Super mega hyper form go!

By Fairbanks, in Rules Discussions

WayToTheDawn said:

Kiro13 said:

Well in the game you have to revert back cause your Drive Option in the menu changes to the words Revert.

Well there it is then.

Official Ruling: You cannot stack Form Cards on top of one another while they are in play.

But Simba doesn't devour your friends in the game... and... ah,whatever, it was a neat idea that wouldn't have caused much trouble sad.gif

Fairbanks said:

WayToTheDawn said:

Kiro13 said:

Well in the game you have to revert back cause your Drive Option in the menu changes to the words Revert.

Well there it is then.

Official Ruling: You cannot stack Form Cards on top of one another while they are in play.

But Simba doesn't devour your friends in the game... and... ah,whatever, it was a neat idea that wouldn't have caused much trouble sad.gif

Buuut, his effect is called Proud Roar. He roars and kills things...just like in the game.

I prime example of this game's lack of following the game is Sephiroth. If he was a friend....I sure as hell missed something. The game mechanics left that loop whole since it doesn't say a FC has to be played on a Normal Player Card, just a Player Card, which other Form Changes fit that bill. To beat the dead horse, Same name (even partial) also fits the bill for the previous rulings. In the video game the only reason he couldn't was because the drive gauge went down because of the different amounts of bars for each level.

I see the vailidity in both arguments but as far as the "in-game rule goes", Sora had to revert back. Even if you had a full drive gauge and activated a low cost Form (such as valor or wisdom), you still had to revert back before you could change again. I remember because it was frustrating, I would accidently pick the wrong form, and I still had to revert back to pick the one I wanted, even if I only spent a moment in the first form. So, if we are using the game as the basis, we would have to revert back. But like Roxas said, the card game does play different sometimes so...I guess it is all just speculation on my part.

Roxas said:

The game mechanics left that loop whole since it doesn't say a FC has to be played on a Normal Player Card, just a Player Card, which other Form Changes fit that bill.

This is assumed, it never explicitly says anywhere that FCs are "player cards" just that they are not "normal player cards" - keep in mind just since magic friends say magic/friend doesn't mean their treated the same as friends... likewise player/light/FC have different rulings than player/light.

Although, there is also no evidence supporting the other conclusion.

the thing is if you look at all the details the rules could go 50/50 for this, so theme tips the scale, it's not like all the evidence supports that they should stack and the only thing against it is the game.

id say no because then you could just stack valor forms and that wouldnt make to much sense and woulf kind of be broken. seeing as you would have to LOSE 3 challenges to revert to your normal player card. it would be very broken but i can see what ya mean.

Darkwing Duck said:

id say no because then you could just stack valor forms and that wouldnt make to much sense and woulf kind of be broken. seeing as you would have to LOSE 3 challenges to revert to your normal player card. it would be very broken but i can see what ya mean.

This is a very good point...if you could stack forms what would keep you from stacking Valors on top of one another and thusly ignoring Valors one drawback?

I think this observation proves my conclusion was the right one.

The only thing I thought when I seen this topic a few days ago was that stacking forms at this time only benifitted the Valor form, not wisdom. I know we were all looking forward to agro getting pumped in Set 4, but allowing to stack forms would just give agro a HUGE advantage over the string that is currently holding WR together.

GTrogi said:

Roxas said:

The game mechanics left that loop whole since it doesn't say a FC has to be played on a Normal Player Card, just a Player Card, which other Form Changes fit that bill.

This is assumed, it never explicitly says anywhere that FCs are "player cards" just that they are not "normal player cards" - keep in mind just since magic friends say magic/friend doesn't mean their treated the same as friends... likewise player/light/FC have different rulings than player/light.

Although, there is also no evidence supporting the other conclusion.

the thing is if you look at all the details the rules could go 50/50 for this, so theme tips the scale, it's not like all the evidence supports that they should stack and the only thing against it is the game.

They say Player(/Light?) at the bottom, right next to FC, indicating they are in fact player cards. They may be FC Players, but no where in the rule book say it has to be a Player/Light only, just a Sora lvl 1 or greater, which only his forms fit the bill due to the part of a name qualifies ruling. If they can't why would Dark Riku be allowed Soul Eater. He is not Riku, he is Dark Riku just like Sora lvl 3 (Valor Form) is not Sora, however the ruling from that definitely made it clear (and I apologize for sounding repeative) that if a card contains part of the name, it can use things that state this card can only be used/equiped by as thought they are that player.

Another example is equipment. Olympia states that it can be used by both Sora and Riku, Which includes any Sora and any Riku (including FC's and Dark Riku), so I'm failing to see where the double standard comes from. I get staying true to the game, but this is not the video game. It's the card game, and from what I hear people whine about how the rulings block opportunities to use some cards to decent playability and you've just killed one of the better ones that would make Aggro a little more diversed instead of seeing 500 Valor Olympic Decks.

GTrogi said:

Roxas said:

The game mechanics left that loop whole since it doesn't say a FC has to be played on a Normal Player Card, just a Player Card, which other Form Changes fit that bill.

This is assumed, it never explicitly says anywhere that FCs are "player cards" just that they are not "normal player cards" - keep in mind just since magic friends say magic/friend doesn't mean their treated the same as friends... likewise player/light/FC have different rulings than player/light.

Although, there is also no evidence supporting the other conclusion.

the thing is if you look at all the details the rules could go 50/50 for this, so theme tips the scale, it's not like all the evidence supports that they should stack and the only thing against it is the game.

Okay, I'm going to say it one more time, so listen up. The only place form cards are mentioned in the rulebook is under the "Player Cards" heading. It specificaly says that they are NOT a NORMAL player card. Do I need to use my "Dawn is not a normal person" analogy? Either FC cards are special player cards, or THEY HAVE NO CARD TYPE. Considering that they specifically say "player/light/fc," that means that they are a "player" card.

There's no "going 50/50." We needed a ruling and we got one, so that's good. But the only reason the ruling needed to be made is that nothing was explicit in the rulebook about the scenario. I'm still of the opinion that you should be able to stack them, because that's the way the cards are worded. But there is absolutely NO evidence that you can't.

Ambiguity in wording necessitated a ruling, not any kind of split decision, and an outside source, even if it's the one the TCG is based on, does not even kind of "tip the scales" in a discussion of rules. Otherwise we wouldn't ever have Dark Riku fighting Ansem, because that just wouldn't happen!

You're guys are still totally missing my point.

It doesn't say anywhere in the rules that it has to be equiped to a player/light.. it says it has to be equiped to a "normal player card" there are only three types of explicitly named "normal player cards" (note: this doesn't mean there aren't more, Forms may be included but this depends on an official ruling and is stated nowhere AS IS) those three are:

Player/Light
Player/Dark
Player/ORGXIII

now you can have arguments both ways wether or not it is included as a "normal player card" but there is no clear cut answer (as you've been arguing)

Now onto the naming ruling:

Card: Soul Eater can be used by "riku"
Rulebook: Attack cards represent the weapons a PLAYER can use.

Now Can soul eater be used by riku... why yes: hes a player/light (which is one of the explicitly named player types) and has "riku" in his name
How about dark riku... why yes again :D hes a player/dark (again explicitly named) and has "riku" in his name (legal due to the ruling)

Card: Valor can be put onto "sora"
Rulebook: Can be played on NORMAL PLAYER CARDS

Sora lvl 1: he can use valor.. "sora" is in his name and he is a normal player card
Sora lvl 3 (valor) *assuming it is a "normal player card*: why yes since he has "sora" in the name and doesn't fault the rules because he is a NPC
Sora lvl 3 (valor) *assiming it's not a normal player card*: NO since even though "sora" is in his name it is in conflict with the rules rendering it illegal

So hopefully you can now see my argument: the naming convention doesn't matter... what matters is which assumption you play under, neither of which is more valid than the other.

It's kinda like if there was a world called "riku island" ... it couldn't use soul eater since attack cards can't be played by worlds... regardless of if it has "riku" in the name

if you're going to quote the rulebook, do it right. here's the entire passage you're referring to.

"Along with these three types of Player Cards, players may also use Form Changes (FC) which do not count as normal Player Cards. Instead, they represent different states that can be used to odify a Player Card. When a FC comes into play, it is placed directly on top of the existing Player Card. A Player may only use a FC containing the name of his/her Player Card. A FC can be discarded at any time."

Do you want me to tell you why they say it's not a "normal" Player Card? It's because you can't start with it in play. You don't need to assume that they are a normal player card. We know that they are not. The point is that it doesn't say a FC needs to be played on a normal player card.

Your analogy for "Riku Island" is garbage, and I'll tell you why. It is a world card, and is governed by cards that affect world cards. If you want an analogy applicable to this scenario, here you go: A platypus is not a normal mammal because it lays eggs. A platypus is still a mammal, though. You seem to be getting hung up on an adjective somehow invalidating the noun it describes.

So, I'll say once more, that, while he may not be normal, Dawn certainly is a person. And Brett, sorry if it feels like I'm picking on you.

Fairbanks said:

if you're going to quote the rulebook, do it right. here's the entire passage you're referring to.

"Along with these three types of Player Cards, players may also use Form Changes (FC) which do not count as normal Player Cards. Instead, they represent different states that can be used to odify a Player Card. When a FC comes into play, it is placed directly on top of the existing Player Card. A Player may only use a FC containing the name of his/her Player Card. A FC can be discarded at any time."

Do you want me to tell you why they say it's not a "normal" Player Card? It's because you can't start with it in play. You don't need to assume that they are a normal player card. We know that they are not. The point is that it doesn't say a FC needs to be played on a normal player card.

Your analogy for "Riku Island" is garbage, and I'll tell you why. It is a world card, and is governed by cards that affect world cards. If you want an analogy applicable to this scenario, here you go: A platypus is not a normal mammal because it lays eggs. A platypus is still a mammal, though. You seem to be getting hung up on an adjective somehow invalidating the noun it describes.

So, I'll say once more, that, while he may not be normal, Dawn certainly is a person. And Brett, sorry if it feels like I'm picking on you.

Fairbanks, you have just earned an internet high-five from me.

Feel proud.

Fairbanks said:

if you're going to quote the rulebook, do it right. here's the entire passage you're referring to.

"Along with these three types of Player Cards, players may also use Form Changes (FC) which do not count as normal Player Cards. Instead, they represent different states that can be used to odify a Player Card. When a FC comes into play, it is placed directly on top of the existing Player Card. A Player may only use a FC containing the name of his/her Player Card. A FC can be discarded at any time."

Do you want me to tell you why they say it's not a "normal" Player Card? It's because you can't start with it in play. You don't need to assume that they are a normal player card. We know that they are not. The point is that it doesn't say a FC needs to be played on a normal player card.

Your analogy for "Riku Island" is garbage, and I'll tell you why. It is a world card, and is governed by cards that affect world cards. If you want an analogy applicable to this scenario, here you go: A platypus is not a normal mammal because it lays eggs. A platypus is still a mammal, though. You seem to be getting hung up on an adjective somehow invalidating the noun it describes.

So, I'll say once more, that, while he may not be normal, Dawn certainly is a person. And Brett, sorry if it feels like I'm picking on you.

No need to apologize...I'll be the first to admit I'm not normal, lol.

Anyway, My main problem with forms being able to stack is that it just doesn't feel right. I know this argument doesn't really count as an argument persay...I just feel like it's not how it was intended...much like how I felt about BOTH Leon rulings we wrong (they just can't get that guy right apparently.)

I do feel that this just another mistake by FFG and their lack of RTFC they make..they translate, print, ship, and worry about the rules problems later. I'm almost sure if you asked Jaffer or Rob how it works, they'd say you couldn't stack them. I completely get your point Fairbanks, don't get me wrong, more to the point I agree with your logic...I just don't think this was how it was intended is all.

haha, you're great fairbanks .

Obviously theirs no convincing you since your unable to look at anything that doesn't validate your own point.

what they really need is to specify how player/X/FC are treated, simmillarily to how they specify that magic/friends are friends on the feild and magic everywhere else. again my argument stands, it says no where it is a player card when on the feild!!!, so there are no rules saying you can put one on a form.

rofl and it's really funny because in disproving my annalogy you actually said why I made it in the first place, :P , to show how the name thing is a non-issue since it's governed by different rules.

GTrogi said:

You're guys are still totally missing my point.

It doesn't say anywhere in the rules that it has to be equiped to a player/light.. it says it has to be equiped to a "normal player card" there are only three types of explicitly named "normal player cards" (note: this doesn't mean there aren't more, Forms may be included but this depends on an official ruling and is stated nowhere AS IS) those three are:

Player/Light
Player/Dark
Player/ORGXIII

now you can have arguments both ways wether or not it is included as a "normal player card" but there is no clear cut answer (as you've been arguing)

Now onto the naming ruling:

Card: Soul Eater can be used by "riku"
Rulebook: Attack cards represent the weapons a PLAYER can use.

Now Can soul eater be used by riku... why yes: hes a player/light (which is one of the explicitly named player types) and has "riku" in his name
How about dark riku... why yes again :D hes a player/dark (again explicitly named) and has "riku" in his name (legal due to the ruling)

Card: Valor can be put onto "sora"
Rulebook: Can be played on NORMAL PLAYER CARDS

Sora lvl 1: he can use valor.. "sora" is in his name and he is a normal player card
Sora lvl 3 (valor) *assuming it is a "normal player card*: why yes since he has "sora" in the name and doesn't fault the rules because he is a NPC
Sora lvl 3 (valor) *assiming it's not a normal player card*: NO since even though "sora" is in his name it is in conflict with the rules rendering it illegal

So hopefully you can now see my argument: the naming convention doesn't matter... what matters is which assumption you play under, neither of which is more valid than the other.

It's kinda like if there was a world called "riku island" ... it couldn't use soul eater since attack cards can't be played by worlds... regardless of if it has "riku" in the name

That statement means you wouldn't be able to run him in the first place.

It says nothing about normal player cards being the only things that you can play a form change on. That sentence was so that FC could be run in a deck because otherwise you would not be able to run them since you would have 2 Player Cards which other than XIII is not allowed. Valor Form "Put this card on your 'Sora' card level 1 or greater" Sora lvl 3 (Wisdom Form) is higher than level 1 and is treated as Sora.

Idk I was pretty sure my analogy from before would have made sense for some people cause it made sense to all the people I talk to about the card effects.

"You have an Average Person and a Above Average Person. They may both be human but the Average Person can still excell to become an Above Average Person, while the Above Average Person is already at his highest peak of where he can get at since he is Above Average already. And thats how the player cards kinda work. The Starting Player is like an Average Person whilst his forms are an Above Average state of being."

Though I am pretty sure Mr. Dawn has made up his mind about this ruling and we should technically respect the call on it now cause its just going back and forth with the same replies and arguments.

Kiro13 said:

Idk I was pretty sure my analogy from before would have made sense for some people cause it made sense to all the people I talk to about the card effects.

"You have an Average Person and a Above Average Person. They may both be human but the Average Person can still excell to become an Above Average Person, while the Above Average Person is already at his highest peak of where he can get at since he is Above Average already. And thats how the player cards kinda work. The Starting Player is like an Average Person whilst his forms are an Above Average state of being."

Though I am pretty sure Mr. Dawn has made up his mind about this ruling and we should technically respect the call on it now cause its just going back and forth with the same replies and arguments.

I pretty much have...if you'd like to get the most official of official rulings, then by all means, email Jaffer (has anyone done this in the first place?).

Like I Said before though...I don't think he'll see it any different than I did...but who knows...this is FFG we're talking about.

Fairbanks said:

Otherwise we wouldn't ever have Dark Riku fighting Ansem, because that just wouldn't happen!

I don't mean to be a prick here, but you actually do have Dark Riku fighting Ansem at the end of Chain of Memories. Or at least, you have Riku using his Dark Form occasionally during the fight.

...Kinda makes me wish Light Riku had a Darkness form change... That would be both awesome and canon.

lol that would be pimp. I would also like to have Sora Shadow form. I liked using his random appearence and floating in the air doing lots of air combos XD