My foult, too... I'm always a little irritable after a saturday night, alcool is a false friends.

Ok, Check. No problem here.

Here is my point. From my understanding of the game a card has to explicity contrast with a general rule for overrule it, and I'm unale to see where Viper text do this. From my point of view Viper text doesn't negates rule 601.4a, but simple add a different situation where Viper can attak directly. I think that Viper could attack directly both in rule 601.4a situation and in her text situation...

Everyone of you stated just the opposite, and I'm prone (right verb? mmm) to belive you (no point in ask something if you didn't want an answer...) ... but I really can't see your point, or the error in my thougth.

Wow, Pi just made it overly complicated. Let's see if I have some teaching skills :P

Your question is can Viper attack directly like a normal character could, right? As long as there are no hidden characters, she can attack directly. This means when there are visible characters or no, she can. The only problem is, that lets say there is a hidden character...let's use Batman, Cape and Cowl as an example. If the opponent has a clear visible area, but only Batman, everyone else but Viper can attack directly because her ability says she can ONLY attack concealed characters and I doubt you want to send her into a 6 drop!

Essentially, whenever you tap to attack, Viper searches for a concealed character, and upon finding one she can no longer attack directly, even if the opponent has no characters in the visible area, AKA letting all your other guys have free swings at the opponent's life.

I hope that cleared it up for you ^^"

Here is a not so funny joke so you remember! When there are hidden characters, Viper PMS's and sees only them, but when there are no guys concealed, she laughs and punches your opponent in the face.

What can I do for persuade you all that mine isn't a noob question but a serious one? Excuse me for the rude phrasing, but I'm a little frustrated cause obviously I can't explain my doubts and my question in your language. :disappoin

I'm sorry! I didn't mean to sound mean or anything...I was just trying to explain in a nicer way an answer to your question, sorry if you got offended.

Too bad there isn't a translator to help you out =/

1.3.1 If card text contradicts rules outlined in the comprehensive rules, the card text supersedes the comprehensive rules. Card text only overrides rules when it directly states so.

6.0.3 The attacking player may propose a direct attack against an opponent who controls no non-stunned visible characters.

Nothing in Vipers text overrides 6.0.3. So Viper can attack directly when an opponent controls no non-stunned visible characters. She additionally has the ability to attack directly when an opponent controls no characters she can otherwise attack.

Edit: so yes to your initial question.

We will leave the first part of Viper's text alone since you understand that.

Second part:
Viper can attack an opponent directly while he controls no characters she can attack.
It honestly is a straight forward effect that you are over analyzing. I am in no way trying to be rude when I state this but it does exactly what it states.
While your opponent controls no characters she can attack, those being hidden characters because of the first part of her effect, she can attack an opponent directly. There is nothing more to look at past that. If your opponent has no hidden characters you can attack an opponent directly. She in no way can attack visible characters because her card specifically states that she cannot do so.
So she either attacks hidden characters or an opponent directly.
later,
Kj

Characters Viper cant attack: Visible Characters

Characters Viper can attack: Hidden Characters

Viper can't attack a player directly: while he controls a non stunned character in the concealed area, even if he doesn't control a non stunned character in the visible

Viper can attack directly = when the opponent controls no characters in the hidden with the non-stunned characteristic, even if he controls non-stunned characters in the visible

Simplification: As long as there is a character that Viper can attack (a hidden character) she will not able to attack an opponent directly.

I made this as clear as I can, hope this helps.

Thanks mael, this is the answer I was waiting for. Rep for you.

With mael's explanation is someone else undestanding why I open this thread? The question wasn't so simple as lots of you seem to think. The result is... Viper can attack directly when there are no non-stunned character in the visible area...

I disagree with you mael and also with you TK for this reason.

The text of Viper says:

Viper can attack hidden characters and can't attack visible characters.

Viper can attack an opponent directly while he controls no characters she can attack.

You will agree with me that normally, without any text on card, Viper could attack directly if there are no non-stunned visible character.

Now the text of Viper says that Viper can attack an opponent directly while he controls no characters she can attack. This rules is true does not ovverride the 6.0.3. but it's introducing a rule for her.

The question that you should answer is: Can Viper attack an opposing character?
If Yes you can't attack the player directly.
If No you can attack the player directly.

Let's see then the only case that is making you mad:
There are no visible non-stunned character but there are concealed non-stunned character.

In this way, for the rule on Viper, ask youself:

Can Viper attack an opposing character?

The answer is: Yes, because there are hidden charcters, so I can't attack the player directly.

I hope this helps
Eventually I can tell you in Italian :)

Ciao

Umm, I still don't understand why you opened it if this is the answer you were looking for because her text openly states:

Viper can attack hidden characters and can't attack visible characters.

So it doesn't matter at all what the status of visible characters are. It don't matter if visible characters are flipped upside down to the left and right because she can't attack them at all.
Only characters you need to worry about with Viper is Hidden ones as they are the only ones she can attack.
later,
Kj

I'm switching to Italian for this post... Trying to explain my point to Cosmo, I hope he sill translate my argument or explain me my error... two pages for a single card rule dubt is a little too much... ;)

Meno male che sei qua cosmo... tutto queste parole con la finale in consonante mi stavano facendo sbarellare.

Ora il punto che tu stai portando avanti è che il testo di Viper introduce una regola a parte, che di fatto cancella la possibilità di Viper di attaccare direttamente nel modo "classico" per permetterle invece di attaccare in una situazione diversa.

Il problema è che la regola base di VS dice che il testo della carta cancella la regola generale se, e solo se, la prima è in diretto contrasto con la seconda. Questo non è il caso in questione e quindi la conseguenza (che mi sembra logica) è che entrambe le regole devono valere contemporaneamente: Viper puo' attaccare direttamente sia nel caso previsto dalla regola generale sia in quello previsto dalla carta.

Non riesco a capire questa ostinazione nell'affermare che Viper "vede" solo la zona occulta... non è scritta da nessuna parte, dice solo che puo' attaccare i personaggi occulti e non i visibili, che è una cosa leggermente diversa.

Ora... è chiaro che io sono una persona piuttosto ostinata e cocciuta, lo abbiamo capito tutti, e non me ne vanto, ma non mi è ancora stato mostrato l'errore del mio ragionamento, tutte le risposte (eccetto quella di Avian e la tua) davano per scontato che stessi chiedendo una stupidata e si limitavano a ripetere la stessa stupida cosa... e questo mi ha fatto perdere la calma.

Ah! Sei unpo' basso di reputazione :P quindi comprero' la tua traduzione dandotene un po' della mia :)

Can she attack hidden characters?

Does the opponent control non-stunned hidden characters?

We know the answer to the first.

If the answer to the second is, "Yes" then she cannot attack an opponent directly. Her text over rules the game's rules of conduct. Any other interpretation in English, Spanish, Italian, Martian, Japanese or Russian is wrong.

-Mike

So just to update about the italian post of TK: he is wondering that there are two rules not "directly" in contrast each other, the one in the general rules at 6.0.3 and the one in the text of Viper card. So he believes that he can choose one or the other.

My answer:

In Italian:

E' vero che la regola di Viper non va a cancellare la regola generale 6.0.3., ma comunque devi darne la precedenza prima di applicare la regola generale!

Siccome il testo di Viper dice che puoi attaccare direttamente solo se non ci sono personaggi che puo' attaccare, devi prima verificare questo, perche' altrimenti se non lo verifichi e attacchi direttamente secondo la regola generale (nell'esempio che ti facevo) andresti in contrasto con la sua regola (perche' puo' attaccare quelli nascosti)!

In English:
It's true that Viper Card's rule does not cancel the general rule 6.0.3., however you should give her text the precedence over the general rule.

Because Viper's text says that she can attack directly only if there are no characters she can attack, you should verify it first, otherwise, if you will choose to attack the player directly according to the general rule (in the example I did before) you will go against her rule (because she can attack those hidden)!

Hope this help.

Il problema cosmo è che Viper "puo'" attaccare gli occulti, non è obbligata a farlo. Prima che uscisse Marvel Legends un personaggio che potesse attaccare i personaggi occulti era obbligata a farlo (beh... se il suo controllore sceglieva di attaccare) anche se l'avversario non controllava personaggi visibili. Con l'uscita di Marvel Legends è stato modificato il regolamento per permettere una scelta tra queste due opzioni.

Il testo di Viper da l'abilità a Viper di attaccare gli occulti, ma non la obbliga. Non riesco capire come mai lo pensiate, niente sulla carta lo dice.

Nello stesso modo il testo che dice che puo' attaccare direttamente se non ci sono personaggi visibili non dice che lo puo' fare solo in quel caso. Se non c'è diretto contrasto le regole continuano ad esistere entrambe.

Non rispondo al post prima del mio perchè sarei veramente, ma veramente acido e non mi sembra il caso. Daro' la colpa della sua arrogante risposta all'orario che deve esserci in america (4:00 am circa...) e soprassedero'.

Ed è qui il tuo errore, la seconda parte del testo non dice che puo' attaccare direttamente se non ci sono personaggi visibili, ma dice che puo' attaccare direttamente se non puo' attaccare nessun altro.

Se ci fossero solo personaggi visibili, puo' attaccare direttamente perchè non puo' attaccare quelli visibili (per la prima parte del suo testo)

Se ci fossero solo personaggi nascosti, non puo' attaccare direttamente perche' sempre per la prima parte del testo lei puo' attaccarli.

Praticamente la seconda parte del testo vincola il suo attacco diretto se e solo se non puo' attaccare nessun personaggio (se puo' o non puo' attaccare un certo personaggio e' vincolato dalla prima parte del testo)

Spero di essermi spiegato.

Tralascio l'inglese se no mi ricovero :knockedou