Retaliate Gets A Rules Update - Marvel Champions
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2024
- PATREON: / d20woodworking
SUPPORT: www.ko-fi.com/...
JOIN: / @d20woodworking
TWITCH: / d20woodworking
DISCORD: / discord
REDDIT: / d20woodworking
Read the D20 Blog: / d20woodworking
Merch: d20-woodworkin...
BUY CARDS: www.ebay.com/u...
-------
Affiliate Links Below
Support The D20 Channel With your Amazon Purchases: amzn.to/3dMc8Vd
Get 10% Off Your Coffee Order!: badasscoffeest...
Upgrade your keyboard and mouse: razer.a9yw.net...
Secure your Internet with Nord VPN and get 60% off!: go.nordvpn.net...
----
#marvelchampions #xmen #rules
Thank god because attacking something that didn't have retaliate but having to take retaliate damage anyway because they gained it after the attack fully resolved was so dumb lol. I don't think we played this wrong because we were confused, I think we played that way because it was the most logical, made the most sense, and felt the most natural.
I saw that ruling before, and i just straight up Nick Fury'd it. "I recognize that the Council has made a decision, but as it was a stupid decision, ive elected to ignore it"
Haha this is my writing in reddit. I had questioned it to them after seeing your writing in reddit. I'm Korean. So my English is not good. But I had tried for this because I want to clarification this topic. And they gave me a good answers. Thanks for FFG. And I hope you guys enjoy this game more happy. 😁👍
I appreciate you taking the time to ask the question! It helps all of us!
Don't sell yourself short. Your English is better than some native English speakers. Thanks for asking the question.
당신의 영어실력은 좋군요. 종망요. 잘했다. 저는 한국어를 조금 하지만 많은 것을 잊어버렸는데요.
Appreciate you speaking up! These rules questions grind the game to a halt sometimes and this shows that asking helps! 😊
I'll say it: the previous ruling was wrong. Doesn't mean people were wrong for following the rules, but the rules should make sense and be consistent.
I always just thought of it like a video game. You knock the villain down (in this case Thanos) and then there is a mini cut scene where he stands back up, puts on his helmet, and headbutts you. Always seemed thematic to me.
But rules wise this way is more intuitive for sure!
My argument works both ways. I don't believe I have a monopoly on what makes sense so if that clicks for you, then no harm in playing that way.
As long as we're having fun
Totally. We all like to understand and follow the rules, but I try to always keep in mind that Marvel Champions is a sandbox for superhero stories. The villain transitioning from S1 into S2 is supposed to be like this major moment of relief where the villain backs down for a bit and takes a breather before coming back for seconds. It makes no sense for a retaliate to happen at such a point. (And if the designers want this to happen in a specific scenario, it would be much more appropriate to just have it as a When Revealed effect for the next stage.)
@@brandtsanderson4665i mean i understand ur rationale. In videogames, taking damage from the cut scene is also inconsistent, or they could even evade. So there is that
I agree with this. A HUGE reason that MC is so well received is its intuitive gameplay.
A rule that does not translate to the majority as intuitive stalls the principle in which the game was built upon.
I’ve always played without taking the retaliate hit; it just made sense. Thanks for your perseverance in answering the question. I tip my hat to you, good Sir!
This makes sense thematically. The hero is in a battle with the villain, they're beating the stuffing out of each other and the hero slams the villain hard enough to knock him down. In any sort of actual fight, he's not retaliating, he's down and has to collect himself to get back in the fight. To be honest, even if the ruling had gone the other way, I'd still play it this way, because this way makes sense logically and thematically to me.
With regard to the belittling tendencies of some people in the community: I've lost my patience with it. Some people seem to think it's ok and that everybody just needs to grow a thicker skin. For a lot of things I lean that way, but not for a hobby. Nobody should feel like they are spending time and money in a hobby that doesn't want them. I've seen people leave MC because of how they've been treated within the community. And, quite frankly, it pisses me off. This is my favorite game, and one of the things that makes it my favorite game is that there really is something in it for just about everyone who loves co-op card games. I was annoyed about MC (I wanted a co-op Android LCG; still do) before I watched Evan Johnson and Team Covenant do a live play of the game at GenCon 2019 shortly after it was announced. The mechanics hooked me hard, and I've been playing since day one. Any given hero has its detractors and fans. But some heroes you absolutely cannot say that you like openly within the community or you will get dogpiled. There are heroes you cannot even mention without a battalion of people showing up to tell you all about why that hero sucks or is never allowed at their table, even if they were never part of the discussion or it's a newbie asking a question about how the hero works. Ask a question somebody thinks is stupid and pretty soon you have a bunch of people telling you you're an idiot. I'm all for constructive conversations and debates, but a lot of the things some members of the online MC community say absolutely don't fall under that umbrella. After the dogpiling WWF got over his Doctor Strange video on Reddit I decided I'm done there. Some people are fine with the way people acted and treated WWF. I'm not. As someone who has had a long history with being verbally and emotionally abused and _had_ to grow a thick skin just to survive childhood, "it's just a little toxic" doesn't make it any better just because it's not as bad as some communities, in the long run.
Incredibly well said
Huge kudos for this ruling change. You and all the others who asked this question to FFG reopened the discussion and resulted in something that makes more sense.
I have to admit, just like the case with damage “dealt” versus “taken” like with the Power Stone, or Iceman ally not being able to stop a Quickstrike minion, i just shrugged it off like “welp that’s the ruling. It doesn’t matter how i feel about it because there’s an official ruling on it.” And i was wrong! The mentality and perseverance to make this make sense is admirable and it’s really cool to see that FFG listened and heard you guys. Stuff like this is what makes this community so great and the message you’re making with this video for people to be more open and question the rules is 💯💯💯
Nice! Good to see a thoughtful answer on the part of FFG that really assessed the situation, cleaned up confusion and brought the interaction into logical consistency.
I'm glad that they just clarified that defeating a stage is defeating a villain as well.
Yeah, I don't see what the controversy with that ever was. That's consistent in every other way except with Retaliate (until now). It drives me crazy how FFG will do mental gymnastics to maintain the outcome of one ruling (See Wolverine's Claws) when we all know they're just being pedantic. That's why I'm not fist pumping this decision: The way they ruled was never gonna outweigh reason for me.
Thanks for talking about the online bullying. It’d be cool if the champions community could manage to beat the gamer allegations
I am glad the clarification was made and happy to hear an overall update is coming. I hope a lot of people watch this video because you make a very good point. Don't be afraid to ask questions and keep asking questions until you have a true understanding of the answer.
This was a great video. I used to treat retaliate like punching a cactus where even defeated characters would deal retaliate damage.
I get so annoyed when someone asking a rules question, or asking why a rule is the way it is, is met with condescension.
That's the sort of thing that kills player engagement and eventually kills the games people who act that way supposedly like.
I think the question was worth asking because the old ruling wasn't consistent with how defeated villains is worded in the 1.5 rules. It makes the ruling an exception which is not easy or clear to explain to new players. The new ruling also helps clear up the timing on defeated villain stages. Consistent rulings makes your game more intuitive and easier to run.
My understanding of what Caleb said 3 years ago is that if a villain stage that has retaliate is defeated, and the second stage also has retaliate, then you have to take the damage. The question was specifically about defeating a villain stage that already has retaliate. So i don't really understand why people thought that the ruling applied to villains that don't have retaliate in their defeated stage, but have it in their new stage. Sure the Thanos helmet makes this even more confusing. Anyway, the new ruling is better and more intuitive (and also the way I always played - although i have to admit I sometimes forget a villain has retaliate).
Yes, the original issue was retaliate-both-before-and-after, but the way the solution was phrased directly led to the conclusion that no-retaliate-before-yes-retaliate-after also resulted in suffering retaliate damage. The "reason why people thought that the ruling applied to villains that don't have retaliate" is simply the fundamental principle of CCGs and LCGs that following RAW is the one and only way of figuring out the correct answer, even when you are applying it to resolve issues that weren't the cause of the rule in question appearing in the first place.
In other words, Caleb needed to use more precise phrasing and say "If the new villain stage... ALSO has retaliate, THEN...". But they didn't, and this answer now explicitly covered more cases then they (maybe) intended. RAW is merciless, and does not care for good intentions. :)
@@DrMcFly28 I fundamentally disagree. The only way you can come to that conclusion ("no-retaliate-before-yes-retaliate-after resulted in retaliate damage") is if you divorce the answer from the context of the question and treat it as a "stand alone" statement, which you should never do, because it is a logical fallacy. The fact that people wrongfully extrapolated things that were never implied has nothing to do with the clarity of Caleb's answer.
Thanks for these rules clarification vids, you’re basically my only MC “news” source so I appreciate them!
No problem! Happy to be that news source, there is so many rules updates/changes out there so I get it.
Good and logical change that is also the more immersive option.
I've always played this way.(not taking retaliate). It just made logical sense to me. If it were the other way, then if I dealt 10 damage to a villain's stage that only needed 2 the rest should carry over. But it doesn't. It's the same argument, "It's the same enemy, you just knocked him to his next stage."
I am glad that you raised awareness about this topic and also appreciate your sentiment around the gatekeeper and mob mentality that seem to be surprisingly pervasive in the Marvel Champions community. Perhaps this isn't surprising, as the internet seems to attract such types, but it is disappointing when self-appointed 'Guardians of the Integrity of the Carboard Game Called Marvel Champions' insist on passing decrees, and worse, judgement, about and to those with whom they feel have expressed an 'Incorrect Opinion' or 'Dumb Question When The Answer Is Obvious And You Shouldn't Be Playing If You Don't Already Know.'
As for the ruling, it seems intuitive and perfectly logical that upon a stage being defeated, that the villain needs a moment to recompense themselves before resuming the fight. Thanks for the good work and the news!
Thx this makes much more sense
love this reactionception
@@sedlak87 Hah! I had the exact same thought!
It's about time. This is how I've always played. Now they need to clarify Taskmaster's "changes to hero form" so that characters like spectrum, antman, and vision dont keep activating his ability bc they use multiple hero forms. That really doesn't make sense to me.
The outcome was really good, we got clarification and now the rule makes more sense even thematically.
Caleb used a word that is not defined in the rule book, "survive", instead of using the term "defeated/not defeated", and now everything is as it should 😁👍
Not sure I ever caught this rule nuance previously, so I probably played it same as you - but the moment the clarification came up, it made sense to me. "After" in this game tends to initiate its checks late, and it doesn't care about previous boardstates. And "attack" is a long window - so in this case you didn't attack someone who started woth retaliate, but they had it by the time the attack fully resolved (which includes progressing to stage 2).
But NOW they have clarified that the thing which breaks the condition for retaliate is that you did defeat the character you're attacking (and then they progress to the next stage, return with a negated retaliate, and the attack resolves).
Aren't there triggers from certain cards that say "when you defeat an enemy" text, and didn't that trigger if a villain stage was defeated?
Correct.
Thx d20!@@D20Woodworking
I think it was fine before. He is the same character even if you defeat a stage, and the retaliate is checked after the attack. Should trigger. Following the same logic, he should not continue the attack in the next stage when you defeat him at the beginning of the attack with a powerful punch for example. It has no sense.
I don't think the 80% were playing it wrong. I think the rules were very clear back then. I think this clarifies and confirms the original rules and process. Thanks for helping bring this issue up and finding clarification.
I think the best part for clarifying this rule is makig it clear that defeating a villain stage is the same as defeating the villian. That alone brings the timing rules in 1.5 in line with how it feels like it should work.
Its weird the LOTRLCG and Arkham Horror communities are pretty laid back and happy to discuss rules questions or homebrew rules but there is a significant section of the MC community that has a group think mentality that if you deviate from they will go after you, whether it is massive downvotes our criticizing you.
With this rule it was a case of I didn't really care what the official rule was when I played if a villain, minion, ally, or hero is defeated they don't retaliate
I totally agree with you. It makes me sad/angry the way some people react on BGG/Discord when rules/doubts arise.
Ii knew about that ruling from 3+ years ago, but never applied it on my games because it never made sense to me. Happy to hear they changed their minds and we'll have an official update.
Imo, Marvel Champions is prone to lots of rules misinterpretations and this is because the inefficient use/choice of language/terms they have made since the beginning of the game.
One case as example: the way they changed the "cost payment logic" on that She-Hulk card, so she can be exploited against Stalwart villains, doesn't make any sense to me (it never was the original intention for that card to work like it, supposedly, does now.!)
The new rule simply makes sense.
I honestly thought the original ruling was fine and y'all were in the wrong. But I really appreciate that an updated ruling has come out, it clarifies it once and for all and clears up a potential inconsistent rule situation! Thank you!
Honestly, I always treat the next stage of a villain as a completely new villain - new card, new guy. Trigger "when defeated" effects, "when revealed" effects, etc. I considered combat already over, before revealing the next stage - just how it worked in my brain.
Way to go guys, i'm happy to see that they shed some light in the rules, i had never though of that until insaw all the discusion about it. That make me wonder, the all toe to toe situation got a rule clarificstion too?
In two weeks we will find out. They said it will be in the new 1.6 rules
The rules already state that you must survive the attack to trigger the attack. The tricky part with villains is that it’s the same character so the character wasn’t technically defeated, just 1 stage of the character…
I think it was clear before the 12% of social media folks made it confusing. I'm not that active in this game online so I was playing it right before this ruling and after this ruling too. The sub reddit and FB community is pretty toxic I've noticed.
Although now you have me wondering if you can remove the item in the same swing. That has always been my go to move vs Thanos!
I always played that if stage 2 has retaliate then the villain retaliated. Reason: the villain gets pissed and punches back. If the character is defeated then they can’t retaliate with the only exception being the villain, because they’re the tougher adversary. It makes sense.
That’s why you need the clarification because there is a reasonable perspective where both ways of interpreting the rule can make sense.
I guess the followup to this question is, Thanos' Helmet has a hero response. If I used a basic hero attack to defeat stage 1 thanos, can I then spend the requisite resources to remove the helmet? This very thing came up for me today and I knew about the updated retaliate ruling, but was unsure about hero response.
Thanks for this!! Much needed clarification 🔥🙏🏽
As someone who basically spearheaded the controversial take, I apologize for any bad actor that it has caused. I like this new ruling more because it finally makes sense. Now, we need an update on Toe-to-Toe 😂
You don't have anything to apologize for. If you never brought this up, this whole confusion thing wouldn't have been brought to light and people would be playing wrong. I am so happy you did because it leads to a more clear rulebook and a better experience for everyone.
What is especially interesting to me about this ruling is that it's NEITHER of the approaches people were originally taking. Retaliate being added to a character during your attack is still ruled to apply, even though they didn't have it at the beginning of the attack. But in this case because you defeated that character, retaliate's trigger is negated.
I'm imagining a new enemy who, when attacked, adds an attachment with retaliate - that would still apply.
And if there was a new minion with the same unique name as a set-aside villain who came into play when the minion was defeated, and the villain had retaliate, the retaliate would NOT trigger (even if the minion also had it) because you defeated the minion, thus negating the conditions for retaliate.
I had never even thought of doing it the old (correct) way, so I'm glad they clarified in my favor so I'm not a cheater lol!
Surely if they had ruled the other way overkill would trigger on the second stage villain too?
Honestly. No idea
@@D20Woodworking 🤣
Finally Zola will be EZ mode!
So can someone explain in plain English what the new status is for retaliate? There seems to be some confusion. Thanks!
If you defeat the villain you do not get retaliated.
why doesnt fantasy flight docuement each of these examples and provide a document to show the correct ruling. Its clear many people are confused. Provide that resource to the players. Who was the Villian? Who was the hero? What did your hand look like? What was the sequence of events? Provide these examples.
They said they are doing a new ruleset to clear things up. So hopefully that helps.
I had a retaliate question where I was playing green goblin and every time he damages a character as a response you place a threat on the scheme and I was one threat away from losing and I had retaliate and he was one damage away from me winning. He damaged me which one happens first? My retaliate or his response.
Retaliate happens first. Then the Response would happen.
So what happen for forced responses like those from Venom or Stryfe? Does it still trigger?
My favourite drama content creator
Nahhh no drama here. Just trying to get answers.
Sorry when was 1.6 again? Though so far things are kinda consistent now I think, well maybe except Alliance lols
In about 2 weeks
So what’s the correct ruling. :)
You don't take retaliate damage if you defeated the stage.
So does this mean that if i deafeat stage one that has retaliate and it keeps retaliate into stage 2 do i take the damage even though it was defeated because it previously had the leyword
Now what happens if you defeated a stage 1 villain who didn't have retaliate, but your attack had Overkill, and the remaining damage applied to the stage 2 villain with now Retaliate? Would the retaliate trigger on the Overkill?
Wait, if I overkill stage 1 does that carry over into stage 2??? Like if I do 8 damage with overkill on stage 1 villain with 1 hp, does stage 2 villain take 7 dmg??
Overkill won't transfer over from Villain to Villain. It only works when done to minions or ally.
For the guys who made fun is not cool. Need to lighten up man.
Good change. One stupid rule gone! Now it's time for "Toe to toe", lol.
Why no Mags video?!
It's coming out, will drop in a few hours.
I really don't care what the ruling is, if character that I attack doesn't have retaliate I don't take retaliate 😁
I have never asked more questions in any game I've played. Luckily the community is great!
Do you tend to play a lot of card games? Board games tend to have a lot fewer ambiguities.
Card games are notorious for never before seen interaction between card texts.
I was told the other day that the MtG rulebook is over 200 pages long!
@@brandtsanderson4665 Wow! Usually board games for me. Except Splendor