I just did a quick check ...

Considering that the 'defends' thing was added to the FAQ on october 31st ... and the rules change summary ties it into the JLA set ... thus the rule is correct ...

The problem is that the FAQ contradicts it ... and that's where most people turn to in order to see 'what's new' in a set. Often the changes to the Comprehensive rules merely reiterate what's in the FAQ, define the new terms in the set, etc ...

Most people 'assumed' that, when they got rid of the 'when attacked' thing with the errata to Beast Boy, etc ... that they wouldn't go right back TO it ... and the FAQ seemed to indicate that "We are using defends instead of becomes a defender to make it smaller".

Ultimately, while it's the players responsibility to KNOW ... it seems that UDE didn't do a very good job of making sure people were aware of this change ... both by contradicting themselves in the FAQ ... and by going 'backwards' and reusing a template they had previously avoided.

The fact that they did not ONCE use "becomes a defender" in the JLA set only seems to further the idea that they've replaced it as a term ... Having no new cards with 'becomes a defender'. The fact that it was always refered to as 'attacks' would make sense to have 'defends' as it's opposite.

It just doesn't make 'sense' to:

(a) eliminate all the cases of 'is attacked'; replacing them with 'becomes a defender'
(b) introduce the term 'defends' and have it work EXACTLY the same as 'is attacked'
(c) stop using 'becomes a defender' on any new cards

Conversely, they have not errata'd any of the older cards to reflect the change.

It should not be this 'difficult' to figure out what the correct rule is. While "Comprehensive Rules trump FAQ" are all fine and dandy, it doesn't help that players are basically told this is the rule, now that you've figured it out, no matter how wrong it may seem.

It may be the players responsibility to know the rules ... but it should be UDE's responsibility to at least make the rules 'make sense' ... by eliminating contradictions at the very least ...

EDIT:

Ok, upon FURTHER investigation ... the Comprehensive rules change was possibly added EARLIER ... to coincide with the Fantastic Four's starter ... which in turn might mean that the FAQ entry occured afterwards.

Also, seeing that a UDE person posted while I was typing this out ... I'm glad UDE is being 'responsible' in clearing this up. The statement above was more a response to the 'players should know the rules' thing ... It's hard for a player to know the rules if the rules are hard to know ... and it's great to see such a quick response to make that possible :)

Woot, this somwhat dimenishes the power of Avengers. (Which isn't saying much.)

And it does that how?

I'm talking specifically on specific deck vs. deck.

Ok so A Metamorpho equiped with a Nth metal, shouldnt be team attacked.

Thats the Message I got from this post.

LoL lesson learned! na the lesson is that if you go to atlanta and they dont fix this b4 hand you want to ask a judge before day 2

Some nice checking of the rules going right here.

I remember posting a similar thread about Philosophers Stone a while back, but I don't know if that situation was ever resolved.

Can we e-mail UDE for rulings in particular situations like this?

I just want to be absolutely clear on the rules before I start abusing them.:devious:

Just pass that level 1 VS test and you can.

I should be at PC ATL on staff. (Estrin is taking forever to get back on that...) So I'll definitely be pulling to see something about this fixed very soon.

actually anyone can email upperdeck for a ruling. You can try [email protected] or try that guy thqt writes the cerebro column on metagame.

I saw that Yip posted in this thread already mentioning that he'll look into it. Chances are I might see Chad Daniel this weekend so I'll get his thoughts on it, chances are he'll have an opinion on it. If he doesn't have a clue then I'll just say that, but hopefully I can get some sort of answer... of course emailing him about this could be just as quick...

wow, comparing UDE to decipher is just mean.

UDE already took the best thing that Decipher ever had, Bojo.

That would be me :)

First of all, thanks again to all those who brought this up. As Andrew said, there will be a CRD update by end of week, hopefully sooner.

I don't want to start an official-vs-unofficial-source controversy, but I'd also like to clear up any speculation on this subject (and stop any frenzied deck-builders out there who have a PCQ this weekend in their sights!)

So I'll advise that the update brings the CRD into alignment with the FAQ, rather than vice versa, meaning that Nth Metal and its ilk triggers only once in the face of a team attack. In other words:

Powers that trigger when a character "defends" or "becomes a defender" will trigger only once per character that becomes a defender.

Yes, it's not "official" until the CRD update appears, but that's what it will say when it does.

Thanks, it makes more sense that way. When a character is being attacked key word TEAM ATTACKED. The attackers attack simultaneously. Meaning the character becomes a defender once versus multiple times.


Thanks.