Sol Badguy said:

Sorry, I explained it wrong, and you made me look up Blinding Rage...

Which says "due to your opponent's card or ability' , anti-discard refers to due to your opponent's card effect.

Obviously wherabouts is your opponent's card ...

- dut

dutpotd said:

Ah was that the text...Then never mind XD

Still I think the simple ruling of anti discard/commit would balance out Stand off, Financial Troubles and For the Money. Not that they are broken or ban worthy but they are overpowered.

dut is right. The terms Card Effect and Card Ability are, in most cases, synonymous. The terms Card or Ability, however, are more loosely defined, but still understandable. Blinding Rage is not relevent here because of that. Instead, compare it to Makai High Noble, which triggers on you opponent's Card Effect. It would not activate its Static text due to Whereabouts because of this.

-Tinman

guitalex2008 said:

OK, but, that's the logic-ending sentence right there Alex. You see, if Financial Troubles said, "your opponent may discard 1 card", then it wouldn't be a cost because a cost implies that there is something else on the other end of the sentence. However, if it were worded like that, not only would the draw be uncancelable (AKA broken), but yes, then anti-discard WOULD work since the effect gives your opponent the choice to discard, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be a cost since it isn't being used to pay towards anything.

Of course, FT, as well as a lot of Paul's support, was designed to have optional canceling, meaning that his stuff has good effects but can be canceled. As such, FT was meant to be canceled, not punished by anti-discard. That's for Nina and her support =)

Sol Badguy said:

I think they are balanced or underpowered tbh, I actually don't like cards that aren't gauranteed a certain effect... i.e. they aren't even that great. If I want to draw I want to be able to draw, I don't want to force my opponent to discard a card. If I want my opponent to discard a card, I want them to discard a card, I don't want to draw... For the Money is even worse, namely you can respond and then lose the foundation (have it destroyed) this is effectively -1 to a check instead of +2... Not my favorite happening.

I think the discard thing wouldn't be that bad becuase there isn't a lot of anti-discard run that often, it is extremely punitive though. I also think the commit ruling would see Stand Off and For the Money become too much of a liability, i.e. not worth running at all. Anti-commital is oft-run and with equally punitive effects on torn hero.

- dut

dutpotd said:

The is no way Stand off is underpowered. Either i make your attacks do pathetic damage(or in Ivy's case no Damage at all) or you tap out your resources allowing you to play less attacks. Either way i am taking less damage.

There are only 2 cards currently that are Anti Commit. I do not think these cards would stop being played because of 2 cards.

...ugh...can we please not bring up Stand Off? It's already caused more than enough nightmares

Sol Badguy said:

I've bolded the part that is plain wrong. You aren't taking less damage for certain . What if your opponent only has the one attack? He/she comitting two more foundations doesn't mean he/she will play less if there are no more to play anyways or if they are low cost attacks or whatever...

Honestly, I take standoff out of a lot of decks becuase it is 'unreliable'. If I want to reduce damage by 4, or 2 per foundation comitted... Then I put in a card that does that - see The Best Team or whatever, see Shadowar, or see Paid to Protect, or see Astrid's Shield, or see Rivals now Friends or whatever.

There is nothing worse than comitting 2 foundations (a pretty big cost in a turn 4 or less meta) to get 'no' useful effect (your opponent comitting 2 is not gauranteed to be useful), which is what standoff does sometimes become.

Me saying I think Stand Off is underpowered is what it is, I think there are 40+ better cards for 2/3 of Stand Off's symbols and for most of the characters those symbols are on, and therefore it is under the power level of those 40 foundations that do make the cut with actual effects that my opponent can't control if they happen to outbuild me becuase of bad checks/draws or whatever.

- dut

Stand Off only SOUNDS underpowered. And in the previous standard, hell yeah it was.

In the current standard, committing 2 foundations will instantly negate most attack's base damage, unless the attacker overexerts himself to negate it.

It's not uncommon to see a Zi Mei deck with only 4 Fury of the Ancients, Stand Off, Autum's Kiss, All Life is Prey and spam foundations. With so little attacks, spamming enough foundations to do Stand Off TWICE turn 2 is not uncommon. Either the opponent commits 2 (which is a HUGE setback early on) or their attack is basically negated.

But my issue is not with Stand Off just because of itself, but instead my issue is the fact that you cannot commit, say, Torn Hero, and punish the opponent by committing Stand Off once and for all.

Stand Off would've been cooler at a 3 difficulty, no block, and instead of E Commit 2 foundations, if it were E Commit, commit 1 foundation.

Yub...

You mean if it wasn't so easily reusable? Perhaps.

Still wish Torn Hero could commit it after negating it by committing Torn Hero and something else.

guitalex2008 said:

hmmm... Perhaps we are getting to the bottom of your intense dislike of the 'illogical' cost based-rulings...

Keep in mind, earth has plenty of ways to answer Stand Off with out comitting it with Torn Hero. It has all of Rashoteps support...

Stand Off 'sounds' powerful, in practice I have concluded it is not in many cases as reliable as what other damage reduction or pump can and does give you and for a smaller cost (smaller being commit 1 for -4 or +4).

Your argument doesn't make sense though, how is comitting 2 a huge setback early on when all your opponent is doing is spamming for a late game attack? Comitting 2 early on is only costly if you can't defend yourself from an incoming attack back at you while comitted, which in your scenario seems unlikely for at least a few more turns. Cancel the Standoff, do some damage, continue to build...

The thing about these 'can be cancelled abilities' is that, if you are playing against a smart opponent, you will get burned becuase they will make the right decisions at the right time... leaving you with a useless foundation, why should you play with a *** for tat card when you can play with a tat card?

- dut

ps. the answer to my question is, lo and hehold, you play with a *** for tat card only if you are gauranteed to have more ****... Gaurantee me that in every game you will have more **** and I will show you a champion caliber deck.

dutpotd said:

...

...

...anyway, in every championship caliber deck, assuming smart players, a ***-for-tat card will have more... why does that sound so bad? OK let me reword it.

If you use a huge risk / huge reward card, if that huge risk involves the opponent overextending themselves or giving up a severe amount of hand advantage, you will most of the time reap on the huge rewards, or be rewarded regardless by an overextended opponent.

Times when you won't care to commit to negate Stand Off:
1) Turn >3, where the foundation base is large enough and your kill is almost guaranteed
2) With multiples of For the Money/Communing in play
3) You're Hilde playing a Lightning Horn after the correct Combo requirements

Ka Technique is an excellent counter; except that the attack needs to deal damage. While Death/Earth/Void should have access to some damage pump, it might not be appreciable early game.

Again my issue isn't exactly with the huge risk / huge reward cards, but how fulfilling the conditions (which is the true way to see it) to negate it cannot activate anti-effects.

Well, to be ultimately fair...

Perfect Sense and Torn Hero already have ENOUGH cards they bastardize merely by existing.

Yeah, it was too funny so I had to add it in as a ps...

...

...

But yeah, I get your point, and I also agree that most strong decks will cater to a resource based game. And that is exactly it, the 3 symbols on Standoff are fairly agressive in nature, and aren't resource driven symbols. Granted, fire is doing almost everything nowadays, but it doesn't 'excel' like other symbols do at the resource game.

All I'[m saying is that being able to a) cancel an effect, and b) stay even foundation wise with an opponent at the right time (you decide this) is a strong enough deterrance for me not to run Stand Off in many of my decks. I like consistency, and I'd rather get +4 damage, or -4 damage certainly and for a lower cost than Stand Off...

Let's face it, -4 damage isn't that much, especially against an Astrid/Hilde or any of the damage pumps that exist nowadays. -4 damage ungauranteed... no thanks, it doesn't need to be punished any more.

FTR I was thinking Dead for a Thousand Years.

In any case, why shouldn't a defensive deck be able to survive early game with some luck and for a high cost, -2 per comitted foundation that can be cancelled? People! There is no answer to throws at the moment, I doubt you've seen any exhaust wins in all of competitive block 4! Why do we care if a deck can survive an assult turn 2 by comitting out?

Cancelling is enough, you don't need to punish someone extra hard for comitting two of their foundations in an attempt to match one of your foundations damage pump...

- dut

dutpotd said:

Namely, and you gotta agree with me on this, FFG didn't learn and gave us another thing to be stuck on. Normally, when you see experienced players having difficulty with resolving an effect, you find a way to print it in a simpler to understand fashion. When did KISS (the acronym) stop being relevant again?

Homme Chapeau said:

Oh! I do agree. Sadly KISS is always relevant, and the fact that it is and stuff still happens simply proves that there will always be problems. It is hard to be on top of everything all the time, there are deadlines, heinsight is 20/20, and there will always be mistakes. It is making up for mistakes, i.e. addressing them early and often, that deserves our respect, and I'm sure FFG/(the community) will do so and quickly with regards to these cards, because they will see a lot of play.

- dut

dutpotd said:

When has FFG EVER done something "quickly?" Honestly apart from the 3d'ing of Talbain after a month or two, they let us ***** and moan about stuff that is potentially NPE (or whatever term they're using) before they considor dealing with it, and even then...

O, Shelby, look what you did XD

It's like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre XD

I prefer yelling "Theatre" in a crowded fire.

I will just say. If FFG decides to errata this card. I think the OP's recommendation is the best solution so far.

Here's the issue, though.

If Financial Distress is errata'd that way, then what's to stop from having to errata For the Money, or Rivalry with a Bear, or It's Got to be the Hair, or Turn Thruster, or Over the Shoulder, or... you know, all of Paul's support?

I'd rather they change the ruling on "your opponent may" to have those trigger anti-methods, if we're going that route.

eh I find nothing wrong with them, go cry foul about Kazuya's tutor cards instead... especially since Jin can use them for a far more damaging purpose.

guitalex2008 said:

Honestly, the only funcitonal Errata I could see on this is simple.

F Commit : Draw two cards.

R Discard 1 card : Negate this card's F ability. Only playable by your opponent.

Homme Chapeau said:

I can't see anything wrong with the Errata Hatman is proposing and for all of the 'may' cards in question, but maybe there is a problem and I'm just not seeing it (I ain't a designer after all).

guitalex2008: The problem with simply letting 'your opponent may' trigger anti-methods is a) this is counter intuitive and illogical to anyone who understands that those anti cards respond to 'due to your opponents effect' and don't see themselves as paying a cost = to their opponent's effect, and b) that this was not the original intent of the cards design, they don't need to be rebalanced, go and play some games, they aren't broken by any means, and turning them all into garbage cards by giving pretty much every symbol punitive measures against them is uncalled for and basically removes a very fun mechanic (resource management) from the game.

- dut

Homme Chapeau said:

Fixed.

F Commit : Draw two cards.

R Discard 1 card : Negate this card's F ability. Playable by your opponent. Playable while committed.