Author Topic: Meta #32  (Read 3161 times)

breadmaster

  • Ultra Poster
  • ********
  • Posts: 1484
    • View Profile
Meta #32
« on: April 11, 2012, 03:11:49 AM »
Meta #32 If conditions are such that the card cannot be played this battle unless the opponent performs some action, then the card must be placed or discarded as unusable. If the player holds cards that can create the situation by which the card would be playable, then it can be kept in hand.

as i said in the other topic, i'm not a fan of how this rule is applied.  it's good when discarding tws (you have no power cards for) or specials (say a discard to draw, without having the discard)

where i don't like it, is it being applied to cards like AIs (opponent must discard 1 placed card).  i understand the logic behind it, but if one takes it to the rediculous extreme, you can't keep AGs, ADs, ACs, negates, and a whack of other defensive cards, since you can't control whether there will be any attacks.  hell, i concede before battle a helluva lot more than i go without placing a single card.

thoughts?

mattkoz

  • Busy Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
    • View Profile
Re: Meta #32
« Reply #1 on: April 11, 2012, 01:04:13 PM »
Interesting point about Avoid 1 Attacks. It's a pretty literal interpretation, but fair nonetheless. I mean, if we can assume there will be attacks, why not assume there will be cards placed? I guess we assume that a "remove hit in current battle" card will be playable, too.



Jesse

  • Super Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
    • View Profile
Re: Meta #32
« Reply #2 on: April 11, 2012, 02:01:06 PM »
Interesting point about Avoid 1 Attacks. It's a pretty literal interpretation, but fair nonetheless. I mean, if we can assume there will be attacks, why not assume there will be cards placed? I guess we assume that a "remove hit in current battle" card will be playable, too.

Very interesting - i've not really thought about it like that.  You guys bring up some good points.
Beta Ray Bill makes a WHOLE lot more sense at Avengers Mansion than Beyonder showing up and helping out during a fight. - breadmaster

BigBadHarve

  • Ultra Poster
  • ********
  • Posts: 1076
    • View Profile
Re: Meta #32
« Reply #3 on: April 11, 2012, 02:21:14 PM »
It's another case where the rules are inconsistent.

Really, I think a simple definition here would go a long way:

Usable cards: Cards that can be played based on current game conditions.

Unusable cards: Cards that cannot be played based on current game conditions.

Potentially usable cards: Cards that are currently unusable, but may become usable by possible actions by either player.

For the 'potentially usable' category you would have to allow for variables based on opponent action, such as placing or venturing high. Thus I could have an unusable TW in hand, but my opponent might venture high therefore allowing me to draw a power card. Probability is not a factor, it's simply possible. If I keep it in hand, and there's no draw, it's a bluff tool and that's it. But that too is a key part of the game.

But the rule must be absolute otherwise you get into the all too-familiar situation where you have a rule laid down, but must have another list of exceptions to that rule. (IE: The duration meta-rule)

-BBH

Jesse

  • Super Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
    • View Profile
Re: Meta #32
« Reply #4 on: April 11, 2012, 03:22:01 PM »
It's another case where the rules are inconsistent.

Really, I think a simple definition here would go a long way:

Usable cards: Cards that can be played based on current game conditions.

Unusable cards: Cards that cannot be played based on current game conditions.

Potentially usable cards: Cards that are currently unusable, but may become usable by possible actions by either player.

For the 'potentially usable' category you would have to allow for variables based on opponent action, such as placing or venturing high. Thus I could have an unusable TW in hand, but my opponent might venture high therefore allowing me to draw a power card. Probability is not a factor, it's simply possible. If I keep it in hand, and there's no draw, it's a bluff tool and that's it. But that too is a key part of the game.

But the rule must be absolute otherwise you get into the all too-familiar situation where you have a rule laid down, but must have another list of exceptions to that rule. (IE: The duration meta-rule)

-BBH

I do like the 3 levels of breakdown though, minus possible problems it is a really good layout,
Beta Ray Bill makes a WHOLE lot more sense at Avengers Mansion than Beyonder showing up and helping out during a fight. - breadmaster

Bios

  • Busy Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 198
    • View Profile
Re: Meta #32
« Reply #5 on: April 11, 2012, 03:38:51 PM »
I noticed the inconsistency betwen meta #32 and defensive specials a long time ago. Like I said in previous posts, metas are not general rules (as they should be),
but are in fact, specific rules applied to specific cards.

As you can check in the specials guide, meta#32 wasn't related with defensive codes (AG, AD, etc).

The way we dealt with this inconsistency was creating a meta (or house rule) to allow defensive specials to be kept in hand. That is in fact, the way every one always played, just there isn't an explicit rule to support it.

mattkoz

  • Busy Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
    • View Profile
Re: Meta #32
« Reply #6 on: April 11, 2012, 03:55:54 PM »
I noticed the inconsistency betwen meta #32 and defensive specials a long time ago. Like I said in previous posts, metas are not general rules (as they should be),
but are in fact, specific rules applied to specific cards.


As you can check in the specials guide, meta#32 wasn't related with defensive codes (AG, AD, etc).

The way we dealt with this inconsistency was creating a meta (or house rule) to allow defensive specials to be kept in hand. That is in fact, the way every one always played, just there isn't an explicit rule to support it.

That's the key point that we have to keep in mind.

Demacus

  • Super Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 739
    • View Profile
Re: Meta #32
« Reply #7 on: April 11, 2012, 09:47:59 PM »
Thing is, before meta #32, my friends and I always played that unusable cards, or cards made unusable due to the events of battle were simply held for bluffing purposes.  We only ever discarded non-dupes during the discard phase if they were cards that were exclusive to a deceased character, making them truly unusable.  Being forced to discard an AI because your opponent just happened to have nothing left placed at the end of last battle really is kind of crappy, especially considering that you discard PRIOR to the placing phase, and wouldn't know if the AI were truly unusable at the time it was pitched.

ncannelora

  • Ultra Poster
  • ********
  • Posts: 2142
  • bad guys are losers
    • View Profile
Re: Meta #32
« Reply #8 on: April 11, 2012, 10:04:38 PM »
Thing is, before meta #32, my friends and I always played that unusable cards, or cards made unusable due to the events of battle were simply held for bluffing purposes.  We only ever discarded non-dupes during the discard phase if they were cards that were exclusive to a deceased character, making them truly unusable.  Being forced to discard an AI because your opponent just happened to have nothing left placed at the end of last battle really is kind of crappy, especially considering that you discard PRIOR to the placing phase, and wouldn't know if the AI were truly unusable at the time it was pitched.

This is my biggest problem with that particular Meta Rule
"i was thinking again about the balance/realism issue... and despite the grids, i DO really like this game"
- breadmaster

"Even comics arent' as much fun as OverPower."
- thetrooper27

Demacus

  • Super Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 739
    • View Profile
Re: Meta #32
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2012, 01:33:25 PM »
You know, the simple fix to Meta #32 would be to change the discard phase to only discarding duplicates, then after placing add in a second discard phase for cards that would be considered unsuable. Then venture as normal.