Antigoth said:

Thank you all around. For Antigoth for following up, and for Jdub and Aslum for inserting their understanding of the card.

I was 99% sure you don't draw your opponent's hand, as Ghetto gamer stated, that would a) be broken, and as I tried to explain b) doesn't follow what the text reads.

Each player does X, X equals each players state. Yes, it is a unique case where X in the card's ability has two values, but it does specify that on the card - 'each player'.

Otherwise, it would simply say - both players draw X cards, and then discard down to X+1... i.e. there is a reason the text uses the word 'each player', and not 'both players', the latter wording you commonly see on cards where both players do the 'same' thing.

I hope this makes sense. And for the record, I have used Antisocial at worlds last year, can nats, among other toruneys - and it has always been ruled the cards in 'each' individual players hand dictate the # of cards drawn, this fact has never been debated... The numbers of cards drawn on the second use has been, hence my question.

- dut

Um... Each Players draws X cards = Both Players draw cards. There's no functional difference. Just saying.

"Either player draws X cards" would be different.

I can certainly understand "that" meaning both players rather then the one which played the attack, even if having two values for X is kind of dumb.

However I really don't understand how people can so easily overlook the timing in regards to the first ruling.

Antigoth said:

i know you cant use it offensively but you can spam out your hand and not worry about gettin attacked on your opponents turn

aslum said:

Because the AGR Supports recognition of an incremental game state:

2.9.3.7 If a Response states “play after your X card played this turn”, a player may only respond to that with a card played from hand once, as successfully playing that Response will increase the number of cards he has played that turn.

Sure, but the AGR says nothing about time travel.

Antisocial responds "When an attack is played."

An attack is not considered played until the control check is passed, and all costs associated with playing that attack are paid.

Antisocial #1 is played "When the attack is played."

Antisocial #2 is played "When the attack is played."

No time travel.

It's all the same window.

The handsize for antisocial #1 was 4

The handsize for antisocial #2 was 5

These effects are not happening simultaneously, and are not all resolving at the same time.

They are being played one after the other.

If the game can tell that you've already played a 4th card as a response, even though the window is identical

Then it can tell that you have 5 cards in hand.

aslum said:

I think the best way to understand it is... That the trigger 'after your opponent plays an attack' lives in isolation. Per the response chain rulings you constantly go back to this same trigger. BUT - Becuase you go back to the trigger does not necessarily mean that all of the other conditions (cards in hand) at the time the trigger is responded to are the same.

In this case, the trigger occurs and a response is made, and antiscoal looks for the cards in the players hand at the time of the response (which is equal to after an attack is played per the text on Antisocial), cards are then drawn. Back to the trigger, assuming there are no responses to cards drawn or discarded, and the second antisocial can be played because the trigger of 'your opponent playing an attack' is still there; however, this time the trigger is being responded to under different circumstances, and a different number of cards in the hand.

I get the concern, and hence why I asked the question. But I can live with the 'attack being played' as a trigger that can harbor a number of different scenarios (cards in hand, etc.) when responded to at different times.

- dut

I can agree with the changing of the number of cards after each one is played because they dont resolve at the same time and are in fact seperate instances that check the hand size each time it is played

however are we still going with the ruling that its your opponents hand when you play the response even though it says each player does it and x is equal to that number of cards in that players hand?

Da_ghetto_gamer said:

I've never seen that ruling enforced, only confusion to that extent as expressed by Jdub and aslum. Antigoth has indicated it is indeed 'to each their own', and that Hata has confirmed this understanding, albeit the wording could have been made more clear.

Cards in your hand = cards you draw. You keep cards in hand equal to cards in hand before draw + 1. So if you have 0 cards in hand and you respond with Antisocial, you do not get to draw a single card, let alone add one to your hand.

- dut

Antigoth said:

Ahh. I see the problem. I only have the misprinted Antisocials. You know, the ones that say "After an attack is played."

Sorry for the confusion.

dutpotd said:

I just remember reading somewhere in this post someone said thats the way it worked but as i go back i couldnt find it

As long as you draw the number of cards in your own hand then its fine

aslum said:

My apologies... I've updated my quoted text. It still stands.

BTW - Sarcastic responses because you disagree with what is being written - still trolling. If you want to go "pick fights" please go do it elsewhere.

dutpotd said:

***Stamp***

I'm sorry that you feel I am trolling, however that is not the case. In all honesty the only possible explanations that had occurred to me was that either you misunderstood the text of the card, or I had. I have read, and re-read the text of the card multiple times, and I am 100% that I can differentiate between "when" and "after". Since you refused to listen to reason the only other possible option was that one of us was viewing a misprinted text. Your misquote of the text of the card seemed to support that supposition, as unlikely as it was. These ARE different timings, yet you continue to treat them like they are the same timings. If I was trolling I would have called you a dumbass for misreading the card or something. I don't think you are stupid, but I guess I failed my diplomacy check anyways. So....

Please reread the text of the card. Carefully.

The thing is the TRIGGER (EG when you can react with Antisocial) is AFTER an attack is played.

However the value of X (regardless of if it's two values of X or one) is determined by "that player's" handsize WHEN the attack was played.

They are different timings, and one comes after the other. Even if you hit the "event" that happens later of the two multiple times, it won't change the the earlier one.

Saying otherwise is like saying that I should be able to reversal after blocking a lethal throw when at 1 vitality.

This ruling says that timing doesn't matter. It says that "when" and "after" are the same time. And if "when" and "after" are then same then it follows that "before" and "when" are the same time, and worse "before" and "after" are the same time.

If you can't admit when you are wrong then you shouldn't be a rules arbiter. And if you're not wrong you should at least be able to explain how this ruling doesn't rely on "when" and "after" being the same time.

aslum said:

All personal battles aside, and I'm just so glad they creeped up in my rules question, I can see where Aslum is coming from. In fact, that was why I asked the question, becuase it is ambiguous based on the wording.

To Aslum. The English langauge adds a 'ed' to something to indicate past tense.

Using your example... When 'blocked' is the same as saying after something is 'blocked'. Isn't it? How can you refer to 'when something is blocked', if you aren't refering to the point right after something is 'blocked'. The hiccup here is that play and block are verbs, and adding 'ed' to them means the period after the action has occured. When blocking is different than when blocked, isn't it?

You can't say something was 'played' in this game if you aren't refering to after something has been played. There is no 'playing' of an attack, there is an attempt to play an attack, and when it suceeds, a period when an attack is now considered 'played'.

In this case, if the card was refering to the timing where the attack was attempted to be played (i.e. before it was actually play'ed'), it would say, cards in hand when 'playing' the attack, or when attempting to play an attack, and not reference when an attack is actually 'played', which is actually refering to 'after an attack has been played', which is identical to the trigger of the response...

In this case 'when' and 'after' followed by the same word 'played' are refering to the same point in time, the point right after an attack passes and is considered 'played'.

And my answer to support Goth's ruling would be that 'when something is played' is the same as 'after something is played', granted something cannot be refered to as having been 'played' unless you are after the point of playing.

At least, this is why I was confused and wanted a ruling...

- dut

Sorry, after somone plays something, is the same as when the same someone can be said to have play'ed' something.

Same wording as card.

- dut

Okay, so here's the deal...

I get that you feel I have horribly misinterpreted the card.

I get that you disagree with the ruling that I've issued.

The problem is... I've already taken the ruling to Hata, and been Hata stamped.

Dut has written an answer that covers how "when & after" are viewed as the same. I didn't understand from your sarcastic one liner above, that you were actually seeking information from me, as opposed to just sniping at me.

Additionally I've cited the AGR that supports this ruling.

If I wasn't willing to admit that I was wrong, I wouldn't have gone to Hata to confirm that my ruling is correct. Additionally in other threads I have admitted when I have made a mistake, and been willing to reverse my stance on a ruling. (See Crack Counter thread as the most recent example, and turnabout as my second most recent example.)

According to the header at the top, my ruling is official. I've issued a ruling.

I've even been willing to take the time to go to the next level above me to vet my ruling.

He who writes more card text then I, has agreed that just to make things incredibly clear, we may look at functional errata on this card, just to remove any possible confusion and doubt as to how it works.

At this point in time, I'm not waffling or changing my ruling.

Hence, if you wish to see a different ruling issued, there is only one alternative.

Contact FFG directly.

End of story.

If you truly feel that I shouldn't be an arbiter, take that request to FFG, they will weigh that request, and if they feel that I have acted inappropriately they will remove me as an arbiter.

So let me get this straight. The action side of Antisocial allows me to play ANY asset or foundation (depending on what they play) without resource restriction?

Hayamachop said:

No... You do not 'play' the card. You 'add' it to your staging area (semantics).

Otherwise yes. The straight and narrow of it is that All and Good have a way to get foundations/assets out that do not share a resource symbol with their character. This was one of my two questions that I wanted clarified, and I'm in agreement that the text on the card together with the AGR support this and the ruling.

Is this reliable? i.e. waiting for an antiscocial to get a card into your staging area from your hand? ... Probably not.

- dut

dutpotd said:

**Stamp**