Maybe someone else has discussed this in a topic already, but there is a 'severe' lack of split cards in block 4, none in Tekken from a quick perusal and none in SW/SCIV per a 2 Headed search.

Was there an announcement made that split cards would go the way of the infinity symbol?

I think the only one in block 4 is Patriot Games? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thoughts on this? Did I miss the boat on why these left and what people thought about it? I usually read almost everything I can, so I don't think I'm rebuilding the wheel with this topic posting.

I'd think that, with the reduction in most hand sizes (a lot of competitive 6s), in conjunction with drops in splits that a lot more games will be decided by the draw ability, and recursion ability especially. It won't be a huge impact of course, but a deck that 'could' rely on sub par attacks every now and then (very few could, preventing the curse comes to mind as my fav) to finish people off are now a bit harder pressed to draw the card they need whether it be an attack or foundation.

Ceteris Paribus there will be less of any given card type in a deck without splits compared to one with the same number of cards but with splits.

By the same token most dual purpose things are reverting to one purpose, see foundations, previously also great blocks, now reverting to 'just foundations'. Wheras the attack card is getting a boost, going (in most cases) from attack only to attack and great block.

I don't have any problems with these evolutions, just asking for - Thoughts?

- dut

I don't think Split cards are going away (at least I hope not. They allow for greater deck building and ideas). It'll just take a while to rebuild them again is all. At least they haven't completely vanished like some things such as keywords (Item and Stance being the main ones that vanished completely, as well as almost Character Only stuff) and a couple other things that I can't recall right now....

I think splits are probably gone for the forseeable future, and that it's probably a good thing. They just created so many rules headaches and loopholes for what ultimately wasn't a huge return. Of course we can all name several split cards that were used regularly for both sides, but as a percentage of the whole it's a pretty low number. The vast majority of them were only useful for one side 95+% of the time. Also, there's no longer a need to cheat in "extra cards" in order for each character to have a decent range of support. For instance if Christie were printed in an 9 support-card set, there'd be no way to fit in her action theme without using split effects, in which case the presence of split cards allows players to use a whole extra theme that wasn't available otherwise. But now, they can just make dedicated action-themed cards since they have the room for it.

There just aren't enough reasons to be worth the constant worry about rulings and loopholes - imagine if there were a throw with a strong action side, with King's recursion now in play. (Or heck, any keyworded attack with Nursing a Grudge) Power level concerns arise. And how does King's form work in that case? Could you play the action side? Presumably the answer would be "no," but it's one more rules issue and who knows what kind of precedents might be out there. And they couldn't really go around adding "non-split" to a dozen cards each set, or refuse to make such cards altogether and put a cramp on design space for minimal benefit.

My only thoughts are these:

1. I miss split cards.

dutpotd said:

I say good Riddance to them. The early ones were almost exclusively too good at all times (clones , soldier of sparta, well traveled, instant hell murder, hidden base....) and the later ones which got tones down too much we either total crap (most of the 3 check foundation splits) or should have existed on their own anyways (cobra blow me thinks).

In the end regardless of what a split does its always going to be a more versatile choice for a player to pick over a comprable non split. Do i take a vanilla 2/5 foundation with no block and an ok effect or clones? It lends itself too much towards balance issues, and designing these cards to be playable yet not overpowered is somewhat problematic.

The only splits i though were interesting were the injury assets, and not for powerlevel or function, but for intent. Its a card that is played as an action that becomes an asset, etc. If splits were more like that (but balanced) I would like them. 2 inherently intrinsic abilities that make up the one card on a whole, not just some random action slapped onto a foundation because we could.

I for one miss splits and hope they find there way back to us.

I don't miss them.

I'm usually one for greater flexibility in building decks, but anything that can force someone to put in an orange card as opposed to a gray card (or, worse yet, a gray card masquerading as an orange card) is okay by my books - the lack of splits do that immensely.

I like the split cards and strongly feel that it brings lots of creativity and versatility into the game.

Just to quickly mention...

1 - Infinite has gone because it simply gave way to TOO much. Obvious, we learned from Olcadan's, Seal, etc.

2 - 6 check foundations are all but gone. They're trying to get rid of relying on foundations, and they've gotten rid of 6 checks, blocks (or good blocks), etc.

not as far as splits go...

#1. Almost every split, truly, sucked. The foundation side was good, but the attack was almost always overcosted, and thus useless, making both foundation AND attack pointless, killing the card.

#2. Splits caused immense confusion about "when is it considered to be what?", so much so that I think it's best they avoided confusion, and merely allowed splits to become a relic, perhaps one day to be revitalized when the RULE BOOK determines when they may be treated as what.

#3. Attacks aren't going to have more than a 3 check, I'm pretty certain. As such, if your card is split with an attack, that means it's likely to have a 3. When it comes to the attack side, SINCE it has ANOTHER type of card, that attack side is generally bastardized to the point where it doesn't matter (because it can't be too good), and 3-check action? Yeah, definitely needs to be justified as all Hell.

Simply put, splits became pretty convoluted. Foundation sides were generally better, and once again, the days of Clones, High Tide, and Soldier of Sparta won't be back. Attacks simply will not have higher control checks.

A strong criticism of splits was/is that people hardly ever used them for both sides. For MANY of the splits we were just using one side of them.

heisheng jian is the best split card ever made.

vermillian said:

I don't agree... There were some 'really' crappy splits, but there were some 'really' crappy cards in some sets.

Splits that were used both sides - 'just off the top of my head' .

Psycho Style

Superior Witch (I used the enhance a lot to manage momentum, esp. after spinta)

Defender (that attack will and is thrown out a lot, esp after the unique is down)

Charismatic (lots of this action used)

Cobra Blow (I'd always use the attack when necessary, a foundation committed and it was a decent speed attack with decent damage)

Antisocial (THE ONLY CARD I USED IN EVERY TOURNEY I'VE EVER PLAYED and yes I use both sides)

There are a lot more as well I'm sure, cuz that was just off the top of my head. OH! How could I forget, preventing the curse, POWER OF THE LIGHT, used that reversal all the time.

There were many many ones that were used for both. Now that I put some thought into it, I wish splits were still around. (ps, join my facebook group 'five point Antisocial! ... joking of course, or am I?)

- dut

Tagrineth said:

QFT...i miss mah baby

dutpotd said:

Dancing Battle Kabuki

Attacks with more than 3CC that weren't a split? *Looks at Soul Spark* Ok.....so that was like.......the only card that had a 4CC that was a pure attack, but again, yeahh....we dare not mention it....

And yeah, there were quite a few splits that were just awful (heck, even the splits I make for my fansets tend to well....not always be that great....). It's a hard concept to balance both sides out without one side being used more than others. I think it can still be done, but just has to be watched carefully on HOW it's done.

See, the list is quite extensive, dual use splits rocked!

In fact, I am hard pressed to figure out which ones were one siders...

- dut

ps. TRAVELLING MAN!!!!! (now I'm just getting nostalgic)

MarcoPulleaux said:

I think you should take that back, first a bad generalization, and then an assumption that all splits are attack splits, the best ones are foundation/action or asset/action. Reason being that actions are costly to hold in the hand, they reduce your hs, and have situational uses. Giving some actions foundation, asset or attack sides makes the card easier to include in the deck becuase when the situation doesn't present itself you can play it as staging area meat ^^

But anyone remember infiltrating? yeah, there are useful splits.

And don't have me comment on the ruling argument, that's kind of ludicrous, we've stood for it forever, why regress now?

- dut

Yes, there are probably a good 20 or so you could name that were played for both sides regularly... but that's out of over 200. Even putting that aside, there's still the fact that they are a rules headache (even if most forum folk have a handle on it, that doesn't mean the general playerbase does, not to mention prospective new players) and a design nightmare - not just of the cards themselves, but also for every single other card that ever references a card type or keyword in an out of play zone. Plus now that blocking is relevant again, any time a card really needs a secondary purpose it can be given a good block or a simple second ability. And with the number of cards each character gets in their support, splits aren't needed to fill holes. Sure, well-designed splits can be cool, but that alone isn't enough to justify the problems they bring.

You made me comment on the ruling argument... Mechanics shouldn't be removed from a game becuase of difficulty arriving at ruling consistency - and split cards may not be a mechanic of play, but they are a mechanic of deck building.

Just make a ruling, players listen to it, and that's it. Just say 'the card is always the top except when in the card pool as the bottom' - done. All references are always the top when not upside down in the card pool, the bottom doesn't count for text, color, smell, or whatever. How is this difficult?

No lies, split cards are one of the things that really appealed and attracted me to the game. Namely, said cards are a deckbuilders dream! And they are fun to play with when they both have uses, as did anything that was action/foundation.

I guess I don't think they are 'gone for good', the main point of my post was to figure out if that was a design decision or if it is just a break from them in the last few sets. And to gather opinion of course, so thank you to all that have posted replies.

Like I said Patriot Games ^^ I should win a character card just so I can make it a split! Stack me or use me for some ACTION. (Being facetious of course)

- dut

ps. 108 splits in block 3 per 2 headed... if 20 were good and had 2 uses that is a better ratio than foundations have (see play/not see play), and DEFINATELY a better ratio than usable attacks. i.e. I think the idea that they were all bad is a serious ' misperception '.

Man, now you've got me wanting something with a decent action/asset side, and a 3/5 blank foundation side.

Wafflecopter said:

**** right I do, how bad is it when you want foundations to commit and help build but 'ALL' you draw are those damned assets!!!

- dut

Ugh...Infiltrating is the most overrated split.

OMFG I MIGHT BE ABLE TO DRAW 1 CARD WITH MY EXTREMELY MEDIOCRE ATTACK? ALERT THE MEDIA LOL!

Seriously, Infiltrating would've been ran without the attack and without its block. The attack would only so often come in handy when you needed an attack. Also, um, it was Absurdable, which made ANY attack that much better.

But let's please stop saying "Infiltrating was a good ATTACK." No, Infiltrating was a good ACTION. If Infiltrating had no action, and was merely an attack, I severely doubt it'd have seen the amount of play that it did, if none at all.

Yes, of course there were asset/actions and foundation/actions, but even they weren't entirely things to write home about. By the time Olcadan's left, Heirloom all but died seeing as how Seal of Cessation was being ran in 4s in everything.

Infiltrating not having a 'usable by itself attack' is exactly why I am advocating that actions with split something are great. I have seen the attack on Infiltrating used when the action would have been useless, I have seen the attack draw a good card, I have seen it kill someone.

The point of a split card is to offer a lesser option in the case where the situational main option is not applicable.

Of course Infiltrating would have been run w/o the attack, the fact that it was split makes it that much better becuase of the odd situation where the action is useless.

I'm basically asking, why are my good cards not better! I want chocalate sauce on my infiltrating ice cream ^^ Similarily, I want a dead foundation on my discard hate warriors path. Or an action worth running on the other side of my Hero King!

- dut

Infiltrating was a good attack.

3m4 that drew you a spare card in Donovan Order Beatdown OR reset the gamestate AND was recurrable by Military Rank could hardly be considered bad. Was it played primarily for its versatility, sure, but especially in that particular deck it was a key piece swinging just as much as it was a key piece dropping the nuke.

dutpotd said:

1) Ruling communication in UFS is extremely lackluster.

2) While there's an attempt at it, there is no sweeping ruling document.

3) A "ruling" like that should be in the Advanced Game Rules document, and not stashed away in Ruling document, where nobody would read it.