they are now all Battle lasting duration. A successful AA special attack under the effect of Meta #145, would add it's points to the venture total for this battle, and then be discarded to the dead pile, because it now has a battle lasting duration. AO specials could be played on your turn, and just sit on the table until all other special cards have been played, at which time you could negate an effect retroactively, because it would now be for remainder of battle, as per Meta #145. I'll give a little ambiguity in the wording of a special card or two, but the rules should be clear and concise. Meta #145 is not a clear and concise rule based on the mechanics of the game that we all play, and should either be re-written to make sense with the mechanics in the game, or simply removed as a rule.
There is a comprehensive specials guide which outlines how to play every single card on a code-by-code basis.
Here's a link so you can download it - http://members.tripod.com/the_twinz/oopWebsite/rules/specials/specialsguidehome.html
Some of the links on that site are no longer active, but the link to download the entire document is still live.
What it all really boils down to here, is what our plan is.
The plan as I understand it, was to take the existing rule-set and clean up and simplify things to make the rules easy and intuitive. Which meant changing some rules where agreed upon by the committee.
If we are just going to play the cards as they are meant to by official rules, then we're wasting our time in all of this because it's all laid out in the meta rules (They contradict and create problems, but that's the game). This game CANNOT be simplified and have all the existing cards continue to function as-is. The only way to simplify it is to take a set of core rules that apply to everything, and implement them with minimal exceptions. (IE: a few errata.)
On that point, the core rules of this game are, in fact, very simple. And by that, I mean the core rules. Attack, defend, turns etc. The trouble starts with the wording on the specials. The duration rule is one of the key culprits in the confusion of how certain cards are played, hence my desire to start with it.
Changing the wording of the Duration Rule is a start, but first we must determine the intent so it's sparkling clear.
-BBH
Quote from: Demacus on May 02, 2012, 02:43:42 PM
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 thought the intent was pretty simple. Clean up and possibly rewrite the rules in order to have a more clear game to play and teach. In that regard, moving forward, I
almost don't care how cards
used to be played. I mean, it's a good reference, but just because something
used to be a certain way, doesn't mean it should
continue to be that way, right? I mean, that's why we're doing this in the first place.
So, with that, I think we should put this back on track and discuss specifically,
A) Which cards will be affected by the duration rule?
B) Which cards have lasting effects, but are
no longer subject to the duration rule, because their duration is now determined by the card text?
As I stated before this post, I personally think
(A)
BE - I won't fight terribly for this, but as long as we're voting, I'll vote to include it.
BF - maybe the only card that clearly needs the Duration Rule.
KJ - Currently included in the Duration Rule and pretty much exactly to how I think
BE should be played - play now, keep it out until it's used (except Wolvie's,
which would be - play now, keep it out until it's used or the current battle ends)
MB - The secondary effect is open-ended, but it certainly seems it should stay for
the whole game. Also, all versions are OPD, making it easy.
(B)
CK - because it I think the text indicates single battle
CT - because "until teammate is KO'd." is the duration
EB - because "until this special is attacked" is the default duration, except where the
text specifies it is only Battle, or is Game lasting.
KC - because "until _____ is KO'd or cannot be attacked." is the duration.
KT - because "remainder of battle" and "teammate attacks this Special." are the
specified durations.
EDIT:
dang! I even proof-read and still had to add post-script! lol
the MM card. When I re-read that card, it does seem very clear that it is Battle-lasting. That's how it was played before, even though it's OPD. I think that's because the card text makes it pretty clear it shoud be Battle-lasting. For comparison, if the FL cards did
not include the "remainder of Game" text, I would argue for them to be Battle-lasting as well, but they
do have the text.
Basically, what I did above was go through the existing Meta Rules and looked for anything with Rule #145 attached to it. I know that might still miss some codes, but I couldn't think of any more Specials that used to be under this rule, that shouldn't be... or any Specials that used to not be under this rule, that should be...
Quote from: BigBadHarve on May 24, 2012, 06:23:34 PM
What it all really boils down to here, is what our plan is.
The plan as I understand it, was to take the existing rule-set and clean up and simplify things to make the rules easy and intuitive. Which meant changing some rules where agreed upon by the committee.
If we are just going to play the cards as they are meant to by official rules, then we're wasting our time in all of this because it's all laid out in the meta rules (They contradict and create problems, but that's the game). This game CANNOT be simplified and have all the existing cards continue to function as-is. The only way to simplify it is to take a set of core rules that apply to everything, and implement them with minimal exceptions. (IE: a few errata.)
On that point, the core rules of this game are, in fact, very simple. And by that, I mean the core rules. Attack, defend, turns etc. The trouble starts with the wording on the specials. The duration rule is one of the key culprits in the confusion of how certain cards are played, hence my desire to start with it.
Changing the wording of the Duration Rule is a start, but first we must determine the intent so it's sparkling clear.
-BBH
As Ncann did quote my original intent, I'm not going to repeat it here. Thanks Ncann. :D
As for Meta #145, I'm not against making the duration rule a blanket rule, but under it's current text, as I stated in my last post, it doesn't make any sense. For the "Instant effects are instant regardless" part of meta #145 to function, we have to find which effects, under the original rules, were deemed to be instant effects, then keep those cards as such. But even if we were to do THAT, the first part of Meta #145 STILL doesn't make sense, because there are EB specials and KC specials out there with printed durations which are not adhered to.
That being said, the simple way to rectify Meta #145 would be to re-write it "Specials with a printed duration, remain in play until that duration is fulfilled." That is simple, and concise and to the point. However, if a new player is playing a card with a printed duration, he will, logically, attempt to keep that special in play until it's printed duration is met, and thus doing so, makes this rule redundant and unnessasary. If we are to bring this specific rule to a vote, my vote would be to simply eliminate it entirely and remove the confusion it causes that way. As far as specific duration changes on specials, we can discuss each special code at a later time.
Quote from: Demacus on May 25, 2012, 02:43:12 PM
If we are to bring this specific rule to a vote, my vote would be to simply eliminate it entirely and remove the confusion it causes that way. As far as specific duration changes on specials, we can discuss each special code at a later time.
I just don't know about that part, though. It seems like the Duration Rule is still valuable for some of the cards it originally affected, like BF, KJ, and MB. I think the text of the rule has never been the problem, only it's application. It should never have affected EB or KC cards, as discussed.
As for the cards with "instant" effects, that's kind of misleading. I mean, a KC has an instant effect, as well as a lasting effect. While a card like the KJ card has a lasting effect, without an instant effect. To me, whether or not a card has an "instant" effect is not relative to whether or not it has a lasting effect (EZ is a great example of dynamics of these words).
Of those you listed Ncann, the BF special is really the only one that truly does not have a printed duration. The KJ special is actually quite clear on how that particular special effects the state of the game and when it would effect the state of the game.
The MB as well, having a state for it's second affect to come into play and for how long that affect remains in play "If successful, target character is KO'ed by the next level 2 __ power card hit, regardless of Inherant Abilities and other Special cards." If you really break it down, if the lvl 6A attack from this special hits it's target, even if the 6A itself is removed before the killing blow is delievered, the pre-requisite for the level 2 power card hit to be an instant KO has still been met and would still be in play until the character the MB was played against is KO'ed. The only question both of these specials raise in MY mind would be, "Do I have to play the KJ special in the Battle in which Shang-Chi is KO'ed?" It does seem clear to me by the way it's written, that once it has been played, it's affect just kind of "floats" waiting for an opportunity to trigger. The same thing with the MB special. It's second effect simply waits for a level 2 power card hit of the pre-determined stat to land, to trigger it's effect, aka KO this character.
That being the case, I would still think it would be easier to errata the BF special itself, and any other random specials that may have been overlooked by this rule, then making this a blanket rule and changing the durations of specials that shouldn't have their durations changed. Perhaps we can think of a better way to re-word this rule, so that it makes sense, without screwing with established card plays?
The BF special, even prior to meta #145 was always for the remainder of the game in the circles I played it. It just seemed that that was the intent of the card, even if it didn't exclusively say so. But aside from this 1 card, I haven't seen a single example of a card with an unclear duration, simply cards with durations that were being disregarded for the sake of making some more powerful then others, when some were already more powerful then others for reasons other then "this one is OPD and this one is not, so the OPD should be stronger."
I still think we'd be better off establishing what cards do what, and THEN deciding to change the rule that makes the cards not nessassarily do what they ought. If we are really going to go through the rules to see what's clear and what's not clear, we should start at the beginning, not just jump from 1 meta to another based on "I've always hated this rule. How do we fix it?" We might actually work out an agreeable solution to this particular conundrum if we start at the foundation and work our way back to it.
Quote from: Demacus on May 25, 2012, 04:12:44 PM
Of those you listed Ncann, the BF special is really the only one that truly does not have a printed duration. The KJ special is actually quite clear on how that particular special effects the state of the game and when it would effect the state of the game.
The MB as well, having a state for it's second affect to come into play and for how long that affect remains in play "If successful, target character is KO'ed by the next level 2 __ power card hit, regardless of Inherant Abilities and other Special cards." If you really break it down, if the lvl 6A attack from this special hits it's target, even if the 6A itself is removed before the killing blow is delievered, the pre-requisite for the level 2 power card hit to be an instant KO has still been met and would still be in play until the character the MB was played against is KO'ed. The only question both of these specials raise in MY mind would be, "Do I have to play the KJ special in the Battle in which Shang-Chi is KO'ed?" It does seem clear to me by the way it's written, that once it has been played, it's affect just kind of "floats" waiting for an opportunity to trigger. The same thing with the MB special. It's second effect simply waits for a level 2 power card hit of the pre-determined stat to land, to trigger it's effect, aka KO this character.
That being the case, I would still think it would be easier to errata the BF special itself, and any other random specials that may have been overlooked by this rule, then making this a blanket rule and changing the durations of specials that shouldn't have their durations changed. Perhaps we can think of a better way to re-word this rule, so that it makes sense, without screwing with established card plays?
The BF special, even prior to meta #145 was always for the remainder of the game in the circles I played it. It just seemed that that was the intent of the card, even if it didn't exclusively say so. But aside from this 1 card, I haven't seen a single example of a card with an unclear duration, simply cards with durations that were being disregarded for the sake of making some more powerful then others, when some were already more powerful then others for reasons other then "this one is OPD and this one is not, so the OPD should be stronger."
I do agree that BF clearly needs to be addressed one way or another. I still think MB needs the rule because it's open-ended, just like BF is open-ended. With no clearly marked end to the duration, it could go either way - hence the rule.
For the KJ Special (and actually the NY, too), I think it needs clarification/inclusion because it starts by saying "Play during battle" which could easily leave the interpretation that the revival/protection is only for the current battle. It's like the old Life3 Spell in FFVI, which would do an auto-raise if KO'd, but it was only good for the one battle - as opposed to the version in FFXI, which stays on you between battles, until it's actually used or it's removed from an enemy (or wears off, but whatever ;)). This is also where I think the BE Specials fall. Wolverine's could be played as his opening move, and at the end of that battle it goes away, regardless of how the battle ended, while the OPD versions would stay until they're actually used or negated, but the "instant" effect of them is that they "instantly" give the characters that played them the ability to attack once the opponent concedes.
On that topic, ever read the Meta Rule regarding actions after concession? It says only one Special may be played... so if you don't play the BE until the opponent concedes, that would mean you couldn't make an attack with another Special card... that certainly doesn't seem right. That's why I think the BE should be playable at any time...
Quote from: Demacus on May 25, 2012, 04:12:44 PM
I still think we'd be better off establishing what cards do what, and THEN deciding to change the rule that makes the cards not nessassarily do what they ought. If we are really going to go through the rules to see what's clear and what's not clear, we should start at the beginning, not just jump from 1 meta to another based on "I've always hated this rule. How do we fix it?" We might actually work out an agreeable solution to this particular conundrum if we start at the foundation and work our way back to it.
Now, to THIS point, I think I agree. I think, maybe the more efficient way to do this might be to go through the cards by code and address any that are NOT played exactly as written. Essentially, we'd be chucking ALL the Meta Rules right now, and writing our own. This isn't altogether different than the work BBH has done, except I think lots of people think some of the Specials should NOT be played "as written" (like BQ, BY, etc).
I more specifically ment to start with Meta rule #1, then #2, and so forth, but I'm not opposed to breaking down each individual special code either. But if we DO the specials by code, the OPD/non-OPD of various cards really shouldn't be a factor in how that SPECIFIC card is played compared to others of the same code. There are plenty of unique codes out there, (KJ, MM, ect, ect,) and we could interpret new ways of translating what's there and what was ment by the writting.
I'm with you on the BE specials being playable during battle, and creating a "buff" which would trigger when the opponent actually concedes a battle later in the game. The more I thought about that angle since this thread started, the more that made sense.
The most important thing with cleaning things up though, if forming an understandable foundation to build from, before we start putting up the decorations.
please forgive my interjection (the forum does say public and open in it) ;)
as far as mm special goes it says
(http://overpower.ca/cards/specials/95.png)
all hits from current battle
not
all hits currently in hits from current battle
Yes it does. The same is true about the GF special of Holocaust (Move all hits from Holocaust's hits from current battle into permanent record. Affects venture total.) and The Kree (Move all hits from the current battle into the permanent record of all characters. Affects venture total.) (Apocalyptic Minion and Colonial Yon-Rogg) but in these two cases the GF special only affects the cards in play at the time the GF is played. They DO NOT affect attacks made later in the same turn or even the next hand/battle. Hence the conundrum of the MM special. Does "all hits from current battle" refer to the hits already in play, or till the end of the battle/game? If "all hits" for the MM last until the remainder of the battle, why doesn't Apocalyptic Minion work in a same manner? Colonial Yon-Rogg would completely wipe your opponent's venture for the remainder of the game, since his GF is also One-Per-Deck, and until that special is negated specifically, it would remain in play beyond KO'ing The Kree, since that special does affect the entire team.
Quote from: Demacus on June 07, 2012, 05:11:51 PM
Yes it does. The same is true about the GF special of Holocaust (Move all hits from Holocaust's hits from current battle into permanent record. Affects venture total.) and The Kree (Move all hits from the current battle into the permanent record of all characters. Affects venture total.) (Apocalyptic Minion and Colonial Yon-Rogg) but in these two cases the GF special only affects the cards in play at the time the GF is played. They DO NOT affect attacks made later in the same turn or even the next hand/battle. Hence the conundrum of the MM special. Does "all hits from current battle" refer to the hits already in play, or till the end of the battle/game? If "all hits" for the MM last until the remainder of the battle, why doesn't Apocalyptic Minion work in a same manner? Colonial Yon-Rogg would completely wipe your opponent's venture for the remainder of the game, since his GF is also One-Per-Deck, and until that special is negated specifically, it would remain in play beyond KO'ing The Kree, since that special does affect the entire team.
The Apoc Minion and Col Y-Rogg cards have actions in them (moving cards), so they are inidividual, finite actions (just like an attack is a singular action). There's no indication that there is a lasting effect in them, allowing you to move subsequent hits. The action of
moving the hit requires additional actions.
The MM Special is much more like the FL specials. You're affecting cards that are defined by the Special. The definition is "Hits from the Current Battle" - but you're not actually doing anything
to the cards themselves (like a KL, AL, or aforementioned GF Specials).
The MM Special is more like the flip side of a CQ-Special (which doubles the venture total of the character's Specials). It affects all the cards that are in play,
and the cards that will come into play (granted, the CQ does state it lasts for battle, but the
effect is the same).
Quote from: ncannelora on June 07, 2012, 05:23:59 PM
The Apoc Minion and Col Y-Rogg cards have actions in them (moving cards), so they are inidividual, finite actions (just like an attack is a singular action). There's no indication that there is a lasting effect in them, allowing you to move subsequent hits. The action of moving the hit requires additional actions.
The MM Special is much more like the FL specials. You're affecting cards that are defined by the Special. The definition is "Hits from the Current Battle" - but you're not actually doing anything to the cards themselves (like a KL, AL, or aforementioned GF Specials).
The MM Special is more like the flip side of a CQ-Special (which doubles the venture total of the character's Specials). It affects all the cards that are in play, and the cards that will come into play (granted, the CQ does state it lasts for battle, but the effect is the same).
I was unaware of this ruling about moving cards being considered an additional, definable action, thus indicating the end of an effect. Based on that knowledge, your comparison to the CQ would be considerably more accurate. Where can I find this rule about moving cards? Is it in the metas somewhere, or part of the basic rules that I just never caught?
EDIT:
Jack brought to light where I was mistaken about the MM special with http://overpower.ca/pages/meta.php
This list clearly states that the special itself is battle lasting, and that is really all I was looking for, was an official ruling of how this special is played normally. Based on this information, I stand corrected in insisting that it should have an instantaneous effect. I do, however, still think it's effect is too powerful for anything beyond a single battle.
Quote from: Demacus on June 09, 2012, 09:43:48 AM
EDIT:
Jack brought to light where I was mistaken about the MM special with http://overpower.ca/pages/meta.php
This list clearly states that the special itself is battle lasting, and that is really all I was looking for, was an official ruling of how this special is played normally. Based on this information, I stand corrected in insisting that it should have an instantaneous effect. I do, however, still think it's effect is too powerful for anything beyond a single battle.
so, where does this leave us with the discussion at large? I mean, are we still trying to define "instant" for all the cards? If that's the case, then it seems like going through each card by code is the only effective way...
The link Jack posted clearly defines what cards are Instant, Battle and Game durations.
I've noticed that I'm a bit of a dope (or too busy to really process everything I read due to work being more distracting then I initially thought) and have come to the conclusion that what I was driving at when I suggested this committee, was to accomplish what Jack is actually doing with his Wiki.
That being said, I'm completely on board with making this a forum for a community "House Rules" that we, as a group, can opt to play by.
I still think we should start at #1 though. :D