Sorry if this on the Rules section already, I've seen people saying it doesnt work in GD (stupid search function).

Now, I understand why torn hero and Stand off work the way they do. But I have a hard time grasping why antidiscard wont trigger with Financial Troubles.

For instance Soul Wave or path of the warrior says If you discard this due to your opponent's card effect.... To me discarding this or any other card is because of an effect generated by my opponent's FT. While I might not be forced to discard, these cards don't say I have to be for them to trigger just be discarded as a result of an effect generated by an opponent.

So, please explain it to me how this works. I'm sure there is something I'm just not understanding, UFS gets confusing sometimes and I'm sure I'm not the only one that doesnt understand this interaction lol.

You are not discarding due to "card effect"

You are discarding as "a cost" to "negate" the "card effect".

Anything that references an ability or an effect will not trigger when paying a cost.

Hope that clears it up

There's a huge logistic error in this ruling. I know it's the correct ruling, but it needs to be discussed.

Yes, it's a choice, with a cost, to negate an ability BUT it's not the cost OF an ability, and to make matters more confusing, you wouldn't be discarding the card if it wasn't stated in the EFFECT of your opponent's card. So you are indeed discarding a card due to your opponent's card effect, voluntary or not.

If this ruling isn't changed, expect most of Paul's support to be so sorely overpowered that there might be a massive ban on his support, not unlike Ibuki two blocks ago.

I've been told by several playtesters they assumed the card allowed anti discard to work while they were playtesting.Thats why it was allowed to be printed. This interaction really needs to be made less confusing. As it is right now, its a great way to make your opponent pitch their entire grip w/o ever attacking (something we just put behind us) or gain massive card advantage if allowed to draw. In games played so far this card has pissed off more people locally then any other.

When I first looked at the card I never assumed that. But I remember the ruling on Lizardman.

"Watch This Space"

bloodocean said:

No you were not. And even if you were it's a moot point because playtest comments are under an NDA. If you know something from a playtester then your not allowed to talk about it on the forums because either it's a violation of the forums TOS or the playtester NDA.

The ruling on these cards has existed since lizardman and then reaffirmed by Standoff before these cards were printed.

I have been thinking of a good way to resolve this issue, and I think I have figured out an easy way:

2.13.3 and 2.13.5 reference terms which appear in card text, and have special meaning, such as If or Then. The inclusion of a section stating something about "Your opponent may" would greatly reduce the headaches over this. Something like:

2.13.5A Played abilities which state an option beginning with "Your opponent may..." references a cost (see 2.12 Costs) that the opponent may pay to cancel the ability. This cost is not considered a 'card effect' for the purposes of other card abilities.

A rule like this creates a new game syntax ('Your opponent may' statements) and offers a basis for consistency in the future.

-Tinman

You don't seem to understand why this is an issue. It's not that I agree that the ruling is RIGHT.

I think these "your opponent may do X to negate this ability" should be counterable. This balances the card out, in every case. For the Money would be a risk to play against Torn Hero or Perfect Sense of Balance. Financial Troubles is an opponent's card effect, for which you discarded a card (if this card effect weren't resolving, you wouldn't even have the CHOICE to discard it) and as such should be counterable with anti-discard.

The ruling is illogical; I'm not calling to make the ruling OFFICIALLY illogical. I'm flat out calling for a rulings reversal , by means of functional errata.

Because the logical thing is that these abilities should be counterable by their anti-means, a simple "sure, we can go that way" will suffice, and balance Financial Troubles AND For The Money in one fell swoop, without needing bans or errata .

guitalex2008 said:

You seem to have some glorified idea that counterable means completely sucks to play, and that balanced means never used.

The truth is, Financial Troubles, Stand Off, For the Money, Over the Shoulder, Rivalry with a Bear, and Turn Thruster are all already balanced, because they give you the ability to cancel them. It is like they put an ability on one of your foundations that says "R Commit 2 Foundations: Cancel Stand Off" or "R Discard 1 Card: Cancel Financial Troubles." If you actually had to play a card that had those abilities, instead of the ability being built in, then the abilities would be overpowered. But instead, they give it to you, meaning that their opponent has a specific amount of control over their turn.

If the ruling were reversed, instead of "balancing" all these cards, it would "in one fell swoop" send them right back to your box, never to be played. That is because playing a card that not only allows your opponent to cancel it at their whim, but also allows your opponent to punish you for allowing them to cancel it, sucks. Every deck that could splash into one of Torn Hero's symbols would run it, just because the threat of it would shut down four of the six cards I mentioned. Sure, running Soul Wave and other anti-discard would shut down Finacial Troubles, but in the end, that would not be the most effected card. In the end, if the ruling were reversed, Torn Hero would wind up the over powered, under costed card, simply because it offered something that none of the other cards did: A free, instant, uncounterable commital of any two cards, alongside the ability to be used to cancel abilites and still work.

The most any form of functional errata should extend to is changing Financial Troubles' F to a First F. That would both limit the ability, and balance the card. A reversal of the previous "Opponent may" equals Cost ruling would be stupid and harmful to the game state.

-Tinman

Tinman said:

No, it wouldn't.

As it stands, a turn 2 Stun:2 (VERY possible) will already make For the Money instantly uncounterable, and I've seen it happen one too many times.

There is no risk involved in Financial Troubles. It's instant hand advantage. If your opponent cancels it by discarding a card, the opponent is ALREADY at a disadvantage. This is TOO EASY. It's win-win, there's absolutely no drawback whatsoever.

Rivalry with a Bear? No one cares about it to begin with, because revealing your hand will let the opponent know which attacks you have, how many blocks you have and of what zone, and will make Financial Troubles negating an easier decision. Again, a Stun:2 early game will make it uncounterable anyways.

I would rather have those cards "go back in my box" than be used in every winning deck. To say that these cards are balanced because they can be cancelled is such a statement for a Paul player to say; anyone who's actually faced Paul will know that is a bunch of crap.

Stand Off makes the game as stale as the last block, so in all honesty I couldn't care less if it is never used again.

And about Torn Hero being undercosted and used in every deck that has its symbols? Welcome to 5 months ago.

guitalex2008 said:

A smart player will just save extra cards in his hand if he really wants to stop it. It's not like your opponent doesn't know FT is there. It's not Yu-Gi-Oh where you flip your trap and go "har har discard a card or let me draw two!" "Oh NOS I only have one card in my hand! *tear*". If your dumb enough to play out your hand and save only one or two cards when your opponent has two FT out then that's your own fault. It's just like if my opponent had 2 Thunderfoots out, I know I'm going to lose those cards so I'm not going to only have 2 cards in my hand I'll save 3 or 4.

And go look at Ancient Fighting Style. One copy of that in your staging area will own all 4 of your opponents FT. Play smart, use the counters that are out there, and this card will not be a problem.

guitalex2008 said:

You don't have a point here. If your foundations are Stunned down, then you would not be able to cancel the ability, whether it was a cost or not. Sure, there are definite decks that will allow for 2nd turn attacks. I never saw a huge fuss when Zi Mei could do it. I don't see why being able to attack turn 2 is so hard to expect in a game where Turn 4 Kills are common place. The fact that you suggest only playing two foundations T1 tells me that you are just tired of your personal play style more than any one card mentioned has wronged you.

guitalex2008 said:

No risk, true. But that is the way with almost all foundations. You take little risk to get some gain, like damage, or card draw, or damage reduction. The risk is in committing the foundation, as it might be an asset you need later. Not all cards have to have a major drawback just so they can do their job. Gaining an advantage is why decks run so many foundations, because foundations offer abilities that they can use to gain an advantage over their opponent. Some foundations give a damage advantage. Some give a control advantage. Some even give a hand size advantage. If they didn't, they would not see play.

guitalex2008 said:

Glad to know your response was not as ill thought out as it sounded. Except Rivalry with a Bear is a Damage bump, cancelable by destroying a foundation. A big difference, looking at how many things react off of foundation destruction. Corrupting Force is one, Regretful Existance is another. G-Corp Leader would be unuseable against it. And Stun does nothing to stop your ability to negate it, as you can destroy committed foundations.

guitalex2008 said:

I'm glad to hear you don't plan on running a "winning deck." Really shows you are putting your best foot in a pile of crap, to mix idioms. Yes, Stuns exist. Yes, there is not much you can do about it. Yes, cards will take advantage of this. Stand Off is one of them, a card that has been around from the very birth of this argument. It is not a nice card, nor can it be taken lightly in any deck that plays it. Same as any card that happens to rise out above the others as unique and powerful. If all cards were the same bland grey matter they could have been, there would not be a point to this game. Instead, players are faced with obviously powerful cards, met with equally versitile playstyle. When it comes right down to it, it is not the card, character, or "injustice" laid upon you that will determine if a card royally grapes(sic) you all the time. It is a matter of whether or not you are willing to get out from behind your block 3 wall of cancels and accept that these things exist and have to be taken into consideration whenever you begin building a deck.

This is UFS. Whining falls upon deaf ears. Reasonable points are discussed and processed. Winning strategies are accepted and put to bear against the creativity of the Meta. Accept that, and adapt to it, because any other way would not be UFS.

-Tinman

"This is UFS. Whining falls upon deaf ears. Reasonable points are discussed and processed. Winning strategies are accepted and put to bear against the creativity of the Meta. Accept that, and adapt to it, because any other way would not be UFS."

I am giving reasonable points. Or rather, the ONE reasonable point. The ruling does not make sense because it doesn't matter if it's for a cost, it's not for a cost of an ability, and it's also established by your opponent's card effect. There's simply no denying there is something wrong with logic there.

It may be a choice, but it is because of the opponent's card effect that you are GIVEN the choice, so you are undeniably discarding due to your opponent's card effect.

There's absolutely NO denying that you discarded as a result of your opponent's card effect.

The reason for mentioning For the Money is to PROVE the card is unbalanced to begin with; something that gives the opponent the ability to negate or destroy itself does NOT make it balanced, because it can oh so easily be pushed through to begin with. Thus, the ruling reversal would ACTUALLY balance the cards, not just pretend.

guitalex2008 said:

I agree. You MADE a reasonable point. Then the issue was ruled on. Now you are just repeating the same thing over and over about Card Effects, and being given a choice. Yes. The card gives you a choice. Yes, that choice deals with discarding a card. Except, by my, and the current ruling's, interpretation, the card gives you a CHOICE as to whether or not you pay a COST(as defined) to negate it. Per the standing rulings, and the Golden Rule, the card text on these cards are formatted as such:

[Ability Type Abbreviation] [Cost(to play the ability)] : [Card Text of Game Effects] [Cost(to cancel the ability)]

This is the way it has been interpreted, given the reasonable (read: the same) arguments given now. There is nothing new brought to the discussion, and so, it is less than reasonable to continue presenting these points.

guitalex2008 said:

I don't see how what you say makes For the Money unbalanced. Take, for example, Communing with the Ancients. In most decks, except for the ones running 7+ difficulty attacks, it can accomplish the same as For the Money, without even giving you the option of destroying it. I would much rather see a For the Money on the field than a Communing with the Ancients, just because it is so difficult to get rid of later.

Take for example, using a character that seems to have S**t in your Ice Cream, Paul. He could drop a Communing, Foundation, Foundation, Foundation turn 1, flipping 3s all the way. Your turn. Is there anything that you can play that will stop a Form? No. So you play 3-4 foundations. His turn. Form with Communing, begin attacking. Hammer of the Gods drops on a 4, Wheel Kick on a 3, and Pheonix Smasher on a 6. Assuming an average check of 4 in the deck, Paul still has plenty of foundations to Combo E with Smasher and swing for 14 on just the Smasher. He could even try and drop a Toughest on a 5. This Senario is completely plausable with or without For the Money. For the Money only makes it so Paul might not commit himself. You are still Stunned out (total of Stun: 8 + Paul), and probably lacking in blocks, eating the damage (wanted to say Ice Cream).

Your attempts to cry Wolf at Paul's support just draws attention to the symbol disparity, nothing more. And everyone has already made friends with that Wolf, and have by now enrolled it in a 12-step program to be a better person.

-Tinman

Agreed, except that you need a 6 for Toughest, as Communing only helps checks for attacks like FTM does.

You may think I'm crying wolf, but I remember me crying about a few wolves you might be familiar with: To The Bone, Fei Long's Forward Kick, Bitter Rivals, Kasumi Gaki, Higher Calibur, rare Ibuki, Addes Syndicate, Rejection, Hugo and a little morsel called Defender of the Empire.

I normally don't talk out of my ass. Note how I said normally. I don't flat out complain about things I don't like; I complain about things that I know for a FACT will ultimately skew the meta.

HEY GUYS

GUYS

THIS IS Q&A

>_>

The space you told us to watch still says "watch this space"...........

What are we watching?

Just a thought, but if you make it part of the effect, rather then a cost, then Standoff only becomes useful if you have 3 or less ready foundations. Because if it's not a cost, then when you use it's ability, I can commit ANY 2 foundations. Like say yours.

Obviously standoff would be errata'd in that case, christ...

But that's just the thing. It's not a cost as defined by the rules. OBVIOUSLY Stand Off won't make you commit their cards, and neither will Rivalry with a Bear make you destroy their foundations.

So can't we just add a part to the rules about conditional abilities? That way we can say it's a cost, but still part of the opponent's card effect.

Thing is, there is no ability for the other player. The ability doesn't really exist. You're paying a "cost" but it's because your opponent's card is resolving after all.

If you want to give yourself a headache, think about this. You discard a card to negate it as a "cost", then realize that you discarded a card for NOTHING due to your opponent's now-negated effect, so... wouldn't anti-discard trigger anyways because the "conditional" effect is negated, which means you did discard something from their effect?

*head asplodes*

Right, and *M.Bison* is a nearly blank character with a ****-near-completely useless ability, and Finesse can never actually be played because you've already lost the game before its trigger occurs. Right?

This has already been discussed and tabled for the next revision of the AGR, because yes, being that this was a fringe case that only really affected *Lizardman* before now, it was accidentally left out of the current AGR.

I suppose my question (since this is a Q&A) would be, should anti-discard be triggered by Financial Troubles? Should anti-committal be triggered by For the Money/It's Got to be the Hair/Turn Thruster/Over the Shoulder? Should anti-destruction (I don't think there's any of this at the moment but) trigger off of Rivalry with a Bear?

guitalex2008 said:

Sigh... It is obvious you have a serious desire to have people answer yes to this.

The forum is actually called 'Rules Q and A', not simply 'Q and A'. The rules question has been answered already.

Your question has been discussed at length where it was posted appropriately, in the general discussion forum...

During said discussion (and yes you had some similar discussion here from Tinman) the majority of players agreed that it shouldn't trigger the 'anti' effects because it would severely decrease the power level of these already balanced cards.

How more balanced can a card be than one that comes with the option for your opponent to cancel it, and for readily available resources? Please answer that in the general discussion thread.

The rules answer to the ruling part of the question surrounding this card has been answered in length, all that remains is for it to appear in the omni-faq explaining the 'may vs. due to' interaction in a readily acessible manner.

- dut

Actually, note how it HASN'T been answered (see the previous page) by either of the rules arbiters.

You're right. I want them to answer yes, simply because it's a logical answer. An option to negate/destroy does not a balanced card make. Remember Close to the Edge? It came with a form to destroy it by committing 6 foundations. Of course after a Start Over, playing two of these means pretty much no destruction anyways, proceed with unblockable 6 damage attack.

Or remember Enlightenment? It came with a form to commit it so that you can have your turn the way you want it; only thing is you needed to commit out or discard your hand.

With Financial Troubles, for example, it's either give your opponent +2 hand advantage, or give yourself -1 hand advantage (which translates to your opponent having +1 hand advantage). Hand advantage of +2 or hand advantage of +1, possiblt getting rid of a block in the process? This is not balanced. It has no risk. Only reward.

For the Money? Sure, I'll MAYBE give you For the Money as being more balanced. But ****, committing two foundations after having taken your turn, then having to block the attack being attempted and possible more is still a huge stretch. +2 to my control check for my attacks for the rest of this turn or -2 to your resources to block for the rest of this turn? Again, this isn't exactly the pinnacle of balance.

Stand Off? It's a bit overcosted for the damage pump effect, not so much for the damage reduction cost, and the cost = cost to negate it. This is the closest to balanced these sort of cards can get.

These cards have no risk. No risk. Again, I hate to sound like a broken record--record--record, but these cards have NO risk. I do not see how they are balanced in their current iteration, or how LOGICALLY adding some risk to playing them makes them unplayable.