Palatinus' OverPower Forum

According to Overpower's Wikipedia article, a special card such as "Target hero may not attack or be attacked for remainder of battle" can be used as a defensive action. I'm not sure if they mean, when applied to one's own hero to keep him from being attacked, or applied retroactively to the attacking hero to keep him from attacking. I'm pretty sure this type of special can/should not be used as a defensive action as it doesn't specify thereon that it can be used as such. What say you, Palatinus?

Hey, it's the infamous twinz here. We'll step in here and answer your question. The card you're referring to, usually coded "AV" cannot be used defensively. If you consult the OverPower Meta Rules, it clearly states that AV is Offense-Yes, Defense-No. (The Official OverPower Rules are available on our website.)It is a targetable attack that can be defended with an "Avoid 1 Attack" or Negate Special card. Hope that helps.

Mike & Tony Alberts
twinz, inc.
http://the_twinz.tripod.com

Quote from: the_twinz on June 15, 2008, 03:30:06 PM
Hey, it's the infamous twinz here. We'll step in here and answer your question. The card you're referring to, usually coded "AV" cannot be used defensively. If you consult the OverPower Meta Rules, it clearly states that AV is Offense-Yes, Defense-No. (The Official OverPower Rules are available on our website.)It is a targetable attack that can be defended with an "Avoid 1 Attack" or Negate Special card. Hope that helps.

Mike & Tony Alberts
twinz, inc.
http://the_twinz.tripod.com

Actually, "AV" coded Specials always read "Target Hero [or Character] may not attack for remainder of battle."

The Special referred to in the initial post looks like it would be a "DZ" coded Special, like Nighcrawler's Trick Transport. Those can be played on an Opponent's character or your own characters, and can also be played defensively if played on one of your own characters.

Hope this helps.

Chris

---

Post Merge: July 11, 2011, 06:32:54 PM

---

Quote from: CCTelander on January 31, 2009, 12:31:12 AM

Quote from: the_twinz on June 15, 2008, 03:30:06 PM
Hey, it's the infamous twinz here. We'll step in here and answer your question. The card you're referring to, usually coded "AV" cannot be used defensively. If you consult the OverPower Meta Rules, it clearly states that AV is Offense-Yes, Defense-No. (The Official OverPower Rules are available on our website.)It is a targetable attack that can be defended with an "Avoid 1 Attack" or Negate Special card. Hope that helps.

Mike & Tony Alberts
twinz, inc.
http://the_twinz.tripod.com

Actually, "AV" coded Specials always read "Target Hero [or Character] may not attack for remainder of battle."

The Special referred to in the initial post looks like it would be a "DZ" coded Special, like Nighcrawler's Trick Transport. Those can be played on an Opponent's character or your own characters, and can also be played defensively if played on one of your own characters.

Hope this helps.

Chris

Wouldn't you know that I'd wind up having to correct my own first post?

What I said above was true for most of OP's run. Later though, TPTB did issue errata stating that you could no longer pay the "DZ" coded Specials defensively because of the "Bet 7" Decks, sometimes called "Lock Out" Decks.

That slipped my mind earlier since we've never played using that particular errata around here.

The Bet 7 decks were pretty much a one trick pony that only worked a small percentage of the time anyway. On top of that, there were ways of countering the strategy, even back then. Now, nobody around here has much interest in the Bet 7 concept, so it's just never an issue.

Anyway, technically it is illegal to play the "DZ" coded Specials defensively, if you want to abide by the official errata.

OP LIVES!

Chris

QuoteWouldn't you know that I'd wind up having to correct my own first post?

What I said above was true for most of OP's run. Later though, TPTB did issue errata stating that you could no longer pay the "DZ" coded Specials defensively because of the "Bet 7" Decks, sometimes called "Lock Out" Decks.

That slipped my mind earlier since we've never played using that particular errata around here.

The Bet 7 decks were pretty much a one trick pony that only worked a small percentage of the time anyway. On top of that, there were ways of countering the strategy, even back then. Now, nobody around here has much interest in the Bet 7 concept, so it's just never an issue.

Anyway, technically it is illegal to play the "DZ" coded Specials defensively, if you want to abide by the official errata.

OP LIVES!

Chris

So, I see in the Meta Rules that DZ can only be played offensively, but I'm yet confused. Can you still play it on a teammate (obviously on your turn)?

For that matter, can you attack your own front line?
Let's say you want to bump Bishop's Energy to 8... could you attack him with an energy Power card, then defend it using his AY?

Can I use any other attacks to vountarily kill one of my front line people (excluding the obvious Specials which do this already)?

Quote from: ncannelora on December 16, 2010, 02:34:54 PM


So, I see in the Meta Rules that DZ can only be played offensively, but I'm yet confused. Can you still play it on a teammate (obviously on your turn)?

For that matter, can you attack your own front line?
Let's say you want to bump Bishop's Energy to 8... could you attack him with an energy Power card, then defend it using his AY?

Can I use any other attacks to vountarily kill one of my front line people (excluding the obvious Specials which do this already)?

DZ cards used to be playable defensively, but they changed that rule just prior to the release of the Image set.. (or was it right after?) 

Even so, after the change it's still legal to play it on your own character to block them off and protect them.

Other types of attacks, however, cannot be played against your own team. So in your example, no you can't use an E attack against Bishop to activate his AY special, and likewise you can't target your own character to KO them before your opponent does (the obvious exception being cards that are designed for that purpose, like Onslaught's Merciless Conqueror.)

-BBH

Quote from: Kal-el on August 09, 2011, 11:12:54 AM
Well the text of the card just says "Target Hero", so there's nothing there that says it has to be your opponent. It's a little weird, but I don't see why you couldn't play it that way.

I don't think you could use the LO though. The LO specifies avoiding an attack, and IMO by definition an attack must come from the opponent.

For the record, I hate this ruling. I was also very, very much against using DZ-coded cards on your own team. Unless you can target your own team with other cards, I think this is the result of some one getting clever about a card and convincing others that it's justified.

You don't "target" something unless you're going to attack it.

Quote from: ncannelora on August 09, 2011, 11:15:11 AM

Quote from: Kal-el on August 09, 2011, 11:12:54 AM
Well the text of the card just says "Target Hero", so there's nothing there that says it has to be your opponent. It's a little weird, but I don't see why you couldn't play it that way.

I don't think you could use the LO though. The LO specifies avoiding an attack, and IMO by definition an attack must come from the opponent.

For the record, I hate this ruling. I was also very, very much against using DZ-coded cards on your own team. Unless you can target your own team with other cards, I think this is the result of some one getting clever about a card and convincing others that it's justified.

You don't "target" something unless you're going to attack it.

You have target demographics for advertisement, you have target regions for economic recovery, you can target a person for a rescue mission . . .

Target demographics are being attacked by advertisements

As for your last two points, you don't target a person (or area) who needs to be rescued (or helped w/economic relief), you rescue a person who need to be rescued. You wouldn't say, "His life may be in peril, we need to go target him!"

----------------------

the logic of saying that it only specifies a "target character" is seriously flawed for this game. Otherwise...

Can I play Jubilee's HK on my teammate Cyclops, who then can unleash a fury of attacks that can only be defended by Jubilee's team?

Can I play the Acolyte's LC on my teammate Bishop to use his AY and increase his Energy Rating to 8 for the battle, the way Cyclops has done in the comics?

Can I play Green Lantern's JF on my teammate New Warriors to purposely KO them for their Inherent Ability?

Can I play Adam Warlock's FD on my teammate Iceman, and then use his AF to win the Venture?

Can I play Starjammers' CH on 1 teammate so that I discard 3 cards, and then my other teammate, Longshot, can play Purity of Thought to draw an extra 3 cards?

Can I play Bullseye's JX on my teammate New Warriors to purposely KO them for their Inherent Ability and so that I can recover a lost Mission?

Can I play Curse's NF on a teammate, just like the Starjammers and Longshot?

Can I play the Doctor Polaris' DQ to KO a teammate, like I would with Green Lantern and New Warriors?

Can I play Alpha Flight's KD to KO a teammate?

It seems this list might go on for some time, but I think I've made my point.

I have to side with Ncann here. Think about the game in the spirit it's intended and not as an exploitable loophole in a card game. If you and 2 friends were locked in combat, with a third on the way, but not quite there, what benefit would you derivee from pummeling your pal and taking him out, so that now it's 2 on 3?

I get that in some games like M:TG or even VS, you can target any character on the table, but these are also games where the characters on the table are not static. Some may die, but more can join. Some bring effects to the field as they join, some bring affects as they go, but ALL require some sort of clever use of resources to make new tricks viable. OP isn't that style of game.

Yes, DZ specials might protect your teammate, but they also take him out of the battle which leaves you at a disadvantage, ultimately.  The purpose of the DZ is to take out a character, albeit temporarily. The way it's worded, sure, you can target yourself, but if you were really in combat for your life, liberty or something else just as important to you, would you really turn on your teammates with that ability, or strategically strike your enemy in a crippling manor?

In the context of the game itself, it just doesn't make sense.  Dazzler's card spcifies a teammate, as in, SHE is protecting her TEAMMATE. Any thing that doesn't specify a teammate really shouldn't be played against/for your own team.

Quote from: ncannelora on August 09, 2011, 12:19:35 PM
Target demographics are being attacked by advertisements

As for your last two points, you don't target a person (or area) who needs to be rescued (or helped w/economic relief), you rescue a person who need to be rescued. You wouldn't say, "His life may be in peril, we need to go target him!"

----------------------

the logic of saying that it only specifies a "target character" is seriously flawed for this game. Otherwise...

The word "target" or the act of targeting does not imply an attack grammatically speaking.  Whether or not cards that don't specify opponent or teammate automatically mean only opponent is not something that can be decided just because the word target is used. 

Quote from: Palatinus on August 09, 2011, 06:20:54 PM

Quote from: ncannelora on August 09, 2011, 12:19:35 PM
Target demographics are being attacked by advertisements

As for your last two points, you don't target a person (or area) who needs to be rescued (or helped w/economic relief), you rescue a person who need to be rescued. You wouldn't say, "His life may be in peril, we need to go target him!"

----------------------

the logic of saying that it only specifies a "target character" is seriously flawed for this game. Otherwise...

The word "target" or the act of targeting does not imply an attack grammatically speaking.  Whether or not cards that don't specify opponent or teammate automatically mean only opponent is not something that can be decided just because the word target is used.

Well, when I did a Google search of "define target" this was the response:

Quotetar·get/ˈtärgit/
Noun: A person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack.
Verb: Select as an object of attention or attack.

Obviously, there can be other uses or definitions, but the word "target" clearly implies an attack.

^{edit: also, I just looked it up in my dictionary and the first 3 definitions of the noun involved attacks}

As you have stated, not all the definitions of target are referring to something one attacks.  In common usage the word can also mean an aim or a goal, like a target amount of money to reach for a hospital.  Nothing is being attacked there.  Not in the literal sense.  I mean, I suppose one could be "attacking" the lack of resources available for the hospital.  But even in the origins of the word target, it means something that was used to fire arrows at for practice.  One was not attacking the target as one would an enemy.  The target was the goal in the same way the end of a maze is the goal.

In any event, the question of the wording of the specials comes from the fact that the particular special in question doesn't specify the or an opponent.  Is this an oversight by the card creators or intentional to allow a larger use of the card.  The idea that Damascus put forth states that taking your teammate out of combat makes no sense.  Obviously this is not the case.  If it made no sense, why would anyone play the card that way?  The answer is because it makes sense to remove a vulnerable target from the line of fire.  Not only does this make sense for Nightcrawler, he frequently does this in the comics.  In fact, he likely uses his teleportation for defense at least as much as for offense.

I'll concede that Nightcrawler uses his ability both offensive and defensively, but does Malebolgia?  Being that they both have a DZ coded special, there would have to be a common way to use that one card.  They are worded the same, but Malebolgia isn't know for defending his ally's, not as often as he is know for destroying them himself.  If one character WOULD use the card defensively, but the other character WOULDN'T use it defensively, you'd have to decide ULTIMATELY how the card should be played.  Do you side for defense because you'd rather play with the character who would use it that way.  Do you side for offensively because you'd rather play with the character who would use it THAT way? 

The thing is, in THIS game especially, no OTHER card that reads "Target character" can be played on a teammate.  Look at the AC specials, for example.  AC specials all state "attack made on {X} is now made on TEAMMATE of his choice, who may defend."  OR "Attack made on TEAMMATE is now made on {X} who may defend"  They don't say TARGET CHARACTER, they state TEAMMATE.  Based on wording alone, I'd have to side that the DZ's were not INTENDED to be used on your named character or his/her teammate, but on an opponent's character.

The greatest argument against DZ's being played on it's own team is look at the EE special, which was released in the same set as the DZ when both were first released.  It's text is a bit confusing, but at no point does it state "TARGET CHARACTER" it states Sentinels or TEAMMATE.

This argument is simply MY PoV, since there's no real way to prove or disprove the card's intent one way or the other, however based on the logic and convoluted wording of the EE special, it would seem the designers were really trying to get specific in Mission Control.   The wording TARGET OPPONENT was changed around this time to TARGET CHARACTER to help get around the confusion of at attack going to a character or the guy holding the cards, it would appear, to me at least, that the DZ special was designed and intended to be an offensive strike against my opponent, and NOT a cheap way to dodge incoming attacks (this game has plenty of those as is.)

I also don't mean to upset anybody, I'm just throwing in my two-cents. 

Quote from: Palatinus on August 09, 2011, 07:46:44 PM
As you have stated, not all the definitions of target are referring to something one attacks.  In common usage the word can also mean an aim or a goal, like a target amount of money to reach for a hospital.  Nothing is being attacked there.  Not in the literal sense.  I mean, I suppose one could be "attacking" the lack of resources available for the hospital.  But even in the origins of the word target, it means something that was used to fire arrows at for practice.  One was not attacking the target as one would an enemy.  The target was the goal in the same way the end of a maze is the goal.

In any event, the question of the wording of the specials comes from the fact that the particular special in question doesn't specify the or an opponent.  Is this an oversight by the card creators or intentional to allow a larger use of the card.  The idea that Damascus put forth states that taking your teammate out of combat makes no sense.  Obviously this is not the case.  If it made no sense, why would anyone play the card that way?  The answer is because it makes sense to remove a vulnerable target from the line of fire.  Not only does this make sense for Nightcrawler, he frequently does this in the comics.  In fact, he likely uses his teleportation for defense at least as much as for offense.

... anyway, what about the rest of the examples I posted, then?

Quote from: Demacus on August 09, 2011, 08:48:40 PM
I'll concede that Nightcrawler uses his ability both offensive and defensively, but does Malebolgia?  Being that they both have a DZ coded special, there would have to be a common way to use that one card.  They are worded the same, but Malebolgia isn't know for defending his ally's, not as often as he is know for destroying them himself.  If one character WOULD use the card defensively, but the other character WOULDN'T use it defensively, you'd have to decide ULTIMATELY how the card should be played.  Do you side for defense because you'd rather play with the character who would use it that way.  Do you side for offensively because you'd rather play with the character who would use it THAT way? 

The thing is, in THIS game especially, no OTHER card that reads "Target character" can be played on a teammate.  Look at the AC specials, for example.  AC specials all state "attack made on {X} is now made on TEAMMATE of his choice, who may defend."  OR "Attack made on TEAMMATE is now made on {X} who may defend"  They don't say TARGET CHARACTER, they state TEAMMATE.  Based on wording alone, I'd have to side that the DZ's were not INTENDED to be used on your named character or his/her teammate, but on an opponent's character.

The greatest argument against DZ's being played on it's own team is look at the EE special, which was released in the same set as the DZ when both were first released.  It's text is a bit confusing, but at no point does it state "TARGET CHARACTER" it states Sentinels or TEAMMATE.

This argument is simply MY PoV, since there's no real way to prove or disprove the card's intent one way or the other, however based on the logic and convoluted wording of the EE special, it would seem the designers were really trying to get specific in Mission Control.   The wording TARGET OPPONENT was changed around this time to TARGET CHARACTER to help get around the confusion of at attack going to a character or the guy holding the cards, it would appear, to me at least, that the DZ special was designed and intended to be an offensive strike against my opponent, and NOT a cheap way to dodge incoming attacks (this game has plenty of those as is.)

I also don't mean to upset anybody, I'm just throwing in my two-cents.

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion about how the specials should be played.  I was simply pointing out the flaws in the logic of the arguments being made.  I do think that it makes some sense that the DZ special be defensive or offensive, which I'll explain after . . .

Quote from: ncannelora on August 09, 2011, 09:04:54 PM
... anyway, what about the rest of the examples I posted, then?

I don't think anyone claimed that those specials be defensive, so that's not really what anyone was discussing.  Also, I wasn't saying that because the card says target hero that must mean that it is playable defensively.  I was saying that what you were saying didn't prove that it shouldn't be.  Apparently there was a ruling to this effect which is why this discussion came up.  I think that Damascus has made some salient points about the wording of other cards to make an argument for playing the card offensively only.  I do think there are some points for the card being defensive.  One thing that stands out to me is that there are specials that some characters play that state that they may not attack or be attacked for the remainder of battle, the FA specials.  Because this is a defensive move that certain characters can play, it wouldn't be strange that there would be a card to allow a character to do this for a teammate.

Thematically, I agree that Malebolgia would not likely defend a teammate per se, but I would argue that he might remove someone from combat for his own reasons that may or may not be in that persons interest.

Also, Damascus, I definitely am not upset and I would hope that no one else is.  These kinds of discussion are just very interesting to me.  And I really like Ncann's energy and persistence, as always.  It's fun debating with someone who puts so much into his points.