That is pretty cool, cept as both are foundations, only an idiot would fall for that.
So Hilde...(cereal discussion)
MarcoPulleaux said:
That is pretty cool, cept as both are foundations, only an idiot would fall for that.
Hehe, so true. But what Waffle is saying is that one of Hilde's two support cards actually makes sense to play now! (someone else already mentioned it before him btw)
Bottom line though, you are still playing a foundation that 'may' have an impact on the game. Unless everyone runs paid to protect said rejection named card will only see a lot of sideboard. Also, you are being asked to run throws, which a) start with less damage than their counterparts, and b) becuase they usually have lower base damage, are therefore less susceptible to Dual Wielding which is the most efficient 'fight or flight esque' pump Hilde has.
- dut
Only an idiot would fall for it, or someone who's under pressure, or someone with no better choices. I've had people use Stand Off on me before, in the middle of a Siren's Call...
Body Slam is less efficient than non-throws, yeah, but it's got utility outside of the OTK [say when you just want to land some damage in the Rashotep match, trying to find a Pommel Smash).
Wafflecopter said:
Body Slam is less efficient than non-throws, yeah, but it's got utility outside of the OTK [say when you just want to land some damage in the Rashotep match, trying to find a Pommel Smash).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it isn't worth trying, especially if paid to protect is a problem for you. I'm just saying there is definately a weigh-off of options here, so as good as it sounds on paper, it may or may not work 'as well' situationally.
- dut
Hilde off of Good is extremely viable, so long as you're using the right cards. ohoho
I'll give you a hint - Persevering Despite Rejection is a really good idea to get around anyone who thinks they're going to be cute with that speed redux.
MegaGeese said:
Hilde off of Good is extremely viable, so long as you're using the right cards. ohoho
I'll give you a hint - Persevering Despite Rejection is a really good idea to get around anyone who thinks they're going to be cute with that speed redux.
yeah because people are saying, Oh they wont fall for it. Well what other choice do they have? they arent going to block it otherwise so its really there only option unless they just want to do nothin and take it to the face
MegaGeese said:
Hilde off of Good is extremely viable, so long as you're using the right cards. ohoho
I'll give you a hint - Persevering Despite Rejection is a really good idea to get around anyone who thinks they're going to be cute with that speed redux.
I'll assume you're talking about a throw then, because I don't care what damage your attack is at if I can fully block it.
You know what happens when you assume, right? xD
Yeah, a throw, though, that part was right. HAHAHA
I have a very pertinent question...
Persevering Despite Rejection is +X damage when your speed is reduced by X, right?
Um...what part of Paid to Protect REDUCES speed? I look at it and it says it RETURNS an attack to its printed speed. It does, however, reduce damage?...
Hm, I think that's a question best asked of Yang.
Don't you agree?
...um...
I don't understand what you're saying. Returning an attack's speed is not the same as REDUCING an attack's speed.
If it's counted as reducing it, James need to start being more clear on his cards when they are printed (Dead for a Thousand Years much?), because Perservering specifically says reduced, not returned.
The act of "returning to printed" entails either a reduction or an increase, depending on which side of printed the value started at. If you're at 40 speed and are reduced to 0, that's a reduction of 40 speed.
Wafflecopter said:
The act of "returning to printed" entails either a reduction or an increase, depending on which side of printed the value started at. If you're at 40 speed and are reduced to 0, that's a reduction of 40 speed.
Yeah... This has been ruled plenty of times, and with respect to many other similar cards. Returning is returning and a change, the change is what reduction vs. increase refers to.
- dut
Wafflecopter said:
The act of "returning to printed" entails either a reduction or an increase, depending on which side of printed the value started at. If you're at 40 speed and are reduced to 0, that's a reduction of 40 speed.
...I am THOROUGHLY angered by this bull ruling.
MarcoPulleaux said:
Wafflecopter said:
The act of "returning to printed" entails either a reduction or an increase, depending on which side of printed the value started at. If you're at 40 speed and are reduced to 0, that's a reduction of 40 speed.
...I am THOROUGHLY angered by this bull ruling.
Can you explain why gamestate a), followed by effect, = gamestate b) (that sees a lesser amount relative to game state a) ) does not prove that the effect 'reduced' the amount in question?
It's a fairly straightforward proof and follows from the fact that there is not an other effect or instance between state a) and b).
Were you not around for this discussion relative to Hilde to begin with, and with respect to Healer...
- dut
Returning is not the same word as Reducing, hence my anger. If you wanted to say reduced, then say reduced.
MarcoPulleaux said:
Returning is not the same word as Reducing, hence my anger. If you wanted to say reduced, then say reduced.
How else can you say 'turn something into printed' without saying return and with definately saying 'reduce' becuase that is what is happening? Do you say, reduce or increase the damage of this attack, and do whatever applies, until the attack is at printed damage?
This is wordy and silly. Obviously if I originally have $10, somehow manage to gain another $10, then say I have returned to my original cash on hand - it goes without saying (barring any other in between effects) that I have indeed been reduced from a $20 on hand to $10, which happens to be what I started with...
We are just being silly if you want to match words. You don't 'match' words you 'match' effects. Words that have dual meaning exist in the english language, any word that refers to amounts will necessarily have dual meaning with respect to increase/decrease, gain/loss, start/finish, before/after, etc.
- dut
But this is a card game, where wording is everything.
Dead for a Thousand Years doesn't negate effects, but due to James' BS ruling based on its wording, it basically DOES negate the card, even though it doesn't state that it does.
F that. If you want the card to negate it, then write negate on the card. Paid to Protect should say "this attack's damage is REDUCED to its printed damage". There, now it's a reduction card.
MarcoPulleaux said:
But this is a card game, where wording is everything.
Dead for a Thousand Years doesn't negate effects, but due to James' BS ruling based on its wording, it basically DOES negate the card, even though it doesn't state that it does.
F that. If you want the card to negate it, then write negate on the card. Paid to Protect should say "this attack's damage is REDUCED to its printed damage". There, now it's a reduction card.
ummm how would you increase it then if it was below printed speed? Why lose out on one half of the intended effect becuase narrow minded players don't understand that words have dual meaning.
Wording is everything, yes. And a word conveys multiple meanings, especially when it relates to values. How many cards would have to say reduce/increase to make you happy? To make any number of cards 'do' anything with respect to P despite Rejection? Instead of 'this attack gets -2 speed' every text would now have to be replaced with 'this attack gets it's speed reduced by 2', then how do you convey minimums? 'this attack gets it's speed reduced by 2, but it can't be reduced below zero?' Why is 'gets -2' not the same as returning, in that neither says 'reduce' and to you that 'word is' everything??? Or do you think P despite Rejection can't respond to gets -2?
Seriously, look and find me how many cards say - 'this attack gets its speed reduced by x.' vs. how many cards say 'this attack gets -x speed.' I guess you had better send in a resume Shinji, you are the only one that can help us match every word to every card becuase no one else understands that negative necessitates a reduction in most cases (note the case where negative a negative...), similar to the way return means a reduction in most cases.
I'm beginning to see why Tag gets so cynical in the Rulings thread, there is never a good enough answer for people that choose to be sticklers at different times and to the extent that they get what they want (think is right).
Dead for a 1000 years is a single case, and 'mark you' a case where the designer told everyone what he thought it should do, perhaps what he wanted it to do. If that isn't straight from the horses mouth and good enough, then what is? We are playing a game, we all play by the same rules. Everyone has the opportunity to post a question and have it ruled, sometimes life isn't fair and it hurts others and to others benefit, GET OVER IT, ENJOY THE GAME, and I can only feel sorry for someone who can't.
- dut
I was always playing under the assumption that Dead for 100 Years negated card effects. It just made sense from the wording. I did not even know there was a dispute O_o
Sol Badguy said:
I was always playing under the assumption that Dead for 100 Years negated card effects. It just made sense from the wording. I did not even know there was a dispute O_o
There was a dispute because, since the card doesn't specifically say negate, the way it SHOULD have worked is that, yes, it blanks all copies, but because the ability was played, the ability goes through.
If Hata wants to keep up with his "I'll tell you how the card works" theme, fine, but just know that not everybody has access to Hata's words, and nobody wants to be playing a card for months and months THINKING they know how it works, only to realize that "Hata WANTS it to work a certain way". How about just...write the word negate on the card?
MarcoPulleaux said:
Sol Badguy said:
I was always playing under the assumption that Dead for 100 Years negated card effects. It just made sense from the wording. I did not even know there was a dispute O_o
There was a dispute because, since the card doesn't specifically say negate, the way it SHOULD have worked is that, yes, it blanks all copies, but because the ability was played, the ability goes through.
If Hata wants to keep up with his "I'll tell you how the card works" theme, fine, but just know that not everybody has access to Hata's words, and nobody wants to be playing a card for months and months THINKING they know how it works, only to realize that "Hata WANTS it to work a certain way". How about just...write the word negate on the card?
An Ability is played once you pay the cost so Dead for 1000 Years activates once the cost is payed. Then Blanks the card. Then the card goes back to resolve and finds that it has no text therefor is negated...It made sense to me.
I do agree with you on the return/reduce thing though. thought they were different things too...
Dead for One Thousand Years:
"After your opponent plays AN ABILITY"
As in, AFTER THE FXXKING ABILITY HAS BEEN PLAYED.
Whatev, no point in arguing what's already been solved. It's just hogwash and rubbish in one.
MarcoPulleaux said:
Dead for One Thousand Years:
"After your opponent plays AN ABILITY"
As in, AFTER THE FXXKING ABILITY HAS BEEN PLAYED.
Whatev, no point in arguing what's already been solved. It's just hogwash and rubbish in one.
"Plays" not "Resolves". An ability is considered played once the cost is payed. The part after the colon does not begin to happen unless your oppoent has no response to it. I knew that was how it worked from the beggining I wasn't just "Oh james said it works like this" some people that actually know the rules knew how it worked from the moment they saw it. I am the scout for my store and it has been ruled as such since the prerelease and makes perfect sense to me but whatever....
Back on topic, kinda...what would a Legacy Hilde look like?