Marvel Interactive Cop-Out

This is a direct response to the article "Loophole Mentality" which appeared on the official overpower website. An excerpt for your edification:

There are some players that take to the game with a dictionary in one hand, an English 
Grammar text in the other, and mind for Clintonian definition. These guys act like 
lawyers arguing cases before the Supreme Court.

I feel that this article is a complete cop-out on Overpower's part to keep them from having to write coherent, accessible rules for Overpower, and keep them from changing. They tell Judges to keep in mind "how the game is played." To "use your common sense." I'm sorry but even in some reasonably simple situations, a Judge's intuition and common sense may point to the wrong answer. No, this is the completely wrong way for a judge to approach a rules question.

If there's anyone out there who'll listen to me - I say, if you're a judge and you encounter a question, you need to check back with the rules first. Keep in mind these two golden rules: If the rules don't say something CAN be done but don't say it CAN'T, it CAN be done. This keeps the game open and fun. If one rule (or card text) conflicts with another rule (or card text) keep in mind that (1) Normally, the general rules will win out over the specific rules, and the rules will win out over the cards, except (2) If the specific rule directly contradicts the general rule, it wins out, and if a card directly contradicts a rule, the card wins out. If that doesn't cover it, sure, do the best you can.

Example: General Rule: Characters in Reserve cannot play specials from reserve. Specific Rule: Inherent abilities are active when a character is in reserve. The specific rule does not directly contradict the general rule, so the general rule wins out. Therefore, Dark Beast can play beast specials, but cannot play beast specials from reserve.

Example: Rule: Characters in Reserve cannot play specials from reserve. Card: Cyclops may play "Fearless Leader" from Reserve. In this case the card specifically contradicts the rule, so the card wins out - Cyclops CAN play Fearless Leader from reserve, despite the general rule.

Example: Rule: Inherent abilities are active when a character is in reserve. Card: Acts as a level 5 Strength attack. If successful, target character loses inherent ability and is considered to have no inherent ability for remainder of battle. These rules DON'T conflict, even if the card is used against a character with an inherent who is in reserve. The reason? Active or not, if the character loses the inherent ability, the inherent ability is lost. It can't be active if it doesn't exist.

Finally, I'd like to appeal to the people at OP: Get your rules written well! The job of judging is almost completely impossible when the official rules sources are scattered to the winds and anything the rules gurus ever say takes higher precedence. I have good internet access and I *STILL* can't find the original rules release about the Inherent Abilities being active from reserve. A friend told me the Venture inherents don't work from reserve, but I can't see why - in the Inherent Abilities guide it just looks like they haven't updated it to take that into account.

Rules Lawyering is problematic because the game is only really fun when both parties start the game expecting the rules to work the same way. The best way to avoid this is not to get the judges to crack down, it's to make sure the rules are clear and handle everything, and they're accessible to players and judges alike. Once that happens, some dumb rules-lawyer argument can just be struck down by pointing to the official source, that everyone has access to. And believe me, saying "we despise rules lawyering" is a sorry excuse for fixing the problem.

Moses Liskov