DZ special as a Defensive Action

[gameplan.exe]

... I don't think anyone claimed that those specials be defensive...

First, my point isn't whether or not DZ should be offensive or defensive. My point is that I don't think it should be allowed to be played on Nightcrawler or his teammates, because in every other case (as shown above), cards that say "target character" are referring to an opponent, not a teammate.

So, stemming from that is my second point, that saying DZ should be allowed against a teammate because it says, "target character" and not, "target opponent" is a flaw. If you use that as an argument for playing DZ on a teammate, then all of the cards I listed could be playable against a teammate also. None of them say anything about the target being on the other team.

[Palatinus]

... I don't think anyone claimed that those specials be defensive...

First, my point isn't whether or not DZ should be offensive or defensive. My point is that I don't think it should be allowed to be played on Nightcrawler or his teammates, because in every other case (as shown above), cards that say "target character" are referring to an opponent, not a teammate.

So, stemming from that is my second point, that saying DZ should be allowed against a teammate because it says, "target character" and not, "target opponent" is a flaw. If you use that as an argument for playing DZ on a teammate, then all of the cards I listed could be playable against a teammate also. None of them say anything about the target being on the other team.

Sorry for my poor word choice.  When I said defensively, I didn't mean "As a defensive action" despite the thread I merged into.  I actually meant used on your own teammate because that would be a way of defending that character.  Also, I agree that saying that a DZ should be allowed to be used on a teammate because it doesn't specify opponent.  I think a good question to ask would be are there any specials in Overpower that can be played on your teammates and opponents, and if so, how are they worded.

[gameplan.exe]

... I don't think anyone claimed that those specials be defensive...

First, my point isn't whether or not DZ should be offensive or defensive. My point is that I don't think it should be allowed to be played on Nightcrawler or his teammates, because in every other case (as shown above), cards that say "target character" are referring to an opponent, not a teammate.

So, stemming from that is my second point, that saying DZ should be allowed against a teammate because it says, "target character" and not, "target opponent" is a flaw. If you use that as an argument for playing DZ on a teammate, then all of the cards I listed could be playable against a teammate also. None of them say anything about the target being on the other team.

Sorry for my poor word choice.  When I said defensively, I didn't mean "As a defensive action" despite the thread I merged into.  I actually meant used on your own teammate because that would be a way of defending that character.  Also, I agree that saying that a DZ should be allowed to be used on a teammate because it doesn't specify opponent.  I think a good question to ask would be are there any specials in Overpower that can be played on your teammates and opponents, and if so, how are they worded.

Well, take a look at the list of Specials to which I referred; it's a good place to start if you're looking for more ways to exploit semantics.

Don't get me wrong, I argue the semantics of this game all of the time (and a lot of other things; it's kind of my job), but generally, I try to relate it back to the comics.

Q: Does Nightcrawler use his teleportation to save his teammates?
A: Yes
Card which rep's this: Bamf!

Q: Does Nightcrawler use his teleportation to remove enemies from the fight?
A: Yes
Card which rep's this: Trick Transport

[Kal-el]

Well I think Ncann is right in the fact that the specials that were 'intended' to be played on your own characters always specify teammate.

I think the question then is how you want to determine the rules. On one hand, a literal interpretation of the card text doesn't prevent it, but that probably wasn't the intent of the card.

On the flip side, as others here have said, limiting the game is annoying and part of the fun is opening up new strategies.

In my mind, a rule that you cannot cause numerical damage to your own characters and you cannot avoid an attack made by your own characters would iron out a lot of these problems, while still letting you do some cool stuff. Of course, that complicates the game a lot more than just saying that a card must specify teammate to be played on a teammate, so I don't know what the best answer is.

[gameplan.exe]

Well I think Ncann is right in the fact that the specials that were 'intended' to be played on your own characters always specify teammate.

I think the question then is how you want to determine the rules. On one hand, a literal interpretation of the card text doesn't prevent it, but that probably wasn't the intent of the card.

On the flip side, as others here have said, limiting the game is annoying and part of the fun is opening up new strategies.

In my mind, a rule that you cannot cause numerical damage to your own characters and you cannot avoid an attack made by your own characters would iron out a lot of these problems, while still letting you do some cool stuff. Of course, that complicates the game a lot more than just saying that a card must specify teammate to be played on a teammate, so I don't know what the best answer is.

I suppose that would work on some levels, but there are 2 cards in particular that would fit this criteria, but I would never agree playing on a teammate (and I've never heard or seen it attempted, either).

* SOUL GEM (FD) <MN> {VR} [OPD]
        Only Adam Warlock and Target Character may attack, be attacked, or
            defend this battle.

* AMELIA VOGHT (HK) <XM> {C}
        Target Character must make as many attacks as possible. Acolytes' team
            may defend.

Those two cards would allow too much exploitation.

The first, if not negated, would allow a pure and easy win with any AF or AW card, plus you could attack a Battlesite safely and relentlessly after it's in play, since the AF/AW would seal the Venture for you.

The second would allow a teammate to make as many as 9 attacks in a row, and they can be Power cards or Specials, and it's not a OPD (see Shrapnel Bomb). Plus you could argue that they'd be unblockable, since the card says "Acolyte's team may defend."

[Demacus]

Ncann, we have to concede this argument....  Read Savage Dragon's LU special.  I guess the DZ works on a teammate.

[Palatinus]

Ncann, we have to concede this argument....  Read Savage Dragon's LU special.  I guess the DZ works on a teammate.

In that regard, there is also Voodoo's NE, The Darkness's LW, Ripclaw's MW, and Witchblade also has an LU.  Still, the vast majority of cards that say "Target Character" are attacks and all these examples came out in the Image set, which was long after Nightcrawler's special.  I do wonder if this would make a good basis for playing JF specials on your own characters.

[gameplan.exe]

Ncann, we have to concede this argument....  Read Savage Dragon's LU special.  I guess the DZ works on a teammate.

That's pretty strong evidence to show that if a Special says, "Target Character..." it can be played on a teammate...

So then, what about all of these other Specials I mentioned? Particularly the FD and HK? How do we differentiate between which Specials can, and which Specials cannot be played on a teammate? Particularly, because there's nothing written about this definition (that I know).

[Demacus]

THAT... is a damn good question. Lol I would think that cards that state Target Character would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Platinus does make a good point, all of these cards did come out of Image. That may have been an oversight within the set itself, different teams working on different cards/characters could have wording inconsistencies if the editor(s) didn't catch the improper wording.

[gameplan.exe]

THAT... is a damn good question. Lol I would think that cards that state Target Character would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Platinus does make a good point, all of these cards did come out of Image. That may have been an oversight within the set itself, different teams working on different cards/characters could have wording inconsistencies if the editor(s) didn't catch the improper wording.

My understanding is that the Image Set was created (and worded) without consultation with the Overpower creators. i.e., the wording of some of the cards in that set probably would have been changed, had they been given the opportunity.

Having said that, the DZ was from Mission Control, which is also the first appearance of the FD. And, the HK came out in IQ...

[NickW]

The only thing I can say is that it is a fundamental rule in OverPower that you cannot "attack" your own team - be it a power card, special, or whatever.

Trick Transport was most likely "approved" for use on a teammate because some die hard Nightcrawler fans made a strong argument that, in the comics, he could transport a teammate to safety 300 yards away from the fight, that would cause the teammate to be unable to attack or be attacked until the next battle, just as easily as he could do that to an enemy.  For good or for bad, the OP staff at the time allowed it, only to come back later and say you can't play it defensively after they realized how people were abusing it.  While this card is considered an attack, it was ruled that it can be played offensively on a teammate.  There are not many cards like this.

Now, before someone replies with Bishop and his Absorb Energy special and how he can use that ability in the comics, that card clearly states "Avoid 1 Energy Attack" first and we have already established that you cannot attack your teammates.  In order to perform like the comic example given, he would need a special card that reads something like "Play with any Energy power card usable by a teammate..." and then followed by some boost effect given to Bishop.

I looked at most of the other (non-Image) examples given and I would have to say that each of those specials would have to be considered an attack, therefore you cannot play them against a teammate.  While they sound like diabolical and cunning ideas that some people might consider if it would give them an edge in that battle or game, OP was not originally set up where you could target anyone with any thing.
The Image cards mentioned are clearly not attacks.  Their game effects are pretty much beneficial and imply that you would want to play them on your teammate, not your opponent.  Although I am sure there is some unusual scenario where it could be a benefit to you playing it against your opponent.  In which case, I would have to say that there is nothing on the card that implies that you *can't* play these cards against your opponent's character.

Yes, "Target Character" and "Target Hero" and "Target Opponent" were probably all used separately when they were intended to read the same way and mean the same thing.  The only definitive label that I can think of that instantly determines if you can play a special on a teammate is the presence of the word "teammate" in the game text (plus the rare exceptions like Trick Transport and a few others).  Perhaps Ron was trying to start to establish some new kind of consistency in Image by using "Target Character" for those specials, or maybe it was just laziness and he didn't want to have to use "(Character's) teammate" as a general text in the spreadsheet and then go back and edit the actual character name in before going to print....

If it looks like an attack, walks like an attack, and quacks like an attack, then it is probably an attack, therefore you cannot play it against your teammate.  Of course, we are 10+ years after the "death" of OP.  You are free to play however you want, just make sure you and your opponents agree beforehand.  This is my interpretation and how I would have ruled on it in 1999.

-- And that's all I have to say about that.

[Demacus]

Sounds right to me.

[gameplan.exe]

I would agree with the idea that you can't attack your team (despite Bishop's precedent). I also agree with the looks like... actst like... etc. But, that brings me back to Telepathic Manipulator. I think it's ridiculous that it could ever be played on a teammate.

[Majestic]

Hard to tell what the final answer is, but from what I've read online, plus the DZ code posted here (the meta rules), it looks like you can no longer use DZ defensively, to block/avoid an attack on Nightcrawler.

[Fractales]

According to the new rules, used in the 2018 Over Power Championship, it is legal to use DZ as a defense.

Also, Nightcrawler's DZ is now considered an OPD.