Team Canada Online

Raw Deal => Rules Forum => Topic started by: DebuRaito on April 13, 2018, 11:39:48 AM

Title: Blue Blazer Qns
Post by: DebuRaito on April 13, 2018, 11:39:48 AM
The Blue Blazer
Starting Hand Size: 5
Superstar Value: 2
Superstar Ability:  Your non-printed-Volley non-Unique maneuvers played from your hand without 'reversed' in the text and the maneuvers in your Arsenal without 'reversed' in the text are now Volley maneuvers, where the Volley: # is equal its printed Damage.
You can pack Super Masks and Super Capes and non-Faction Owen Hart cards, but you are absolutely NOT Owen Hart, no sir, no way.

If a BASH maneuver is packed by Owen Hart, is it considered an illegal construction? Since I'm not sure how will a BASH/Volley maneuver interact with the game rule.
Title: Re: Blue Blazer Qns
Post by: Drywall on April 13, 2018, 01:32:53 PM
Yes, it's considered illegal. The maneuvers become Volley the second they are considered in the arsenal and that's not allowed with BASH.
Title: Re: Blue Blazer Qns
Post by: Theren on April 13, 2018, 05:48:02 PM
  I thought that the Bash restriction is a deck construction restriction and therefore is already passed by the time that Owen's ability would kick in since he doesn't affect packing only how the cards are treated during game.
Title: Re: Blue Blazer Qns
Post by: Daeva on April 19, 2018, 09:22:54 PM
  I thought that the Bash restriction is a deck construction restriction and therefore is already passed by the time that Owen's ability would kick in since he doesn't affect packing only how the cards are treated during game.

We have a winner.

Blazer's Ability doesn't mention anything about Arsenal construction or "when packed." It kicks on when the game begins, so BASH Blazer is a totally legitimate thing to do, and the BASH cards will become Volley. Unfortunately, a lot of Volley's support is also Volley itself, so that's not so great, but... that's outside of the scope of the Rules Forum.

By the way, I have no idea why Owen Hart was mentioned, but the same thing applies to him too. BASH Owen would not be illegal.
Title: Re: Blue Blazer Qns
Post by: DebuRaito on April 20, 2018, 05:33:50 AM
Somehow I remembered a comment by Creed on this thread saying it's illegal in the same way that JYD couldn't pack Tornado DDT due to the text of it being high risk in the Arsenal...
Title: Re: Blue Blazer Qns
Post by: Keith0913832 on April 20, 2018, 06:11:08 AM
What if he doesnt pack any volley cards in the first place? Meaning it's a bash deck. That should be fine?
Title: Re: Blue Blazer Qns
Post by: CreedP on April 20, 2018, 10:48:05 AM
Somehow I remembered a comment by Creed on this thread saying it's illegal in the same way that JYD couldn't pack Tornado DDT due to the text of it being high risk in the Arsenal...
We've discussed it, and both Owen and Blazer are now on the revision list for clarity.

EDIT:  Also, if you guys have any other Virtual Superstars like this that don't explicitly say 'pack' but lead to a similar scenario, please let me know and we'll address them.  Thanks.

CREED
Title: Re: Blue Blazer Qns
Post by: CRASHER on April 20, 2018, 01:27:17 PM
Wade Barrett has a similar effect that he makes his non FO, non-kick's into chain as well, but he's the only other one I can think of

edit: well add Hassan and the Hart Foundation to it as well
Title: Re: Blue Blazer Qns
Post by: CreedP on May 11, 2018, 10:01:18 AM
Coming back to this for clarity, we've determined the prior precedent of Superstars like Dudley Boyz and Rob Van Dam, with 'your X is not Heel', identifies these effects as Pack rules.  So guys like Wade Barrett who turn Strikes into Chain will be a pack rules, and BASH would not be legal with the affected Strikes.

As noted earlier, Blazer and Owen will be getting revised to clarify, since their effects are not related to packing cards.

CREED
Title: Re: Blue Blazer Qns
Post by: Daeva on May 11, 2018, 11:41:27 AM
Yup, I'm gonna own up to this one. I was wrong about Owen and Blazer. Those are the same level as stuff like RVD, Dudleyz, Your Freakin' Hero, Gail Kim, et multiple cetera.

I want to make a point here: I'm human. I'm not infallible. I make mistakes or forget a precedent sometimes. That's why the Rules Forum exists, to bring evidence forward and have a discussion about precedent and come to a point of mutual clarity. That doesn't mean that I am opening the door for "I don't like that" or "I think that it should work this way because (example from a completely different game)" or anything like that. I'm just saying: if you think that I made a mistake, find some evidence and point it out. I won't get hot at you or ban you or delete the post or anything (as long as you're civil), I like discussing rules. That's why I've done it for free for over ten years.  :laugh: