Just a few notes:

1) Most of this thread was players quibbling back and forth about Torn Hero vs. Heel Snipe. Then suddenly I get a "seriously guys, need an official ruling."

so

2) I find time this afternoon to discuss the issue with Hata. Hata confirms it protects one card, that it does not negate an entier effect.

3) I'm really comfortable ruling that since Akuma's cost has been paid prior to Torn Hero being used, if he commits more then 1 foundation to pay the cost, that Torn Hero can't do squat, since more then 1 card is being targeted by the ability. I get the feeling that if I do that, people will riot. Hence the it protects one card. There is a similar interaction to this previously, with similar wording, and it survived the AGR. For the life of me I can't remember which interaction it was.

4) Red Lotus is different because while it too says "a card", it negates the entire card's effect. Where as Torn Hero commits itself instead of "a card"

5) I'm fairly certain that Torn Hero jumps in front of Amy's and says "sucks to be Amy's". I'm going to try and hunt down Hata over the next 24 hours and get him to spend some more time with me discussing this thread.

6) Dut - Offlimits, hence protected, because it jumps in front of the ability

I wrote all but 6 prior to reading Dut's post, but I think what I wrote above covers most of Dut's concerns.

Antigoth said:

Yes it does, thank you. And to my issue with a stun x(where x is greater than 1) Torn Hero can/can't respond to limit what is stunned?

Much more importantly, on the topic of your answer #3, would you have similarily said Torn Hero can't respond to Experienced Combatant used by an Order character granted that ability is committing more than 'a' foundation?

I do understand the poor implications of discussing this in this thread. I shouldn't have derailed it in the first place, but to provide an alternate understanding. This was/is my fault, and I apologize for it.

- dut

dutpotd said:

Again, I would have ruled that Torn Hero protects 1 of the 3 cards affected by Stun 3, and one of the two cards affected by Experienced Combatant.

Note my comment about starting a Riot, and wanting to avoid that.

Again, I'm taking all this to Hata as soon as I can track him down... but I'm really confident that the "protect one" will stand.

Antigoth said:

Interesting... so Torn Hero in a situation where it is out with exactly 2 other foundations can turn stun 3 into 2, choosing to protect one that then can't be commited by the other part of the multi-stun.

Similarily Experienced Combatant, Psycho Style, and a lot of Orders pieces are a lot stronger than I'm sure a few people have been playing them!

Eagerly awaiting anything you come up with, until then if your current ruling is right, it is something that people shouldn't riot about, but rather learn to incorporate into their play. After all, if that was the intent of the card, i.e. single card protection, then that is how it should be - wouldn't be the first time I read a card wrong and won't be the last I'm sure ^^

Thank you again,

- Garett (dut)

Following that ruling then how would Torn Hero work since the ability resolves before targets are named?

Example: Experienced Combatatant with 6 foundations and TH open. Opponent uses EC. Respond with TH, name protected card. Opponent names two cards not protected during resolution. What happens then?

Similar example with Akuma: Player A has Amy's, TH, and three foundations ready. Akuma's E, commit 3 foundations. Respond with TH, name Amy's. Akuma player commits the other 3 foundations.

That's the way it looks because of the timing, you can only name the card you're protecting but they don't have to target that card when resolving their ability.

Judas225 said:

Where the target is ambiguous (Akuma, Experienced Combatant), you wait until the opponent selects all of the intended targets, and then you protect one of them.

While it is being presented that this is different from how the timing of the card appears to be written, please keep in mind that the timing of the card is intended for "a card" as opposed to "multiple cards".

Antigoth, the only thing that doesn't sound right to me so far is your last statement.

Perhaps it's better to think of if this way:

Torn Hero doesn't know which foundation will be protected. It can't, because it's effect activates before targets are declared.

Torn Hero just knows that Torn Hero will be committed.

Essentially, Torn Hero says, "I will be one of your targets of committal." But I don't see how it could stop the opponent (Akuma, for example) from choosing which other foundations get committed. So it couldn't protect holding ground. But if you have 4 Torn Heros and 10 other foundations your opponent really wants to commit, then Akuma (committing 10) would only get to 6 of the key foundations.

Personal opinion: This should get a functional errata for timing. Torn Hero's R should trigger "After your opponents ability commits a card in your staging area..." That way it triggers when the commit happens, not when the ability is played.

----------------------------------------

As for the "instead" bit and the fact that it only replaces one committal, not the entire effect, I entirely agree with Antigoth's (and Hata's) ruling here. The problem is in the original wording, which is completely ambiguous . It says "instead," but it does not answer the question "instead of what?" The card text should have specifically said, "instead of that card" (to make it clear that it did not mean "instead of resolving the ability" or "instead of committing any foundations").

This is similar to the "(minimum 1)" statements which should either say "(by a minimum of 1)" or "(to a minimum of 1)" depending on the circumstances.

These are examples where slightly longer card text saves a lot on rulings headaches down the road, and I hope James is learning from these mistakes.

-----------------------------------------

Antigoth, thanks for all of your hard work on this ruling. We in SoCal appreciate it, even if we don't always express it. (:

Talked with James.

I was trying to remember which card was ruled to work similarly.

He then reminded me that it was Makai High Noble, whose ruling was kept in mind when Torn Hero was created:

Antigoth said:

Mostly, what Armed_Pirate said. However this is a bit of an issue. If TH stops Amy's, then it is indeed replacing the entire effect, not just the commit. It can't be both ways. If it's intended to commit just one card, and only one card then it really needs to be errataed to work like MHN so that it triggers when the committal happens, not when the ability is played.

---

Also, I'm not sure that TH works against stun at all (well the continuous ability does, obviously), as the TH player is the one committing the foundations, not the "stunner".

Antigoth said:

I can see the similarity re: ruling. However, this is just one more example of why someone reading Torn Hero would be confused without the ruling in front of them.

Twofold:

1) Here stands a card that does an instead to a certain 'circumstance', not an instead to an 'ability being played'

2) Here stands a card that uses the number '1', rather than the word 'a'. When more than 1 things is comitted, it goes without saying that 'a' thing has been comitted. However, when more than 1 thing is comitted it is hard to say that '1' thing has has been comitted.

I hope you can see where the confusion arises from the text of Torn Hero in relation to similar cards with similar rulings, and within similar set releases and card blocks.

It is good that we have this ruled prior to Worlds though, I will be bringing the Omnifaq with me... I know nothing in this world is perfect, but if playtesters/designers can compare new card text to old to establish some sort of consistency then it should alleviate 'some' (obviously not all) ruling issues.

- dut

dutpotd said:

Absolutely. Please note my working directly with James to work all of this out.

dutpotd said:

You bring the Omni-Faq (please try for full color, it looks better that way).
I'll bring the AGR & Freshly released tournament floor rules.

dutpotd said:

People were complaining about the templating that was used previously.
James is a different designer then the previous ones, and is working to try and come up with a consistent template going forward.

Antigoth said:

I can tell. His cards are actually balanced and make sense... Just kidding, I love all the cards! But seriously, as much as I look forward to Gencon 2009, I am equally looking forward to block 4 and Gencon 2010! Definate change in text, pace, and necessary playstyle. As little as I talk with James, and as often as I've seen him (like 3+ times which isn't bad for a Calgary boy), I can tell he has a firm head on his shoulders.

Thanks for your attention to this misdirected thread. And looking forward to seeing you at Gencon, Two weeks today is teams!!! Yahoo!!!!

- dut

aslum said:

Not replacing the whole effect at all, it just tells Amy's "You have to go down the path where you try to commit something, and that something has to be me." As in, you aren't allowed to pick the other resolution path. It'd be the same thing as Friends and Rivals vs. Torn Hero - you can't pick the zone change & damage boost, you HAVE to pick the committal and that committal HAS to include Torn Hero.

If anything, as far as Akuma goes, it'd be more "they have to pick any Torn Hero(es) which responded to his First E: before picking any other foundations", rather than "pick those, and Torn Hero takes their place". That's my opinion, anyway.

Tagrineth said:

Tag, that IS replacing, almost by definition. You're saying that instead of "what Amy's says" it commits torn hero. Not, "if/when Amy's commits something, instead commit torn hero". To the work the way we want it to, it needs to work at the time of committal, not at the time the ability was played. That is to say, with the same timing as MHN.

It's not replacing the effect, in the case of effects with optional results it simply forces that optional result to go down the path that will commit Torn Hero before doing any other part of the effect.

Now of course in the case of Amy's it IS doing some neat Voodoo Magick because it's also forcing Amy's to commit a foundation rather than an asset, but oh well, works for me. Answer to Amy's = awesome in my books.

@dut at the top of Page #2: For some reason I thought this was called the Golden Rule at one point or another, maybe Golden Rule #2 or something?

2.13.4 After an ability is played, it will resolve as much of itself as it can. (See 8.1 Playing a card from hand, for more information on playing cards and abilities.)

Wafflecopter said:

No problem Waffle, too many rules to remember them all ^^

Resolving as much as can be resolved is a pretty big one too! Maybe Bronze/Aluminum rule or something.

And thank you for bringing said topic up in the first place in response to my misinterpretation - good stuff all around

- dut

Aluminum rule, rofl... I'm gonna remember that