https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/d6/9b/d69b97f8-7e4e-438a-817b-31ad10104b42/mc_rulesreference_v13.pdf

The update that went out in March or April(?) had a change to "Defend/Defense" from the printed rules reference that comes in the physical product. Currently, no, using a (defense) card does not constitute as defending, despite (attack) and (thwart) cards counting as attacking and thwarting. It makes little to no sense with some cards, such as Warning from the Doctor Strange pack, so I personally expect them to end up changing the ruling again at some point, or errata-ing some cards.

11 minutes ago, SpiderMana said:

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/d6/9b/d69b97f8-7e4e-438a-817b-31ad10104b42/mc_rulesreference_v13.pdf

"...Currently, no, using a (defense) card does not constitute as defending, despite (attack) and (thwart) cards counting as attacking and thwarting. It makes little to no sense with some cards, such as Warning from the Doctor Strange pack, so I personally expect them to end up changing the ruling again at some point, or errata-ing some cards."

Agree that makes no sense given the tags and implied wording in the rules. It is intuitive that playing a defense card == defending.

IMO some cards should read " Interrupt (Target of Attack) : " to be more clear.

Most of them seem to operate correctly under the ruling, but the notable exceptions ( Preemptive Strike and Warning ) probably need review.

58 minutes ago, IceHot42 said:

Most of them seem to operate correctly under the ruling, but the notable exceptions ( Preemptive Strike and Warning ) probably need review.

Idk I'd like to be able to Backflip or Shield Block to defend for somebody else without exhausting 😛

20 hours ago, SpiderMana said:

Idk I'd like to be able to Backflip or Shield Block to defend for somebody else without exhausting 😛

How do you backflip for somebody else? I would like Simone Biles to do all my back flipping if possible

I think it is clear that they don't want cards like Unflappable to trigger off of cards like Backflip and Shield Block. The defense ruling likely limited design space also.

That said, I still don't necessarily agree, as it doesn't make thematic sense and I don't think Shield Block+Unflappable is that broken. And as it is, it makes cards like Ms Marvel's Wiggle Room a lot worse.

But yeah, as per the latest rules reference, it is clear that defense events do not count as defending (since there was line stating that they did in the original document and was clearly removed in the last version).

My personal interpretation of a card like Unflappable:

Unflappable requires you to defend against an attack. Defend is an action. To defend you must declare the action and exhaust your hero.

Though it has the defence keyword, Shield Block is an event. Playing an defensive event card is an event, not a defend action.

2 hours ago, Janaka said:

My personal interpretation of a card like Unflappable:

Unflappable requires you to defend against an attack. Defend is an action. To defend you must declare the action and exhaust your hero.

Though it has the defence keyword, Shield Block is an event. Playing an defensive event card is an event, not a defend action.

Oh, you’re absolutely right. That’s how the rules work right now. Some of us are just voicing a concern that some cards are labeled poorly for the current rulings.

16 hours ago, Janaka said:

My personal interpretation of a card like Unflappable:

Unflappable requires you to defend against an attack. Defend is an action. To defend you must declare the action and exhaust your hero.

Though it has the defence keyword, Shield Block is an event. Playing an defensive event card is an event, not a defend action.

14 hours ago, SpiderMana said:

Oh, you’re absolutely right. That’s how the rules work right now. Some of us are just voicing a concern that some cards are labeled poorly for the current rulings.

It’s really just the difference between a verb and a noun.

‘To defend’ or ‘a Defense’.

Ie Defend is a thing one does, defense is a thing one has. You can have a defense, but not actually defend, which is exactly in line with the rules now; attacks are undefended unless someone (hero or ally) defends (cost: card is exhausted), and only someone who’s the target of the attack (hero or owner of the ally) would have a defense in place that matters for the attack.

(Ie if you have a castle, and I have a moat, my moat only matters if the enemy is attacking me, not you.) It wouldn’t make any sense at all if I could build a moat and it would apply to an army attacking your castle.

25 minutes ago, Derrault said:

It’s really just the difference between a verb and a noun.

‘To defend’ or ‘a Defense’.

Ie Defend is a thing one does, defense is a thing one has. You can have a defense, but not actually defend, which is exactly in line with the rules now; attacks are undefended unless someone (hero or ally) defends (cost: card is exhausted), and only someone who’s the target of the attack (hero or owner of the ally) would have a defense in place that matters for the attack.

(Ie if you have a castle, and I have a moat, my moat only matters if the enemy is attacking me, not you.) It wouldn’t make any sense at all if I could build a moat and it would apply to an army attacking your castle.

That’s fair enough. And I do think Backflip and Shield Block make enough sense as Defense cards. But Warning seems off.

29 minutes ago, SpiderMana said:

That’s fair enough. And I do think Backflip and Shield Block make enough sense as Defense cards. But Warning seems off.

I totally agree, Warning shouldn’t be a defense, or it should explicitly be allowed to break the defense rule.

58 minutes ago, Derrault said:

I totally agree, Warning shouldn’t be a defense, or it should explicitly be allowed to break the defense rule.

My guess is that this card was designed early on and though we only get it now with the Dr. Strange pack, it predates the rulings on defense.

For my part, the way I distinguish the two cases is that to defend is _active_ -- therefore you exhaust -- and (defense) is _passive_ because you are being attacked. I read (defense) as being ( on defense).

An attack event card (or any card with (attack)) is considered an attack action. For consistency seems that a defense event or any card with (defense) should be considered a defend action. The clarification in the RR for defend makes it clear that when a triggered ability is labeled as a defense you can only use/play that ability when you are the target of the attack. That (should be!) a defend action. It is not; ends up counter-intuitive that attack and defense card types do not have analogous mechanics.

36 minutes ago, Jenkins said:

An attack event card (or any card with (attack)) is considered an attack action. For consistency seems that a defense event or any card with (defense) should be considered a defend action. The clarification in the RR for defend makes it clear that when a triggered ability is labeled as a defense you can only use/play that ability when you are the target of the attack. That (should be!) a defend action. It is not; ends up counter-intuitive that attack and defense card types do not have analogous mechanics.

That would be more confusing as essentially every card in the game with the “Hero Action (defense):” marking is also timing specific in some way that you’d definitely have to have been the target of the attack (Ie When you would suffer damage, and when you defend). The one real exception to this was Preemptive Strike.

Importantly, the (attack) and (thwart) text only really matter because of the Stunned/Confused status cards, and the Retaliate keyword. Defense has no similar effects (although many effects, including some defense cards, key off if an attacked is defended or undefended).

On 6/11/2020 at 12:12 PM, Jenkins said:

An attack event card (or any card with (attack)) is considered an attack action. For consistency seems that a defense event or any card with (defense) should be considered a defend action. The clarification in the RR for defend makes it clear that when a triggered ability is labeled as a defense you can only use/play that ability when you are the target of the attack. That (should be!) a defend action. It is not; ends up counter-intuitive that attack and defense card types do not have analogous mechanics.

It would have to be an interrupt , not an action because its not your turn. You will notice there are no cards with " Hero Action (defense): " in the game.

9 minutes ago, IceHot42 said:

It would have to be an interrupt , not an action because its not your turn. You will notice there are no cards with " Hero Action (defense): " in the game.

Good point! Words are important here. The action of playing a card is not the same as an Action . Defending is not an Action, but it is an action you can take with a character. I wrongly assumed that using a card could substitute for defending with a character. The current RR does not explicitly allow for that to happen.

To clarify this ruling, could Shield Block be used by Cap on behalf of someone else if he first exhausted to "Defend," thereby becoming the target of the attack, negating some damage, and then using Shield Block to negate the remainder instead of taking it? There are a couple situations in which this would still be beneficial, like Rhino III with Charge.

49 minutes ago, mike8104 said:

To clarify this ruling, could Shield Block be used by Cap on behalf of someone else if he first exhausted to "Defend," thereby becoming the target of the attack, negating some damage, and then using Shield Block to negate the remainder instead of taking it? There are a couple situations in which this would still be beneficial, like Rhino III with Charge.

Yes, when a player exhausts their Hero to defend for another player, they become the target of that attack and can then play Defense cards.