Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - bamf!

Pages: [1] 2 3
General Discussion / Re: Challenge: Construct the Best hand in OP
« on: October 15, 2014, 11:29:13 PM »
If it was the best hand in OP, you wouldn't have a rock-paper-scissor scenario. It would have to be a hand that can win against all other perfect/optimal hands.


Discarding / Re: Discarding Unusable Activators...
« on: July 12, 2013, 10:57:32 PM »
When using Leech (JT) to discard your own cards (activators), you are playing the cards (activators) to meet the requirements of the card text, discarding in this case. This contradict the event as they are not playable and cannot be used in the discarding.


Meta Rules / Re: Meta Rule 21 & 92
« on: April 23, 2013, 10:15:57 PM »
I see this too many time, the meta should only be applied to the specific special code it is referring to. Trying to apply them globally to every special will break the game, they are only there for clarification.


Artifacts / Re: Book of the Darkhold
« on: October 14, 2012, 09:27:45 PM »
Not zero, they don't even have a stat place holder. If there exist a character with intellect of 0, then yes go ahead a play it as 5 or less.


Deck Construction / Re: training and four freedoms
« on: September 21, 2012, 11:24:18 PM »
The BS specials were always a 1 to 1 trade AFAIK, +defense bonus from inherent actually have a negative result,

using a 3+1 from inherent to block a 4, it would not meet the requirements of the BS special and does not hit the opponent, however using a 4+1 from inherent to block a 4 does.

As for shifting = attacking teammate, the way i see it, FFP is defending each other by getting in the way of the attack
vertigo = opponent is under the affect of vertigo and attacks are hitting the wrong targets
image inducer = with an 'image induced' on the character it is just a case of mistake identity
cannon fodder = technically not attacking your own teammate, they just 'volunteer' to be a meat shield to the incoming attack


Deck Construction / Re: training and four freedoms
« on: September 18, 2012, 10:05:49 PM »
You can put the same reasoning for using Doubleshots, which actually looks to be a better option offensively too.


Introductions / Re: What a great community! - Steve Domzalski
« on: September 17, 2012, 02:20:10 AM »
Hello Steve,

I got a question about the AA special, 'Acts as a level 4 attack, may make one additional attack'. was it initially intended to be a level 5 attack? I remember ready about the history of OP from JohnL and he mentioned you making this 'correction'?



Playing Specials / Re: anti-concede cards and negates
« on: August 20, 2012, 04:43:46 AM »
hmm, should of read the whole thread before jumping in. I thought you were saying BL specials cannot be negated, but what was questioned was the response when this is played.

Anyway, I retract my conclusion, meta >> anything when there isn't a judge around, that is how I play.

I always believe that meta should only be pulled out when both players disagree on how the special should be played. If both players agree (even if wrong according to the meta), then the action is fair in both player's eyes. However, at no point should random meta be used to reach a conclusion if it doesn't apply to the special in question.

breadmaster: thanks for posting that, I of all people should know of the resources available.


Playing Specials / Re: anti-concede cards and negates
« on: August 19, 2012, 03:05:19 AM »
New Universe is played, you Taunt = battle continues, your turn
New Universe is played, you negate = battle continues, your turn
Ripclaw's Pacifist Heart (play to concede, remove hits), Taunt/Negate = battle continues, your turn

The above cases, you can see the attack/defend flow. However, adding an additional negate action as a response to the above case is not allowed. This will end up being attack/defend/defend.

Now, lets end this debate with this example:

PASSING: the battle is over when BOTH player declare they PASSED, there is no response to a PASS, that is your action for your turn and it is now the other player's turn.

CONCEDING: similarly, when you CONCEDE, your turn is over, but the opponent gets one action (in this case Taunt), you can negate it and the concession is successful. Else the battle continues.

PASSING and CONCEDING are choices made by the player, it doesn't fall under the attack/defend flow of the battle as these optional choices are not activated via specials.


Meta Rules / Re: unusables and mets 153
« on: August 19, 2012, 02:19:18 AM »
The Nightcrawler example is good, it is specific and not random.
The HQ example is no good, it is a random draw and you cannot control what is drawn.

The term 'available' mention isn't even talking about what cards are in the draw pile, it is clearly referring to the what you can currently play to make something else usable.

The best way to clear this is up to look at Morph - Substitute Death:
1. If you have it placed on Morph, you can keep the unusable cards of the KO teammate, as you can potentially sub. death to switch out the teammate.
2. If you have it in hand, you can keep the unusable, as you can use it to switch for the teammate.
3. If and only if you play a DS special (from a battlesite) on Morph to get the sub. death card, which then later you can play to switch for the teammate.

However, Sean is half right in regards to what is in the draw pile, if sub. death was already discarded (ie. concede, BW specials, etc.), then it is no longer available and you cannot keep the unusable.  IF you have a BQ special that you can use to retrieve and use the sub. death special, then you can keep the unusable.


General Discussion / Re: Bidding For Top Seeds
« on: May 24, 2012, 10:11:24 PM »
Have you looked into the program TournamentMaker?
You can enter all entrances and have it randomly generate the placement for the double-elimination.

Since it is a double-elimination tournament, the most skilled player/top deck should come out on top in the end.


Where to Play / Re: [Toronto Meetup] April 2012
« on: May 10, 2012, 01:34:08 AM »
I was feeling a little lazy and didn't want to rotate, but also for statistical reasons as I only play the same deck all day. The only info I don't have when reviewing the matches was the cards in my hand, but can easily be obtained by just watching the match itself and I always show the camera what was left at end of battle.

4:5 that day, gather a lot of useful intel on my playstyle.

Match#8, usually betting 2 does not imply a DoW is in hand, Claude probably was not trying anything fancy here, he was still learning the venture aspect of OP. This completely threw me off and a DoW landed where it could have been avoided. Losing TeamX early hurt but was still possible to win with the 'no special' event still around, but completely forgotten about legacy special was played and lost to teamX but not active on maverick though placed.. (probably it was the 8 straight games non-stop). Claude was an interesting opponent to play as he was learning new aspects of the game, and me explaining as best I could without giving away the detail of the cards in my hand.


Activators / Re: Activators Inherent Ability
« on: April 12, 2012, 02:29:22 AM »
So you can't use Beta Ray Bill, Superpatriot, ect, but by using Storm:Neutralized, you can include Morlock specials under a Battlesite that does not list the Morlocks?  Talk about turning a blind eye...

BetaRayBill, Superpatroit, etc are not listed under a location and cannot be used even if they can access certain specials from their inherent ability. This is how building a battlesite is defined.

Storm does appear in a few locations, and that particular version of her hero card does give her access because of the inherent.

Crystal in blue area of the moon you can argue, but the name does appear but as so does the inhumans, if you were to draw both they would not counted as duplicate even if they can access the same specials.

IF variants were allowed as activator ignoring the character listing on a location and just adding them based on inherent.
As an example 'Outbacks': Sentinels/Bastion, Donald Pierce/Reavers, Wolverine/TeamX(+maverick +sabretooth non OPD) that becomes a pretty stacked battlesite and if built properly won't even have to worry much about duplicate activators.


Deck Construction / Re: String Theory
« on: July 01, 2011, 01:36:56 AM »
Actually, he was correct.

76 (16 grid team): 28 + 17 + 10(+4 offset) +17 =76

or less confusing without the offset
72 (15 grid team): 28 +17+10+17=72

Hope this clear it up.


Pages: [1] 2 3