The new defense rules are weirding me out. Now (defense) labels act differently to (attack) and (thwart) ones.

All 3 still act as the ‘counts as’ as they always have, but (defense) specifically and implicitly says ‘you have to be the target of the attack in order to play this’

This would be like having to use your basic ATK power or using an ally to attack in order to play Uppercut.

Also RAW this now means that cards that prevent or reduce damage can’t actually be used to do so, if the damage comes from a non attack source.

So Cosmic Flight, Wiggle Room, Shield Block don't really function as their text suggests.

For example: I’m Captain Marvel. I have 2 HP remaining. I have Cosmic Flight in play. The encounter card is Sound Manipulation. I can’t use Cosmic Flight, since I’m not the target of an attack. I’m now dead.

Rules reference page 5:

Quote

if a triggered ability is labelled as a defense - such as ‘Hero Action (defense)’ - that ability can only be resolved by a player while they are the target of an attack

Rules reference page 10:

Quote

interrupt abilities may be executed anytime the specified triggering condition occurs

Caleb emailed me back and confirmed:

“defense cards can only be used while you are the target of an attack. If you would take damage from a source that is not an attack, then you could not use a defense card to prevent that damage.”

And see Spider-Man's Backflip specifically calls out "damage from an attack" where none of the others do. I hate when rules "clarifications" just make you doubt that you know what you're doing.

I should have put more thought into the title of my post. I'm actually less bothered about the contradiction, which isn't strictly really there. I'm more concerned that:

• The (attack) (thwart) and (defense) labels now act differently. I.e they all still act as labels, but additionally (defense) acts as a 'limiter'- i.e 'only do this when you defend' (which itself is confusing because they don't really mean when you defend, they mean when you are the target of an attack...)
• Cards now don't strictly follow their text. It's going to be annoying to say to teammates, "No you can't actually use Cosmic Flight right now" "Oh really? The cards says 'when Captain Marvel would take damage...'

1 hour ago, jonboyjon1990 said:

The new defense rules are weirding me out. Now (defense) labels act differently to (attack) and (thwart) ones.

All 3 still act as the ‘counts as’ as they always have, but (defense) specifically and implicitly says ‘you have to be the target of the attack in order to play this’

I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the rules additions and have a question. You say all 3 still act as the ‘counts as’, but I can’t find this anywhere for (defense). For (attack) and (thwart) it is in the corresponding entry in the RRG, but there is no such line under Defense. I agree that this would be intuitive, but is it actually written in the rules? I’m probably just failing to find it.

This is important for determining if an attack was undefended or if you have defended an attack by using a (defense) card for the purposes of responses, such as Counter-Punch.

5 minutes ago, Assussanni said:

I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the rules additions and have a question. You say all 3 still act as the ‘counts as’, but I can’t find this anywhere for (defense). For (attack) and (thwart) it is in the corresponding entry in the RRG, but there is no such line under Defense. I agree that this would be intuitive, but is it actually written in the rules? I’m probably just failing to find it.

This is important for determining if an attack was undefended or if you have defended an attack by using a (defense) card for the purposes of responses, such as Counter-Punch.

Good catch. It does seem that Attack and Thwart are 'counts as' labels - but you're right, there's no such entry for defense - maybe that was always the case.

In which case, you can only use something like Counter-Punch in response to actually defending.

38 minutes ago, jonboyjon1990 said:

Good catch. It does seem that Attack and Thwart are 'counts as' labels - but you're right, there's no such entry for defense - maybe that was always the case.

In which case, you can only use something like Counter-Punch in response to actually defending.

Defense did still have that entry in the most recent RRG prior to this one.

30 minutes ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

Defense did still have that entry in the most recent RRG prior to this one.

Which entry, sorry?

1 hour ago, jonboyjon1990 said:

Good catch. It does seem that Attack and Thwart are 'counts as' labels - but you're right, there's no such entry for defense - maybe that was always the case.

In which case, you can only use something like Counter-Punch in response to actually defending.

That was already true. Counter punch explicitly calls out that you Defend.

23 minutes ago, jonboyjon1990 said:

Which entry, sorry?

In my paper copy of the RRG, under Defend, Defense, there was the entry:

Quote

If a triggered ability is labelled defense - such as “ Hero Interrupt ( defense )” - resolving that ability is considered a defense. Unless specified by the ability’s text, a hero does not exhaust when using such an ability.

This is not included in the new RRG.

16 minutes ago, Derrault said:

That was already true. Counter punch explicitly calls out that you Defend.

Under the old rules above I think you could have used Counter-Punch after, for example, playing Backflip or discarding Cosmic Flight without exhausting your hero (provided you were the target of the initial attack). Under the new rules as written this seems to no longer be the case.

1 minute ago, Assussanni said:

Under the old rules above I think you could have used Counter-Punch after, for example, playing Backflip or discarding Cosmic Flight without exhausting your hero (provided you were the target of the initial attack). Under the new rules as written this seems to no longer be the case.

In my opinion, under the previous version of the Defend, Defense article in the Reference, it was pretty clear that when you defend against an attack, it means exhausting to use your DEF basic ability. As I said in my other thread, to my mind the ambiguity was the other way round -- would playing a (defense) card counts as being _defending_. It does not, and as @jonboyjon1990 said, this is sort of confusing.

6 minutes ago, Assussanni said:

In my paper copy of the RRG, under Defend, Defense, there was the entry:

This is not included in the new RRG.

Under the old rules above I think you could have used Counter-Punch after, for example, playing Backflip or discarding Cosmic Flight without exhausting your hero (provided you were the target of the initial attack). Under the new rules as written this seems to no longer be the case.

See that's the route of my confusion. In the original rules (attack) (thwart) and (defense) all acted as 'labels'.

Now (defense) has changed. It's no longer a label and also now a limiter. I.e you have to be defending (target of the attack) to use this card.

6 minutes ago, jonboyjon1990 said:

Now (defense) has changed. It's no longer a label and also now a limiter. I.e you have to be defending (target of the attack) to use this card.

Be careful there, you are not automatically defending when you are the target of an attack. 😉 You ARE on (defense), though.

So, with this rules clarification, you must not only be the attacked player, but actually be using the Defend action before you could play something like Pre-emptive Strike, which is just a (defense) response?

That's incredibly weird, and inconsistent with every (attack) and (thwart) card. I kind of figured that using a (defense) card didn't make you the defending player, and can even understand why it doesn't allow you to be 'defending,' since that also has specific game meaning. I don't understand why you would have to Defend before being able to play a (defend) card. That's like saying you have to play Haymaker as part of your Attack action.

33 minutes ago, AradonTemplar said:

So, with this rules clarification, you must not only be the attacked player, but actually be using the Defend action before you could play something like Pre-emptive Strike, which is just a (defense) response?

I don’t think that’s the case, you need to be the target of the attack to play Preemptive Strike but you don’t need to have used the basic defend action to do so.

However, if you just play Preemptive Strike (i.e. without also taking the basic defend action) you are now not considered to have defended against the attack for anything that cares about such things, such as Counter-Punch’s response trigger.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I'm still not a huge fan of that, since it means I can't preemptive to protect another player without exhausting, but it's better than nothing.

8 hours ago, AradonTemplar said:

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I'm still not a huge fan of that, since it means I can't preemptive to protect another player without exhausting, but it's better than nothing.

You can only play a (defense) card if you are the target of the attack.

You are the target of an attack if:

* The attack initiated against you in the first instance

* You exhaust your hero to defend

* You exhaust one of your allies to defend

17 hours ago, jonboyjon1990 said:

You can only play a (defense) card if you are the target of the attack.

You are the target of an attack if:

* The attack initiated against you in the first instance

* You exhaust your hero to defend

* You exhaust one of your allies to defend

Is this one correct? Is the hero the target of an attack if they have used an ally to defend an attack against another hero?

If you're all referring to page 5, I'm not getting whats the major difference. It seems like they just explained it differently but it's still the same. It's kinda a unspoken rule in all the card games I've played, most interrupt cards work when you're the target. I played a lot of Yu Gi Oh, those are trap card rules lol

3 hours ago, Majushi said:

Is this one correct? Is the hero the target of an attack if they have used an ally to defend an attack against another hero?

You become the attacked player if you use an ally you control to block the attack.

This has some weird rules with Overkill, since Overkill says the excess damage is dealt to the defending Hero, so if you are in Alter-Ego and use an ally to block for another player, you become the defending player, but aren't a hero, so the Overkill damage is negated. <Not true anymore, if it ever was.

37 minutes ago, AradonTemplar said:

You become the attacked player if you use an ally you control to block the attack.

This has some weird rules with Overkill, since Overkill says the excess damage is dealt to the defending Hero, so if you are in Alter-Ego and use an ally to block for another player, you become the defending player, but aren't a hero, so the Overkill damage is negated.

It’s ‘Identity’ in the new RRG v2

“Overkill — If an ally is used to defend against an attack with overkill, any excess damage from the attack (damage beyond the ally’s remaining hit points) is dealt to the identity of the player controlling the ally, if able.”

Interesting. Was that changed with this update, or am I just remembering wrong? I remember seeing the ruling on this forum, and thought it was confirmed as correct. Guess I'll spoiler the original comment >.>

Ya it was changed in this update.

4 hours ago, player2142998 said:

Ya it was changed in this update.

Careful now - I was also claiming this was a change to the Rules as Written. I showed a photo of the original RRG and the latest one, showing the different text. Still didn't stop multiple people shouting me down on the Facebook group.

1 hour ago, jonboyjon1990 said:

Careful now - I was also claiming this was a change to the Rules as Written. I showed a photo of the original RRG and the latest one, showing the different text. Still didn't stop multiple people shouting me down on the Facebook group.

LoL. Not sure why I need to be careful. V1 shows ‘Hero’ and v2 shows ‘Identity’ even in red text to indicate there was a change. People can shout all they want. It’s right there for all to see.

edit. To clarify my post, I’m only pointing out that there is in fact a change to the text in the document and not necessarily implying any change to fundamental play. I’ll leave that debate to others.

57 minutes ago, player2142998 said:

LoL. Not sure why I need to be careful. V1 shows ‘Hero’ and v2 shows ‘Identity’ even in red text to indicate there was a change. People can shout all they want. It’s right there for all to see.

edit. To clarify my post, I’m only pointing out that there is in fact a change to the text in the document and not necessarily implying any change to fundamental play. I’ll leave that debate to others.

I'm just saying that I tried to do the same and point out that this was a legit change, provided photographic evidence to prove it and still got shouted down by the facebook group, who mostly said, 'there has been no change'