1ed Goofiness Unerrataed

[prowler7]

Heya!

Generic Masters Head Shot - (event)
You may only play this card if it is the only Special Card you have played this turn. You may play this card even if you cannot play a Special Card. Play in conjunction with an attack, the attack is considered to be a Head Shot.

By the wording on the card, you could play this card with ANY attack that can be made a Power Blow, regardless of it covering an upper square.

The funniest thing, since there is NO ERRATA stating that this card needs to say "Play in conjunction with an upper attack, the attack is considered to be a Head Shot.", and LMs insistance on using the Handbook AS IS for 1ed tournaments, this would be a legal play.

I wonder why nobody thought of this before?

[jamesmcmurray]

eric2001.brinkster.net/handbook.pdf

Head Shot - A Head Shot must be an Upper Attack. When an Attack becomes a Head Shot, it also becomes a Power Blow. If a player is unable to
defend against or otherwise avoid the Head Shot, that player loses their Head and the game. Any Quickenings that player was using must be given to
their opponent as stated on the Quickening card. If a player Blocks a Head Shot but does not Power Block, he does not lose his head, even though the
Attack was successful.

[prowler7]

A good point, James, except that it is also generally accepted that the text on a card (unless errated) overrides a contradictory rule. Take Chessex for example, that card should not work (it allows you to play 2 special cards during your turn, but you must skip your Attack Phase), except that the text on the card states that you can do it.

This is a perfect example of why some cards have VERY specific wording on them.

Here is another example, and one I have to admit that I have been getting wrong for a very long time. Apparantly, Head Shot (both the card and the general rule) has been errated in the Handbook to say "Upper Attack". What this means is that the ONLY attacks that may be made Head Shots are ones with UPPER in the name of the card. Now, if we hold fast to the rule for Head Shots in the Handbook, then all of the persona specific Masters Head Shots NO LONGER WORK, since NONE OF THEM have the word Upper in thier name.

So now we have a problem. What do we go by? Do we stick accept that card wording (unless otherwise errated) overrules the Handbook, or do we go with a strict interpretation of the Handbook and thereby invalidate several powerfull cards?

[jamesmcmurray]

Text on a card must specifically override a rule.

If not, why couldn't you also play that on any attack that can't normally be a power blow? After all, it says "any attack" not "any attack that can be a power blow." Duncan could use it with Killer Precision.

I suppose you're free to rule it how you want in your group, but the rules already seem perfectly clear to me.

[prowler7]

jamesmcmurray said:

Text on a card must specifically override a rule.

If not, why couldn't you also play that on any attack that can't normally be a power blow? After all, it says "any attack" not "any attack that can be a power blow." Duncan could use it with Killer Precision.

I suppose you're free to rule it how you want in your group, but the rules already seem perfectly clear to me.

You're right, it IS perfectly clear. The card clearly states to play in conjunction with an attack and the attack is now considered to be a Head Shot. That last bit of text, without any further modifiers, allows for whatever attack you played to now be considered a Head Shot. It gives NO modifiers for what type of attack, and if you read EVERY other "Head Shot" card, they have modifier and conditions.

And yes, you COULD play this card with "Killer Precision", or any OTHER card that can be made a Power Blow.

You said a while back you wanted examples of some broken combos, here is a minor one.

[jamesmcmurray]

Ummm... ok.

[Thorr]

I'm with James.

We errata'd many a card in MLE because of the permission premise. Card permission must specifically override a denial. Here is the handbook entry -

Denial v Permission - There are cards that say that you cannot or may not or will not do something (a denial), and cards that say that you can or may do something (a permission). In cases where these instructions are in conflict, a denial always overrides a permission. An exception to this rule is if the permission specifically targets that card or effect.

Head shot must be an upper attack. Master Head shot would need to say something like "That attack is now considered a Head Shot even if it is not an Upper attack" in order to work.

[prowler7]

Heya!

At any rate, I would like an "Official" ruling on this. I believe permission WAS given on the card, naming "an" card as the target of the Head Shot ability. In every other case, cards specifically state "Upper Attack", yet this card is missing that, implying by that absence that an "Upper Attack" is not required.

[headswillroll]

I agree with prowler on this. The problem is not whether or not we can use common sense, but get it corrected for those who either don't have common sense or will obviously try to extort it. You have to admit that there have been a lot of people in the past to push the rules as far as they can and to heck with common sense. That is why this needs an official ruling. Oh and by the way, if it is left alone without any ruling from the company, then watch out for Amanda with the Low Blow (AKA The Bobbit manuveur).


Headswillroll

[ReelHotGames]

headswillroll said:

I agree with prowler on this. The problem is not whether or not we can use common sense.

I don't think it's an issue of commonsense, because we all know no one has it when itcomes to competitions As Thorr said, the Denial v Permission rule clearly states how cards work when they are in conflict. And the handbookis an official source,so the ruling is pretty succinct.

A headhsot must be an upper attack, that's in the rules.

To override the rule according to Denial v Permission the card must state that it overrides the rule.

So unless there's erratta for thecard stating so, it ain't so... I know,bummer for all those dreams of legsweepinglowerattackstabbing head shots

If wishes were fishes we'd all be the pope....

[Thorr]

I'll give you another example of the same type of situation.

MLE card -
Katar Punch (lower)
Special Attack
This attack Does 2 damage

MLE Card -
Katar - Twist
Edge 3
Play this card in conjunction with Punch. If the attack is successful, it does an additional 1 point of damage for each Twist played in conjunction with Punch.

Looking at the text for Twist, it has some apparent permission, just like the Master Head Shot. It says to play it in conjunction with Punch. But, Punch is a Special Attack, which means that this Edge would be nullified if you do so. The card was made before the handbook was completed. It was initially felt that it had sufficient permission, but it doesn't. It says you can play this card with Punch, but the rules are still in effect and the card will get nullified.

In order to make this card useful, we had to Errata the card by adding the line "This card is not nullified when played in conjunction with a Special Attack". That line gives sufficient permission to override the rules.

[headswillroll]

I will concur on the example of punch and I am not arguing to get this approved, I am wanting it ruled by the company that the card to should state that it must be an upper (not Upper) attack. For there is another ruling situation there, if you read the text. If you read a generic "head shot" card it states that it is to be played in conjuction with an "Upper" attack, whereas the generic "Master head shot" states it is to be played with an attack. By the text on the cards only the "Upper" basic attacks can be played with the generic "head shot" since no other attacks have "Upper" in the title. This is per the capitalization rule. So, if they change the text on the generic "Master head shot" to say an "upper" and not an "Upper" attack it will allow other cards to be used properly as head shots such as riposte, dirty trick, spinning attack, surprising attack, Caspian's master's attack and so on.


Headswillroll

[Thorr]

Actually, the "capitalization" thing is no longer an issue either. It doesn't matter if it capitalized or not -

Attacks to Specific Areas - When referring to groups of Attacks by area, such as Upper Attacks and Lower Attacks, any Attack that includes at least one Grid square in that area is considered to be that type of Attack.
Example: The Weapon Specific card Slice: Rapier contains the Grid areas Upper Left (or Upper Right) and Middle Center. It is considered to be an Upper Attack, a Right Attack, a Middle Attack, and a Center Attack.

By rule, you can make any non-special attack that includes an Upper grid into a Head Shot unless the card states otherwise. (For example, if a card states it can't be a Power Blow, then it can't be made a Head Shot, like Slashes) Caspian's Master Attack is great for Head Shots. That's what it was designed for. That's why it is a Master card.

[headswillroll]

is this in writing? if so where is it so that i can find it.

[headswillroll]

is that a rule supplimented for MLE?


Headswillroll