Just to note:

1) Hata is on Vacation. A well deserved vacation. Out of respect for his need for a break, I will not be discussing anything UFS related with him before he returns to the office. Any ruling / clarification / errata / etc. in a situation like this has a ripple effect throughout the entire game. Something with a ripple effect as strong as the requested actions in this thread I MUST discuss it with James before proceeding. Hence my overall silence on this for the time being.

2) On the Hatman suggested errata, it would actually have to read as follows:

F Commit: Draw 2 Cards.

The following response may not be negated or canceled, and may not be responded to.

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

Anyone remember Drowning Madness?

Antigoth said:

A ton of text I would rather see templated, myself, but it would solve oh so many problems.

MarcoPulleaux said:

Er, no. You lot just got trolled by Shelby, is what happened. Don't make it into something else, because that's exactly what happened =/

As a person with the permanent label of forum troll...

Shelby SUCKS at trolling, if that's what this thread is, and if I'm trolled, then so is anybody else SERIOUSLY discussing this card.

I've already said my piece. Draw needs to be LIMITED to stuff like Relentless, and never get bigger than that. The only exception might be something like Beefy, but I'd even up Beefy's difficulty to 5, if not give it another stipulation. Screw Financial Troubles, if it got banned I totally wouldn't care.

Tagrineth said:

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

This is the obvious intent of the card, and adds some RISK to the card (by means of anti-discard), even when normally it will still equal immediate hand advantage.

MarcoPulleaux said:

Relentless is better draw than FT gauranteed... So by adding FT, a smaller draw function, you aren't really impacting the meta as much as you think.

I've played with 4 Relentless and 4 FT in a deck of 70 cards with 30 weapon cards. Relentless, on average, draws me 6 cards a game (any game going over turn 3/4) and FT draws me on average 2, and has my opponent discard 3... It goes to FT drawing me on average 4 cards when the opponent is a 6 hs character w/o draw of his own.

What is better draw? Without response negation, and in a deck with weapons (any fire deck can do this really well), Relentless is a zillion times more potent. Why should draw - a very common function of any card game - be limited to a weapon or massively themed deck, and then when it is, it becomes extremely powerful? I'd say that 4/5 symbols should have acess to draw, FT does not go against this simple rule.

- dut

guitalex2008 said:

How can you determine the obvious intent of the card and say wholeheartedly that the intent is for the card to be shutdown heavily by anti-discard mechanics? The only obvious intent of the card is for it to be cancellable by your opponent, not punished by cards that are meant to punish 'discard' decks, not 'draw' decks...

Also, there is already risk to the card. Committing a card for no benefit (or even more detriment, granted your opponent gets to draw one extra card next turn if they discard an unwanted one) is a heavy risk.

My opinion - There shouldn't be as much complaint about FT as there is, there should be more complaint about For The Money 'if anything'. Reason being that For The Money shares symbols with mass stun, meaning you can control quite easily if your opponent can cancel the ability, wheras FT doesn't share any symbols with discard... meaning you can't actually determine or influence your ability to draw cards.

- dut

Sure. But I swear if I see a single DROP of discard with either of those symbols, you'll hear from me again.

dutpotd said:

You're so stubborn on cards that have PROMISED effects that you're getting a bit out of line. FTroubles, when the opponent doesn't/can't discard means +2 draw, with no requirements prior.

I don't know how much you've ever used Relentless outside of Astrid, but lemme tell you, it's not nearly as good as you think, and here's why:

It depends on your attack line-up! Sure, there are some other weapon cards out there, like assets and some of Astrid's foundations, but you likely won't be running any of Astrid's foundations outside of Astrid (cept maybe Relentless), and most decks not named Astrid only run 1 unique weapon asset, and multiple copies of it.

As far as attacks go, we can pretty much single-out Fire since we can probably all agree All doesn't exactly have the biggest list of weapon cards (cept for maybe Ivy, who doesn't need Relentless, and usually plays off Life).

Fire does have a lot of weapons, be it in Astrid, Zi Mei, Temujin, just about everywhere. However, how many of said weapon attacks generally see play?

Pretty much any Fire build I make has Crushing Embrace and Leg Slash, and maybe Upper Claw depending on the build. None are weapons. Sure, you've got Launcher and Breaker, but by the time you play those two, you shouldn't really need to draw 2.

All I'm saying is, yes, Relentless is the best draw in the format, I agree. But while FT may not be PROMISED draw, I assure you, most players WILL let you draw 2 so they can actually block your upcoming assault, not just cancel FT and regret it by losing. FT is the ultimate sneaky card, because unless you saw their hand, you have no idea what they're really up to.

MarcoPulleaux said:

Agreed, the rest you aren't thinking out of the box about and hence I don't agree...

Let's look at an attack lineup I've used recently... first rite (weapon), hammer upper (weapon and off first), second rite (weapon), cleave (weapon and off first), Knight Breaker (weapon and great off hammer...), and Mark of the Beast. So of 16 attacks say, 2 are third rites, and 14 are weapons. Other weapon cards that can be mixed and matched or used in other decks, fire shadow, pommel smash, 2nd rite, any of temujins...

Also in the deck are 3 hilde assets (kimmel) and 3 shields (discard kimmel -5 damage, -4 for the pending foundations and breaker and etc.), 4 relentless, and 4 resourceful (yes, very good to recur any block zone after taking 4 damage or more). Right here we have 14 + 3 + 3 + 4 + 4 = 28 weapon cards. Which X 3, = 84 card deck would be a 3rd weapons, which in a 6hs (7hs even better) gives you a strong chance of using the 2 weapon card effect...

I don't have to let you know my deck wasn't 84 cards, it was ~70, and yeah, this doesn't need to be astrid...

Edit - please add Paid to Protect for gross synergy.

- dut

OK, I stand corrected. Well then, at the point where anything in its symbols discards OR looks at their hand, you'll hear from me again on this subject.

guitalex2008 said:

shhh. I already use it with Alertness, from the Hawk...

Just saying Dut, Relentless IS the best draw in the format, but it requires weapons, something not everybody will run.

That, and again, most of the time your opponent WILL let you draw. It's not even a risk-reward type of scenario; if you're smart, you'll know when to play it. If your opponent's smart as well, they'll take proper action, which is generally to just let you draw, because like I said, chances are they're not going to take a gamble, discard (likely putting them at about 2 cards left in hand) and risk getting smashed, ESPECIALLY if you have multiple copies of Distress out.

MarcoPulleaux said:

Good, so if relentless is better and troubles/distress is also hit or miss, i.e. sucks against 7hs, better draw, and staging area defense decks (the equivalent of 'not everybody will run) - we are looking at all of any 'draw' hate going towards Relentless well before anyone screams foul on Financial Troubles, and well before we start giving the counter against Financial Troubles a commit 6 cards, or lose 6 vitality...

I'd say 9/10 times my opponent hasn't let me draw. It all depends though. Why? Becuase who needs 3 cards with 'bad' block mods or at least one with a sh1t mod when you can only pass one block turn 2/3 when FT really matters...

It is more of a gamble to assume you can pass 2 blocks, and let your opponent draw 1 more attack or 2 foundations for better build, then it is to hold onto 1 block and assure that if your opponent still attacks that turn that they won't end with a mitfull of cards.

How often have you played against Financial Troubles in constructed so far? Just out of curiousity... It sucks! Or at least, it is heavily cancelled...

- dut

Then we simply disagree.

It may be cancelled 9 out of 10 times, but it gives you card advantage 10 out of 10 times, turning into uncounterable discard if you don't let them draw 2.

Lets just wait for more cards to be released. The state of UFS is young again, not too many cards to work with. 3 sets is not many cards for every mechanic and every counter to be release be patient.

dutpotd said:

Great. From the Hawk, Alertness. At least it only looks at 1 random card.

Has anyone thought of the effect of FT on reversal decks? Think Lu Chen. Now imagine they played 4 cards last turn, so they have 2. If the Lu Chen player is looking to block and reversal, he will be forced to let the opponent draw 2 when FT is played. If he decides to keep the cards for blocks, he will still be forced to let the opponent draw. If he does cancel it, he can only stop ONE attack at most.

guitalex2008 said:

OH **** SON! MIND GAMES!

Also, and this is coming from a guy who hasn't played with Lu Chen, but doesn't Lu Chen only NEED to block once to end a turn?

@guitalex2008

Yes. That is a worst case situation. And by worst case, I mean you just chose the worst example to use.

Why would a Reversal deck, who can see that the opponant has a FT in their staging area, hold only 2 cards? Shouldn't holding cards to use on your opponent's turn be the primary goal of a Reversal Deck?

Look, I can make up a terrible situation too. I'm playing Hilde. I don't drop any foundations for 2 turns, and have no blocks in hand. They attack me. Oh no, I just got killed by some random attack. That obviously means that attack has no downside, and needs to have serious drawbacks to playing it. I'm thinking something like "Let your opponent full block this attack if they complain hard enough." That way, my opponent won't run attacks, an I don't have to adapt. Perfect!

Honestly, at this point, you are grasping for straws. Let this resolve itself when Hata gets back, because no matter how many innane situations you mention, its not going to alter anyone's power to do anything about it.

-Tinman

So you're admitting that the opposing player MUST hold an extra card in hand, thus being able to play one less card and ultimately acting like... reducing his hand size, limiting the number of cards he can play, slowing the opponent down?

Card advantage of +2 or +1 doesn't matter when it's just card advantage. It's not exactly grasping at straws when a single FT out means the opponent has to play 1 less card simply to counter it, or play what he needs to giving the opponent +2 hand size. For ONE, reusable copy.

There's simply no drawback to outspeed your opponent in every way. Either the opponent fails to build up to stop you OR they build up but you'll outspeed them every time.

I don't see why anti-discard can't work against it, I've already said as much. I also know that making it be affected by anti-discard is about the only way to balance this card without ban or errata. If I discard a Recon for Financial Troubles, I draw. It's not exactly a reusable draw on my part; it is on the FT player's part. I can discard Soul Wave, sure, and that's possibly the absolute worst case for the FT player. However, just like the example of the Lu Chen player playing against FT, it's also not the norm.

guitalex2008 said:

Obviously it isn't a MUST, the form commit of FT doesn't say anything about MUST, it is all about choice.

You've already explained that FT gives card advantage, look at the name of the card, it draws a connection to 'overspending' resources and the consequences of such...

+1 card advantage from a card with 2 diff, 5 control and no block - that isn't always card advantage, becuase there are plenty of cases where your opponent wants to discard a card on your turn to be able to draw an extra one as soon as you say end...

+1 card advantage. Should we go and ban/errata everything that gives this certainly? King of the Ring, King's Combo Throw, Eagle Talon, Hilde's asset, Potm, Paul's Gi, Algol's combo attack, anything and everything that let's you 'draw one card for a cost or reduce your opponent's draw, what about MAC? (and yes, commit as a cost can be related to playing an attack, committing an asset, playing a symbol specific ability, etc. etc.' Are you peititioning that everything that gives any sort of resource advantage be banned? If so, why? And if so, start with Relentless about 4 months ago, even Shinji agreed it is better draw .

You're not grasping at straws, you are arguing for the sake of not wanting to admit defeat, yet you close in on it every few posts. And you aren't the game's designer, the latter obviously wants resource competition to exist in the meta, and for one I agree with him. Certain symbols tech is resource competition. What are you forgoing for having more resources? Well just about anything, that same +1 card advantage could be +5 damage, +3 speed, -4 damage, another attack, anything!...

The game is about choices, if you have boiled down FT to giving +1 card advantage 'no matter what' and still think that this benefit is 'too' much for the game to handle... We are playing different games then, I guess.

- dut

dutpotd said:

Lawl.

It isn't admitting defeat when there are merely opinions being thrown around here. Guita made the best point, which is that, no matter which option your opponent chooses, it isn't good. Since FT doesn't hit anti-discard like Alex wishes that it did, FT can be used every turn even, and as he said, no matter which option your opponent chooses, neither are particularly good for the opponent.

The intent of FT, much like For the Money and Rivalry with a Bear (how does one have a rivalry with a ***** bear?), the intent was obviously to have powerful effects, but also drawbacks (For the Money is hawt, but lol if it gets negated and blowd upd).

FT doesn't really have a drawback, rather, it just might not draw you 2 cards. Don't worry, there's always next turn! (or you could do some bad-ass dual symbol stuff with Twilight Castle <3)

MarcoPulleaux said:

And herin lies the whole reason why you think the card is too powerful. The fact is 'turns', waiting another turn, etc. etc. is a 'huge' cost and doesn't exist in this meta against well constructed decks. You will 'die' on your opponents next turn.

It's sad you think the best point is, gauranteed benefit. There is gauranteed benefit to any card that isn't these cards and standoff!!! These are the ones that aren't gauranteed benefit and is why they altogether aren't OP, or aren't even in some of my decks.

And yes, admitting that you will come back and complain more after something else happens does mean you are currently closing in on admitting defeat. Especially when 9/10 agree that the argument holds no water, and all you add is the same argument again and again - 'logic'? It isn't logical that a card that responds to an event should also respond to the event that precedes the event in question... It never has been.

- dut