Sure. And you have the same thing with Turnabout, except the printed values are on a different card.

The ink for desperation doesn't move up to the top left when you're below half health.

So what has been established here, opinions on how the card works does not matter and still does not change the fact that it was played by copying the reversals with the damage bonuses so does this mean that it was played wrong for can nats or not? DOES IT FULLY COPY THE MULTIPLES OR NOT.these ar ethe important question and that is what we need a straight answer on.If someone can contact james or get an offical rulling on this so that, if it was a mistake, it doesnt happen again.

otakuV said:

This is being discussed at a rules arbiter and James level.

James has some deadlines to contend with this week, and has asked that we hold off on pressing the matter until next week.

I respect his wishes, and will not be pushing the matter for the ruling until next week.

Antigoth said:

This will have an answer prior to June 24th.

It shouldn't be a problem getting this resolved in 3 weeks.

ok here is how i will argue this card. remember condor spirit and how it gave all fire attack multiple one? and then recall that it was banned because the multiple copies of attacks would also get multiple 1? well it was later ruled that if you make a multilpe copy from another multiple copy it would have stats that all equal zero. Thus my friends when turnabout copies an attack, turnabout essentially becomes a multiple copy of that attack in a very basic sense. It gaines all the printed stats of the card and the abilities of the card, including ones such as multiple. the thing here is that if the multiple ability is used by the player who played turnabout, the multiples generated would become copies of a copy and SHOULD thus have all printed values equal to zero.

just my two cents....

aslum said:

You're right: Desperation's definition in the AGR does say, "the card's printed difficulty becomes X."

I would argue that this definition in the AGR needs to change, because it doesn't make any sense.

We can't say that "printed" means anything other than "ink on cardboard," because if "printed" is flexible, and can mean "not actually printed," then "printed" could mean anything . To put it another way, if "printed" can change, then what the heck is the difference between "printed" and "current." And how do you tell that difference?

Say one attack becomes a copy of another attack. How do you tell if "printed damage" means "actually printed on the card damage" or "imaginary copied onto the card damage"? And if it means "imaginary copied on the card damage," then how the heck would the game reference "actually printed on the card damage"?

The game NEEDs to be able to reference "actually printed in ink on the card" values for balance reasons. It allows designers to create cards that reset things to basics (anti-CCHax, anti-SpeedBoost, anti-DamageReduction, etc.). If copying (or anything else) overwrites "printed," then the cards' (and designers') ability to actually reference and access those original printed values goes out the window.

ARMed_PIrate said:

What you are also suggesting is a game without flexability one to just be follow this set thing it does not allow designers to be creative with cards just because something is not printed on a card does not mean it cannot be put there by a card effect.

So far we have only two really major examples of "printed" being something other then the physical ink. I don't see how your turnabout being treated as if it is a printed copy of my feline spike is a problem. Turn about is supposed to be a "ha ha, tricked you, your big scary attack is coming at you" kind of card.

This would mean Holding ground and a few other cards weren't so super against it, and means it's not just a "multiple coming backatcha". I fail to see how this breaks the game.

If the designers want to make a card that is treated as though it has stats printed on it that aren't really there, so be it. It doesn't break the game (well, unless they template it poorly). It should be the exception, not the rule, but in some ways it makes things easier. FREX If you had a way to return a copy of an attack to it's printed zone it becomes unblockable, unless there's actually an attack zone on there.

I'm content to wait until James gets back in.

Also, hate to nag, but could this maybe be covered in future rules updates, or, uhm...not happen again? It causes a lot of arguments...

Well I see that the arbiters have come to an agreement on CoS vs. SoC, so is there any chance they could do the same here? Really the only question here is if turnabout can have multiple copies that actually have spd and dmg. Not 0/0.

Really the AGR never says anything about the original attack having to be your attack.

i'm in the camp that says multiples would zero-out. the multiple ability covers this.

if anyone disagrees with this, feel free to toss an email over to ffg. this has always the way this
has been ruled according to the multiple ruling.

Posting my concurrence with Omar. I'd like to know exactly what prompted this thread to start in the first place..

The other Rules Arbiter was put on the spot for a ruling at Can nats, and read "Exact Printed Copy" on Turn about, and ruled that it became "an exact printed copy of feline spike"

Since it was a "printed copy of feline spike", it's multiples were 4h 8D smashing good times.

I didn't realize I was opening a can of worms.

You guys weren't around to have a discussion with, and James said "I'm busy, I'll deal with it next week."

Other rules arbiters view "exact printed copy" differently then I do.

End of story. My apologies to anyone hurt by the ruling at Can nats.

GouHadou said:

OKay I just want to make sure I got this right if I copy a multiple attack with turnabout the multiple copies become 0/0 no zone attack with the symbols of the attack + the one turnabout gave it? How would blocking work for a no zone attack?

It can be half-blocked by any block, but full-blocked by none.

Tagrineth said:

At Can Nats Finals Kirk Polka Beat Andrew Olexa in one of their games by Double Turnabouting a Feline spike and fully multipling both turnabouts for the win if my history lesson is correct, later on someone had mentioned that wouldn't work, and the discussion began.

Wafflecopter said:

Sorry but you are wrong. About the only way to block a no zone attack is Headstrong, or assets/foundations that block w/out checking zone.

Read the AGR.

failed2k said:

We have it on tape! = history lesson is correct.

But yeah, I'm going to reiterate what I said earlier in this thread, and that is - please formalize 'often ruled differently cards'. In this case, one arbiter ruled one way becuase of the 'text' on a card. If this does not stipulate the need to a) change the text by errata, or b) formalize the fact that this card (and others with interesting text which cause even the esteemed rule mods to rule differently) has a FINAL ruling that may or may not concur with the first-hand reading of the card.

- dut

(edit: at the very least, I personally I intend to make my own list of controversial (debated or with two sided interpretations) rulings noting the 'result' of said rulings so that I am prepared at events. I suggest that every other player do the same. There aren'y many problem cards, but there are enough to warrant wanting to do this.)

Saying that this is how multiples are handled is still wrong.

Why is it wrong? First, instead of saying that "cards becoming exact printed copies have no actual printed value" which is how they could have changed the Multiple wording in TR 1.7 (yes, I got the old copy out), they changed the wording on what multiple actually said. If they had made the original definition, then you've got yourself a worthy argument. That's not what happened. Second, Turnabout is the only card that says "exact printed copy" in the game. So, it's a special case, not one where you've got previous arguments to back it up. In fact, I'd argue that since how they handled Multiple was to change the rules themselves... you'd have to do the exact same thing to Turnabout... which would involve an errata.

Actually there are lots of other cards that have the same sort of weird usage.

Ahaooh Gaboora and Buster Wolf to name just two of the 58 other cards.

I caught it from a piece of a tournament report. But it immediately sounded fishy to me.

Good to know I'm not crazy.

Still doesn't change my plans for Turnabout.

If Turnabout said "copy" of the attack, fine. Since Turnabout says "exact printed copy" of the attack, we have two things here...

1.) it means it is referring to the issues with the original attack being modified. Which I believe COPY gets around anyhow (a COPY of something just copys the attack, not post buffs and all that)

2.) (since COPY is sufficient.. right?) we have the issue of what the heck PRINTED means... well obviously then Turnabout becomes an exact printed copy of that attack, that attack in every possible way.

That's my thoughts. Keep in mind, NOTHING has been ruled on this yet in any sort of official capacity since the multiple rules abritors are in conflict over this.

I do believe they all agreed like a page ago.

James' answer:

"I guess we're going to have to errata the card."

So Multiples are 0/0's