Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
17 Posts

Smash Up: Science Fiction Double Feature» Forums » Rules

Subject: Shielding vs. The Base is not Enough rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
John X
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Situation: There is a 4 power minion on a base that is breaking that has Shielding (don't know the exact text off my head, but I'd take a stab at "Play on a minion. This minion and all other actions attached to it are not affected by other players' actions.") played on it. The Spies player wishes to take control of that minion via The Base is not Enough: "Special: Play before a base scores. Choose a minion there of power 4 or less. You control that minion until the end of your turn."

When this came up I ruled that it was ok, since the (stupid) definition of affect does not include stealing minions from people, but I can absolutely see the argument that you are moving the minion from your stack to the other, or just straight up saying obviously you are affecting it based on how words work.

I tried looking for precedent with Make Contact but I didn't see anything similar, and it's an attached action so it wouldn't be allowed because that is covered under affect anyway. So the basic question is pretty clear, can the Spies player do this?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Yeah it's fine. Again it all comes back to the definition of Affect as it's defined in the rulebook.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Travis Vandenberg
Canada
flag msg tools
mb
You're right. Based on the definition of affect it's okay. However, that makes this card absolutely ridiculous. It's OP enough as it is. I hope in future expansions they revise the definition of affect.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Stout
United States
Annandale
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
WhatAChamp wrote:
You're right. Based on the definition of affect it's okay. However, that makes this card absolutely ridiculous. It's OP enough as it is. I hope in future expansions they revise the definition of affect.

Which card are you referring to, Shielding or The Base is Not Enough? I'm having trouble understanding whether what change you want, and for what reason.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Travis Vandenberg
Canada
flag msg tools
mb
Barliman wrote:

Which card are you referring to, Shielding or The Base is Not Enough? I'm having trouble understanding whether what change you want, and for what reason.


The Base is Not Enough. It wouldn't really make sense for me to say that Shielding is made OP because of the limited definition of affect. The Base is Not Enough pretty much gives you free VP for a base you're not on and gives a power exchange of 8 at the last minute possible. I hate that you need to secure a lead of at least 9 power because of this card. It's a broken card that evades Incorporeal AND Shielding and can only be countered by making sure your minions are all above 4 power.

The change I would like to see is for the definition of affect to include all opponent abilities, not just destroying, moving, returning and attaching. It seems more logical that way and is less confusing for newer (and more experienced) players.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
WhatAChamp wrote:

The change I would like to see is for the definition of affect to include all opponent abilities, not just destroying, moving, returning and attaching. It seems more logical that way and is less confusing for newer (and more experienced) players.


What do you mean "all opponent abilities"? Do you actually have a list of abilities in mind? If you were writing a definition for affect what is the exact way you would word it?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles Riggs
Netherlands
Kerkrade
Limburg
flag msg tools
badge
Hadouken
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well the problem is, in our group we handle affection a bit wider.
For instance with SteamPunks. Say SteamQueen in in play (Ongoing: Your actions are not affected by other players' cards.) and a Trickster would disenchant a card played on base by that steampunk. We wouldn't allow it because it does affect that actioncard from the steampunk, maybe not in the Terms and Restrictions kind of way, but we see it as affecting that card. The same thing we handled with being controlled with 'Make Contact/Base Is Not Enough' and minions being power reduced by Sleep Spores, or being Entangled by Plants.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Travis Vandenberg
Canada
flag msg tools
mb
Rixino wrote:
Well the problem is, in our group we handle affection a bit wider.
For instance with SteamPunks. Say SteamQueen in in play (Ongoing: Your actions are not affected by other players' cards.) and a Trickster would disenchant a card played on base by that steampunk. We wouldn't allow it because it does affect that actioncard from the steampunk, maybe not in the Terms and Restrictions kind of way, but we see it as affecting that card. The same thing we handled with being controlled with 'Make Contact/Base Is Not Enough' and minions being power reduced by Sleep Spores, or being Entangled by Plants.


These are the kind of cards I'm looking at when I suggest that a revision could be done to the definition of affect. Mind you, Disenchant destroys an action so that falls under "affect".

To J, I'm not sure how I would word it. Maybe I would say that, "Any time an opponent's ability (whether from a minion, action or base) directly impacts another card in some way, it is affecting that card." I know it's vague, but I don't want to make a huge list that includes: takes control of, reduces the power of, restricts the movement of, etc, especially since it would have to be revised every time a new expansion comes forth with new ideas. I feel that the definition of "affect" is built into us already with expectations. When I see Incorporeal, I think "None of my opponents cards can do anything to this minion now". It's weird to have to run through a list in my head every time of what affect includes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
WhatAChamp wrote:

To J, I'm not sure how I would word it. Maybe I would say that, "Any time an opponent's ability (whether from a minion, action or base) directly impacts another card in some way, it is affecting that card." I know it's vague, but I don't want to make a huge list that includes: takes control of, reduces the power of, restricts the movement of, etc, especially since it would have to be revised every time a new expansion comes forth with new ideas. I feel that the definition of "affect" is built into us already with expectations. When I see Incorporeal, I think "None of my opponents cards can do anything to this minion now". It's weird to have to run through a list in my head every time of what affect includes.

Sorry but that would not be acceptable. This game already enough confusing and uncertain rules as it is the last thing we need is to change one of the few rules that was very clear cut to something utterly confusing.

Coming from someone who's fielded several questions on this forum the fact that "Affect" has such a clear definition (even if it's not the intuitive one) is a very good thing. Some examples of odd "affect" questions we've had to field are:

• Can Steam Queen prevent my actions from being discarded from Terraforming (my cards are being discarded and Steam Queen says they can't be affected)?

• If my opponent has General Ivan/Wildlife Preserve in play and I have Steam Queen can I play an action and destroy one of his minions (General Ivan/Wildlife Preserve would affect my action by preventing it from working but Stem Queen prevents them from doing that)?

• If my opponent has Hideout at the Rhodes Mall and I play Jammed Signal on it does Hideout trigger (It's preventing my minions from gaining vp by turning off the ability and thus he's affecting them)?

With our current definition the answer to all the above is an obvious NO. with the vague definition you offer the answer would be an award maybe. While I'm always interested in people's opinions on game mechanics any change to the definition of affect would have to be just as clear and concise as it currently is or else it would just create problems.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John X
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
allstar64 wrote:
WhatAChamp wrote:

To J, I'm not sure how I would word it. Maybe I would say that, "Any time an opponent's ability (whether from a minion, action or base) directly impacts another card in some way, it is affecting that card." I know it's vague, but I don't want to make a huge list that includes: takes control of, reduces the power of, restricts the movement of, etc, especially since it would have to be revised every time a new expansion comes forth with new ideas. I feel that the definition of "affect" is built into us already with expectations. When I see Incorporeal, I think "None of my opponents cards can do anything to this minion now". It's weird to have to run through a list in my head every time of what affect includes.

Sorry but that would not be acceptable. This game already enough confusing and uncertain rules as it is the last thing we need is to change one of the few rules that was very clear cut to something utterly confusing.

Coming from someone who's fielded several questions on this forum the fact that "Affect" has such a clear definition (even if it's not the intuitive one) is a very good thing. Some examples of odd "affect" questions we've had to field are:

• Can Steam Queen prevent my actions from being discarded from Terraforming (my cards are being discarded and Steam Queen says they can't be affected)?

• If my opponent has General Ivan/Wildlife Preserve in play and I have Steam Queen can I play an action and destroy one of his minions (General Ivan/Wildlife Preserve would affect my action by preventing it from working but Stem Queen prevents them from doing that)?

• If my opponent has Hideout at the Rhodes Mall and I play Jammed Signal on it does Hideout trigger (It's preventing my minions from gaining vp by turning off the ability and thus he's affecting them)?

With our current definition the answer to all the above is an obvious NO. with the vague definition you offer the answer would be an award maybe. While I'm always interested in people's opinions on game mechanics any change to the definition of affect would have to be just as clear and concise as it currently is or else it would just create problems.


I can definitely understand and empathize with having a clear and consistent definition on affect (another example off the top of my head, Jammed Signal on the Central Brain, is that affecting minions? without a clear answer who knows).

I think I just wish The Base is not Enough was worded differently, it might cause unintended side effects but I'd say: "Special: Play before a base scores. Choose Play on a minion there of power 4 or less. You control that minion until the end of your turn." This way it's still blockable, and could open up some odd and neat synergies if there are no minions to steal but you could play it on your own to increase Furious George/Juiced Up.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Travis Vandenberg
Canada
flag msg tools
mb
allstar64 wrote:

Sorry but that would not be acceptable. This game already enough confusing and uncertain rules as it is the last thing we need is to change one of the few rules that was very clear cut to something utterly confusing.

Coming from someone who's fielded several questions on this forum the fact that "Affect" has such a clear definition (even if it's not the intuitive one) is a very good thing. Some examples of odd "affect" questions we've had to field are:

• Can Steam Queen prevent my actions from being discarded from Terraforming (my cards are being discarded and Steam Queen says they can't be affected)?

• If my opponent has General Ivan/Wildlife Preserve in play and I have Steam Queen can I play an action and destroy one of his minions (General Ivan/Wildlife Preserve would affect my action by preventing it from working but Stem Queen prevents them from doing that)?

• If my opponent has Hideout at the Rhodes Mall and I play Jammed Signal on it does Hideout trigger (It's preventing my minions from gaining vp by turning off the ability and thus he's affecting them)?

With our current definition the answer to all the above is an obvious NO. with the vague definition you offer the answer would be an award maybe. While I'm always interested in people's opinions on game mechanics any change to the definition of affect would have to be just as clear and concise as it currently is or else it would just create problems.


I'm not arguing against it being clear and concise. To be fair, I did say I wasn't sure how I would word it. If I was sold on that definition, I would have just written that earlier without being prompted. I tried to come up with something on the spot that conveyed the essence of what I meant. What I was hoping was that there could be a discussion about a good way to redefine "affect" to make it clear but still cover most of an opponent's negative effects. If I had never come to these forums, I wouldn't have thought about affect in that way, whereas other definitions in this game seem much more intuitive.

This all stems out of the fact that I like thinking that Incorporeal protects my minion from anything bad that my opponents' cards could cause. I like thinking that Hideout is actually going to stop my opponent's action, not just if it destroys, returns, moves or attaches. With each new expansion, these cards with the word "affect" printed on them are trumped by more and more new cards that don't fall under the affect category and that bothers me. Does it NEED to be changed? No. But I like playing with new people and it takes a long time for them to get the idea behind what constitutes affecting and what doesn't. My regular friends that I play with aren't even always aware of what they can and can't do. To me, Smash Up started out as a fairly simple game and I feel like broadening the definition of "affect" only helps keep it that way as long as it can be done in a clear way that doesn't provide more confusion. If that's not possible, then so be it, but I merely want to discuss the possibility.

To step back and look at my definition, I wanted to emphasize the word DIRECTLY. For your case 1, Terramorph discards the actions which directly affects them so they aren't discarded because of Steam Queen. For case 2, Jammed Signal doesn't directly affect each card, it directly affects the base ability, indirectly affecting the minions so it would not trigger Hideout. For case 3, checkmate. I have no idea and that's why I'm looking for help. My best guess would be that yes you could bypass those abilities (providing Steam Queen with some pretty good utility actually) but I'm not sure that would be the right call anyway. For the Jammed Signal on Central Brain situation, it's indirectly affecting them since it's merely nullifying the base's effect. Again, I admit it's a faulty definition but it could be salvaged in a way. I'm just looking for help here, not admitting I'm coming up with some amazing idea.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Travis Vandenberg
Canada
flag msg tools
mb
And of course there would be controversy about what would be directly or indirectly affecting a card so it's not a great definition but I want to see if we can work out something that does work.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Don Riddle
United States
Leesburg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This all seems like unnecessary "rules lawyering" to me.
It is obvious that playing an Action card that DOES ANYTHING to a minion is "affecting" it.
So, "The Base is Not Enough" can't do what it does to a minion with "Shielding" on it. Period.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
...and it's obvious that you are not basing your claim on the rulebook which explicitly defines "affect" as:

Quote:
Affect: A card is
affected if it is
moved, returned,
destroyed, or
has an action
attached.


By the explicit definition of affect that has been consistent in all 4 rulebooks "Shielding" does not stop "The Base is Not Enough" as far as the rules are concerned.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Don Riddle
United States
Leesburg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
allstar64 wrote:
...and it's obvious that you are not basing your claim on the rulebook...

you're absolutely right. i'm merely basing my assertion on common sense and how an english dictionary defines the word "affect."
since an intergalactic war does NOT hang in the balance, i think that's enough for most reasonable people.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
riddle13 wrote:
i think that's enough for most reasonable people.

You and I know very different reasonable people then.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
newbie

Washington
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Who needs rules anyway? Just a minor inconvenience to everyone having fun.

AEG came up with a specific definition of 'affect' for a good reason. I suppose the other option was make up a word?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.