Functional Errata for Financial Distress

By AirCody, in UFS General Discussion

Posted at

ROTBI said:

Homme Chapeau said:

guitalex2008 said:

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.

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.

Fixed.

F Commit : Draw two cards.

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

ONLY playable by your opponent. Otherwise you can negate it yourself.

Posted at

I wouldnt mind someoen negating it themselves :)

Posted at

Why would you negate it yourself?

Also, it bears mentioning that your proposed solution (a conclusion that that I'm sure many of us came to, as it is quite agreeable) does currently remedy the templating issue , but with one discrepancy. Though it is not yet an issue in the current block, it is quite likely that it would be in the future as it was in the past. That is, response negation. Currently response negation cannot trigger off of the player choosing to cancel this ability. Obviously Inhuman Perception is not around now, but I doubt we will not see response negation of some sort in the near future.

Posted at

Hayamachop said:

I wouldnt mind someoen negating it themselves :)

NO! this is a disaster for legacy, Curse Broken would have a heyday (shares 2 symbols)!

See, not easy to do text, mistakes happen quite easily...

- dut

Posted at

dutpotd said:

Hayamachop said:

I wouldnt mind someoen negating it themselves :)

NO! this is a disaster for legacy, Curse Broken would have a heyday (shares 2 symbols)!

See, not easy to do text, mistakes happen quite easily...

- dut

That's just silly. I'd assume, if errata like that would go into affect, the same would apply for any other card that would allow you to benefit from canceling yourself. As it stands, I believe Antigoth or whoever else is supposed to be working on these erratas.

Honestly, it is beyond foolish to legally allow someone to cancel their own effect immediately after playing it for gain. "Only" should be superfulous. With reference to Dut's comment, Hatman's stance stands.

The reason why the text in this case is "not so easy" is because The Curse Broken assumes your opponent is canceling your ability. If not, I have never heard of this happening, but I'm sure Yoga Mastery / The Curse Broken combos must have been disgusting.

Posted at

ROTBI said:

The reason why the text in this case is "not so easy" is because The Curse Broken assumes your opponent is canceling your ability. If not, I have never heard of this happening, but I'm sure Yoga Mastery / The Curse Broken combos must have been disgusting.

What the Curse Broken assumes means nothing... Broken Curse + Addes was wrong and used to commit whole staging areas at some pretty big events in the past.

I'm just saying, cancelling your own ability when there are punitive measures for cancelling around = scary business!

- dut

Posted at

Homme Chapeau said:

guitalex2008 said:

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.

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.

But then whatever player that owns the FT can negate the R. So my opponent would use the FT, I'd ditch a card to use the R, my opponent negates the R then draws two on top of it. That totally messes with the purpose of the card to have built in negation.

I'm not saying that there even is anything that could negate the R right now (in Standard) but I'm sure there will be eventually.

Posted at

dutpotd said:

ROTBI said:

The reason why the text in this case is "not so easy" is because The Curse Broken assumes your opponent is canceling your ability. If not, I have never heard of this happening, but I'm sure Yoga Mastery / The Curse Broken combos must have been disgusting.

What the Curse Broken assumes means nothing... Broken Curse + Addes was wrong and used to commit whole staging areas at some pretty big events in the past.

I'm just saying, cancelling your own ability when there are punitive measures for cancelling around = scary business!

- dut

I'm not disagreeing, Mr. Dut. I'm saying because Curse Broken IS assuming and not explicitly saying that your opponent must cancel said ability, is the only reason why such shenanigans could exist.

In turn, even this detour of a conversation comes full circle to what's been said about Financial Distress. What's written vs. what's intended.

It obvious tCB is supposed to trigger off of your opponent canceling your ability, yet the Addes garbage was allowed. That's a ruling based on text and not intent. The two need to coincide, for if they did, FD wouldn't have been this much of an issue.

Posted at

dutpotd said:

ROTBI said:

The reason why the text in this case is "not so easy" is because The Curse Broken assumes your opponent is canceling your ability. If not, I have never heard of this happening, but I'm sure Yoga Mastery / The Curse Broken combos must have been disgusting.

What the Curse Broken assumes means nothing... Broken Curse + Addes was wrong and used to commit whole staging areas at some pretty big events in the past.

I'm just saying, cancelling your own ability when there are punitive measures for cancelling around = scary business!

- dut

Your own Addes or Yoga Mastery never triggered your own Cursed Broken. Yoga only stops and opponent's E, Addes was errated almost as soon as it came out to only negate an opponent's R. The Addes/Cursed Broken pretty much never worked, it was played incorrectly.

Posted at

JDub said:

Homme Chapeau said:

guitalex2008 said:

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.

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.

But then whatever player that owns the FT can negate the R. So my opponent would use the FT, I'd ditch a card to use the R, my opponent negates the R then draws two on top of it. That totally messes with the purpose of the card to have built in negation.

I'm not saying that there even is anything that could negate the R right now (in Standard) but I'm sure there will be eventually.

Yar, I said that in my next post down. gran_risa.gif

Posted at

MarcoPulleaux said:

Well, to be ultimately fair...

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

Exactly and im sitting here reading all this stuff about wanting these cards to be better.....Wow people already want torn hero banned so that decks can actually function dont make it any worse then it already is so that we can have another thread just like this one about torn hero.

What exactly is making them trigger anti-cards going to solve? making other cards more broken sure. Making the the cards you can cancel pretty much unplayable....probably.

Posted at

Yup, I know. 100% agree with what you are saying here, let's match the intent to the rules and we play the intended game, not a busted 'let's abuse the ambiguous rulings' game.

I don't know if it is errata or whatever, but I said it earlier, we at least need it in the omni-faq, i.e. explaining why 'those' anti discard cards don't trigger. Same with the torn hero vs. stand off relationship.

- dut

Posted at

The Addes errata didn't impact the interaction with Cursed Broken...

And besides, it was the Cursed Broken that needed the errata - it triggered off of skull (seals) to mass commit areas as well.

This isn't on topic, by yeah, my point is, the text, if it is going to be errated, needs to be done cautiously.

- dut

Posted at

ROTBI said:

Also, it bears mentioning that your proposed solution (a conclusion that that I'm sure many of us came to, as it is quite agreeable) does currently remedy the templating issue , but with one discrepancy. Though it is not yet an issue in the current block, it is quite likely that it would be in the future as it was in the past. That is, response negation. Currently response negation cannot trigger off of the player choosing to cancel this ability. Obviously Inhuman Perception is not around now, but I doubt we will not see response negation of some sort in the near future.

Add another piece of text to the R - this ability cannot be negated. The goal is to replicate the effect of the card in an easier to understand fashion, and not to break it even more.

Posted at

Homme Chapeau said:

ROTBI said:

Also, it bears mentioning that your proposed solution (a conclusion that that I'm sure many of us came to, as it is quite agreeable) does currently remedy the templating issue , but with one discrepancy. Though it is not yet an issue in the current block, it is quite likely that it would be in the future as it was in the past. That is, response negation. Currently response negation cannot trigger off of the player choosing to cancel this ability. Obviously Inhuman Perception is not around now, but I doubt we will not see response negation of some sort in the near future.

Add another piece of text to the R - this ability cannot be negated. The goal is to replicate the effect of the card in an easier to understand fashion, and not to break it even more.

And End It All and similar effects, etc. There is going to be a lot of text to get it the same as before lol. Just saying, why don't we just add it to the omni-faq and see how things develop.

- dut

Posted at

Don't forget to add PLAYABLE WHILE COMMITTED, or otherwise that R is blank. lol

Posted at

guitalex2008 said:

Don't forget to add PLAYABLE WHILE COMMITTED, or otherwise that R is blank. lol

See previous page, lol.

Posted at

lol yeah.

But what no one who DOES agree with the ruling seems to understand is that this is NOT the case of a player paying a cost for a card effect, it's a conditional cost for the ability to actually resolve.

This isn't...

"F Commit: Draw 2 cards.

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

Because if it were, anti-effects wouldn't work. This is what's really happening.

"F Commit: Draw 2 cards, unless your opponent discards 1 card."

Which in and of itself is not by definition a cost, but instead an extension of the same card effect giving the opportunity to the opponent to substitute one effect for discarding 1 card. To me, that's how I've always seen cards like these, and it's intuitive. So why can't I discard Recon and draw 2 cards myself? Or discard Warrior's Path and draw 3? Or discard Gut Drill and play it for free? I did discard it as a result of my opponent's card effect.

Posted at

MegaGeese said:

O, Shelby, look what you did XD

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

Posted at

guitalex2008 said:

lol yeah.

But what no one who DOES agree with the ruling seems to understand is that this is NOT the case of a player paying a cost for a card effect, it's a conditional cost for the ability to actually resolve.

This isn't...

"F Commit: Draw 2 cards.

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

Because if it were, anti-effects wouldn't work. This is what's really happening.

"F Commit: Draw 2 cards, unless your opponent discards 1 card."

Which in and of itself is not by definition a cost, but instead an extension of the same card effect giving the opportunity to the opponent to substitute one effect for discarding 1 card. To me, that's how I've always seen cards like these, and it's intuitive. So why can't I discard Recon and draw 2 cards myself? Or discard Warrior's Path and draw 3? Or discard Gut Drill and play it for free? I did discard it as a result of my opponent's card effect.

So? That's not what that templating means though. By current rules and rulings, you are incorrect. Sorry.

Posted at

Just a heads up, this many pages over one card?

Yep...must be broken

=D

Posted at

MarcoPulleaux said:

Just a heads up, this many pages over one card?

Yep...must be broken

=D

Needs MOAR

Posted at

MOAR BANHAMMER!

FXXKING FINANCIAL DISTRESS IS BROKEN! WTF DRAW 2 OR DISCARD? AT NEXT TO NO COST?

OMGWTH BAN THIS S--T! I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY RELEASED IT QQ /wrists 0-neck

Posted at

This thread's size is hopfully a fantastic way to get the correct ruling out there. I was intially confused, but I understand it now. I've had to correct a few people about this card in my local area.

Posted at

The correct ruling is that anti-discard's statics don't work against Financial Distress' optional means of cancelation.

End thread.