Hunger for souls reads: E(5+): If your non-throw attack deals damage, each player destroys X foundations in their staging area. X equals the control value of the card checked for this ability.

Utilizing Ibuki's CC pump, would this increase the amount of targets I can hit with Hunger for Souls, as the card does not say printed control value? Or is it implied that the card means printed value since it says control value?

So, just for an example, I check a 5, but have used Ibuki's Response, making the check an 8. Would that mean we both destroy 8 foundations, or only 5?

HolyDragonCloud said:

Correct.

Eh...which part?

The text implies that it will be equal to the printed control, as it says the "control of the card checked", not "the control check made to play this ability".

MegaGeese said:

Right but that Control value is modified by Ibuki's ability to be +3.

The Control Value of the card = Control Check.

Antigoth said:

2.11 Control Checks
Players make control checks by taking the top card of their deck and placing it into their discard pile. The control value of the card placed in the discard pile is then used as the reference point for the control check.

Ibuki sez "Before you make a check, that check gets +3."

"...used as the reference point for the control check" really makes me think that the control value of the card and the control check are two very different things. And if they are two different things, then Ibuki doesn't modify the control value, and Hunger for Souls is effectively the printed number {short of Ruler of Southtown or Eminence or something like those}

I feel i must agree, in so far as, you make the check for the ability and use Ibuki's R, while your control check to play the ability is getting +3, the control value of the card itself remains the same. As oppose to what Ruler of Southtown does/did.

Control Values can be modified.

If Hata wanted it to be "Printed Control Value" then he would have used that verbiage. (We've actually spoken on card intention)

The control value of a card is used for control checks.

"Reference point" is extraneous wording that does not need to be in the AGR. I'll fix it for the next revision.

Because I botched on the wording (I'll take ownership on this one), and I don't want to issue one ruling today, then fix it in the AGR, and reverse the ruling in less then 3 months when the next version of the AGR is released.

Ibuki and anything else that modifies control checks can make hunger for souls blow stuff up real good.

Well if Hata was spoken to about the card, then that seals it for me.

This is one of those times that I'm so glad I'm wrong =D

Oh baby... I need to pick up some Hungers. Cervantes, Ibuki, whoever... OM NOM NOM

So Hunger for Souls is now almost broken and Hungry for Battle got basically shafted, correct?

guitalex2008 said:

I really don't understand the question.

You E: for Hungry for Battle, you BRT the check, it becomes a 2. You commit 2 foundations to pass the check. Your attack gets +4 damage.

Not really sure what you're asking.

Antigoth said:

My question is why the number checked is equated the control check made, if it's not the same wording.

Let's use your example, assuming you were going to check a 3, then checked a 5. You BRT so you give -3, then you check a 5 (the number checked), but your control check is 2.

I don't understand this ruling at all. The wording on the card is vague, but is enough to make me and others think that the card refers to the printed check, not the control check made. Am I the only one confused about this?

guitalex2008 said:

Um, one of the cards is looking for you to check high. Higher the better.

One of thoes cards is looking at you to check as low as you can to still pass the ability. You basicly just want to check 4 every time for it.

The most Hungry for battle can get you on any attack is +2. That being said its a FREE E on every attack.

guitalex2008 said:

1) This is the rules Q&A area. How good a card is or is not, and card economics are for the General discussion area. Please take those comments there.

2) I am sorry that you feel the wording is vague. We will take a look at this card when working on the functional errata document.

3) Since you seemed to be confused, lets break down the HfB vs. BRT interaction, and look at how HfB works.

You announce that you are using HfB. Players resolve any responses to the announcing of playing an ability on one of your cards.

You now pay the cost of making a control check 4+ to play the ability.

You or your opponent may use effects like BRT to modify the check.

Lets say you use BRT.

Your opponent reveals the top card of his deck. It's Pommel Smash. That means your check gets -3.

You now proceed and check a 5 from the top of your deck. If you wish for HfB's E to be successful, since you have checked a 2, that means you would have to commit two foundations to fulfil the cost and complete the control check. Assuming you do commit the 2 foundations, HfB's effect now calculates.

6(number stated by HfB)-2 (the number you checked for the cost of the enhance)=4

You now get +4 damage to your attack.

If you would check a 5, you get +1, 4, +2, etc.

This is a free enchance that for the cost of a control check boosts damage. I'm really not seeing the issue.

So to restate, if you want to complain about the powerlevel on a card - go to Gen D.

Fred - Remember you are allowed to commit foundations to help pass the cost on checks for HfB. So you can check a -2 if you really want. If you're willing to commit 6 foundations to get +6 damage.

OK i get that soul of LSS wouldnt work because its CC for an attack,

but would iga legacy work? Does HfS only take into account hacks from before the cc is made? or does hacking it after the check count as well?

Smazzurco said:

Why not? It affects the number just the same. Iga Legacy helps HfS go OM NOM NOM!!

Antigoth said:

Wafflecopter said:

Yes.

Baranor said:

**Stamp**

Antigoth said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I asked a question. Thus, the entirety of my post was valid for the Q&A, regardless of my comment on the card. I can create a Q&A post that says "OMG card A has to be banned! How does it interact with card B?" and you can't say anything, because it asks a question (and you're a rules arbiter) and, while it has an opinion, it's not a discussion.

If you did not like the way I ask a question, why not let the others have a go at an answer? It's not like there's a set format for asking questions. Maybe you should consider one, seeing as how a comment in the question sends you reeling.

I understand how control check hack works (hi, I've been playing for three years), but I *still* don't see number checked being the same as control check made. If you checked a 5, then the floating ability resolves, making your control check a 2 now, the number you checked to play the ability was still a 5, regardless of control check boosts or hacks, or whether the control check was successful in the end. Maybe the wording needs to be changed, or something in the advanced game rules needs to be added, but along a sea of weird rulings, this is the only ruling that makes zero sense to me.

Please work on the rulings document to avoid further confusion, and on your attitude to avoid hostility.

guitalex2008 said:

i have not been playing for 3+ years, but im gonna step in here anyway...

You check a 5...then floating abilities resolve giving your check minus 3. 5 minus 3 is 2 so your control check is a 2.

guitalex2008 said:

Read these two quoted posts carefully; that's how it works, and you heard it from a rules arbiter who talks with the designer. This ruling is about as final as a ruling can get.

Furthermore, no u

Very mature.

OK, Hunger for Souls states control VALUE, which can be changed. That much I gathered. Sure, OK. I can live with another block of broken Ibuki.

Hungry for Battle , however, states number checked. Which isn't the same wording at all.

Therein lies the confusion.