Antisocial! The card named after some of my card playing friends (you know who you are ^^)

I have ruling questions that I'd like confirmed re: both sides of the card (top and bottom). I seem to recall these rulings being made, albeit pre-AGR rules being released, which may or may not have had an impact on their original ruling.

The foundation side:

"R Commit: After your opponent plays an attack, each player draws X cards then discards down to X+1 cards. X equals the amount of cards in that players hand when the attack was played."

(Ignoring what my opponent does, there is no negation, and my question does not pertain to his circumstances). Situation, I have 4 cards in hand and my opponent plays an attack. I have 2 Antisocial cards in play and ready in my staging area. After the attack's check is made and passes (i.e. is played) I choose to respond with an Antisocial.

I draw 4 cards and discard cards until I have 5 (drawn + 1) cards in hand. Going back to the trigger of an attack being played (assumes no responses by either player to cards being drawn or discarded), I choose to respond with the second Antisocial. I now draw another 4 cards (not 5) becuase that was the cards in hand when the attack was played, and discard down until I have 5 (drawn + 1) in hand yet again. In other words, using two Antisocial responses 'on the same attack' will not net me a second increase to my cards in hand, and I will effectively draw 8 cards during the process, and discard 7.

Please confirm my understanding of the above example.

The action side:

"R: After your opponent plays a foundation, asset, or character, add a card of the same type as the played card to your staging area from your hand ready"

My recollection tells me that the card added to the staging area from the hand 'must' share a symbol with the cards in the card pool (i.e. have ALL or GOOD on it). Example, I respond with the action side of Antisocial, I cannot add Manifest Destiny (Death, Fire, Evil) into my staging area ready becuase I could not normally play it, i.e. it does not share a resource with what is in my card pool (Antisocial)...

Please confirm or deny my understanding of the above example.

The reason I am concerned is becuase I have read the updated rules a couple times and only find the following.

As far as I know the rules explicitly refer to a resource restriction when the following text is visible, text that is not on Antisocial:

8.1.9 If a card effect states that a player may play a card “that you could normally play”, it means
following all requirements outlined in 8.1 Playing a Card from Hand, including but not
limited to the resource restriction.

Antisocial's action does not refer to 'playing a card'. It refers to adding something to the staging area, which, according to my knowledge does not have anything to do with resources granted the card being added was never played. So I do not find 8.1.9 has an impact on my example.

The other parts of the rules that discuss resource restriction are also specifically with respect to 'playing cards'

2.2.6 Resource Symbols: These govern the cards a player can play (See 8.1 Playing a Card from
Hand).

As such, I am unsure if there is a functional errata on Antisocial that adds the words 'that you could normally play'. Or if I can now splash a few cards a bit more easily utilizing the Antisocial action side.

Thank you for your attention to this.

- dut

dutpotd said:

I have to disagree with your understanding. When Antisocial is played, it is at the time that the attack was considered played. So multiple antisocials would increase the handsize by 1 each use.

Basically - you have 4 cards in hand, respond with Antisocial 1. Your handsize becomes 5.

Respond with Antisocial #2 - This is when the attack was played, it's the same trigger. Your handsize is currently 5, after the resolution of antisocial it will be 6.

dutpotd said:

There is no functional errata on Antisocial. This would be one of the niggly little changes generated by the AGR.

Also for Antisocial you don't draw how many cards are in your hand, you draw how many cards are in your opponent's hand (the one who played the attack).

JDub said:

I'm pretty sure that for each player it is a different x. 'each player' does x, hence 'that player' refers to each his own.

99% sure of that Jdub.

Please confirm this as well.

- dut

dutpotd said:

Confirmed. Otherwise it wouldn't be Antisocial.

Antigoth said:

Ok... I can agree with this. The question then becomes, do you draw 4 cards and then 5 cards, each time keeping 1 more?

The reference to 'when the attack was played' is why I think Tag or someone originally ruled that the number of cards drawn is 4 (the number in hand when the attack is played) each time? In my memory of old forums.

By one of the niggly things I'm taking it to mean I can add any card (doesn't have to be ALL or GOOD) to my staging area?

Looking for stamps eventually, becuase I do use this card a lot - it is one of my favs

- dut

dutpotd said:

Yes. If cards in hand is 4, you draw 4, keeping 5.

If your cards in hand is 5, you draw 5, keeping 6.

dutpotd said:

Yes. Any card as long as it matches the type of card being played.

Sounds good re: the numbers, that is the way I originally played it as. Thank you again for the prompt reply.

And good re: the symbols. Thank you again!

- dut

ps, gotta love the forums where you need to edit your edit to manage the quotes lol

Antigoth said:

"R Commit: After your opponent plays an attack, each player draws X cards then discards down to X+1 cards. X equals the amount of cards in that players hand when the attack was played."

Doesn't "that" refer to the player playing the attack? I don't see how that can mean each player draws how many they had in their hand. "That" clearly refers to one player.

JDub said:

Each player individually draws equal the number of cards in that individual players hand.

If it was referring to the player playing attack it would read something to the effect of:

"X Equals the amount of cards in the hand of the player playing the attack."

"R Commit: After your opponent plays an attack, each player draws X cards then discards down to X+1 cards. X equals the amount of cards in that players hand when the attack was played."

X is determined at the time the attack is played.

The attack doesn't get replayed when you return to the trigger.

X does not increase.

Please rethink this ruling.

aslum said:

Kind of agree with aslum on this one....it doesn't say "X equals the amount of cards in hand when this ability was played" or even just "card in that players hand"

at the time the ATTACK was played your hand is pretty much locked in...

Antigoth said:

The way the word that is used in this wording it's refering to one person. You don't say that dogs, or that houses. It's incorrect. If it were saying each player draws how many they had in their hand it would say something like "X equals the ammount of cards each player had in their own hand when the attack was played." or something like that.

Smazzurco said:

Hence why I asked the question. I have seen it end up both ways. Needless to say, I was actually more concerned about the resource question, and at least that ruling is not being debated further.

to Jdub:

I've never heard of anyone having a problem with calculating what X should be on the first use. X is always different for both players, hence to utilize antisocial defensively you need to have cards in your hand.

The point of the card is to gain 1 additional card to the hand. If your understanding of the text was right... You could have zero cards in hand, your opponent attack you with a full hand (let's say 6 cards still in hand after attack). And somehow you are supposed to draw 6 (cards in opponent's hand?) and end up with 7??? It can't even work???

Each player does X, X equals the cards in 'that' players hand. The word 'that' is telling us that the X is different for each player doing X...

- dut

Now THAT is just silly. X has one value. That value is equal to the number of cards in the hand of the player that played the attack at the time they played the attack.

X does not change, and it certainly does not have two values.

aslum said:

This is something else I just thought of also. X can only have ONE value, another reason why I always thought "that players hand" was refering to the one who played the attack.

I'm escalating this one to the powers that be for a final ruling as opposed to trying to reason it out.

I have been Hata stamped, with an added "that could have been worded better." <no pun intended>

so the action side could let a player put something that matches a foundation or asset that matches the character but not antisocial?

So for clarity's sake, what is the final ruling?

yeah also if its always your opponents hand size dont we have another defender of the empire on our hands....granted not as bad because it cant be played while commited and only on attacks but it pretty much goes

oh hey i played out my entire hand....oh look you played an attack im going to draw 6(or 5 in some cases) cards not discard and then mill you for a bunch in the process

kiit said:

Almost.

You can add a Foundation, Asset, or Character card.

Because it does not say "that you could normally play." There is no restriction outside of normal game rules. (IE, if you are playing Talbain, and you put Iori into your staging area, Iori would immediately be discarded)

You don't even have to match a symbol with your character.

If you're running No memories, and your character doesn't have Void, Death, or Fire, you could still add it to your staging area via antisocial.

Da_ghetto_gamer said:

No where near DotE. Also, it's only playable on your opponents attack, so you couldn't use it offensively to mill your opponent as the attacking player.

aslum said:

If you have 2x Antisocial in play, and you had 4 cards in hand, and your opponent had 1 card in hand, after the first antisocial, you would have 5 cards in hand, and he would have 2. After the second antisocial you would have 6 cards in hand, and he would have 3.