Palatinus' OverPower Forum

Buy/Trade and Play OverPower => Where to Play => Topic started by: BigBadHarve on March 09, 2011, 05:15:08 PM

Title: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: BigBadHarve on March 09, 2011, 05:15:08 PM
Hey all!

So here's the promised information on our upcoming tournament on April 30th!

The only thing not 100% confirmed is our space. I have arranged to get a conference room at Metro Hall in downtown Toronto, complete with endorsement from my local councillor! The paperwork has been filed, all that remains is for the city to contact me with the booking information and for me to go down and lock in a room that meets our needs.

If that falls through, I'll post our backup location as soon as I can.

Here's a quick link to the rule reforms - https://sites.google.com/site/overpowerintoronto/

If you have ANY questions or concerns about the Rule Reforms, please don't hesitate to contact me right away. Ideally I would like everyone comfortable with them.

I will not be participating in the tournament, that way I can focus entirely on judging without distraction. Having played in tournaments where judges are also participants, I've seen many bad calls because the judge is focused on their own game and doesn't take the proper time to examine a dispute.

-BBH




TORONTO OVERPOWER TOURNAMENT

 

Saturday April 30th, 2010

Location:  TORONTO, Canada - Exact Location TBC

Sign in: 12:00 pm – 12:45 pm

Entry Fee: $10

Pay at the door, or register in advance via Interac or Paypal to – moneygohere@gmail.com

No need to register in advance, but it would help me gauge confirmed numbers, which I will post in regular updates.

Games begin: 1:00 pm

4 rounds of swiss to determine top 8.

Tie-break round, if necessary.

Top 8 advance to the elimination rounds. 3 single elimination rounds to determine overall winner.

 
Rule restrictions: Using Toronto OP Rule reforms. Be sure to familiarize yourself with the rule adjustments. Here's the link to the document - https://sites.google.com/site/overpowerintoronto/


Allowable Proxies: MARVELS only. Any other card must be official. For Marvels, make sure the text on your card is accurate and clear, you will also need to back your cards with sleeves. A list of all correct ‘Marvels’ texts will be present for reference.

 

Prizes

Entry gift: Any Power (5) promo card


Prizes will be based on attendance, I apologize for the somewhat nebulous nature of the prizing. I'll keep adding prizes as more people confirm, and keep the updates coming.

Prize for 1st place. (Min. 14 participants)

Batman: Detective Holographic hero card.


2nd Place prize: (Min. 18 participants)

Beyonder Promo Character card


3rd Place prize: (Min. 23 participants)

Classic Insert: Image Inducer


BONUS PRIZE: If 20 or more players are in attendance, and winning player manages to go undefeated for the entire tournament, A TWO-FACE: CRIME BOSS Holographic hero will be rewarded as a bonus prize.


In Addition - As more people sign up (or show up) there will be more prizing.


Possible Additional prizes will include:

DC Holographic heroes
DC promo any heroes
Mega Power Promo set
Unopened Original OP booster box
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: ncannelora on March 09, 2011, 06:31:56 PM
I just read through your changes and I think I like them all!

I have 2 questions, for clarification.

in rule 9, you said Tactic cards must be played at the top of your turn. Does this include DoubleShot cards? I thought those could be follow ups to AA & AB...

Also, regarding Comm.Gordon's Inherent Ability, how would Universe: Basic cards count toward Venture, when played defensively?
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: BigBadHarve on March 09, 2011, 06:49:29 PM
I just read through your changes and I think I like them all!

I have 2 questions, for clarification.

in rule 9, you said Tactic cards must be played at the top of your turn. Does this include DoubleShot cards? I thought those could be follow ups to AA & AB...

Also, regarding Comm.Gordon's Inherent Ability, how would Universe: Basic cards count toward Venture, when played defensively?

Thanks!

Yes, it applies to Doubleshots, so they can't be used as a follow up. That's actually official, I didn't change anything there, I simply reprinted it for absolute clarity.

For Gordon's inherent: If you play a BU to boost a power card defense, the BU hangs around as a venture bonus for that battle.

-BBH
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: ncannelora on March 09, 2011, 07:10:16 PM
Quote
For Gordon's inherent: If you play a BU to boost a power card defense, the BU hangs around as a venture bonus for that battle.

Oh, sweet. So, if I use a 6+3 BU for defense, then the BU stays on the table as a +3 to VT?
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: BigBadHarve on March 09, 2011, 07:11:49 PM
Oh, sweet. So, if I use a 6+3 BU for defense, then the BU stays on the table as a +3 to VT?

Yeah, that was the idea behind it.

-BBH
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: Nostalgic on March 09, 2011, 09:23:45 PM
Oh, sweet. So, if I use a 6+3 BU for defense, then the BU stays on the table as a +3 to VT?

Yeah, that was the idea behind it.

-BBH

That was a great idea!
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: BigBadHarve on March 09, 2011, 09:30:35 PM
Oh, sweet. So, if I use a 6+3 BU for defense, then the BU stays on the table as a +3 to VT?

Yeah, that was the idea behind it.

-BBH

That was a great idea!



I wish I could take credit for that one. It was one of Lorne's (my usual playing partner.)

-BBH
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: Onslaught on March 09, 2011, 10:50:53 PM
Isn't adding inherent abilities to cards more along the lines of "homemades" than it is "house rules?"

It seems kind of arbitrary to have some cards played as written and some not. For example, unerrataed Fortress and Leech are 100x stronger than unerrataed Mutant Gestalt.

Teamworks going to the powerpack instead of dead pile completely ruins the incentive to make a deck that is oriented on winning in the powerpack. Not that games will go to the powerpack in this format, I'm just saying.

Any Heroes being able to followup allies or be followup attacks while activators can't seems awkward. Furthermore, this would be a good change in the current rules (Any Heroes are worse than Battlesites), but with unerrataed Leech and stuff Any Heroes are already insanely powerful.

Defensive Vertigo at OPD is 1000x stronger than unlimited offensive Vertigo. If you made this change intending to buff Marauders, then nevermind. If not, it seems like just changing things for the sake of changing.

The homebase rule to allow more special cards would have been a cool idea if all the existing cards had been designed with it in mind in advance. As it stands, it makes some bad homebases marginally better, and makes some already good homebases get unwarranted buffs. Seems like more changing stuff just for the sake of changing it, since it doesn't effect which homebases will be played most frequently.

The Four Freedoms errata is strange, I'm not sure why a tier 2 deck would need to be intentionally toned down. If this is because you feel the added homebase special rule makes FF4 too powerful, then it means your rules changes are just making different homebases/characters more playable instead of making more homebases/chars more playable. That's not changing things for added balance, it's changing things so there is still a top tier - just featuring different faces.

The way things are set up, you might as well name this format "concede every battle that you don't have a negate."

That being said, I don't think any of the DC characters inherents make them vault into the upper echelon of decks, nobody will use basic universe cards even with the new bonus, no new homebases become more attractive than the ones that people already used, and none of the top characters are any worse off. So basically competitive decks in this home rules environment would look pretty much the same as they do now, though Marauders move into top tier, negates became even more mandatory than they previously were, and good homebases get slightly better (Asteroid M gets a free 11, Onslaught's Citadel without the 7 card draw drawback gains a CRAZY trick for free depending on the lineup you use, etc).
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: drdeath25 on March 09, 2011, 10:53:45 PM
So let me get this straight. your house rules to make more cards playable in fact makes nobody more playable than the previously were except the Marauders, and meanwhile the lesser used characters will become EVEN MORE lesser used because I won't have room for them in decks since I have to make sure I have a negate character? Wow. I'm not gonna be there...
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: Onslaught on March 09, 2011, 11:10:40 PM
Yeah the more I think about this, I am just completely baffled. If you go to the trouble of making a 10 page rules document and changing the rules that everyone already knows, you would think it was to make the weaker cards more powerful. These rules don't do that (DC characters still weak, weak homebases still weak), so the next thought might be that the strongest characters would be nerfed (though I'd argue against this as a means of balance, as noted numerous times in the past). However, the only thing weakened was a deck that was already tier 2 (FF4), while a tier 1.5 character (Marauders) became even more powerful, tier 1.5 archetypes (the good homebases) became even stronger, and existing tier 1 characters (negaters) became even more essential.

I guess I'm just strongly against the idea of "changing things for the sake of change" when it has no measurable impact on the metagame outside of barely shuffling around the top tier. If that was your intention (and if you find the game more fun to play this way!), then I'm way off base here. Still strange though!
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: drdeath25 on March 09, 2011, 11:16:28 PM
no measurable impact on the metagame outside of barely shuffling around the top tier.

Well, maybe the Marauders are his favorite character, and he wanted to make them more playable?  :D

Post Merge: July 14, 2011, 02:11:22 PM
Even if these rules expanded the usability of a bunch of cards (they don't though...), it also inadvertantly DECREASES the usability of some cards unfairly. For example New Lease on Life is completely worthless with these rules. I'm sure there are other lesser used cards that are hurt by these rules instead of helped, but what's the point of changing rules if you are hurting as many cards as you help? It's a net gain of zero.

Some of these rules have clearly not been thought out or playtested...
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: rucker73 on March 10, 2011, 12:18:31 AM
 
Wow. I'm not gonna be there...

Thank god ;D
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: BigBadHarve on March 10, 2011, 02:54:23 PM
While I certainly expected some resistance, I find it disappointing how you'll disparage it all out of hand without testing them out. If you have no interest in trying them out, that's fine. I understand completely, but allow me to illustrate my motivations for the Reforms.  You do have a solid grounding in the game, so I do welcome your input, but don't think I just arbitrarily sat down one day and go 'Hmmm... let's change the rules around because I can!'  

It wasn't about empowering or de-powering characters. The characters are what they are, fixing that requires going into the realm of homemades and more cards. I wanted a system that worked with the existing template. I knew changes would affect the characters, but I didn't set out with a list of teams and bases that I thought needed a boost or, as it is so often put - a nerf.

The primary push was what I perceived as a broken rule set. There were just too many errata that got in the way, and a convoluted set of Meta Rules that more often than not contradicted the text on the cards.

The basic game is brilliant, fun, and unique. Back when I was learning I got frustrated as hell playing cards as I thought they were meant to be played, only to be informed 'No, no they aren't played that way.' 'But it says this on the card' 'Yeah, but it doesn't say that in the rules'

This also became an issue when trying to teach people to play. After two rounds of play most new players would give up because of all the things they are supposed to know that AREN'T on the cards.

In order for the game to flow, it had to be plain. You can't have a billion errata that a player is expected to know. Even veteran players are always questioning the way cards are played because they can't remember this errata or that rule change.

So, simplicity and versatility was the goal. Play all cards as written and see what happens. And so we did, and the game opened up immensely! Yes, there were errata that had to stand. But we shrunk the list down considerably.

Then it became about fine tuning. Finding extra details that we could tweak to spice things up. (Like the recycling of certain cards, or the Homebase special rule.)


Isn't adding inherent abilities to cards more along the lines of "homemades" than it is "house rules?"

Yes and no. This was sort of a final area where we decided since we were making adjustments we'd try them out and see. We liked the result so we kept it.

It seems kind of arbitrary to have some cards played as written and some not. For example, unerrataed Fortress and Leech are 100x stronger than unerrataed Mutant Gestalt.

Arbitrary? No. Any Errata we kept were primarily for consistency. Mutant Gestalt and Rhino Charge being examples. As to the power, yes. Leech as written is powerful. But aren't you the one who has repeatedly stated that Anyheroes are weak? Again, it was about what was on the card, not in some obscure ruling. And betting high thinking that you'll just Fortress anyway can backfire on you big time. Our solution to the Power of the Any-hero was to discard them to the dead heroes pile, which we found worked brilliantly.

On the issue of arbitrary rules - half of the cards already arbitrarily ignore meta rules that are set out. Look at the duration rule. We didn't change it per se, we simply created a situation where it has a blanket effect on ALL cards.

Officially, any card that has no printed duration and is an OPD, is considered game lasting. Non-OPD is battle lasting. I thought that was a great rule, until I learned that it wasn't a blanket rule, it was arbitrary. My favourite example would be Leader. He has two cards with the EXACT SAME stipulation. Freehold and Twisted Mentality. The cards remain in play until Leader is KOd. (Or, in the case of Mentality, also cannot be attacked.) Both are non-OPDs. So, since 'until KO'd' is not considered a duration,  Twisted Mentality is considered battle lasting. So what about Freehold? It's not OPD, and doesn't have a duration printed, and since its stipulation of lasting 'until KOd' doesn't count, under official rules it is battle lasting only. Making it a truly useless card.

You could argue that 'logically' by virtue of the nature of the card, it must remain beyond the battle. But once you open that door, everything becomes arbitrary. The rule must apply to ALL cards.

Teamworks going to the powerpack instead of dead pile completely ruins the incentive to make a deck that is oriented on winning in the powerpack. Not that games will go to the powerpack in this format, I'm just saying.

Would you care to point out the section in which I say Teamworks are recyclable?

Any Heroes being able to followup allies or be followup attacks while activators can't seems awkward. Furthermore, this would be a good change in the current rules (Any Heroes are worse than Battlesites), but with unerrataed Leech and stuff Any Heroes are already insanely powerful.

So let me get this straight - you repeatedly state that Any Heroes are inferior by nature to battlesites, but shoot down any attempt to make them stronger?  Leech as written is tougher, yes. But it's not game breaking, not compared to some cards you can put into a battlesite. Battlesites offer incredible versatility, that's their strength. Anyheroes offer power. That's theirs.

Ally cards clearly state 'teammate must play a special card.'  Any Heroes are special cards. Hence the reason for allowing it. Again, it's a more intuitive response. Activators are not specials. Yes, they summon specials, but you can't play the special until the activator has been initiated. The ability to chain any heroes with an Ally doesn't make them insanely stronger, it's just a nice push.


Defensive Vertigo at OPD is 1000x stronger than unlimited offensive Vertigo. If you made this change intending to buff Marauders, then nevermind. If not, it seems like just changing things for the sake of changing.

You love your hyperbole, don't you? Again, this decision was in line with our 'play as written' mandate. It's better as a defensive special, but not 1000x better, as you put it. And as an OPD it shakes up Marauders in a battlesite, so you can't get vertigo AND a killer OPD.

The homebase rule to allow more special cards would have been a cool idea if all the existing cards had been designed with it in mind in advance. As it stands, it makes some bad homebases marginally better, and makes some already good homebases get unwarranted buffs. Seems like more changing stuff just for the sake of changing it, since it doesn't effect which homebases will be played most frequently.


It was more along the lines of an extra push for people who wanted to use Homebases. You're limited to 6 characters, often with messed up grids. The benefit? A couple of extra cards and possible aspect. What you lose in versatility, you gain with a little extra boost.

The Four Freedoms errata is strange, I'm not sure why a tier 2 deck would need to be intentionally toned down. If this is because you feel the added homebase special rule makes FF4 too powerful, then it means your rules changes are just making different homebases/characters more playable instead of making more homebases/chars more playable. That's not changing things for added balance, it's changing things so there is still a top tier - just featuring different faces.

This was about bringing it's inherent more in line with other homebases. Agree with it or not, we felt this struck the right balance when comparing homebase inherents. On that level, it's still a strong inherent.

The way things are set up, you might as well name this format "concede every battle that you don't have a negate."

Again with the hyperbole. Newsflash - The game didn't need my help to get to that point.

That being said, I don't think any of the DC characters inherents make them vault into the upper echelon of decks, nobody will use basic universe cards even with the new bonus, no new homebases become more attractive than the ones that people already used, and none of the top characters are any worse off. So basically competitive decks in this home rules environment would look pretty much the same as they do now, though Marauders move into top tier, negates became even more mandatory than they previously were, and good homebases get slightly better (Asteroid M gets a free 11, Onslaught's Citadel without the 7 card draw drawback gains a CRAZY trick for free depending on the lineup you use, etc).

The DC inherents were meant to be fun. I never said they would escalate them to 'must use' status, but they make using DC characters a touch more interesting.

The recycling of Basic Universe, Training and DS cards, like the DC inherents, wasn't about making them 'must use' cards. It was about versatility. Somebody who opts to use them gets a nice little bonus if they go into power pack. But it certainly doesn't make them mandatory.

Bear in mind with the Citadel, that you can build an identical team several ways without the homebase! So you can still get your crazy trick, you just won't see people using the base.

Regardless, I have tested these rules and they are sound. A tweak may come up here or there, but they are far easier to play, and options open up. Yes, perhaps you're right and there's been a shuffle in what is considered 'top tier' - but for a long time player, I would think you might appreciate a shake up in the status quo.

Wow. I'm not gonna be there...

Riiight, because you were on the verge of booking your flight, I'm sure....

Even if these rules expanded the usability of a bunch of cards (they don't though...), it also inadvertantly DECREASES the usability of some cards unfairly. For example New Lease on Life is completely worthless with these rules. I'm sure there are other lesser used cards that are hurt by these rules instead of helped, but what's the point of changing rules if you are hurting as many cards as you help? It's a net gain of zero.

Some of these rules have clearly not been thought out or playtested...

In what way is New Lease on Life worthless? It's an incredibly useful event on so many levels, even if your any heroes can no longer be recycled. Are you saying that all of your any hero decks rely so much on your any heroes that you need to recycle them back?

I am open to opinions. Give me a list of cards that become worthless under this system, and tell me why.

-BBH
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: rucker73 on March 10, 2011, 05:40:32 PM
I have to admit that I like my Overpower the old fashioned way.  I haven't mastered it as is and the thought of trying to learn new rules and try to build decks that will compete within them is daunting.

But on the other side.  This game has been out of circulation for over 10 years.  WE have been playing with the same cards and rules all this time despite the fact that the game would have almost definitely changed had it kept running anyways.  People all over the place have been finding ways to keep the game fresh and exciting and more power to them.

As far as BBH making people come and play by HIS rules, who cares!! He isn't MAKING anyone go, people choose to because they, like him want to try a fresh spin on something they already love (like Crystal Pepsi :-[)  He has given up a lot of his own time and is supplying the prizes.  So who are you people to criticize him or anyone for that matter?  You are more than welcome to hold your own tournament with your own rules and do whatever you want, more power to you.

I just don't get where all of this hostility and negativity comes from, you have both been posting here for a long time with no issues and recently you have taken a very "holier then thou" attitude in your interactions with everyone.

Anyways...  just venting

Keep up the good work everyone

Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: Nostalgic on March 10, 2011, 07:26:34 PM
So here's my 2 cents plus interest on BBH rules.  :)

1.  ;) Hadn’t tried it, but probably Great Idea.
2.  ;) This is ok. Since it doesn’t address card advantage I’m not sure if it’s enough to make the cards truly playable.  I actually think making the bonus of basic universe cards used for defense an addition to venture total to be a good blanket rule.
3.  ;D Love it.
4.  ;) Any-character limitation change is cool.  On ‘Power leech’ I’m sort of ‘iffy’ on that change (leaning-no).  I don’t have enough experience with it.  ???
5.  ??? OK. What’s the point of double shift?
6.  :) I like this. I assume the code on the cards don’t have to be different than the ‘any-heroes’ in the deck.
7.  ??? How many characters does this help?  I’m just not sure of the point letting the inactive guy boost his team that way. It seems like it may be unfair. This is a genuine question as I want to know your experience with this.
8,  8) Cool, I guess... :P
9.  8) Cool.
10. :) I thought combined cards already shared properties.  So hulk could make a level 13 F/S special attack?   :o     "HULK IS THE STRONGEST THERE IIIIIS!!!" (Sorry, couldn't help it  :D)
11.  8) Cool.
12.  8) Cool.
13.  ;D Love it.Can’t think of anything more appropriate than for a comic character to cheat death. :D
14.  8) Cool.
15.  ;D Love it.
16.  8) Cool.
17.  8) Cool. (Example?) :P

On the Errata:
I love the fix for Hulk’s BC special. My question is if Hulk and Venom and Rhino are on the same team could I make the reserve miss 3 battles *insert evil maniacal laugh!*  ;D

I strongly disagree with the fourfreedoms change.  :( I think ALL 6-character locations used as homebases should be allowed to shift attacks if those attacks are defended with a power card based defense.  That blanket rule would make many more playable.  This is ultimately the point I thought.  ;)  Also online I saw some homemade-homebases  :P that said,” team’s power grid is an eight e/f/s/I (whatever was appropriate) for defense” as another way of making them more playable.  

Everything else looks good to me.
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: Onslaught on March 10, 2011, 08:51:05 PM
Quote
This also became an issue when trying to teach people to play. After two rounds of play most new players would give up because of all the things they are supposed to know that AREN'T on the cards.

This is kinda weird. I mean, these new rules don't magically add ink to the cards, so they are still referencing an outside document or having to initially read a set of rules to learn how to play.

Quote
Yes and no.

I'm not seeing a "no" part here.

Quote
Any Errata we kept were primarily for consistency. Mutant Gestalt and Rhino Charge being examples.

Mutant Gestalt is a power level errata. It's not clarifying a rule or anything, it's just decreasing the power of a card that is too good. Now the droves of new players you are trying to teach the game will have to refer to a sheet that says "this card does something different than what the printed text says." No big deal, right? So why would it be so hard to do this for a few more cards such as Leech, Fortress, etc.

What's more important: a new player having to memorize "btw Leech targets a character," or a new player playing it as written but then quitting the game because Leech is ridiculously overpowered without the errata?

Quote
You love your hyperbole, don't you?

Defensive Vertigo from a site in this format is so beyond broken, I'm sorry your extensive testing didn't try  it  out or you would have noticed this.

Quote
Again with the hyperbole. Newsflash - The game didn't need my help to get to that point.

If I don't have a negate in my hand or placed, I can still stay and fight the Starjammers. If I don't have a negate vs. any heroes, I'm not going to risk getting Leeched and losing not only the current venture, but also a bunch of placed cards so that I am at even more of a disadvantage the following turn.

Quote
Bear in mind with the Citadel, that you can build an identical team several ways without the homebase! So you can still get your crazy trick, you just won't see people using the base.

No you can't. Under your rules, I don't get Merciless Conqueror, Obfuscate, Apocalyptic Minion, etc. as pseudo-aspect cards by building an identical team without the homebase.

Quote
A tweak may come up here or there, but they are far easier to play, and options open up

In your thorough playtesting, what options were opened up by these rules that weren't viable before? Personally, I see tons of options shut down. The few current decks that are viable without a negate just become completely unplayable under your rules.

Quote
I just don't get where all of this hostility and negativity comes from, you have both been posting here for a long time with no issues and recently you have taken a very "holier then thou" attitude in your interactions with everyone.

Message boards are for discussion. This is a thread about his rules, and a discussion about them is taking place. Sorry if this is a problem for you?

Anyway, regarding "I had no intention of buffs/nerfs" - I can see how Vertigo might be inadvertently boosted in your process of clarifying rules - but you cant claim you didnt intentionally nerf or boost stuff when you remove a negative inherent from Citadel and add a detrimental inherent to FF4. Still seems extremely arbitrary. Why does Citadel lose its negative inherent, but some of the way worse battlesites don't? Wundagore Mountain, Avalon, Big Apple, etc all have detrimental inherents and their lineups are far worse than Citadel, especially when you take into account the whole "absent characters specials" rule. Which brings up another thing. When you say you tested these extensively...are you sure? Aside from the aforementioned "some cards get screwed unfairly like New Lease on Life" (which may have been easy enough to overlook during testing), what about testing the stuff that got buffed?

X-Man, Dark Beast, Holocaust, Post - Onslaught's Citadel Homebase, The Vault Battlesite

It meets the "negates are mandatory in this format" barrier by having 7. It has Merciless Conqueror (absurd as a pseudo-aspect) and Master Mold. It has defensive Vertigo from the site. This deck would shred most of the current top tier decks, and makes nearly all of the tier 1.5 decks completely unplayable because of how bad their matchup against this would be.

I haven't given any thought to this, so if I were to refine things it might have Sentinel in reserve instead of Post to allow access to Obfuscate for one of the mini-aspects. This is just taking two things that you specifically buffed, and showing in a few seconds that it is a pretty grossly overpowered deck. Since there are so few things that are specifically improved in your rules, you would think that they would be the first things you tested. If this deck is that good off the bat, it just implies that there is lots of other stuff you might have missed as well. That's another huge advantage of using the existing rules (besides cohesiveness amongst the playerbase instead of fracturing it) - they have passed the test of time.
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: BigBadHarve on March 11, 2011, 12:11:54 PM
This is kinda weird. I mean, these new rules don't magically add ink to the cards, so they are still referencing an outside document or having to initially read a set of rules to learn how to play.

It's one thing to have a core set of rules from a rulebook, and it's quiet a different thing to have to refer to another document entirely (aka the Meta Rules) to discover that your cards don't play as they are written. That was my entire beef with the metas, and many of the errata they made.

I'm not seeing a "no" part here.

Yes, as in 'yes, it's like a homemade on the level that you print up the new inherent and affix it to your character'

No, as in 'no, its a house rule because it's an adjustment to how an existing card is played'

Ergo - Yes AND No.

Mutant Gestalt is a power level errata. It's not clarifying a rule or anything, it's just decreasing the power of a card that is too good. Now the droves of new players you are trying to teach the game will have to refer to a sheet that says "this card does something different than what the printed text says." No big deal, right? So why would it be so hard to do this for a few more cards such as Leech, Fortress, etc.

What's more important: a new player having to memorize "btw Leech targets a character," or a new player playing it as written but then quitting the game because Leech is ridiculously overpowered without the errata?

The errata on Mutant Gestalt was an official errata, to correct a misprint. The errata simply makes it like every other GD coded special. As with Rhino Charge.

As you know, the Leech was an errata made because the makers realized they made a powerful card and wanted to depower it.

But the Leech is no more powerful than many cards available to characters that can be put into a battle site (which also cannot be avoided).


Anyway, regarding "I had no intention of buffs/nerfs" - I can see how Vertigo might be inadvertently boosted in your process of clarifying rules - but you cant claim you didnt intentionally nerf or boost stuff when you remove a negative inherent from Citadel and add a detrimental inherent to FF4. Still seems extremely arbitrary. Why does Citadel lose its negative inherent, but some of the way worse battlesites don't? Wundagore Mountain, Avalon, Big Apple, etc all have detrimental inherents and their lineups are far worse than Citadel, especially when you take into account the whole "absent characters specials" rule. Which brings up another thing.

As I said - there was no overall intention of buffing or nerfing any specific characters. FF plaza we did want to address further. As for the other sites with a penalty for an inherent - The Citadel was the only one with a truly debilitating effect. Other the others can be worked around as it doesn't diminish the strength of your draws, but drawing one card less is a HUGE disadvantage in this game.

X-Man, Dark Beast, Holocaust, Post - Onslaught's Citadel Homebase, The Vault Battlesite

It meets the "negates are mandatory in this format" barrier by having 7. It has Merciless Conqueror (absurd as a pseudo-aspect) and Master Mold. It has defensive Vertigo from the site. This deck would shred most of the current top tier decks, and makes nearly all of the tier 1.5 decks completely unplayable because of how bad their matchup against this would be.

I haven't given any thought to this, so if I were to refine things it might have Sentinel in reserve instead of Post to allow access to Obfuscate for one of the mini-aspects. This is just taking two things that you specifically buffed, and showing in a few seconds that it is a pretty grossly overpowered deck. Since there are so few things that are specifically improved in your rules, you would think that they would be the first things you tested. If this deck is that good off the bat, it just implies that there is lots of other stuff you might have missed as well. That's another huge advantage of using the existing rules (besides cohesiveness amongst the playerbase instead of fracturing it) - they have passed the test of time.

Okay then, give it some thought for me, please. And I don't mean that in any sarcastic or snarky way. If you are seeing things that are potentially broken then help me address the issues to fix them.

Build me a team (or teams) that are absolutely broken under these rules. Give me the exact specifications as you would build it, so I can construct it and take a look.

We have tested these rules and have yet to create a broken team that we haven't fixed, but I'll be the first to admit that with so many options there will always be something lurking in the cards that we've missed.

You're clearly passionate about this, so I do want your point of view.

-BBH
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: Onslaught on March 11, 2011, 12:31:25 PM
We played a first to three series earlier using these rules, and the Citadel deck is stupidly good. Spawn/Witch/Jammers/Spider-Woman with Infinity Gauntlet and Onslaught's Citadel got completely reamed by the Onslaught's Citadel homebase deck (which was a suboptimal build that was put together in ten minutes). Merciless Conqueror as an aspect is dumb. Defensive Vertigo from a site is also really dumb.

The first obvious suggestion would be to change the inherent of Citadel back to being draw 7. The mini-aspects from absent characters makes Citadel way too powerful.

Vertigo also should go back to offensive only.

The absent character stuff is really cute and I wish homebases would have been created with those rules in mind in the first place, but it doesn't make any of the bad homebases worthwhile and it gives unnecessary buffs to the good homebases. If I was making Overpower from the ground up with rebalanced stats/characters, I'd definitely design the homebases taking the absent character rule into account. Applying it retroactively to the current cardpool doesn't work out so well.

By my suggested changes: Vertigo is offensive, Citadel is back to original text, and mini-aspects are left alone (though I'd still suggest dropping this mechanic too), then all decks would look pretty much identical to what they look like now other than the fact that negates are even more important (and they are already way too important). If you play with the official errata on Leech (which is as vital as making Vertigo offensive only IMO), then you just have a 10 page document about shuffling basic universe cards into the powerpack.

Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: BigBadHarve on March 11, 2011, 01:49:49 PM
We played a first to three series earlier using these rules, and the Citadel deck is stupidly good. Spawn/Witch/Jammers/Spider-Woman with Infinity Gauntlet and Onslaught's Citadel got completely reamed by the Onslaught's Citadel homebase deck (which was a suboptimal build that was put together in ten minutes). Merciless Conqueror as an aspect is dumb. Defensive Vertigo from a site is also really dumb.

The first obvious suggestion would be to change the inherent of Citadel back to being draw 7. The mini-aspects from absent characters makes Citadel way too powerful.

Vertigo also should go back to offensive only.

The absent character stuff is really cute and I wish homebases would have been created with those rules in mind in the first place, but it doesn't make any of the bad homebases worthwhile and it gives unnecessary buffs to the good homebases. If I was making Overpower from the ground up with rebalanced stats/characters, I'd definitely design the homebases taking the absent character rule into account. Applying it retroactively to the current cardpool doesn't work out so well.

By my suggested changes: Vertigo is offensive, Citadel is back to original text, and mini-aspects are left alone (though I'd still suggest dropping this mechanic too), then all decks would look pretty much identical to what they look like now other than the fact that negates are even more important (and they are already way too important). If you play with the official errata on Leech (which is as vital as making Vertigo offensive only IMO), then you just have a 10 page document about shuffling basic universe cards into the powerpack.

Can you supply me with your build? Or what you think would be the most broken way to build it. I know how I would build (and have built) this team to maximize it, but I want a completely different perspective on it.

On the pseudo-aspect front (I think I shall rename the rule to that) I disagree. It makes you look at the homebases from a whole new light, and gives a reasonable answer to "Why would I bother to play one of the homebases?"  Yes, wholeheartedly agree that it would have been really nice if they'd thought of it from the beginning and built around it, but even as is, it still creates new options for the Homebases. That extra bit of defense, or trick can go a long way, even on the lesser sites.

Leech as target, Vertigo as offensive (but still OPD!) I'm certainly flexible on. In our games, we've found the Leech as written to be extremely enjoyable (you'd be amazed at how many rounds we played where we both had the leech! Or, perhaps you wouldn't, you've probably been there many times too. But it was interesting because had we been playing the target rule there were many times when one of us could have avoided it) but I can also understand the frustration too.

Under our system, you may have noticed that many more cards are usable defensively, and are slightly more potent. I think you'll find this changes things somewhat. This is what I meant by increased options. Likewise with the duration rule - which, granted was official, but didn't serve as a blanket rule.

So, even taking into account your suggestions, it's not just about recycling basic universe cards and such. I want to open versatility of cards. So many cards got nerfed, and I'm not talking about the big ones like leech. Little things like Brood spawn. Many players won't use it, even if it is game lasting, but why would you make it so unappealing that even those who would consider using it just walk away?

Thanks for your thoughts, I'm sorry for any snark. I don't want to leave any bad blood on these boards. I would appreciate you devising any broken team you can think of. And by all means, if you have ideas for a more organic way of playing the cards (that doesn't involve referencing meta rules) let me know.

-BBH

Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: Palatinus on March 11, 2011, 03:32:23 PM
To preface, I haven't played enough Overpower under any rules to begin to be able to take advantage of any rule-set in a way that would let me make a broken deck.  I don't think I will be making the tournament in April, but not because of the rules, simply because I don't have a way to work out the time right now.  If I were going to attend, I would have to learn these reform rules just as much as I would have to learn the errata and other additional rules for a tournament run by the official rules.  For me, then, having as few changes to the cards and written rules as possible would be ideal.  I'm not too sure about all of BBH's changes, but I like the idea of the ones that add more into the game.  One thought I did have was if there is a real concern for the pseudo-aspect rule, why not make the specials playable as defensive only.  That would make sense in a certain way if you think of the absent characters as the ones who are back at the base defending it.

Some of the other stuff that has been said, for instance that Vertigo or Power Leech will change everything about the way people play.  I don't know what the real impact in Overpower would be with these cards at their maximum power.  What I do know is that in my experience playing Magic one overpowered card does not break an entire game or tournament.  First of all, not everyone will play those cards.  Even if they are actually unbeatable and the most powerful cards in the game, that doesn't mean everyone will want to limit themselves to a few very specific decks.  More than that, even in a tournament with prizes, winning isn't everything.  In fact, if there are 20 people and 3 people get prizes, then winning is exactly 15% of what it was all about.  When I play games even competitively, I really just want to have a good time and see other people's ideas and just share in a unique experience with a group of people with similar interests.
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: BigBadHarve on March 11, 2011, 05:18:45 PM

On the Errata:
I love the fix for Hulk’s BC special. My question is if Hulk and Venom and Rhino are on the same team could I make the reserve miss 3 battles *insert evil maniacal laugh!*  ;D

I strongly disagree with the fourfreedoms change.  :( I think ALL 6-character locations used as homebases should be allowed to shift attacks if those attacks are defended with a power card based defense.  That blanket rule would make many more playable.  This is ultimately the point I thought.  ;)  Also online I saw some homemade-homebases  :P that said,” team’s power grid is an eight e/f/s/I (whatever was appropriate) for defense” as another way of making them more playable.  

Everything else looks good to me.

As you can see I'm more interested in depowering an unlimited shift rather than expanding it. But it's an interesting idea. I recall you posting it elsewhere...

Your question about the double shift - It comes in handy for situations where an EB special is in play. Say Taskmaster's Trained lackeys. Under normal rules, you can't shift it to him then re-shift it to that card. It's a small adjustment, and the main point of adjusting the shift rule was to change it so that you couldn't shift to characters who couldn't be targeted by the opponent in the first place. We added the 'double shift' proviso as well while we were at it.

I admit, it doesn't largely get used, but it was worth mentioning in case the reference was needed.

As for the Reserve Inherent, that was another issue of blanket rules. Years ago, when learning the game, I asked if inherent abilities still applied from reserve. I was told yes. Then when using Longshot in reserve for a team, I was told no. It didn't apply to him, or Invisible Woman or Blue Beetle, or Comm. Gordon. Because they added to venture. I asked where that was written and I got an 'I don't know, that's just the way it is.'

So, either they do, or they don't. And I'm not sure cancelling ALL inherents from reserve unless they say playable from reserve wouldn't go over well, so we decided they do. Blanket rule.

Inifinite loop: It isn't a huge problem in Overpower, and really would only come up at a tournament situation where games are timed, but most card games have such a rule, so we decided to have one just in case. Say you're using Marauders and Taskmaster. They both have Identical BQ specials. You could theoretically create an unlimited stall tactic by playing Malice to get Photographic reflexes, to call Malice back, to play it for Reflexes again, and so on.

Like I said, not a likely situation, but might as well address it.

Cheers!

-BBH
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: ncannelora on March 11, 2011, 05:46:18 PM
Quote
Inifinite loop: It isn't a huge problem in Overpower, and really would only come up at a tournament situation where games are timed, but most card games have such a rule, so we decided to have one just in case. Say you're using Marauders and Taskmaster. They both have Identical BQ specials. You could theoretically create an unlimited stall tactic by playing Malice to get Photographic reflexes, to call Malice back, to play it for Reflexes again, and so on.

I thought you were just being funny  :D

Without OP being timed, there really wouldn't be an issue. Since i've only ever seen OP timed, by my wife telling me I have to be home by X:XX, I couldn't see how it could be an issue, but there you go!
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: Nostalgic on March 11, 2011, 06:01:59 PM
@ BBH

Thanks for addressing my post.  I was starting to feel like the invisble man...
 
I had a genuine question about forcing the opponent's reserve to miss 3 battles with Hulk, Venom, and Rhino.  I just wanted to be sure that was your intent or at least whether you're fine with the possibility or not.  ;)


What do you think about making the "psuedo-aspects" function like activators with the specials under the homebase?  Since you couldn't place the specials to the homebase you have less control over your window to use them.  Perhaps that dials back the power enough for Onslaught's tastes. I only mention that In the intererst of tweaking things for broader consensus.

Related to that I appreciate any feedback you may give on some of the house rules I post.  I realize there are many things I may not think about (since I don't play as often) regarding what effect a rule my have on the game balance. Specifically how  a rule may completely break things do to specials, teams, or combos I may not have thought of. 
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: BigBadHarve on March 11, 2011, 06:18:32 PM
I had a genuine question about forcing the opponent's reserve to miss 3 battles with Hulk, Venom, and Rhino.  I just wanted to be sure that was your intent or at least whether you're fine with the possibility or not.  ;)

Sorry about that, I saw the question and for some reason didn't process it.  :-\

Yes, you could theoretically do that. There's an any-hero version of that card too, if you're interested... ;)

What do you think about making the "psuedo-aspects" function like activators with the specials under the homebase?  Since you couldn't place the specials to the homebase you have less control over your window to use them.  Perhaps that dials back the power enough for Onslaught's tastes. I only mention that In the intererst of tweaking things for broader consensus.

That was actually something we discussed off the top, but opted against it. It does have merit, though, and would be yet another use for DoW (because, you know, it's just not useful enough), which would now affect the activators for the pseudo-aspects.

Palatinus' suggestion of making them defensive only was interesting, but I'll have to sit and review the locations to see how that would affect things. Though, despite the controversy with the Citadel, I'm still very pleased with how the pseudo-aspect rule works.

-BBH
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: Nostalgic on March 11, 2011, 09:23:17 PM
What do you think about making the "psuedo-aspects" function like activators with the specials under the homebase?  Since you couldn't place the specials to the homebase you have less control over your window to use them.  Perhaps that dials back the power enough for Onslaught's tastes. I only mention that In the intererst of tweaking things for broader consensus.

That was actually something we discussed off the top, but opted against it. It does have merit, though, and would be yet another use for DoW (because, you know, it's just not useful enough), which would now affect the activators for the pseudo-aspects.

Palatinus' suggestion of making them defensive only was interesting, but I'll have to sit and review the locations to see how that would affect things. Though, despite the controversy with the Citadel, I'm still very pleased with how the pseudo-aspect rule works.

-BBH

Defensive only or just treat them like additional non-placeable any-heroe cards.
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: breadmaster on March 12, 2011, 03:37:52 AM
no proxies :(...no 5 multi or DoW for the breadman then

also, do you anticipate so many disputes you can't play?  wouldn't it be boring hanging around for hours on end?
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: BigBadHarve on March 12, 2011, 05:05:14 AM
no proxies :(...no 5 multi or DoW for the breadman then

also, do you anticipate so many disputes you can't play?  wouldn't it be boring hanging around for hours on end?

Yeah, no proxies, sorry. Mike wanted to print up and offer proxies of things like Beyonder and DoW, so that everyone would at least be on an even keel for the match. But I've found people divided on that issue - some players would prefer to play straight up, if you don't have the card then you don't get to use it. Others don't mind the proxy and will say just do it. For tournaments I'm more inclined for the former, myself. Marvels being the obvious exception - but even the Marvels can be divisive, because they were never officially created, even though they are recognized as the cards that would have been. I like them, and think they make for a fun dynamic.

If the last gathering was any indication, there will be a lot of people asking questions. I couldn't go ten minutes without someone asking me how rules were played when we met in February. And those were people playing official rules! So I think it best that I sit out and be on hand to act as the judge. Also, since I'm organizing things, and providing the prize support, not to mention utilizing my own rule set - it's best that I sit out lest things come across as somewhat sketchy. I'll have my teams and be there for casual matches though.

-BBH
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: Nostalgic on March 14, 2011, 03:45:47 AM
BBH have you thought about simply changing vertigo from 'may' to 'must'?  :) Would that fix it?
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: Hot Rod on March 14, 2011, 09:28:09 AM
BBH have you thought about simply changing vertigo from 'may' to 'must'?  :) Would that fix it?

That's an interesting idea.  I'm not if it would stop vertigo from being used to load up specific characters (X babies) but, I think it would be a fairly good nerf as it would only let you have shift to 2 characters and not 3 (assuming all attacks go to the same character).

On another note I've been doing some testing of this format which (borrowing from Onslaught) I would like to call the "Negates or Fantastic" format.

I played about 15 games with a Stark Enterprise; Scarlet Witch, Iron Man, Captain America and Hawkeye/Spider Woman reserve deck.  Using the Outback and Infinity Gauntlet.  I literally could not manage a better than 1 out of every 4 against a Mr. Fantastic, Spawn, Starjammers, Silver Sable deck using any heroes and shattered image.

With Devourer already not being negatable, the addition of Leech only being negatable combined with the Gen 13 vs the Regulators and to a lesser extent Entropy Field, creates absolutely unwinnable hands far too frequently.  This isn't even taking into account Web Head, 2 draw 3's, Python Hold, Raza, and Finite Power.

I can see this becoming a format that requires both decks to have hand winning cards that can only be negated (HQ, JA, BQ, BY, OC).  If you're running activators, I wouldn't even bother using a site other than Onslaught Citadel or Outback, unless you have a KL character on your team (most likely X babies in a beyonder deck).

Anways, I'll keep testing, but I suspect Onslaught could correct about this being 10 pages on how basic universe are now recyclable (sorry BBH!)
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: Nostalgic on March 14, 2011, 04:36:19 PM
BBH have you thought about simply changing vertigo from 'may' to 'must'?  :) Would that fix it?

That's an interesting idea.  I'm not if it would stop vertigo from being used to load up specific characters (X babies) but, I think it would be a fairly good nerf as it would only let you have shift to 2 characters and not 3 (assuming all attacks go to the same character).

How could they load up the x-babies?  For any attack that the Marauders would chose to shift the new target hero 'must' defend it. It's basically to take away letting someone just spread hits around in the most convenient way and require defensive action to also be played.

Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: ncannelora on March 14, 2011, 04:42:33 PM
BBH have you thought about simply changing vertigo from 'may' to 'must'?  :) Would that fix it?

That's an interesting idea.  I'm not if it would stop vertigo from being used to load up specific characters (X babies) but, I think it would be a fairly good nerf as it would only let you have shift to 2 characters and not 3 (assuming all attacks go to the same character).

How could they load up the x-babies?  For any attack that the Marauders would chose to shift the new target hero 'must' defend it. It's basically to take away letting someone just spread hits around in the most convenient way and require defensive action to also be played.



I think the misunderstanding is which "may" is being changed.
May be moved becoming must be moved.
or
May defend becoming must defend.
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: Nostalgic on March 14, 2011, 06:14:59 PM
I think the misunderstanding is which "may" is being changed.
May be moved becoming must be moved.
or
May defend becoming must defend.

Oh right.  I should have been more specific.  Well BBH, Onslaught, what do you think?
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: drdeath25 on March 14, 2011, 06:39:44 PM
I think the misunderstanding is which "may" is being changed.
May be moved becoming must be moved.
or
May defend becoming must defend.

Oh right.  I should have been more specific.  Well BBH, Onslaught, what do you think?

If I wanted to play the card less powerful in this set of rules, I would change it to 'Must' defend. But thats just me...
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: BigBadHarve on March 14, 2011, 07:11:14 PM
I think the misunderstanding is which "may" is being changed.
May be moved becoming must be moved.
or
May defend becoming must defend.

Oh right.  I should have been more specific.  Well BBH, Onslaught, what do you think?

If I wanted to play the card less powerful in this set of rules, I would change it to 'Must' defend. But thats just me...

Interesting ideas... sort of the Four Freedoms solution applied to the Vertigo.

If I were to nerf it from as written, I'd probably keep it as an OPD, but also add in the official errata of 'play on your turn' (which is something we considered, but ultimately decided that OPD was enough.)

Double Whammy, so to speak. Even so it's still a worthwhile card.

-BBH
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: Nostalgic on March 14, 2011, 08:34:10 PM
Interesting ideas... sort of the Four Freedoms solution applied to the Vertigo.

If I were to nerf it from as written, I'd probably keep it as an OPD, but also add in the official errata of 'play on your turn' (which is something we considered, but ultimately decided that OPD was enough.)

Double Whammy, so to speak. Even so it's still a worthwhile card.

-BBH

I like to build consensus.  ;)  

Perhaps on more tweak will remove the '1 per deck.'  
First change it to 'must' defend as we said.
In errata you could say the defense must be with an unmodified power card.
Finally keep it offensive only as you mentioned.

Notice that I didn't say power card based defense.  So that limits the type of attacks that could be shifted and limits how big of an attack could be defended if shifted.  I think that sufficiently 'nerfs' the card to still be quite useful, but not as ridiculous as it was.  The only exception may be someone who has an inherent ability that grants a bonus to power cards.
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: Onslaught on March 15, 2011, 06:50:26 AM
Anways, I'll keep testing, but I suspect Onslaught could [be] correct about this being 10 pages on how basic universe are now recyclable (sorry BBH!)

Yup, after the necessary changes are made that's mainly what remains. BBH, be honest, how much did you test these rules?

Just to be a shithead I wanted to try to maximize use of the broken version of Power Leech. I didn't intend for it to be competitive, but it was winning a lot based solely on how often I was able to draw Vertigo. Anyway, the gimmick was:

Malice, Photographic Reflexes, Power Mimic, and a placed Leech. Ahahahaa....
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: BigBadHarve on March 15, 2011, 06:09:04 PM
Anways, I'll keep testing, but I suspect Onslaught could [be] correct about this being 10 pages on how basic universe are now recyclable (sorry BBH!)

Yup, after the necessary changes are made that's mainly what remains. BBH, be honest, how much did you test these rules?

Just to be a shithead I wanted to try to maximize use of the broken version of Power Leech. I didn't intend for it to be competitive, but it was winning a lot based solely on how often I was able to draw Vertigo. Anyway, the gimmick was:

Malice, Photographic Reflexes, Power Mimic, and a placed Leech. Ahahahaa....

Solids tests, I'll outline below each rule and when we came up with them. The process has taken years, and we didn't think of it all at once. Did we test every single possibility under the sun? No. But we assessed what we thought might be broken and tried out everything we could. Your build on the Citadel wasn't one I'd tried, but we did play out the Citadel in other combinations. I've been trying your Citadel team this past week, with middling success (which suggests that it's not broken), but that's why I'd like to see how you would build it.

I like your Morph deck, it's interesting because it DOES make potential use of two characters who go largely unused, and creates a potentially powerful trick. But go ahead, a lucky perfect draw notwithstanding, try and keep those characters alive long enough to get that trick out... especially as an anyhero team! Remember - vertigo is OPD in our system.

As for it being a ten page document about recycling cards - You've only mentioned going back to Leech as target, and nerfing vertigo and restoring Citadel... you haven't even touched on any of the other notes. That's scratching the surface.

Do I think they're perfect? Well, I like them but I am ALWAYS open to suggestions. The goal is to make the game intuitive, fluid, and consistent without the need for the Meta-rule guide. You guys have brought up fantastic points. Don't get me wrong, I have considered everything you say. If there is something broken, I will fix it. BUT I don't want theories. I want hard evidence.

If you can make a broken deck, send me the specs and I’ll test it out myself (Or if you're local and we meet up occasionally *coughcough HOTROD coughcough*). If the deck can be countered easily, then it’s not broken, even if it's got a killer trick. (I have more than a few decks with killer tricks under official rules, and yet somehow that's not considered broken...)

Anyway, rule by rule, here are notes about the progression of our ideas: (Sorry, it's a long one, but you did ask...)

Lorne (the co-author of our house rules) and I have, on average gotten together once a month for ten years since the game died… (this is the average, of course, there were prolonged periods where we didn’t play, and other times when we managed once a week.) to play anywhere between 12 and 16 games. Our standard format is to have between 4 and 6 distinct teams and round robin them to gauge the results.
Now, were we able to try EVERY single possibility? Of course not. But we isolated things we thought would be broken and tested them.

Obviously we had various stages of what came into being -

1.   Cards played as written is about 2 years old now. We got fed up with the meta rules and wanted a simple way of playing the game. So we tried everything as written. No errata, no metas, just to see what would happen. First we scoured the cards to see what needed to be looked at. Naturally we came to the conclusion that many errata had to either remain or be altered, then we removed the rest.

2.   The recycling rule is about 6 years old. We felt that recycling the cards made them more playable, without making them mandatory to a deck. It also made certain aspects and specials a little more appealing. (IE: Mojoworld, Captain Britain) Certainly not game breaking, but more worthy of consideration.

3.   The doubleshot rules are about as old as the recycling rules. I’ve always felt they should be able to defend the whole team, thus increasing their versatility, especially since they are a pain in the ass to use. Like the basic universe cards, it makes them more appealing, but not necessarily mandatory.

4.   Removing the any-hero restrictions came with the ‘as written’ testing 2 years ago. It was about playing what was on the text of the cards as much as possible.

And we had the same reservations about Leech as written as most people do – but in practice it really wasn’t that broken, except when it came to BQ specials. Which meant we had to either find a solution that went with our 'play as written', or go back to official rules for Any Heroes.

I wanted to put them into the dead heroes pile, but Lorne hated that idea.

That was one issue we fought about until I built a broken team of (believe it or not): Wonder Woman, Scarlet Spider, Spider Girl and Hawkeye. It’s heavily defensive, with decent attacks, and being able to BQ the leech up to 4 times in a round was one thing (though it never happened) – but with placed BQs, Leeching up to 4 consecutive rounds WAS a problem. That team had a 80% - 90% win ratio.

So, into the dead heroes pile they went, and solved that issue. That decision is the most recent, but it’s been on the table for a while. The team remained strong, but only marginally stronger than it would have been under official rules.

It should be noted that, Any heroes only go the defeated heroes pile after being used. This means you can BQ an any hero back for a 2nd chance if it was pitched without being played.

5.   The shift rule is recent. About a year.  We adjusted it to accomplish two things – 1) to make shifting a little more intuitive , and 2) to make things like certain EB specials a little more useful. The idea of shifting attacks ‘behind’ existing cards always seemed dumb to me. It’s more logical that you simply cannot shift to a character who was blocked off anyway, or more importantly, shift an attack to a character with an EB protecting them, and absorb it with the EB.

6.   The Absent character rule/Pseudo aspects are also fairly new. About 6 months. So yes, this is the least tested of the rules. I have yet to see it broken though – so I’m all open for ideas. I’ve tried Your Citadel idea a couple of times in the past few days. Most certainly not broken, but then I don’t know precisely what you had in mind. I’m still waiting on your build so I can see it. I will tell you one thing – in our tests with the Citadel drawing 8 vs draw 7. Being able to draw 8 makes the Citadel playable and competitive, but not broken. Drawing 7, the team has a 100% loss ratio. That’s broken in the wrong direction.

Aside from that - pseudo aspects are really the boost many homebases need. Results vary, but you can’t deny that almost all homebases are improved (even if only marginally) by this ability. The only ones that lose out are the ones that are missing two characters. But there’s nothing I can do about that short of making homemades, and the purpose of this rule set was to make more use of existing cards.

7.   Inherent Abilities. I’ll confess, we never tested this one. We were simply removing an arbitrary rule that only applied to certain inherent abilities. If you can break this one, go ahead.

8.   Battlesites and variants – we’ve actually played this way since the game died, but strangely it rarely comes up. At most, you can get two acrobatics specials in play at the same time for a lock down, but that’s not really game breaking, as lock down decks are easily constructed a dozen times over in other ways already.

9.   Top of a player’s action. This is, for the most part, official. The only thing we did (ironically!) is to depower training and Basic universe by saying you couldn’t use them as follow ups. The only reason we did this was for rule consistency in terms of what could be played and when.

10.   Combining cards. This came with the ‘play as written’ testing as well 2 years ago. Most AE specials don’t say combine with a ‘power’ card, it simply says ‘card.’ Which, going as written without any reference guide would imply any card of the specified type, not just power cards. So at first, we considered the possibilities. An AE combined with a doubleshot added up to a 3 icon level 12 attack for a one hit kill (not that it ever happend! AE’s combined with teamworks were also interesting. But ultimately, we decided that official rules here regarding combines with universe and tactics should stand, but there was no reason a character couldn’t combine an AE with another special. It really is a minor ruling, and rarely comes up. But some characters get a little boost. We just wanted it clear what could be done, so it was added to our list.

11.   Now, here’s the big one no one has talked about yet – defensive actions. Everyone has been so focused on the Leech, Vertigo and Onslaught’s Citadel, that not one person has addressed the issue of the broad range of cards now playable defensively. Not just cards like trick transport being returned to defensive status, but other cards like ‘Asian Connections’ or ‘Flabby Fighter’ (Allow me to share how much more useful Asian Connections is playable defensively!) Or how about KC specials? More characters with cards usable defensively increases your options.

12.   Card selection etiquette. That was given to me by Hot Rod. I’d never played like that, but I liked it.

13.   The Cheating Death rule we’ve been using for 5 years. Some great combos, and possibilities, but nothing broken. (You could theoretically use Kirigi to keep a character alive after being KO'd, then mercilessly conquer him to remove all the hits and abuse the cheating death rule... we did think of that, but getting it into play isn't as easy as it seems.)

14.   Ending a Battle. Again, fairly new, 1 year old, but it makes things more interesting. Tested thoroughly, and nothing broken. What it does, however, is make a player think twice before employing the much hated 'cheese win.' If I think my opponent can do something after my character's are gone to screw with my venture, then I might not be so quick to sacrifice my entire team in order to take venture.

15.   Duration rule. We just took the official rule and applied it to EVERYTHING. Not the arbitrary rules in place. Again, it made so many cards more playable. You give me something broken with this, and I’ll look at it.

16.   Universe cards as damage. We simply changed it from Any Power to an icon therefore Spectrum. Tested a couple of times, makes a slightly better use of cards that allow Bu’s to count for damage, but most certainly does not break the game.

As for our errata. Well, we’ve talked the vertigo to death already. I’m all for nerfing it further, but we didn’t find it broken one bit as being defensible. If you have Marauders on your team, it’s OPD. Powerful, but still OPD. If you are using it in your site, that’s your OPD, and you’re limited to Morlock Tunnels or the Vault. Both are okay sites, but you get Vertigo once, and that’s it, you’re done. If you're relying on Vertigo, you'd better hope your opponent doesn't DoW you before you get it. There are just so many variables.

Aside from a few others, most of them are official anyway.

You asked why only the Citadel got a fix when there are other homebases that also have penalties. I answered before, but I’ll repeat – Citadel is the only base with a truly crippling inherent ability. Every other homebase with a penalty has an inherent that can be worked around with a little strategy. The penalties do not affect your actual draws. The Citadel’s cannot. They even ruled that a Pym Particles doesn’t negate your inherent! You must draw 1 less than your opponent. Citadel can be a tough team, yes. But all you need is one clown to play Assault on Onslaught against you and you’re done. That even works thematically.



Sorry for the lengthy post...

I really don't want to come off as 'I'm right, and my rules are superior' and if I have, please accept my apologies. I am thankful for all consideration and thoughts. I am looking to create new options for the game without the need to create homemades. We have found it fun trying out old, previously worthless cards, in new ways. If something is broken, I want to address it.

That's one of the reasons I want to run the tournament with these rules, to see what people come up with! I've already talked to a few people who have interesting ideas that they wouldn't have bothered with under official rules. A few people thinking about using homebases (I won't say which ones, but not the usual ones!) How often do you see that in a tournament?

If there's something we've missed, let me know it will be addressed. But if ten different people each say that have a broken team... well, that indicates to me that things might not be broken after all.

-BBH
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: Onslaught on March 15, 2011, 08:33:01 PM
"Years of testing" is hard to swallow when I've played 10 games (and I won't waste any more time testing these) and HotRod has played 15 games and we've both come to the same conclusions. Unerrataed Leech is too swingy, defensive Vertigo is way too good from a battlesite, the mini-aspects thing doesn't make any underpowered homebases more playable (just slightly less sucky), blah blah blah.

You need me to hand you a decklist for that Citadel lineup? Uhm, 6 negates, 9f, 8m, 11m, EE x3, 4m AA, Illusory, Vault with whatever configuration as long as you have 3 Marauders activators, Merciless Conqueror, Mastermold. Or put Sentinels in reserve and change Mastermold for Obfuscate and use a tricky event with it.

Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: rucker73 on March 15, 2011, 08:53:33 PM
BBH...  If I were you, I would stop banging my head against the brick wall that is Onslaught.  Some people will never be open to others ideas of opinions.  Those who want to try your rules will try them out in April, we will see what kind of feedback you get then.  But from what I have seen so far, the people who regularly go to the Toronto meetups thus far, are not complaining about giving your ideas a test run.

in summation:  you can not please everyone

especially Onslaught
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: Onslaught on March 15, 2011, 09:02:08 PM
I have a closed mind because I was willing to actually test out these rules and play with them for several matches? What is closed minded minded about that? I was willing to try them, and I gave valuable input on my reasons for believing that they don't work.

In what reality is theorycrafting a way to loop non-negatable Leech four times in one game considered to be closed minded?
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: rucker73 on March 15, 2011, 09:28:34 PM
I was willing to try them, and I gave valuable input on my reasons for believing that they don't work.




Not everyone would consider your opinions to be valuable.

Congratulations to you Onslaught you tried them.  You did not like them, and therefore you announced to everyone that they are no good. 

Someone else put a lot of time and effort into them, trying to re-invigorate the game for old and new  players.  Just because someone else`s ideas don`t work for you does not mean that they don`t work for others.

Anyways, you are who you are, and you will respond to things the way you do.  I will continue to dislike the tone and attitude that you usually do it in.

 
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: drdeath25 on March 15, 2011, 10:52:21 PM
Openly accepting any new idea without a fair amount of critical skepticism is FAR MORE closed minded than testing and re-testing things to make an informed opinion.
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: Nostalgic on March 15, 2011, 11:12:46 PM
"Years of testing" is hard to swallow when I've played 10 games (and I won't waste any more time testing these) and HotRod has played 15 games and we've both come to the same conclusions. Unerrataed Leech is too swingy, defensive Vertigo is way too good from a battlesite, the mini-aspects thing doesn't make any underpowered homebases more playable (just slightly less sucky), blah blah blah.

You need me to hand you a decklist for that Citadel lineup? Uhm, 6 negates, 9f, 8m, 11m, EE x3, 4m AA, Illusory, Vault with whatever configuration as long as you have 3 Marauders activators, Merciless Conqueror, Mastermold. Or put Sentinels in reserve and change Mastermold for Obfuscate and use a tricky event with it.




You seem quite 'cagy' about your deck build. Is it copywrited or something?

Why so Serious?! LoL!
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: rucker73 on March 16, 2011, 12:33:13 AM

Anyways, you are who you are, and you will respond to things the way you do.  I will continue to dislike the tone and attitude that you usually do it in.

 
Openly accepting any new idea without a fair amount of critical skepticism is FAR MORE closed minded than testing and re-testing things to make an informed opinion.


Please apply my previous statement to Dr.Death as well.  I have grown very tired of you both.
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: Nostalgic on March 16, 2011, 12:37:35 AM

Anyways, you are who you are, and you will respond to things the way you do.  I will continue to dislike the tone and attitude that you usually do it in.

 
Openly accepting any new idea without a fair amount of critical skepticism is FAR MORE closed minded than testing and re-testing things to make an informed opinion.


Please apply my previous statement to Dr.Death as well.  I have grown very tired of you both.


 :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: Hot Rod on March 16, 2011, 11:16:22 AM
Can you actually use Merciless Conqueror on a character after they've been kept in the battle by Kirigi?  That seems a little odd to me since the character is already KO'd.  Unless the KO part of the special doesn't need to be carried out in order to remove all hits.  Which means the KO part is a side effect and not the required cost of activation.

Being able to play HE's defensively is interesting indeed.  I'll definitely look into that one.

A really annoying side of effect of being able to BQ any heroes even once is that you can be willy nilly about placing Devouror, or Leech, since you can just BQ them back if they get AI'd.  That and I suppose you can get out of someone conceding on you before you get a chance to play them, which takes some of the meta gaming away.

Also, I suggest getting some Fisherman's Friend for that cough!  I hear it works pretty good.   :P
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: Nostalgic on March 16, 2011, 02:40:01 PM
BBH could Spider Woman combine her AA and AE to make a level 8 str attack and follow up with another attack?
Title: Re: Toronto Meetup #3 - TOURNAMENT AND Rule Reform info!
Post by: BigBadHarve on March 28, 2011, 06:07:18 PM
BBH could Spider Woman combine her AA and AE to make a level 8 str attack and follow up with another attack?

Under my house system, yes. That would be a legal move.

-BBH