Admiral Ren said:

Pretty much =)

A single Finacial Distress isn't too much of a problem, but multiple can get ridiculous.

And quite frankly comparing Bigger They Are to it is well, I'm sorry but stupid. Bigger... was in block 3 which had TOO many ways to stop it:

Oral Dead

Tough Outer Shell

Chester's

Martial Arts Champ when it became legal

Multiple ways to blow it up:

Instant Success

Superiority

M Bison's crappy card

Also there were ways that outright prevented it:

Bringing the Master to it's Knees

In block 4 there is **** near NO negation (which I very whole heartedy disagree with and I think they're making a big mistake), and saying MaC stops it is like saying Red Lotus in a non Kyo/Ibuki deck stopped all those commiting/removal/destroying cards in block 2/3 when it came out. It's only one card, and can only be played in four copies.

Currently MaC has to deal with TOO MUCH draw. In just fire alone there's:

Finacial Distress

Unrelenting

Astrid's UR Foundation

Path of the Master

Wonderworld Comics

Wonderworld Warriors

etc etc

There is far too much draw in this format and no way to deal with it. Because Gary and Bill want to appease all the player base with zomg crazy aggro screw control, cards like Financial Distress are printed, with no feesable way to stop them.

Oh and the old "just wait till the next set..." Sorry I've been hearing that since Cutting Edge killed the game. Remember how well the answers for Addes and BRT worked at the time? All/Order laughed at Destiny, and all three Addes' symbols kinda just giggled at Lesser of Many Evils...

EDIT: Double post.

MarcoPulleaux said:

But it's your opponent choosing to let you do what he wants. If I don't want you to draw I can save cards in my hand to stop it and still have blocks left. If I don't care that you draw I'm going to let you draw. If it was two in one that let you choose what happens then it would be better, but your opponent chooses. I can adapt my strategy to play around it. Don't play out your whole hand, save some cards. It's just like if my opponent had Thunderfoot or any other discard card out. If I know I'm going to loose 2-4 cards a turn I'll be smart and save extra cards in my hand.

MarcoPulleaux said:

I think it's funny that you say "don't bring up MAC because there is hardly enough draw" yet your yelling broken at a card because it lets you draw two cards. There are ways around it. MAC negates it. No there aren't many cards that flat out negate it but there are other cards that help against it. ONE copy of Ancient Fighting Style totally owns any number of FT your opponent has out. When you have one Ancient Fighting Style out your opponents FT pretty much just say "F Commit: Commit this card.". And if you have more then one out even better (that is if your opponent is even dumb enough to use FT then). Memories that Stain it's Honor blows it up, there are tons of death cards that blow up foundations, I haven't really seen any Tekken stuff so I'm not even sure whats in there, Laughable works when you have no cards in your hand. If you want to play Agol his assets let you draw the same ammount your opponent drew. So yeah there are counters out there, not something that just flat out negates it but there are many ways around it.

JDub said:

he has no clue what he's talking about. in the same paragraph he wants draw cards banned and says that one of the group of actual answers for the draw isn't worth running, and the more he posts the more he reinforces the fact that he has no clue.

MarcoPulleaux said:

Wrong wrong wrong. Thunderfoot and Bigger didn’t offer your opponent a choice. If you had 1 card in your hand VS. Thunderfoot, you lost that card and would get smacked. This card offers players a choice. When given a choice a player will always pick the option that is least damaging to themselves. Meaning a player who uses this card will always wind up with what is at least the perceived worst result. If your opponent has one card in there hand that you need to get rid of and they know it, your going to draw 2. If you need to draw an attack to win, then your going to see them pitch a card.

Now what this does do is bring an interesting play mechanic back to the game that has been long gone, bluffing. Part of the game is supposed to be risk management and player interaction, and this card does both things. Do you pitch your last card as assume your opponent doesn’t have another attack in his hand? Do you keep it and risk them drawing something more damaging? This is what the game should be.

As for your theory on cost, I disagree with you but not for the same reason you think. I personally do think Commit is a cost, but that is neither here nor there. The fact is you are using this foundation, so you cannot use it for other applications later on that turn. All foundations inherently have 2 abilities, one is to pass checks, the other there printed. By using its printed you have now sacrificed being able to pass one more check by +1. Now obviously this is a downfall all foundations have but it’s a bit worse for this one, because since it’s a form, you lack the versatility to know if you will need it before a check is made, and will have to assume you can pass the checks after in order you need it. You also can’t hold off on it or use it on your opponents turn as if it was an E: ability.

Additionally since the card is already lending itself to drawing you more cards, which theoretically means you want to be able to play more that turn you draw them, with one less foundation you will be less able to play them.

I’m honestly glad that this card doesn’t trigger anti discard. Because if it did not only would it be mostly useless and not see play, it ruins the fun of it because it makes which card you choose to discard in a given situation a forgone conclusion. This card should force decisions on to players, as should all of Paul’s cancel abilities.

I will say that since the time when I posted the original post about stand off vs red lotus, I absolutely hate the “template” these cards have and that the cancel on the cards should have been a second ability with a cost written as a cost and playable only by opponents even while committed. It is confusing to a new player and even old ones. However I fully feel it would be even worse if we changed it now and let torn hero and anti discard ruin the game.

And for Christ sake this is why Algol was printed. He’s 100% an counter character to a lot of the most popular things in the format right now, when someone has time and money to build him right I think you’ll start seeing him around just to quash this thing.

Protoaddict said:

Because anti-discard cards are run due to the overwhelming amount of discard, right?

Protoaddict said:

Um...yeah dude, part of the skill of using FT is that you don't CARE about what they do if you're turning it sideways. You don't say, "I'll form with Financial Troubles", they negate with discard, and then you say, "...crap that ruins my strategy." You play FT as bait. More likely than not, you WANT them to discard, and if they don't, THEY'RE MORE THAN LIKELY STILL PLAYING INTO YOUR STRATEGY!

You people assume I don't have a clue what I'm talking about because you're trying to label my logic and thought process as black-and-white when it's complex. I don't want FT because it's too easy of a card, it's too no-drawbacky. I said don't mention MAC because I don't feel it has enough presence to even matter, thus, why bother listing something that doesn't see play?

But to be ultimately fair, I haven't really played in this new block, so you know what? If MAC sees play, then hey, why not? List MAC. Of course, as I've always said (and have been proven right about), no list of counters will truly make an overpowered card less powerful, unless there is a case like *Yun-Seong*, which I feel happened because he was a character with only one abilty, thus killing the archetype, where no matter how much you cancel FT, you aren't killing the deck.

And Hatman

Discard will likely see much more play when Kisheri becomes legal. It isn't insanely present, but War Between Sisters and Wipe the Floor is simply too simple of discard to not at least sideboard some Soul Waves.

MarcoPulleaux said:

Meh. Worlds released promo character is Worlds released promo character. I haven't seen it in prize support, therefore it's none of my concern.

Homme Chapeau said:

It wasn't realeased at worlds it was seen at worlds. I am sure we will be getting them soon enough

Sol Badguy said:

I got one in a tekken booster.

Kisheri + PotM + SSS loop = hawtness

Wafflecopter said:

This, end of discussion.

And many other prominent players - including but not limited to protoaddict have said so, and in this thread, so sorry to not quote all of you.

In response to Shinji - play the game against this card, it is a 2/5 all fire and order, no block, and a picture of blondie reading a credit card statement (you don't even have the right numbers, obviously there is a disconnect between your 'complex' understanding/logic and what really is). This card comes with a counter on it, how can it be more balanced? If your opponent doesn't want you to draw, i.e. wants to counter it, they simply hold onto one more card, this is a really cool mechanic (forced hand management) and I don't want to see it leave becuase of players that a) don't play often enough, b) are bad players, or c) have no clue what they are talking about.

To B-rad - if your game is going long enough and to the point where there is multiple copies of this out then that is your fault for playing a drawn out game (see Astrid needing to play to turn 3 to get big damage pump), and perhaps cards like this, that are more difficult to contend with when in packs, are counters to the more dominant 'long-game' characters around.

This card is not broken-cream-sauce or any other half-liquid food add-on! The wording on anti-discard cards make it appear that they work in the discarders favor when indeed they do not, perhaps the anti-discard should have been worded with something not including a player activating them by thier own volition (see the worst perpetrator of this ever, The Curse Broken), or perhaps we go to the templating that Hatman and others are suggesting. In either case, the wording, not the ability and inability to have a cancel+counter is the only problem with Financial Distress.

- dut

ps. I am an accountant and I make my living off of Financial Distress, so I may be biased. All jokes aside, my statements above are not a joking matter, i.e. I say them with all seriousness.

My logic is that anti-discard should work against Financial Distress. Yes, you discarded it out of your own free will, but due to your opponent's card effect nonetheless (you wouldn't have been given the choice unless your opponent's card effect didn't tell you to).

Same thing goes for Torn Hero and For the Money. You wouldn't be committing Torn Hero if For the Money's ability didn't tell you you could. It's not a thing of choice, it's the fact that this choice was, first and foremost, enabled BY the opponent's card effect.

So even if you chose to commit/discard/destroy a card as a cost to negate your opponent's ability, this choice was enabled by your opponent's card effect, and wouldn't have happened unless the card effect let you; thus you're committing/discarding/destroying a card due to your opponent's card effect and all counters associated with these mechanics should WORK.

The logic is basically undeniable. It's not a matter of "I want these cards nerfed", it's a matter of logic.

Your logic is wrong though, as it is clearly states in the tourney rules ARG that things written with the syntax that these cards are have special rules associated with them. These special rules clearly make the distinction that the cancel abilities are COSTS and note EFFECTS. So discard a card to financial and its is from your opponents COST not your opponent EFFECT. I do agree that the templating for these is god awful, but a reading of the rules does clarify everything. There is no argument that this is how it is written in the rules.

Protoaddict said:

Guitalex2008's logic is not wrong. His perception of what the ruling should be is contrary to what the ruling actually is. While you are correct in your understanding of how this was ruled, it is important to note that G2K8's logic is in fact correct based on what the cards say. Most people new to the game and without access to these forums would read the cards and interpret them the same way as he did, based on logic.

For the record, I abide by the official rulings regardless of whether I disagree with them or not. This is yet another in a fairly long list I disagree with. As you pointed out, it is a templating issue, and one that will hopefully be resolved soon enough in official rules and printed for future starter deck boxes, along with all the other AGR issues Antigoth has been working on. The more concise the text on cards, the less we as scouts/judges have to depend on referring to the forums for rulings, and in turn the less likely a player may be cheated out of a call that could hold the game/tournament's outcome in the balance.

I believe if they changed it to have an R: then it could be negated and then you would've tossed a card for no reason. If it is to be changed formats sake, it should be a static "Your opponent may negate the form on this card if they discard 1 card"

dutpotd said:

If you're only seeing one at a time then I 100% agree with ya there Dut, but it's when ya draw 2-3 in your opening 1-2 hands that it can get a little overwhelming. Either you have MASSIVE card advantage in drawing, or you just ripped your opponant's hand apart.

B-Rad said:

Sure, but a lot of the time a 'good' card/effect in multiples/looped can/could be a problem, not just financial distress (let's see, war between sisters in multiples? cursed blood in multiples? etc.)... And 'more often than not' the characters that need the draw (the 6hsers) will not draw and pass 2 on turn 1, it is like a 1/6 event in a 59 card deck with mulligans to get 2. And then, if they pass 2, and commit both to try to draw, then they probably can't attack (or defend as well with 2 comitted) that turn anyways, giving the opponent more time to be agressive early or match setup/draw.

Honestly, if I saw my opponent drop 2 of them I would play out 4 cards of my 6hs, and negate both of them discarding my attacks/actions that I held onto, have no cards in hand and say, now what - pass your attacks on 1/2 other foundations (assuming a 4 card start by said opponent), it isn't that much of a threat. Then, on my turn, draw into 6 new cards and attack him/her with at least 2 cards comitted...

Long story short, all this card does is force players to play with their heads and 'make choices'. It is a good card because of it, kudos to the Paul card designers.

- dut

dutpotd said:

Unless you're going against Christe or Ivy or anyone with stun and For the Money, in which case you WILL die as a result of not having cards in hand, even with only two/three foundations out.

Path, Genius Alchemist, Genius Alchemist, Financial Troubles turn 1 = possible 27 damage turn 2 from Christie before the Path for making nothing above a 5, then a single 6. From Ivy, all you'd need is a 4, then nothing above a 3, then turn Path sideways to win.

It's not a badly designed card; the ruling about anti-discard and anti-committal not working against it is illogical. You ARE discarding, in the end, due to your opponent's card effect (even if it IS a cost, it is due to your opponent's card effect establishing the cost) in the case of Financial Troubles, and you are committing due to your opponent's card effect (the effect of the card established the cost of negating it, but it's not the cost of an ability either so the AGR say nothing of the sort, unless someone can redirect me there) in the case of For the Money.

guitalex2008 said:

Added a big POSSIBLY there, you listed the need to a) play path, b) play financial troubles (I assume it goes through or that it discards? Which is it? What if you are playing against a character that has 2 cards in hand and easily discards one and can still block your Path'd out attack?)... c) play 2 genius alchemists?

All of this will happen like 1/20 games or something, not even, and I gaurantee you I'd still see someone survive this easily with one block or with health over 27 or by not discarding. If your deck is to chunk out those attacks and that is likely what you draw, me surviving, and you not building with your 2 drawn cards, doesn't actually set me back at all...

It is also easier to do more than 27d with good checks with Hilde turn 2. More consistently at least.

I agree with you Alex that it doesn't match with first glance logic and that in the absence of the understanding that you are paying a 'cost' to play an 'effect' on your opponent's card, not an 'effect', but a 'cost', it will be ruled wrong by scouts and players everywhere. There is a serious lack of understanding between cost and effect among most players, even I missed the timing on the two in the semi-final match of worlds, and I know the difference between the two...

I didn't deny you the lack of first glance logic involved here, I am denying this card the OPness that some think it will provide, i.e. turn 2 kills aren't especially enabled by it, multiple copies of it, all of that is very easy to deal with...

- dut

I don't understand. wasn't it ruled a long time ago that if you blew up one of your foundations for your opponent's Whereabout Unknown and had a Blinding rage it it WAS considered being destroyed due to your opponent's card effect and you would be able use use Rage's effect. Why is this any different?

Sol Badguy said:

Quite different actually, the other is an enhance that you are playing, and the destruction comes from an effect. This is a 'choice' and therefore 'to pay a cost that' is on your opponent's card.

There is a difference between paying a cost and an the results of a card effect, if you don't believe this than you haven't played Ira-spinta or Kunai properly either, other cases of a cost being a common effect referenced by many other cards.

- dut

But two things should also be in our minds.

1) The cost was established BY your opponent's card effect and,
2) You are not paying the cost for an ability, you're paying a cost established BY the card's effect to negate itself.

It's because of the opponent's card EFFECT, that the cost is discarding a card. This doesn't establish a Cost: Ability. It's simply a cost (again, established by the ability itself) to negate it.

I can't see why anti-discard doesn't work here. The logical thing is that it should because you wouldn't have even had the choice to discard if it weren't for the card effect to begin with...

guitalex2008 said:

Yes, the ultimate source of your option to pay a cost was your opponent's card effect. The question, becomes how far do you go with this? The answer is you don't go past the immediate reason for the discard, which is the payment of the cost.

The anti-discard cards specifically reference being discarded 'due to' your opponent's card effect. Not, being discarded by paying a cost, or an instance that was trigerred becuase your opponent played a card effect first. The immediate trigger is you paying a cost, the event leading to your choice to pay a cost is indeed your opponent's card effect, but said event could happen, and you could still very well not decide to pay a cost and not discard a card, which means the first part is not a trigger for anti-discard only you paying a cost is.

The two things that you are saying should be in our minds further complicate things and is another reason why the ruling and card text needs clarifiaction or errata.

Namely, we are not only confused about cost and effect, we are also being asked to differentiate between immediately due to, and ultimately due to. A very similar question that we were asked long ago when discussing Red Lotus and Darkness Blade, seeing the newest ruling finally gets it and clearly understands that you cannot respond to the ultimate source of something when your trigger is asking for an immediate source effect...

- dut

dutpotd said:

The fact that it is a choie makes very little sense as an arguement. it was a choice to use my opponent's whereabouts and I was paying a COST. Financial troubles give me the option to pay a cost. They are on different sides of the card texts but they are still costs.