Take a look at Reinforcement cards:

To stop it:

blind sided
ant-man activated

To initiate it:

burn rubber
inviso woman (4 drop) text
personal force field
pogo plane

Let's say I recruit inviso woman which states "fantastic characters you control are reinforced". Now can my opponent later on play pt-blind sided or activate antman to override sue?

or

Let's now say I activate ant-man which states "activate-target front row character is not and cannot be reinforced this turn". Can my opponent still play Burn Rubber to reinforce?

Someone said this on another thread:

"is not and cannot be reinforced" overrides "are reinforced" and "is reinforced".

So Ant-Man and Blind Sided rule.

I was also thinking that "is not and cannot" would override "are and is reinforced"

But it still seems like a tricky ruling to me though.

I would like to see it in an official FAQ whenever that comes out.

Well let's take it in order:

A.
1. Blind Sided: Character is not and cannot be reinforced.
2. Burn Rubber: Character is reinforced.

Blind Sided wins because it says that the character 'cannot' be reinforced.

B.
1. Burn Rubber: Character is reinforced.
2. Blind Sided: Character is not and cannot be reinforced.

Blind Sided wins again because 'is not' overrode 'is'.

Also, rememebr this, as a general rule anytime you have conflicting rules, the negitive wins. So, if a card says you can't and another says you can, then you can't. For example,

Storm, Ororo Munroe

Pay 2 endurance >>> Your opponents' characters lose flight this turn.

If this is used on your characters, no amount of flying kicks in any order will give flight back to your character this turn.

Bad example. Playing Flying Kick after Storm's power resolves (timing is everything) will indeed grant flying to the target character. Storm would have to use her power again to negate the effect.

The difference being that Blind Sided specifically states the target is not *and cannot* be reinforced. Storm's power has no such qualifier so it can be overriden.

Hmmm, yeah you are right, in a rush to find a different example I didn't fully think it through.

ok. that clears up priority BUT

What if ant-man targets a front row character and then they use burn rubber to move the character to the support row....

does ant-man effect still follow and still prevent reinforcement? or does it now become an illegal target?

Game text for Ant Man, ScottLang:

Note the words "is not and cannot be reinforced." Burn Rubber's reinforcement effect is negated regardless of when it is played during the turn.

I don't think that's the part of burn rubber we are interested in in this case.

Burn Rubber ALSO lets you move the target character to the back row. So if Ant Man Targets, and you respond with burn rubber, it resolves:

1) Target is reinforced and moved to back row (if you choose)
2) Ant Man resolves to find his target is not legal and fizzles.

Result: Target character is reinforced

Good point, Surly.

One thing to consider though is that your opponent gets what he wants either way, which is your character off the front line.

In this case, it'd be best to move your character adjacent to the exposed support row character in case you need to reinforce it.

But... what if we changed the order?

(I like to do this because it illustrates how important ordering is)

You Burn Rubber to reinforce and move your defender, the attacker responds with Ant Man, it resolves:

CL 2: Antman prevents reinforcement on target defender
CL 1: Target character cannot be reinforced but still moves to support row.