Breadmaster and Onslaught fighting

[breadmaster]

you keep tweaking the meaning of your posts, and they'll need their own errata/meta rules soon

so card text + erratas + metas = simple...oh, again, except when it doesn't

man, we must be thick in the head

[Nostalgic]

you keep tweaking the meaning of your posts, and they'll need their own errata/meta rules soon

LOL!
No it was just a miscoded special I think... 

[Palatinus]

A lack of understanding doesn't need sarcastic attacks . . .

[Onslaught]

you keep tweaking the meaning of your posts, and they'll need their own errata/meta rules soon

so card text + erratas + metas = simple...oh, again, except when it doesn't

man, we must be thick in the head

This post is barely even English, so yeah maybe you are thick in the head. I asked, in earnest, for a potential scenario where doing what a card tells you to do would be incorrect. By definition, the text of a card is meant to be whatever the tournament guide says it is, so errata would be included in this. Very few cards actually have specific text errata, so it's not that hard to remember for the standouts (i.e., Leech).

Anyway, since there are no scenarios where doing what a card tells you to is wrong, I guess I should't have expected any kind of comprehensible reply. I'm still not even sure what "simple except when it doesn't" is supposed to mean. I'm also not sure why I bothered taking my time to give a correct/definitive answer to a rules question when it is interpreted as something that is still up for discussion. Sorry if you wanted it to work a different way for a pet deck or something, but that's how the rule works.

[breadmaster]

no scenarios?

what about your previous stance on 'acrobatics' type cards?  you adamantly state they should be played the way you saw them ruled in a tournament, despite the meta rules going against that. 

i don't agree with the way you play it, but in that case, according to you,  text+metas=incorrect play

as far as your CORRECT/DEFINITIVE answer to rules questions, may i direct your attention to meta 134

'If one Special sets up a condition and then a second Special comes along with text that directly contradicts the first Special, then the Special played later takes precedence. On the other hand, Events always override the text of Specials.'

regarding shadowcat/AG/HQ/keep dupes event , one would interpret this meta as saying you CAN in fact keep the dupes

hell, i get the rules messed up a whole lot (as do you time to time).  to suggest that overpower rules are not hard to understand is just baffling.  a rules section on the forum with 100+ topics and 1000+ posts seems to support that

[Onslaught]

what about your previous stance on 'acrobatics' type cards?  you adamantly state they should be played the way you saw them ruled in a tournament, despite the meta rules going against that. 

For CDs, the interpretation I was talking about had nothing to do with the card text. It's simply a question of whether or not ally followups are considered to be made "with universe" like teamwork followups are. That's a general rules interpretation, and really doesn't apply at all to "do what the card tells you to do" since it's a passive effect. Always do what a card tells you to do, no matter what. If you can't do everything the card tells you to, you do as much of it as you can.

Ex: All of your deck has been sent to the dead pile except two cards. You play an HQ. Draw two cards, discard duplicates.

Note that this doesn't let you get out of paying costs, i.e. you can't attempt to play a Draw 4 OPD without having the required discard.

'If one Special sets up a condition and then a second Special comes along with text that directly contradicts the first Special, then the Special played later takes precedence. On the other hand, Events always override the text of Specials.'

The Meta rule stating that events override the text of specials is completely wrong btw. Some of the meta-rules are just wrong, which is a quirk of playing a game that didn't get major rules updates for the final year of its sanctioned existence. That meta rule is particularly unintuitive, because it means specials coded GI would essentially have blank text when Down But Not Out or similar effects were played.

Ex: The event "Fighting Spirit Lives!" is in effect. Your opponent plays a GA special against one of your characters. That character is not allowed to play special cards from hand, the meta rule is incorrect.

[breadmaster]

ok...so let me see if i have this right then

text+metas+errata=correct

except when it isnt

sounds alot like what i initially said...

[Overtime]

At this point you're just posting stuff to hear yourself talk. What exactly are you nitpicking here? He gave the correct answer to the question that was asked, I'm not sure what either of you are talking about anymore. =(

[breadmaster]

hey overtime, does onslaught send you in to post after he's humiliated himself?

this isn't the first time you've come into a topic where we've been going back and forth, and changed the subject after he's painted himself into a corner

my issue, is that he's making blanket statements about the rules and claiming that they are simple to understand.  i've stated that they're not.  he pushed back, and i used his own posts to prove him wrong

[Onslaught]

Hey, provide a scenario where you would play a special card and not do what the text tells you to do.

"I don't have one, but here's a bunch of other irrelevant garbage spewing out of my mouth."

Uh, no you're wrong.

"HAHAHA humiliated painted into a corner I PROVED it"

Don't mistake your inability to understand the rules as grounds to decide that the rules must be inherently difficult for everyone. Maybe they are difficult for you, but notice how Jack was able to deduce the correct answer using common sense.

Also, I'm sure the reason Overtime's posting is sparse (and Dr. Death's is non-existent) is the same reason my posting is sparse - these boards are no longer worth our time. What's the point of correctly answering rules questions, provding lengthy and informative posts/articles about strategy and the history of the game, creating high level Marvels cards with the intention to release them to the community, etc, if it is just going towards deluded rubes such as yourself? No more casting pearls before swine.  I don't feel like generating in depth content for people who don't understand it, or probably don't even care to elevate their experience beyond playing "War" with comic book pictures.

Since your reading comprehension is suspect, here's a  picture to explain recent trends:

[breadmaster]

hmmm... i seem to recall someone lamenting ad hominem attacks...

your post did nothing to address the hypocrisy in cherry picking which of the 'simple' rules you choose to follow

but since you're a glutton for punishment, lets look at you personally

STATEMENT: follwing the text/metas/errata/guide to specials is simple

FACT: onslaught thought additional attacks should stack for later use in a chain

FACT: the prevailing feeling was, that the attacks do NOT stack, and were argued by jack (who according to your last post is an authority figure)

this leads me to one of two conclusions

CONCLUSION 1: onslaught lacks the basic intelligence to follow simple rules

CONCLUSION 2: the rules are in fact NOT simple, and contain many contradictions

based on my posts, we know where i stand, but if you want to argue conclusion 1, be my guest

as far as the attacks on my playing ability go, my record speaks for itself

[Onslaught]

I don't think you know what ad hominem means.

For example, if I said "no you're wrong about the rules because you look like Willem Dafoe's son wearing a visor" - that would be an ad hominem attack.

If I say you don't understand the rules and your general ignorance makes me unwilling to answer further rules questions - that is just a statement of fact.

[breadmaster]

concession accepted

[Onslaught]

[breadmaster]

'but here's a bunch of other irrelevant garbage spewing out of my mouth'

stop embarassing yourself, dude...