guitalex2008 said:

From your first reply to this thread - You go from saying it's been ruled, and that it's correct, to coming back and saying no rules arbiter has actually decided on anything. Of course, you are right the rules gurus are keeping quiet becuase they are debating the best way to handle it. But, on the other hand, the ruling is obvious (you say so yourself in the quote above) becuase the wording is directly parallel to prior rulings with different cards but with same texts.

In any case, there is a lot of risk to FT, it can be an absolutely dead foundation against a deck that outdraws you and can always and easily cancel your effect.

It becomes a liability if your opponent discards cards from their hand,- essentially getting a second review step by you committing a card - to draw more against you next turn.

Finally, it doesn't have a block, so deck-wise it isn't as efficient as one that does and that offers a gauranteed effect...

If those 3 things don't amount to RISK I don't know what does.

At the end of the day, what is more 'logical'? Something that you know is 'correct' or something that makes your head asplode in an attempt to nerf an ability that from your individual experience (and your extension and assumptions made from past experiences with similar cards) is overpowered.

It is very hard to listen to your arguments when they obviously come from a position of wanting the card to have a counter, and not simply one of 'logic' which is being used by you, albeit innapropriately, to forward your primary goal in discussion which is nerf.

- dut

If Rat Chaser was still around woul you think FT is balanced?

Smazzurco said:

hehe, sick. There is Algols card that does 1/2 similar and readies every turn.

- dut

dutpotd said:

Yeah too bad i only have 1 pseudo SE and like 9 Pseudo Soul Caliburs...lol

Still, say you have 2 rat chasers out...how many times do you have to draw an extra 8 cards to win? lol

Actually, Ancient Fighting Style is better than Soul Edge, because it accumulates over the turn.

Anyway. guitalex2008, you are violating the very basis for this board: To ask questions and get them answered either by standing rules or by offical rulings. The purpose is not to have the rules arbiters answer the same question again and again (even though that does happen). The question has been answered. The answer has been examined and tested. That does not mean that the ruling suddenly vanished, and posting another "Anti-{insert effect here} should work because I want to ignore the rules" post will change the past.

It is how it is, and until James gets back from vacation, that is how it stays. Hopefully, even after that it will stay that way, but I don't know. All I do know is that the majority of your posts add nothing to the discussion, they simply allow other people who understand how the rules forum works to tag in and try and explain it to you.

Hope this helps. Finacial Troubles, and all cards along the same line, do not trigger anti-discard, anti-commit, or anti-destruction(Regretful Existence BTW) abilites on other cards.

The End.

-Tinman

Tinman said:

*STAMP*

Antigoth said:

I'm not violating the terms of this board. The difference, Mr. Tinman, is that THIS IS THE FIRST STAMP REGARDING THAT SUBJECT IN THE WHOLE THREAD. The ruling stated by Smazzurco is nice, but until I saw THIS STAMP , I treated it with a grain of salt.

Have a nice day.

guitalex2008 said:

If I've already issued a ruling elsewhere on a card, and this is the same ruling, it really is rude to expect me to Stamp your question because the stamp on the other persons ruling wasn't sufficient.

This is the same costs issue that has been ruled for Stand-Off, and a number of other circumstances.

I never said your ruling on a completely different card that I'm totally unaware of was insufficient. You seem to have an inferiority complex of sorts. No, I'm not undermining your authority, You can rest easy.

I was not aware of the ruling on Stand Off. Sorry for having asked a question. I'll try to limit those from now on.

guitalex2008 said:

Actually earlier in the thread when Smazzy, Aslum, Tag, Dut, and others were all quoting the ruling that I had issued, and you're saying that their quoting my ruling wasn't sufficient as I hadn't personally written *stamp* in your thread.

I don't feel that your are undermining my authority, I just feel it's really petty that you personally need a stamp in the thread you posted in, and that a stamp on the same thing in a different thread is insufficient. Additionally, calling for a rulings reversal - this is not the place to do it. Especially when with the help of Shinji you've dragged out a joke thread to 11 pages in general discussion on the same issue.

Reading through most of your posts in this thread, you weren't following the requested guidelines for the Q&A area. So I would actually prefer that unless you have a rules question, or are providing a correct answer from a citiable reference, can move your posts to other areas of this forum?

Again, this section of the forum is for:

Rules Questions and Rules Answers.

We try to keep the discussion here to a minimum to create as little confusion for players as possible. (IE having to read through 3 pages in a post to find out what the actual ruling is.

Antigoth said:

Quote me. Quote me saying that. You won't be able to.

I'm being "rude" because you're being rude to me first. I NEVER said your ruling was insufficient. I asked for a rulings reversal because I had heard the ruling from other people; NOT YOU. Again, you seem to think people want to undermine your authority when in reality I have no clue what ruling you're even talking about.

And it wouldn't have gotten to 3 confusing pages if I had gotten an answer two pages ago. So think about that. I'm going away from this thread.

I may not be following the "guidelines" for the rules Q&A, but when people answer the questions, they are not following the guidelines either. You can't say "Yes" or "No" without something to back it up. Posting a **** link to a previous ruling goes a long way.

guitalex2008 said:

Just saying.

Combined with your statement of acknowleding that you're aware that's the ruling, but you were "calling for a rulings reversal."

guitalex2008 said:

This is not the place to request that.

You have a debate about it in the General discussion area. Which, as a rules arbiter... I posted the following:

Antigoth said:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=26&efcid=5&efidt=194287&efpag=6#196991

You've been rude to many people throughout this thread, I guess if anyone disagrees with you, they must be rude to you. Please, get out of Q&A and go back to trolling in General discussion.

You are being rude right now. I have not been rude by calling anyone names, and that's the only thing I hear from you. I suggest you keep your insults to yourself.

I am not being rude with everyone who disagrees. I am rude to those who are rude to me. Take the hint.

I also suggest you look up the definition of trolling, since your concept of it seems a bit warped.

OH, I see what the problem was.

The reply to the quote I posted wasn't directed at you. Rereading it, I see why you would think I was being rude to you, and I apologize.