Hi All,

Here’s a sample of the holiday reading with which you fine folks have so generously provided me. Below, we are visited by the Ghosts of Vs. System Past and Present (for Future, you’ll have to wait until the X-Men previews start!).

I just want to know if this is correct. I control Dr. Doom, Diabolic Genius. I announce that I’m recruiting a second Dr. Doom, Diabolic Genius. That character is considered to be recruited as soon as I pay the resource points. Then, before the recruit effect resolves, I flip Crisis on Infinite Earths, making all of my character cards not unique. The recruit effect resolves and the second Dr. Doom comes into play. With his triggered effect, I turn down Crisis on Infinite Earths. Now I control two Dr. Dooms. Am I correct?

Jose H.

Such shenanigans were indeed possible before Crisis on Infinite Earths recently received an errata. Its new wording is:

“If a character card you recruited would come into play, instead, KO all characters you control with the same name and version as that card, then put that card into play.”

So now, if the second Dr. Doom would come into play, instead you KO the first Dr. Doom and then put the second Dr. Doom into play.

I have some equipment questions. I have an unequipped Punisher, Jury. When his power triggers, I may put an equipment card with cost 1 or less from my hand into play equipped to him. Because I am not recruiting the equipment card, may I choose Batmobile, even though I can equip Batmobile only to a Gotham Knights character? An even more ridiculous example would be Mjolnir.

Anthony, Wellington, New Zealand

I covered this waaay back in Cerebro II, so now is probably a good time to go over it again.

In both cases, the equipment can’t be equipped to Punisher by any means whatsoever (assuming he has only his printed team affiliation).

It’s the same sort of deal when transferring team-specific equipment to characters using effects, such as Mr. Fantastic, Stretch taking a Batmobile from, say, Batgirl. When exactly is “equipability” checked?

Anthony, Wellington, New Zealand

Well, each of the “equip only to” powers is continuous, so the ability to equip is checked continuously.

To answer your question about Stretch, you can target Batmobile with Stretch’s effect and it won’t be negated on resolution. However, if you don’t control an unequipped character with both the F4 and GK affiliations on resolution, the Batmobile will stay where it is.

And this scenario confuses me: I have teamed up Marvel Knights and Gotham Knights with Midnight Sons. I control Barbara Gordon ◊ Batgirl and Punisher, Jury. Punisher has a Batmobile equipped to him. My opponent attacks with, say, Steppenwolf (9 ATK / 8 DEF) into my Punisher, who is 8 ATK / 7 DEF thanks to the Batmobile buff. Steppenwolf will stun Punisher, and Punisher (an equipped GK character) has enough punch to stun back Steppenwolf. And thanks to Batgirl’s effect, I will draw a card. But instead of stunning Punisher, I KO Batmobile so my defender is not stunned. It was ruled that Punisher would not lose the +1 ATK / +1 DEF bonus until after ATK / DEF comparisons, so Steppenwolf would still be stunned. However, I can no longer draw a card. Is this right? Punisher can only stun Steppenwolf as an equipped GK character; since he does, shouldn’t I draw a card as well?

Anthony, Wellington, New Zealand

Yes, you should. This is one of the more complicated attack conclusions imaginable, so it’s worthwhile going through it step by step. I’ll even throw in the applicable rule numbers for good measure.

When an attack concludes with one or more attackers and a defender, the first thing that happens are ATK / DEF comparisons (602.5). So in your scenario, Steppenwolf’s 9 ATK / 8 DEF is indeed compared to Punisher’s 8 ATK / 7 DEF before either character becomes stunned (or is rescued by an equipment it’s wearing). So far, so good.

Next, several things happen simultaneously, including both characters becoming stunned (602.5a). If you choose to replace one of the stun events by KO’ing Batmobile, then that also happens simultaneously.

Fortunately, there’s a rule to make sense of this avalanche of simultaneous events, and that rule is 502.4. It says, in part, that any effect that triggers off an object becoming stunned (like Batgirl’s) looks back to the game state just before that object became stunned to determine any relevant information.

So, Batgirl’s triggered effect looks at the game state immediately before Steppenwolf becomes stunned and Batmobile is KO’d. At that point, Punisher is most definitely an equipped GK character you control, and Steppenwolf is most definitely a character an opponent controls, so her power will trigger and you will draw a card when its effect resolves.

I was ruled against at a $10K recently, but the judge did not really give me a satisfactory reason. Here was the situation. My opponent had the initiative and controlled Magneto, Eric Lehnsherr and a second Brotherhood character. During my recruit step, I played Tower of Babel. At the start of my opponent’s attack step, he put Magneto’s exhausting effect on the chain and passed priority. I assumed that the Tower of Babel effect would then trigger and go on the chain also. My Tower of Babel effect resolves first, which then causes Magneto’s effect to fail to resolve, as all of his characters have no team affiliation. Is this correct?

Michael O.

Well, you reached the correct conclusion (Magneto’s triggered effect doesn’t resolve that turn) but didn’t follow the correct path to reach it.

First of all, Tower of Babel’s power is continuous, not triggered. (You can recognize a triggered power by the words “when,” “whenever,” or “at the start of”). So, its modifier applies continuously; it isn’t created by an effect resolving off the chain.

As a result, non-League characters your opponent controls have no affiliations from the instant his attack step begins, so Magneto’s power won’t trigger at all (assuming the absence of any team-ups naming League).

This seems like a good time to reiterate something I mentioned in my PC Primer:

You should never hesitate to appeal to the head judge if you disagree with a ruling. It’s your right, and you should feel completely free to exercise it. If a player decides to abuse the privilege and appeal every ruling, then he or she will quickly become known to the head judge, and not in a good way. For everybody else, though, know that the option to appeal is there, and use it when you need it.

I control Mr. Fear and Sniper. Hand Dojo is face up in my resource row. My opponent declares an attack against Mr. Fear. Can I use Mr. Fear’s power four times to make Sniper “become a defender” four times? If so, will my opponent have to pay 12 endurance to keep Sniper from gaining any ATK? Also, if my opponent elects not to pay any endurance, will Sniper gain 8 ATK?

John-Michael G.

Mr. Fear was errata’d in April of last year. His current text is:

“Pay 1 endurance >>> If Mr. Fear is defending, choose another non-stunned Crime Lords character you control. If you do, remove all defenders from this attack and that character becomes the defender this attack.”

So, you can use his power four times, but after the first effect resolves, Sniper becomes the defender, causing the next three effects to do nothing on resolution (because Mr. Fear is no longer defending).

Because Sniper only becomes a defender once, your opponent only has to pay 3 endurance to stop Sniper from getting +2 ATK this attack.

When the defender is changed by Mr. Fear or Armed Escort or Superman, Clark Kent, is it still considered the same attack?

John-Michael G.

Yes it is. An attack doesn’t conclude until all players pass successively on an empty chain.

Can my opponent “steal the initiative” by paying 3 endurance to use Scarecrow, Psycho Psychologist’s power before I attack? In other words, if it’s the beginning of the combat phase and I have priority, can my opponent jump in before I make my first attack or even after I propose my first attack? Or does he have to wait for his attack step?

Kerry S., USA

Once the combat phase begins, the game doesn’t progress to the initiative player’s attack step until all players pass successively on an empty chain.

So even if you have the initiative, priority passes to your opponent before you propose your first attack, giving him the opportunity to use Scarecrow’s payment power at that point. Alternately, he can use that power in response to your attack proposal.

Let’s say I have X-Men and Brotherhood teamed-up. I play Insignificant Threat on Wolverine to stun some guy. In response, my opponent KO’s my team-up. Does the effect of Insignificant Threat work? It’s a strange one—why does it say “the cost of the Brotherhood character you exhausted”? Why not just “character”?

Anthony M., Melbourne, Australia

Once you’ve successfully put Insignificant Threat’s effect on the chain and paid its cost, losing your team-up will have no impact on that effect. I agree its wording could be simplified. I’ll make sure that gets on the to-do list for the next OCR update!

If I play Stolen Power on my opponent’s stunned character during my attack step, exhausting a Masters of Evil character to pay the cost, and my opponent then plays Spheres of Solitude to make the character I exhausted lose its team affiliations, is Stolen Power still on the chain? Or is it made illegal because the character I exhausted no longer has the MoE affiliation? An obvious remedy would be not to play Stolen Power during your attack step in the future, but I’m ninety-nine percent sure it’s legal because the cost of playing Stolen Power has already been paid and the rest of its game text doesn’t care whether I control an MoE character or not. A friend pulled this one on me last night and I let him get away with it because I was too tired to argue. However, I won the game, so it was probably just karma sorting itself out.

Nige A, Scotland

Sounds like it, because you’re spot on.

If you have priority to play Stolen Power and exhaust a ready MoE character, your opponent doesn’t get priority to play anything in response until after Stolen Power’s effect is on the chain. If your opponent belatedly removes the affiliations of the character you exhausted, it will have no impact on that effect.

If I use Felix Faust’s power to bring back my concealed Army characters, do they return to play in the front row of the hidden or visible area? I would suggest it is the hidden area because they are concealed. But I am not sure and hope you could explain.

Patrik K., Zürich, Switzerland

Yep, you’re right. The concealed keyword means that a character comes into play hidden, whether it’s recruited or comes into play some other way.

Heroic Sacrifice says to “exhaust target Teen Titans defender you control and remove all attackers from this attack.” If that defender is already exhausted, are the attackers still removed from this attack? My thoughts are that it only says the target needs to be a Teen Titans defender. When resolving the effect (because its target is still legal), the game tries to do as much as possible, so the character can’t exhaust but the rest can still happen.

Harold D.

Your thoughts are correct!

I play Unmasked in my recruit step. Later in the combat phase, can my opponent still discard to attempt to power-up, even if the power-up cannot happen?

Ross G.

That’s right. Unmasked doesn’t stop players from playing power-up effects, nor does it negate such effects. It just causes the power-up modifiers created when such effects resolve to do nothing.

Does Lair of the Mastermind enable a team attack of non-Avengers characters to take advantage of Playroom? Or a team attack of non-Titans characters to ready if Teen Titans Go! is played?

Steven P.

No to both. The JLA FAQ has an entry for this card. Here’s an excerpt:

“Unaffiliated characters don’t become affiliated, and affiliated characters don’t gain any additional affiliations. You can’t, for example, announce that characters you control are team attacking as Gotham Knights characters so that you can play Dynamic Duo.”

And so begins another year of Cerebro! Please keep your rules questions coming to vsrules@gmail.com.