Antigoth said:

drama I didn't start myself is delicious, however.

Homme Chapeau said:

Except the cards don't explain how they break the normal game rules. Ther is no definition for "as a reversal."

Does a card played "as a reversal" gain the reversal keyword temporarily? If so, for how long? And how does that temporary keyword interact with R-negation?

If it doesn't gain the reversal keyword, can it be played during the reversal step? The reversal step only describes how to play attacks with the reversal keyword.

What about non-attacks? Once again, the reversal step only describes how to play attacks with the reversal keyword.

The Advanced Rules should be able to answer questions that the starter rules don't answer. These are questions that the starter rules don't answer, so they should be answered in the Advanced Rules. (They should have been in v1.0 of the TR, since these are questions that were asked in Set 1 and 2.)

I'm sure I'll have other gripes, but this is my first one so far, as it's been a longstanding issue that has caused questions for years. I just think it's about time the TR (now AR) addresses it.

----------------------------------------

That said, I generally (and genuinely) appreciate most of the changes. This is definitely a significant improvement. Though as others have mentioned, taking out the art would make the .pdf shorter and more useful, as every Scout will want to have a copy printed out to bring around.

ARMed_PIrate said:

And I don't really think the art is necessary, personally.

Homme Chapeau said:

actually, if this new rule thing was printed in a little rulebook and given out at nats...

Admiral Ren said:

Then I wholeheartedly agree.

BP if you wanted a printer friendly version of the rules just lemme know i can send a more printer friendly version to ya through messanger.

N.J.

I still need to download and read through the new rules document, but I suspect most of it is just clarifying niggling little issues. Have there been any major changes?

dshaffer said:

Yes

Things like

• Once a reversal is negated you may not attempt another reversal
• If an injury asset is played to 0 out an attack, you can now holding ground it back to printed.

There's a bunch of little changes, that it's worth while to sit down and read through.

Antigoth said:

Thats great. I'm well aware of how to copy and paste. That doesn't mean a practical version of the rules was provided though.

When I made my post there was no errata posts up. 40 pages worth of threads, while it may be a record of what was posted in the forum, a search for SOTG only brings back 14 pages of theards and only dates back to december. A quick glance reveals no errata in any of those. So up untill your post there was no listing of errata that was available to the public. Thank you however for getting that together for us.

It was handled poorly. And if its creating drama to be upset that the rules were delayed getting to us so a non printable version of them could be posted so it could be of no practical use without a printable version for those of us who actually run tournaments, then yeah creating drama. If its creating drama to be upset that we no longer had errata and that even the former list of errata wasn't just coppy and pasted into a pdf and put where the rules document told us to go to look for it, then yeah once again creating drama.

Will it matter 6 months down the road that someone got upset about how this was handled? Maybe maybe not. But hopefully in 6 months we won't need to be upset that we don't have a errata document or that we don't have a printable version of the rules because someone was upset about it. Because people complained you made a post of errata so we actually have a listing of errata...so it has had a point and has accomplished something.

BP,

At the end of the day - I'm not an FFG employee. I'm not paid for the Rules Arbiter work that I do.

I am an unpaid volunteer, and there really isn't anything that I'm doing that anyone else couldn't step up and do.

So telling me that It's poorly handled how this has been... dude... as a volunteer... that sucks to hear.

First off, redoing the rules doco is a huge task. Props to Antigoth for doing it, and doing an amazing job (and I do think you did a great job, even if I am picking it apart in the Q&A forum and pointing out every mistake I can, it's because I want the rules to be perfect, which is not really a one man job, especially not when he's a volunteer.)

Second, I am working on wikifying the newest version of the TR ( ufswiki.aslum.net/index.php ) but it will probably be a week or two before I'm finished formating unless other people help out. I'm doing this precisely so there will be a quicker reference version that can easily be pulled up on a PSP or iPhone or whatever. Also the page will generally load a lot faster, and be quicker to search w/ your browsers builtin search features. It does take a lot more work to format it properly. And I do intended to go back at some point and add all of the essential images.

I certainly have no problem w/ the Errata being mirrored on the wiki as well (currently anyone can sign up and edit stuff, so if you feel like helping out, please feel free to do so.)

aslum said:

Thank you. I totally get that you an AP are just helping solidify the rules. I've got one project, Keycon, and Can nats to prepare for over the next month.

I'm collecting all the suggestions, recommendations, etc, and aim to push for v2.1 (or similar numbering to release concurrent with Set 13.)

So all the help and suggestions are appreciated.

Things I noticed that are missing/needs fixing:

The Control Check cost on abilities i.e (5+) is not explicitly defined in the advanced rules, and ought to be. It's referenced, but never defined.

Continuous Abilities and the rules don't get along very well at all. For example, 2.5.11 says "Game text on a foundation will have no effect until the foundation is in the staging area." Now, that's how assets worked due to cards like Overwhelming Strength. However, it makes a card like American Made not work anymore when you use it to fully block. It needs to say something more along the lines of "Abilties may not be played on a foundation until it is in the staging area".

There needs to be some kind of rule stating that if a player searches their deck for a card, they must shuffle their deck and allow their opponent to cut. Otherwise, you can end up with odd situations like Tira being able to look for a Jolly/Gloomy card and simply remember their first 3-4 checks after their 7 card draw.

Nyobari said:

Nyobari said:

Nyobari said:

Golden Rule:
1.4 After searching any deck for any number of cards, the player owning the deck must reshuffle it.

Ettiquite such as offering your opponent a cut is a tournament floor rules piece. Where what a legal shuffle and what a legal cut is defined.

Antigoth said:

I need to disagree here. The problem is this, the game doesn't recognize the text. That's why the wording needs to be changed. You simply cannot say "game text is to be ignored" and then say "game text is important". Otherwise, you end up with how Overwhelming Strength worked originally which was, "While this card is in play... etc.". If you say the game text doesn't have any effect, then it doesn't... period.

Nyobari said:

Really?

I mean Really?

"After you play this card as a block."

You announce that you are attempting to play the card as a block.
It now enteres into the Transition Zone.
Once you've made the check, the card is successful.
Rather then it entering the card pool after generating the block effect, it goes straight to your staging area, it doesn't hit the card pool.

Not seeing an issue.

I'm with Nyobari on this one.

It's not a direct contradiction of the rules. The rules say, "Ignore all text on this card, because it's not in your staging area." So you're not even allowed to look at the text (in gameplay terms) until it hits the staging area. Huge Wrestling Army has a similar ability (and problem).

For it to be a direct contradiction, the ability would need to say, "This ability is active while this card is in the card pool," in much the same way that playable while committed abilities have to say, "Playable while committed," or else they're not.

This is NOT your fault, Antigoth. The problem is that STG long ago established a double standard: some foundations/assets/characters were designed with continuous abilities under the assumption that they did nothing until they hit the staging area. Others were designed under the assumption that their continuous abilities were active in the card pool, or always active.

You and James have a choice. Either:

1) cards like American Made and Huge Wrestling Army should be errata'd to have "This ability is active while this card is in the card pool," (to mirror the "Playable while committed" text) OR

2) the advanced rules need a patch. The patch would, of necessity be a cop-out: a subrule something along the lines of "Continuous abilities on foundations, assets, and characters may function in a zone other than the staging area only if that is the only way they could function."

I don't like rules like that, because they force the player to come to a logical conclusion ("Is this the only way it could work?"), and in general, rules shouldn't force you to do that; they should make all logic explicit. But if James doesn't like the idea of errata'ing cards (and standardizing such a template, as was done with "Playable while committed"), then it's really the only choice.

The Golden Rule only covers direct contradictions, not implied contradictions. And it shouldn't cover implied contradictions, because then everyone will read a different implication. Nyobari correctly cites Overwhelming Strength, which, by stating "in play" is an implied contradiction (in my view). The card pool is explicitly in play. But it was ruled to go the other way. This sort of thing can't be left as a sort-of-implied gray area.

I just had an ephiphany that could save y'all a lot of work and resolve most of the issues where we're butting heads.

My big issue is that the first Golden Rule only covers direct contradictions. You (and to some extent Tag) want it to extend to certain implied contradictions. I propose you take a more general route to the cop out rule I put forth above.

Create a subrule:

"1.1.1 If an ability (in timing, cost, or effect) could in no way function without contradicting these rules, then the card text is to be considered a direct contradiction to these rules, and will take precedence."

Like I said, I don't generally like this sort of rule, because it forces players to come to their own conclusions. But as y'all have mentioned, those conclusions are usually obvious. And if you add this, my logical cortex will at least stop returning error messages. (;

Until someone goes and reads 4.8 and can explain to me how that doesn't facilitate cards like American Made, I'm really not willing to entertain further rules changes when there is already a solution in place.

I read 4.8. It's not bad. But it doesn't say anything about continuous abilities on foundations being active from the Transitional Zone, or from the card pool, or from the hand. They're only currently active from the staging area. So I don't see how it helps.

ARMed_PIrate said:

2.5.11 says: "Game text on a foundation will have no effect until the foundation is in the staging area."

Game text on American made and it's ilk clearly contradicts that. There is no possible way it can work based on that.

Hence... 1.1 jumps up and says:

"1.1 When a card’s text directly contradicts these rules, the card’s text takes precedence."

You're over complicating it. There are some folks that are already having issues with how long and detailed the rules document is.

Lets move on. I'm not willing to budge on this one. If James says "make it so." Then I'll do it. Otherwise, we're just going around in circles.

Here we go...

You're citing the Transitional Zone text of:

• 4.8.2: Once a card is successfully played, it leaves this area for the card pool.

We're citing Playing a Card:

• 8.1.3.1: If their check is equal or greater to the difficulty of the card they are attempting to play, the player puts that card into their card pool to the right of any other cards played this turn. At that point, the have played the card.

There's the contradiction we've been looking for, which does make a big difference in how the rules work. For example, 5-dot Mai. If we go with 4.8.2, then you can't react with Mai if you're playing what would be the 2nd card in your card pool (it's not there yet in your card pool). This is different than how it was working before, because 8.1.3.1 comes from the old rules set.

Antigoth said:

This is EXACTLY the problem. The game text on American Made does NOT contradict that. YES, there is no possible way it can work. THAT is the problem.

Think in terms of computer programming. (Turning MtG into an electronic game is exactly why its rules got overhauled. Imagine what a programmer would have to go through if/when FFG decides to put out an online version of UFS.)

Computer (or player) reads: Game text on foundation has no effect if foundation is not in staging area.

Computer (or player) sees text on American Made when American Made is played, notices foundation is not in staging area, does nothing.

Just because American Made doesn't work doesn't mean it constitutes a direct contradiction.

For it to work the way you want it to, you NEED the 1.1.1 I suggested above: Essentially, "If a card couldn't work any other way, then read it as a direct contradiction of the rules." (Note that this probably isn't good enough for programming, as it's a ton of work to make a program that can check to see if a card could never work under normal rules. The only reason it could work here is humans are smarter than computers.)

There's currently nothing in the rules that says this, and nothing on the card that states it counts as a contradiction.

Antigoth said:

Have you passed it on to James, or should I send an email myself?

I know this stuff seems obvious to you, but the whole point is that the rules need to be explicit, and on this point they aren't (yet). At the very least, you need a definition of what you mean when you say, "direct contradiction." Because when I read "direct contradiction," I expect to see something like, "This text is active in the card pool," that directly contradicts 2.5.11. If it doesn't have that, it's not direct in my eyes (and in those of many other players). There's nothing wrong with a different definition, as long as you explain in the rules what that definition is.

James is aware of the thread, and the concerns around 1.1

We have agreed that we leave it as is for the moment, and see what state it is in after the errata is done.