Author Topic: Meta Rule #162  (Read 5087 times)

ncannelora

  • Ultra Poster
  • ********
  • Posts: 2142
  • bad guys are losers
    • View Profile
Meta Rule #162
« on: December 10, 2010, 04:38:15 PM »
Quote
  (162) If a card "cannot be defended" by a specific type of card then the opponent may not play any cards of that type during the defensive action of that attack (but cards which are already in play can be used). If a card "is not affected" by a specific type of card, then cards of that type may be used during the defensive action, but any cards already in play before the attack was made are considered not in play until the defensive action is resolved.

I figure that the NJ Specials like Pinpoint Laser cannot be moved with Vertigo and they can be played against an already-Charming Gambit. They cannot be moved to Brood Spawn and they can be used to attack an already-Acrobatic Beast. Etc.
TRUE or FALSE? (I'm about 100% sure this part is true)

But, what about Holographic Attackers (A3)?

It seems to me, that it means attacks made with power cards cannot be defended by Special Cards - defensively. So, if I play a 6F Power Card, it cannot be shifted with an AC, but it can be shifted with Vertigo (because it would have been in play already, so it's not being played defensively). Gambit's Charm would protect him from my attacks made with Power cards, provided it's already in play, as he wouldn't be able to play it defensively. Furthermore, if I play Rogue's Combination Punch (with a Power card), it couldn't be negated. Etc.
TRUE or FALSE? (I'm about 70% sure this one is true)

And so it seems that, regardless of whether or not the card says, "already in play" , the key seems to be whether the card says, "cannot be defended" or if it says, "is not affected". It seems as though this rule was made to better define the difference between the NJ and A3, (which both say "already in play"), but not so much cards like AP or BA (which restrict defense, but lack the wording, "already in play").

Please, please, give me some input. If anyone saw Holographic Attackers used in a Tournament, that would lay it to rest in my mind, certainly.
"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

BigBadHarve

  • Ultra Poster
  • ********
  • Posts: 1076
    • View Profile
Re: Meta Rule #162
« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2010, 06:51:48 PM »
Quote
  (162) If a card "cannot be defended" by a specific type of card then the opponent may not play any cards of that type during the defensive action of that attack (but cards which are already in play can be used). If a card "is not affected" by a specific type of card, then cards of that type may be used during the defensive action, but any cards already in play before the attack was made are considered not in play until the defensive action is resolved.

I figure that the NJ Specials like Pinpoint Laser cannot be moved with Vertigo and they can be played against an already-Charming Gambit. They cannot be moved to Brood Spawn and they can be used to attack an already-Acrobatic Beast. Etc.
TRUE or FALSE? (I'm about 100% sure this part is true)

But, what about Holographic Attackers (A3)?

It seems to me, that it means attacks made with power cards cannot be defended by Special Cards - defensively. So, if I play a 6F Power Card, it cannot be shifted with an AC, but it can be shifted with Vertigo (because it would have been in play already, so it's not being played defensively). Gambit's Charm would protect him from my attacks made with Power cards, provided it's already in play, as he wouldn't be able to play it defensively. Furthermore, if I play Rogue's Combination Punch (with a Power card), it couldn't be negated. Etc.
TRUE or FALSE? (I'm about 70% sure this one is true)

And so it seems that, regardless of whether or not the card says, "already in play" , the key seems to be whether the card says, "cannot be defended" or if it says, "is not affected". It seems as though this rule was made to better define the difference between the NJ and A3, (which both say "already in play"), but not so much cards like AP or BA (which restrict defense, but lack the wording, "already in play").

Please, please, give me some input. If anyone saw Holographic Attackers used in a Tournament, that would lay it to rest in my mind, certainly.


You are 100% correct about your first analysis - NJ cards are not affected by cards in play.

As for the Holographic attackers - the text is a misprint. There's an errata to it - it's supposed to read 'power cards are not affected by'  rather than 'may not be defended by'

It's an official errata. It effectively turns all of the Danger Room's power cards into NJ specials.

-BBH

ncannelora

  • Ultra Poster
  • ********
  • Posts: 2142
  • bad guys are losers
    • View Profile
Re: Meta Rule #162
« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2010, 08:26:01 PM »
Then why the Meta Rule #162? When I take all of the Meta Rules together, it makes the most sense that the misprint on Holographic Attackers are the last 3 words, "Already in play". Meta Rule 162 would serve no purpose, otherwise.

Also, are you drawing on a Tournament Ruling? All of the other errata seem to have found their way into either the actual Rule Book (a la Power Leach) or there is a Meta Rule about it. I haven't found anything (yet) saying that A3 is mis-written.

Thanks.
"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

BigBadHarve

  • Ultra Poster
  • ********
  • Posts: 1076
    • View Profile
Re: Meta Rule #162
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2010, 09:44:23 PM »
Many of the meta-rules are useless and contradictory.

As for the Holographic attackers - I have a meta rule code-book from the tournament days, and there's a section marked as errata that falls outside of the meta rules. Among them is a ruling pertaining to - A3: The Phrase 'may not be defended with' should read 'are not affected'

Meta rule 162 also applies to cards in which the defense is limited. For example, JW cards cannot be defended by a special card, so Meta rule 162 applies. Meaning that you can't use an avoid to stop a JW, but you could use a special that's already in play IE: An EB card.

As I said, the meta rules are for the most part useless and confusing. Meta rule 162 is a great example. It says that "If a card "is not affected" by a specific type of card, then cards of that type may be used during the defensive action, but any cards already in play before the attack was made are considered not in play until the defensive action is resolved."

Therefore, if I use a card that states that it may not be affected by a card with the word 'teammate,' according to the meta rule I may still use a teammate avoid to stop the attack, but I wouldn't be able to use a card already in play that had the word teammate to do anything. That's dumb, as far as I'm concerned, because avoiding the attack is also affecting it. No card with the word teammate should be playable in any capacity against said card, either to avoid, absorb, shift, or remove.

I'll even go one step further and say that any card that locks down cards with the word 'teammate' (IE: Psycho Man's special) wouldn't affect such a card because it clearly states 'not affected by a card with the word 'teammate.'

I hope that helps.

-BBH

ncannelora

  • Ultra Poster
  • ********
  • Posts: 2142
  • bad guys are losers
    • View Profile
Re: Meta Rule #162
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2010, 09:49:01 PM »
I see it now, it's listed above the list of Meta Rules.
Quote
Non-Meta Rule Information - Certain Specials have information that falls outside the scope of Meta Rules.

Code Information
A3 The phrase "may not be defended" should read "are not affected"

Allow me to say this, then:
Meta Rule 162 is worthless.
I mean it, I can't see why it was written, if not to distinguish between the NJ cards and the (only) A3 card, as I mentioned above.

Post Merge: July 08, 2011, 06:59:20 PM
It seems to me that they somehow determined that Holographic Attackers was too strong, or something. I mean, make no mistake, it's way better if attacks made with Power Cards are not defendable with Special Cards (as opposed to becoming like a slightly better X-World). Having said that, I can't imagine it's broken. It doesn't seem to be, anyway. Plus, it would fit the name of the card better if it was taken as it's written.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2011, 06:59:20 PM by Palatinus »
"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

BigBadHarve

  • Ultra Poster
  • ********
  • Posts: 1076
    • View Profile
Re: Meta Rule #162
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2010, 06:20:41 PM »
It seems to me that they somehow determined that Holographic Attackers was too strong, or something. I mean, make no mistake, it's way better if attacks made with Power Cards are not defendable with Special Cards (as opposed to becoming like a slightly better X-World). Having said that, I can't imagine it's broken. It doesn't seem to be, anyway. Plus, it would fit the name of the card better if it was taken as it's written.

Not defendable with special cards might be a little strong. Though, it would certainly give the team one hell of a boost. In either case, an errata would be necessary - you'd still have to remove the 'already in play' proviso in order for the text to make sense.

-BBH


thetrooper27

  • Super Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 734
    • View Profile
Re: Meta Rule #162
« Reply #7 on: December 08, 2012, 07:32:42 PM »
"As I said, the meta rules are for the most part useless and confusing. Meta rule 162 is a great example. It says that "If a card "is not affected" by a specific type of card, then cards of that type may be used during the defensive action, but any cards already in play before the attack was made are considered not in play until the defensive action is resolved."

Therefore, if I use a card that states that it may not be affected by a card with the word 'teammate,' according to the meta rule I may still use a teammate avoid to stop the attack, but I wouldn't be able to use a card already in play that had the word teammate to do anything. That's dumb, as far as I'm concerned, because avoiding the attack is also affecting it. No card with the word teammate should be playable in any capacity against said card, either to avoid, absorb, shift, or remove."

Are there any other circumstances where a card isn't affected by "anything except special cards" already in play?

I think the wording is just clunky... and probably only applies to this particular kind of special (NJ).

It seems that what they mean is that you can still use specials to defend the card, just not specials that are already on the board. 

Example 1:  Savage Dragon - Dragon Brawl:  Acts as a level 5 fighting attack.  May not be affected by a card with the word "teammate" on it.

Example 2:  Angel - Avenging Angel:  Acts as a level 4 strength or intellect attack.  Attack is not affected by Special cards already in play.

These two specials don't seem to be the same.  Meta Rule 162 doesn't seem to relate much to example 1, where it seems to relate to example 2 much clearer.

Am I making sense?  The tag at the end of meta rule 162 specifically deals with circumstances where cards are on the board (in play).  The Angel special gets around in play effects.  But you could still defend the attack with a special card, because it only looks to be resolved at "in play" effects (which it can't be resolved by in play effects).

The Dragon special doesn't seem to look to this meta rule for a clear definition of what cards may not affect it because it doesn't look specifically at "in play" effects to resolve it.  It can't be defended or altered in any way by a card with the word teammate, which looks to cards in play, from hand, placed, etc.  That's much broader than the NJ special, and might need a different meta rule for a clear definition of what can't affect it.

I just read the meta rule a little different than BBH and wanted to throw my 6 cents in...  I won't argue with you, my man, that the meta rules are confusing, and I haven't read them exhaustively as you have... which is why I constantly ask the same questions over and over (I'm always confused).  But I'm trying to understand the complexity of the rules, and the "teammate" example given to show contradiction didn't seem to be the same as the Aspect effect that started the discussion.  They seemed like 2 entirely different cards/circumstances to me.  But I'm also the guy that thought using a teamwork at the top of the turn mean at the top of the battle.:)  I enjoy discussion, and hope I made a little bit of sense here. :-X
« Last Edit: December 08, 2012, 07:37:43 PM by thetrooper27 »
"wow...never notice how JACKED pym is in that pic before!" -breadmaster

ncannelora

  • Ultra Poster
  • ********
  • Posts: 2142
  • bad guys are losers
    • View Profile
Re: Meta Rule #162
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2012, 06:37:54 AM »
you made sense to me, thetrooper27. I didn't exactly follow the example he gave, but I got his point as a whole (that the meta's are... difficult).

Anyway, I think if there were counter-Aspect cards (better ones, anyway), then it'd be great to redefine an errata for this card. Otherwise, the more I thought of it, the more I thought this would be a little broken.

I guess I'm just disappointed because in all of my use of this team (various versions of Danger Room), the worthiness of this Aspect has always seemed... borderline... at best.

I mean, the payoff just doesn't seem to be there, given that it takes a card, and a turn, to get into play... at some random point in the game, and it's not even useful at all once you hit the Power Pack  :-\
"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

steve2275

  • Ultra Poster
  • ********
  • Posts: 1385
    • View Profile
    • my twitter
Re: Meta Rule #162
« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2012, 06:53:27 AM »
u mean the danger room aspect?
powercards go past cards like EB after its played
and so do NJ
also passes AD AH CD CW
after they have been played
but not AV or AX
Example 1:  Savage Dragon - Dragon Brawl:  Acts as a level 5 fighting attack.  May not be affected by a card with the word "teammate" on it.
goes past AC http://overpower.ca/cards/specials/1146.png   AD like http://overpower.ca/cards/specials/636.png AM? DE? HG KT LO MI MQ NO

ncannelora

  • Ultra Poster
  • ********
  • Posts: 2142
  • bad guys are losers
    • View Profile
Re: Meta Rule #162
« Reply #10 on: December 09, 2012, 07:04:36 AM »
u mean the danger room aspect?
powercards go past cards like EB

Okay, yes, I suppose there could be an EB (or even two) in play into the Power Pack. Still, that's pretty remote and doesn't exactly make for a strong case to include this Aspect... right?

Not many decks include battle-lasting or game-lasting defensive Specials...

___

OOH!! New thought!!

I've really only been thinking of this card (or rule) in terms of defense, but what about other Specials...?

If some one had a Special in play that alters their Grid (like Henry Pym's AY - Giant-Man), would it no longer be effective at the point of attack? If Gambit attacks Pym with a Staff Attack + 3 Strength Power Card, can Henry block it with a 7 Strength Power card? or not? His ability to play the 7 Strength would be a direct effect of a Special in play, right?

Or, if Rogue had her FL (Nigh Invulnerable) in play, would Fighting and Strength Power cards (and multis) now count for Venture? or is this not applicable because once the hits land, they're no longer "attacks" made with Power cards, but instead, "hits that were" made with Power cards...? Or what about the CG/EK cards (can't be Spectrum/Cumulative KO'd)...?
"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

steve2275

  • Ultra Poster
  • ********
  • Posts: 1385
    • View Profile
    • my twitter
Re: Meta Rule #162
« Reply #11 on: December 09, 2012, 07:10:24 AM »
http://overpower.ca/wiki/AY
If the Special indicates that the bonus is in response to defending a certain type of attack, then the card may only be played defensively, as an avoid and the bonus to the skill follows.

im sure someone said that to someone at sometime  ;)

ncannelora

  • Ultra Poster
  • ********
  • Posts: 2142
  • bad guys are losers
    • View Profile
Re: Meta Rule #162
« Reply #12 on: December 09, 2012, 07:15:25 AM »
http://overpower.ca/wiki/AY
If the Special indicates that the bonus is in response to defending a certain type of attack, then the card may only be played defensively, as an avoid and the bonus to the skill follows.

im sure someone said that to someone at sometime  ;)

Sorry, I'm pretty sure that only applies to the defensive-only AY Specials (Bishop, Parasite kind)
"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

steve2275

  • Ultra Poster
  • ********
  • Posts: 1385
    • View Profile
    • my twitter
Re: Meta Rule #162
« Reply #13 on: December 09, 2012, 07:24:16 AM »
im sure jack or bbh can clear this up for all of us

ncannelora

  • Ultra Poster
  • ********
  • Posts: 2142
  • bad guys are losers
    • View Profile
Re: Meta Rule #162
« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2012, 12:57:46 AM »
im sure jack or bbh can clear this up for all of us

Well, I'm fairly confident on the first circumstance. AY cards, or any other Special, that is directly affecting a Character's ability to defend themselves, would no longer be effective to defend attacks made with Power cards.

So, if Goblyn Queen has her HU in play, she still cannot use Jean Grey's AG to avoid an attack, since her HU is not effective.
Or, if White Queen has her NF in play, she cannot use Power cards, beyond her own grid, to defend attacks, since her NF is not effective.

In the second scenario, I think it's a little less sure, for the reasons I stated in the first place about it.
"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