Need some help with this please...

In a two player game, it seems simple. But when you have more opponents, it doesn't seem clear.

Scoreboard Phase: For each matchup where your opponent has more downed players that you do, gain [1 fan].

The debate is raging about whether

1) You gain 1 flag for every opponent that has more downed players (possible max. of 3).

2) You gain 1 flag regardless of whether a single opponent, or multiple opponents, have more downed players.

3) You gain 1 flag only if every opponent has more downed players that you.

The argument revolves around whether each tournament is a single matchup, or if the highlight reel is a series of matchups. The rules refer to playing a card to a matchup so I think the latter.

The second point of debate is whether you can only get one fan or multiple fans with this card. (I assume that the phrase 'each matchup' would mean you could get more than one.)

Thanks in advance.

Each tournament is a single matchup but you have multiple opponents to check for meeting the criteria. So for us its (2). You meet the criteria if any single opponent has more players downed than you.

If you meet the criteria, now matter how many ways you do so, then you get the reward - which is one fan out of the matchup.

I looked in the rulebook and didn't see this clearly stated. Do you have to be at a matchup to trigger actions? Using this card as an example and assuming nothing else is written on the card (I don't have the game nearby to look it up right now), Can you benefit from a highlight where two other managers have committed players? Do you count as having zero downed players at this highlight?

BrandonCarpenter said:

no, you have to be part of the matchup.

Luckyfer said:

Is that your RAW interpretation, or RAI?

I've reviewed the rulebook again, looked at the upgrade card, and I feel that the term "opponent" needs to be properly defined. I don't see this as a ridiculous request either; they have already defined the word "player" to avoid confusion. This is a card game, and we all have a friend or know somebody (Lawful Evil, if you catch my drift) who is a stickler for rules and interprets them to his advantage (anyone remember the original Time Walk?).

All they need to do is state that an "opponent" is an opposing manager at a matchup, or more specifically a manager that has committed/moved players in a Team Zone at a match up where you also have committed/moved players, and they remain your opponent as long as you continue to have a player committed/moved to that matchup. Alternatively, if the word "opponent" does't show up that often, then just a Rule Clarification on this Dwarf Upgrade.

okay, I've just reread the rules and the cards and you are right.

opponent isn't exactly defined in any section, which would make this discussion redundant.

The only point I can make now that it says Your Opponent and not your opponents.

So if you consider other match ups you aren't part of, you don't have an opponent but two different opponent-S.

So this card would only trigger at match ups you are part of if you follow the instructions word by word.

Sadly it doesn't work on tournaments anymore then, if there are more players involved.

So yeah, I would say logic dictates that you are part of the match up to trigger the effect, but it's not clearly stated in the rules.

BrandonCarpenter said:

I understand what you're saying, but your scenario would be a gross misinterpretation, in my opinion.

1. The entire game is based on scoring at matchups in which managers have placed a player. To play an upgrade card at a matchup in which the manager has no player would violate the intent of the rules as a whole.

2. p. 9 under 'Scoreboard Phase.' Managers determine which team won each matchup by comparing each team's total Star Power. Scoreboard phase abilities (team and staff upgrades) are resolved per matchup under 1.b.

3. p.8: under 'Matchup Phase': Teams compete against other teams in head-to-head matchups. That is, if you are the Reavers and the other managers are managing CAS and Avengers, you are only competing against the Avengers if you are head-to-head at a matchup.

If that's not enough for you, I would interpret the omission of your scenario in the rulebook as a strong indication that it is not permissible play.

DaveNYC said:

Your second point would seem to satisfy this debate, and I agree with you, but the wording for Lessons In Violence begins with "For each matchup where...". It's more of an active ability than an activated one. So even if I wait until we tally a matchup I have a player in, it would still check all matchups. Again then I have to ask, what is an "opponent"? I looked through the other upgrades in order to prove/debunk myself and came across Laying the Smackdown (team upgrade). If you review that card the definition of "opponent" - as it pertains to this game - becomes even more muddled.

Lessons in Violence says "... where your opponent has more downed players...", so in this case "opponent" refers to the Manager.

Laying the Smackdown says "For each downed opponent..." Since a Manager cannot be downed, in this case "opponent" must mean Player.

The rule set are the 'physics' of this game, the laws we abide by. Cards may exist that bend or break the rules, but it's still tied in to the physics. So A+B=C, but a card might allow for A+B=X. That being said, the terms and defined statements can't be open to interpretation and can't be taken on a case-by-case basis; going back to the variable equation, A is always A.

I'm not a rule-mongering tournament player who uses open interpretation as part of my arsenal for winning, but I like to cull it when I see it.

BrandonCarpenter said:

Brandon,

Absolutely. And I understood from your previous post that you were simply trying to protect against rules lawyers.

As I mentioned in my point 3 above, you can't have an opponent at a matchup unless you have a player placed at the matchup. You compete at matchups. This is your 'local' opponent. Your 'global' opponent is only for total fans tallied by the end of the four or five rounds. I see what you're saying about the slight imprecision in the use of 'opponent', but I think the overall intent of the rules is quite clear. You are competing for highlights. At a non-tournament highlight, there are only ever two teams maximum.

Forgive me for saying, but it seems that you're getting hung up on the word 'opponent' while forgetting the context entirely. The context is the highlight matchups, and the rules are explicitly clear about who can or cannot play at these matchups.

Any given ruleset is a set of semantics and syntax; language not physics. Generally speaking, they are written for "what a reasonable person would understand the terms to be." Or something along those lines. We may argue at the edges what a reasonable person is or isn't, or what the terms may mean or not, but ultimately I think we have to see each individual tree in terms of the entire forest. Maybe I'm mangling the metaphor, but does that make sense at all?

In other words, I agree with you that Laying the Smackdown is the better and more precisely worded of the two cards, but they have the same effect given the context of the game at large.

One more thing:

Lessons in Violence: each matchup where your opponent has more downed players than you do. If you do not have a player at a matchup, you don't get to say, "I have 0 downed players here, you have 1, so I get fans." You don't have 0. You have the empty set. You're not engaged at this matchup on any level.

Laying the Smackdown: for each downed opponent at every matchup where at least 1 of your players is standing... This is clarifying that you must have at least 1 non-downed player at the matchup to trigger the effect. It assumes that you only check matchups in which you are participating (of course, even if it didn't, the trigger condition wouldn't trigger unless you had a player there, but you get my point).

In terms of consistent wording, Lessons in Violence ought to have read, " For each matchup where the opposing manager has more downed players..."

DaveNYC said:

When it comes to card games, I have the opposite opinion. The language of the game has to be explicit. Rules need to concisely state what the do, or what they allow to do. The Rulebook sets the main laws in place and the cards either add a new rule, or relax an existing one.

Where I think you're getting hung up is the difference between a rule and a ruling .

For example, let's look at Lessons in Violence from the perspective that the OP asked. At Highlights, it's straight forward, but at a Tournament, how does it work? If four managers are at a Tournament and one manager has more downed players than we do, then there's no confusion. What if two managers have more downed players?

You only gain 1(flag). Reasons why:

• Cards like Offensive Firepower, The Best Players in the League, and Late Game Scoring Streak explicitly state that the ability triggers each time the requirement is satisfied. If Lessons in Violence was meant to provide more than 1(flag) , it would have been written like these cards.
• The the cards mentioned above seem to have been written knowing that the manager would be involved in more then one matchup. Lessons in Violence, while checking for more then one matchup, seems like it was written with the intent that a manager would only be playing against one other manager.

or

You gain 1(flag) for each manager then has more downed players then you do. Reasons why:

• Cards like Fan Club Enrollment, and Laying the Smackdown state that the ability triggers once as long as the minimum requirement is reached. If Lessons in Violence was meant to only provide 1(flag) total, it would have been written like these cards.
• This game was intended to be played by more than one player (2-player rules are an option at the end of the book) and Tournament cards are a part of the base game, so they would have taking them into consideration when making Lessons in Violence.

Neither argument sound silly, right? Both sound valid, they reference other cards to support their positions, and they both consider context. Whichever way it goes though, the decision would be a ruling, or a card clarification if anything. Until the card receives errata, it would need a special rule on how it's handled. Rulings should only pop up in card combos that people couldn't see without the large group of us playing the game, not because of ambiguous wording.

If we have to argue over how to interpret a card, we're no longer enjoying the game; hashing out how to interpret a card isn't a game mechanic because it doesn't represent two managers arguing over whether a pass was completed or not.

Now concerning my silly argument about Lessons in Violence trying to trigger when you have zero players at a matchup. Card errata would certainly fix this, but I was suggesting a proper definition in order to prevent future situations rather then a 'one and done' approach. The card looks like it's trying to represent beating your opponent to the ground and turning to the crowd for fame, like a gladiator, but that's just flavor. Other than the developers, who's to say it can't also mean the Dwarfs waltzing in and talking trash like professional wrestlers (and if anyone tried using that as a valid argument, I'd leave the table)?

As silly an argument as it is, and I agree it's completely against the spirit of the game and exploitative, where in the rules does it say I'm wrong ? Unless you're the tournament judge, or a developer, who are you* to tell me what the spirit of the game is? The spirit of the game is to win and have fun! If you're not having fun, then it's not my fault you're not trying to win.

* - in the case I don't mean Dave specifically, I'm referring to the collective you; if someone was bringing this same argument to me, I wouldn't be able to come back with much more than it seems cheap and only a cheater would take it this way.

PinkyMan said:

Just so I don't railroad this whole thread, if I had to make a ruling on how LiV works at a Tournament, I would say you would only gain a total of 1(flag) because of the reasons I stated above and because out of all the upgrades I looked though, I couldn't find one similar to LiV that targets multiple opponents.

I would also say that LiV triggers as long as one manager has more downed players then you do, because again, it looks like it was made with Highlights in mind.

To answer the second point of debate, the rulebook states that Highlights and Tournaments are both matchups (pg. 8, Types of Matchups), so you could also read the action like this:

Scoreboard Phase : For each highlight and tournament where your opponent has more downed players that you do, gain [1 fan].