PDA

View Full Version : Impossible Mode Possessions



andymo24
02-12-2016, 09:33 AM
My group often plays with my deck that is a mix of the original and Crisis 1 and 2, with some of the duplicates and less useful or way overpowered cards removed. We also usually mix up the super villains so it's about half Impossible Mode. Ran into this situation:

Very early in the game I managed to buy Possession. The first super villain after the starter was Impossible Mode Atrocitus. The player to my left bought IM Atrocitus (IMA). The next time I played Possession, she had to attack herself with IMA's First Appearance: Attack and put four cards under her Super Hero, then put IMA back in her hand. The cards are stuck there since IMA is not defeated. I saw that since it was early in the game, it was very likely that I would be Possessing her IMA repeatedly and soon her whole deck would be under her Super Hero. I also had several cards to help me cycle through my deck (Penguin, Batmobile...)

We adjusted the rule for the sake of competition and good sportsmanship, but I was curious how other people handle overly abusive situations like this or if CZE had a preference on how they would soften this situation. In pure play, of course, that player is just SOL.

How about: A player's super villain is considered to have been defeated once it is destroyed or shuffled back into a player's deck from the discard pile. (If the super villain gets put into a player's hand or deck through any other means, it is not considered to have been defeated.)

bigtipper
02-12-2016, 09:51 AM
First Appearance Attacks aren't attacks that players get to use. So, when you play Possession, she should not be putting cards under her Super Hero to begin with.

First Appearance Attack =/= Attack
Stack Ongoing =/= Ongoing

LRoq617
02-12-2016, 10:11 AM
First Appearance Attacks aren't attacks that players get to use. So, when you play Possession, she should not be putting cards under her Super Hero to begin with.

First Appearance Attack =/= Attack
Stack Ongoing =/= Ongoing

To some degree, that's true. However, keep in mind the ruling that The Comedian can buy any Super-Villain with a First Appearance attack for 1 less, since it counts as having an Attack. I'm not sure if this counts as an exception or not, but maybe the overall wording on a card like Possession or Akuma's Gi (Street Fighter) should be a bit clearer.

Matt_Hyra
02-12-2016, 10:20 AM
A FAA is an Attack, it's just not an Attack that is played from hand, so Possession doesn't work on it.

andymo24
02-12-2016, 10:34 AM
Also, I don't think this question was ever answered in the discussion linked in my next post below:
zetaman00: "Another question that came up in our game was in the same scenario where the player is being attacked because of possession can you use insanity(the defense from forever evil) to put a defense from your discard into your hand? or would you technically not be attacking yourself? thank you"

andymo24
02-12-2016, 10:49 AM
A FAA is an Attack, it's just not an Attack that is played from hand, so Possession doesn't work on it.

Matt, what happened to this ruling?
Possession and FAA (http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=39566&p=484051&viewfull=1#post484051)

Matt_Hyra
02-12-2016, 10:53 AM
Matt, what happened to this ruling?
Possession and FAA (http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=39566&p=484051&viewfull=1#post484051)



Nice digging!
I updated that rule to conform to reality. FAA's only ever work when flipped up on the stack.


Also, I don't think this question was ever answered in that discussion:
zetaman00: "Another question that came up in our game was in the same scenario where the player is being attacked because of possession can you use insanity(the defense from forever evil) to put a defense from your discard into your hand? or would you technically not be attacking yourself? thank you"

You are attacking yourself, so that would work.

andymo24
02-12-2016, 11:02 AM
Thanks Matt, I hope that this discussion makes up for my brain fart on this Joker question (http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=44329&p=554667&viewfull=1#post554667). The question came up months ago and I forgot that my group already knew the answer and I asked here because all I remembered at the moment was how mad one guy was when several turns in a row he was forced to discard most/all of his hand and another player had Joker and IM Joker and multiple cards that let him cycle and stack his deck so that he played both Jokers in several turns. He's still mad.

andymo24
02-12-2016, 11:11 AM
To some degree, that's true. However, keep in mind the ruling that The Comedian can buy any Super-Villain with a First Appearance attack for 1 less, since it counts as having an Attack. I'm not sure if this counts as an exception or not, but maybe the overall wording on a card like Possession or Akuma's Gi (Street Fighter) should be a bit clearer.

So by this logic, are Stack Ongoing cards considered Ongoing cards in reference to the effects of other cards? Sorry if this is already answered in the clarification thread.

Matt_Hyra
02-12-2016, 01:19 PM
OK, clearly the Possession vs The Comedian rulings are pretty inconsistent, so we've decided to make a rule that should clear things up:

First Appearance - Attack text is considered not to exist on the card after the Attack resolves. This prevents it from being seen by Possession and The Comedian. However, cards that specifically reference First Appearance - Attacks do see the text (this allows the Crisis card "World Domination" to function).

Stack Ongoing text does not exist when away from the Super-Villain stack, unless a card specifically references Stack Ongoing.

If you find a flaw in these, I will modify the ruling. Thanks!

SpiritDetective
02-12-2016, 03:51 PM
That cripples The Comedian.

gerrymul
02-12-2016, 04:05 PM
How on earth does that cripple the Comedian? Paying 1 less across the board for attacks is extremely valuable and toss in the draw power from the villains he gravitates toward....

GuruGuru214
02-12-2016, 05:38 PM
OK, clearly the Possession vs The Comedian rulings are pretty inconsistent, so we've decided to make a rule that should clear things up:

First Appearance - Attack text is considered not to exist on the card after the Attack resolves. This prevents it from being seen by Possession and The Comedian. However, cards that specifically reference First Appearance - Attacks do see the text (this allows the Crisis card "World Domination" to function).

Stack Ongoing text does not exist when away from the Super-Villain stack, unless a card specifically references Stack Ongoing.

If you find a flaw in these, I will modify the ruling. Thanks!

The bit about Stack Ongoing might need a little reworking for Crisis 2, for cards like Corrupted Companion, Super-Villains United, and Crisis Nekron, unless I missed something and those Super-Villains' Stack Ongoing text doesn't trigger.

Other than that, it looks pretty solid.

Cyninja1
02-12-2016, 07:28 PM
So the ruling on the Comedian is reversed? He won't have 1 less to buy super villains with first appearance attacks?

Matt_Hyra
02-13-2016, 12:18 AM
So the ruling on the Comedian is reversed? He won't have 1 less to buy super villains with first appearance attacks?

Correct.

LexLuthorJr
02-13-2016, 03:47 AM
Does The Comedian still get the -1 to buy against the Super Villains from Legion of Super Heroes, then?

Matt_Hyra
02-13-2016, 07:34 AM
Does The Comedian still get the -1 to buy against the Super Villains from Legion of Super Heroes, then?

Yes indeed!

aoineko
02-13-2016, 12:45 PM
The bit about Stack Ongoing might need a little reworking for Crisis 2, for cards like Corrupted Companion, Super-Villains United, and Crisis Nekron, unless I missed something and those Super-Villains' Stack Ongoing text doesn't trigger.

Other than that, it looks pretty solid.

While I prefer to play with their Stack Ongoings active (for more of a challenge), the default rules actually state that they aren't.

Mac_Apple
02-14-2016, 09:55 PM
Man, that ruling is so lame. :p

"First Appearance" is just a modifier on an Attack, and an Attack is an Attack is an Attack, through and through.

It's not like there aren't other broken combos in the game. (Here's looking at you, Duplicate!) Possession should be scary for the person who is rushing the Super stack, it's nice to give said rusher a taste of his own medicine.

And Comedian was 100% cool when I saw him and realized he counted FAA's. This ruling dropped that coolness by about 99%.

But I abide... begrudgingly. :rolleyes:

Matt_Hyra
02-15-2016, 02:17 AM
Were this a video game, the FAA text would disappear after resolving.
The issue isn't broken-ness. Just trying to find the play pattern that works best around an ever-growing pool of cards.

bigtipper
02-15-2016, 08:53 AM
Man, that ruling is so lame. :p

"First Appearance" is just a modifier on an Attack, and an Attack is an Attack is an Attack, through and through.

It's not like there aren't other broken combos in the game. (Here's looking at you, Duplicate!) Possession should be scary for the person who is rushing the Super stack, it's nice to give said rusher a taste of his own medicine.

And Comedian was 100% cool when I saw him and realized he counted FAA's. This ruling dropped that coolness by about 99%.

But I abide... begrudgingly. :rolleyes:

If a player purchases a Super-Villain, do they get to attack players then next time they play the card? No. So, if player 1 is unable to "attack" player 2 with a FAA, how would player 2 be able to "Possess" player 1 and attack himself (or anyone else). FAA not being considered an attack by Possession makes complete sense if you understand what the card is meant to portray.

IAmTheGreat
02-15-2016, 08:18 PM
The problem is rulings are being modified to accommodate impossible mode super villains, which aren't designed well enough to be played outside of crisis anyways.

BenJazz
02-16-2016, 07:03 AM
The problem is rulings are being modified to accommodate impossible mode super villains, which aren't designed well enough to be played outside of crisis anyways.

Which rulings are being modified for Impossible-Mode Super Villains? I don't think I have heard mention of them having bearing on these rulings. Sure, the question was first brought up due to the situation involving an I-M SV but the decisions seems to have been made looking at all SV's and clarifying the concept of a FAA versus a normal Attack.

Mac_Apple
02-17-2016, 06:44 PM
Were this a video game, the FAA text would disappear after resolving.
The issue isn't broken-ness. Just trying to find the play pattern that works best around an ever-growing pool of cards.I do hope this indicates more cards that manipulate attacks are on the way! Else this ruling is still lame. :p

IAmTheGreat
02-18-2016, 09:14 AM
Which rulings are being modified for Impossible-Mode Super Villains? I don't think I have heard mention of them having bearing on these rulings. Sure, the question was first brought up due to the situation involving an I-M SV but the decisions seems to have been made looking at all SV's and clarifying the concept of a FAA versus a normal Attack.

When the original possession ruling was made Matt specifically said it works on FAAs. Now that Impossible mode villains were brought up, who have much stronger and gamebreaking FAAs, the ruling is being changed. They originally ruled that getting hit by Captain Cold with Possession would turn off your ability for the remainder of the game, which is quite devastating. So I dont understand why now suddenly these attacks are too powerful for Possession to be ruled the way it is.