ChaosChild said:

The reason that destroying the card doesn't negate the ability is because the ability is already separate from the source. Once the card hits the discard pile, the game doesn't remember where it came from, and so has no reference to it from play. In order for those 'R:Destroy the source' type cards to not negate the ability, it must be separate from the source at the time the source is destroyed. That's why DFOTY doesn't work as ruled.

I see the sense in DFOTY.

You're not removing the source like the rule says, but when it goes to resolve, the source is simply blank. Removing the source via destruction will only make the game look to what the card did anyway and resolve it because the rule states it as such; it doesn't matter if the card "doesn't exist anymore", because according to the rule, the ability would resolve even if you remove it.

Blanking =/= removing. Blanking makes it so the ability simply fizzles.

And why do people care, it's not like anyone in the meta ever cared about the **** card. Why the sudden interest?

I believe the card was used to a pretty dastardly effect at some recent big tournaments. People didn't know it cancelled and as such it kind of snuck up on them. In a game where almost everything is known a surprise cancel is HUGE.

The problem is that almost every player who sees the card for the first time that i have ever encountered assumes it works completley differently than is supposedly does. No players I have ever met, new or old, with the exception of Omar who is one of the people who helped pass the rule, assumes even for a moment at first read of this card that it would every cancel the ability. Additonally they always site the same rule (effect seperate from source) as the cause of why they dont agree. This alone speaks volumes to the reason we are making an issue out of it, because gods honest truth either way its an exceptionally poweful card.

Protoaddict said:

^- troof.

card needs: functional errata, rewording, or reruling.

I read it the way it is played.

Baranor said:

Then you are in the minority.

Protoaddict said:

I have to agree... That or I am the minority. My inital read indicated it cancelled, or proactively stopped, the use of the same ability off of the same card more than once a turn.

That said, I can understand the ruling and the way guitalex2008 explains sits ok with me... just not great.

Errata would be best, becuase anyone (or at least the majority) will understand it's effects differently. To me, it lands in that vast category of cards that have rulings that are not 'obvious' or apparant, and would make my list of cards to be aware of come tourney time.

- dut

Protoaddict said:

Because that's exactly what my first read was - "sweet, this makes the played ability do nothing; AWESOME".

Baranor said:

Want proof that ability snuck up on ppl.. After Nats when the ruling became widespread knowlage(possibly thx 2 my bitchin), the card went from 20+ copies on CSI to sold out in 24hrs give or take... Everyone keeps mentioning its a new mechanic and no established rules apply.. Well from my experince of other CCG's when a new mechanic is introduced its explained in detail alongside new rules before it even gets released. Blanking should have been explained alongside Combo...

http://new.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=30&efcid=5&efidt=160788

'Nuff Said?

HURRAH!!!!! This card makes sense again

Hayamachop said:

they erratad it?

trane said: