...9/10s of the people disagree? Where'd you come up with a number like that? I happen to agree with Alex's point completely, though I still don't understand his whole anti-discard schpeal.

Your logic is that if something isn't guaranteed, it yields otherwise unreliable results, I'm telling you that logic is flawed. That's like saying running un-errata'd Feline Spike is stupid because it has a 1, and who knows, YOU MIGHT JUST CHECK THAT 1! IT ISN'T GUARANTEED! IT'S UNRELIABLE! O_O_O

I understand that, yes, it's definitely more consistant when you know what's going to happen, when you have control over your deck and thus a portion of the gameplay.

But you're trying to say that Stand Off and FT aren't that great BECAUSE they're unreliable, when I'm telling you that any time you ever use Stand Off or FT against an opponent, YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN GIVEN THE UPPER HAND AND ARE THUS THAT MUCH MORE AHEAD OF THE GAME!

When a player adds Stand Off to their staging area, if they have more foundations in their staging area than their opponent, their opponent is now FORCED to build, because it's highly unlikely (depending on how many foundations are out) that a player with less foundations will attack a Stand Off player with more foundations, for his attacks will be donuts'd (invalidating a reason to play them), or they will tap themselves (slowing down the turn). It causes a very unfun pace for ANY game, because the player with the Stand Off has the advantage. Yeah, it isn't BROKEN. Yeah, a player CAN get around it. But they shouldn't HAVE to, is what I'm getting at.

My main point isn't that Financial Distress can be played every turn since it doesn't destroy itself or have much a cost, my point is that it doesn't have a drawback like FtM or RwaB do, other than committing itself I guess.

I've neglected to include For the Money in certain decks because of the fear it'd be destroyed. Financial, however, I have no fear of committing it. It's a no-brainer card with no real drawback.

That doesn't make it BROKEN, it just makes it unfair in the current environment. I could worry about running weapons, or I could run whatever I want, not wait for a response trigger time, just tap a card and draw 2. They discarded? Whatever, I have multiple copies/kill switches in my hand, lawl.

Stand Off and FT aren't broken, they just don't need to exist in the current environment. If a Stand Off FT player overextends by committing too much, and die from it next turn, they're retarded, and didn't play the two properly.

MarcoPulleaux said:

This is my point, the card is only truly useful once you've already established the upper hand. Therefore the card isn't a good card. A good card needs to a) help me establish the upper hand, and then b) continue to help me exploit this. FT only does the latter.

I don't disagree with your rant btw, but it is only part of the picture. Telling me the whole truth about one tree in a forest isn't telling me about the forest and is far too convenient for people that only care about a subset of what really goes on.

FT is a no-brainer card if you and everyone else start labeling it as an auto-include with no drawback. And that no-brain will end up costing people games.

I don't get how the current environment has anything to do with FT being Unfair, I'd say it's the opposite. Namely the current environment laughs at FT becuase if you play FT first turn and use it second and 'don't' draw into what helps you survive the next turn (it is harder to kill now that you've comitted a card so early game you won't be winning by drawing 2 unless you are low cost action heavy) then you are lunch against a deck that dropped damage pump or check assistance and drew into attacks with you now comitted out (yay you have cards, but how are you to block? better with a card committed?).

If you don't believe me on this, go and play a few more games. FT can be a really fun card becuase it tosses decision back and forth between opponents making 'every turn MORE important becuase more can happen on that turn with more cards, toss in FtM and it also means playing those cards.

- dut

ps. I get my ratio becuase any argument with you on it's side must be the 1/10 side... lol - that is mean of me and obviously not always true, but I had to say it and knowing that you pride yourself on being that minority that speaks out, I hope you can forgive the meanness.

Well, to be fair, Financial Distress, along with the rest of Tekken, hasn't been out long enough to really make too many empirical decisions.

I mean Hell, EVERYBODY and their dog was talking about running Kazuya when he was first spoiled, but I haven't seen a Kazy deck in the forum, nor heard any discussion about him.

MarcoPulleaux said:

They are too busy hitting F5 while reading this topic ;P

MarcoPulleaux said:

Until Hata's hard on for Fire goes away, Kazuya is going to suck because anybody with Fire is simply better because they only need two of the new Float like a Butterflies to kill anyone, as opposed to Kazuya who actually has to get crap on the board and set up (run on sentances rock yo!).

As for the topic at hand, my main problem with the card has pretty much been stated... Either your hand gets bigger, thus giving you more options, or your opponant's hand gets smaller, thus giving you more options. There is ZERO drawback to this card. At the very least Bigger They Are had a 4 control, and could potentially only draw you one card (while good, not OP in the slightest).

The other thing that really bugs me about the card is having multiple copies of it out. Either I'm drawing 4+ cards, or I'm more or less gutting your hand, period end of story. And in the current enviroment, where there's no semblence of any good defense control outside of Stand Off (another rant for another day that card is) or any of Rashotep's overhyped stuff (which in the end gets commited out with all the rampant stun/For the Monies), after your opponant's hand is ripped apart by multiple distress', they're dead... Plain and simple.

B-Rad said:

Now that I've got my 4th Lightning Uppercut, expect Kazuya to be built... someday.

B-Rad said:

Financial Distress + The Entertainer

Homme Chapeau said:

I think I just heard a puppy get kicked infront of speeding traffic.... Guess my deck turns into 80 cards now ><

B-Rad said:

Sorry, did I just hear you say giving +2 cards for a form to any female character isn't OP? Not to mention block on it...

Back to the question at hand, how is the ZERO drawback on this card 'not' equivalent to the ZERO drawback on any other E commit:, R commit:, or F commit: card that offers +x damage, +x speed, +x control check etc. They all have the same cost, and yet I don't here any complaints. Why, when a card gives a different, less immediately pertinent benefit (it doesn't guarantee anything, what if you draw CRAP), do people go - wahhhh, no drawback? Especially in a meta that sees turn 3/4 kills regularly? Makes no sense to me.

Also, the Entertainer is a VERY situational card. Why not use Shadowar X 2, draw cards, and do the same **** thing? See also, the majority of Hungry for Battle's effect...

+2 damage an attack is expected. +6 damage cuz you somehow have 3 out... Not very likely after turn 2 which is when you may die, and at the cost of varied and arguably better foundations...

- dut

dutpotd said:

Your scope is extremely limited

The reason why we ***** about Distress instead of other free damage/speed/CC+/etc is BECAUSE it involves draw.

Welcome to UFS, where draw is ***** important.

Also, 2x Entertainer > 2x ShadoWar. It isn't situational if your deck is built to get around it (Relentless draws out of it for sure, FT can draw out of it, and LOL at the sucker who discards after an ENTERTAINER has been used)

MarcoPulleaux said:

My scope isn't limited, my scope is realistic. Realisticly speaking, every effect is relative to what is 'needed' to win a game at a given point in time. There are plenty of times where I have an attack in hand, need only to deal one more damage on the attack, and don't have a damage pump foundation out. I do have draw, but lo and behold, if I don't draw an action that pumps damage it means nothing becuase if I don't kill said opponent he will toss an attack and kill me next turn, something my form does jack all about...

Draw means MUCH MORE in a meta where defense is prevalent and you have time to mess around. You've coined NEWFS, you know **** well this isn't the case any more, you know that the defensive symbols are NOT all, order, and fire, at least they aren't 'the' defensive, negationy symbols. In a meta without an answer for throws... Damage at the right time is MUCH more important than drawing some measly cards that you have no idea what they are.

I could say your scope is pessimistic and assumes that your opponent drawing 2 cards means they are cards that kill you, or means that your matching foundation won't kill your opponent becuase it offers a more timely effect, and one that can't be cancelled...

Draw increases your chances , and if allowed to run rampant early can get your more and better stuff out, it does not end the game. Very often a final solution is better than an increased ability to reach the final solution at a later time. Comitting a card, getting fully stunned therafter, or simply not passing a block is a big risk, especially when you don't even get to have the effect you hoped for... There is huge risk to Financial Troubles, every foundation counts, as does having to play one foundation over another during a build turn, they all matter, a useless one is an opportunity cost, one that isn't 'always' worth paying.

- You can't compare effects and say one has no drawback but should have a drawback, you can't - especially when said effect can be cancelled and by the means of a resource everyone has.

!!! Bottom line, don't tell me my scope is limited, especially when draw is what I live and breath for, anyone who knows me knows that I live for increased chances in the game of UFS (Alex, Alex, Deadly Ground, 6/9 hs character?) My scope is realistic, and realisticaly speaking I am telling you Financial Troubles is not *****-worthy, I am also telling you why but you refuse to hear it.

- dut

FT isn't guaranteed +1 hand advantage. It's a guaranteed +1 or MORE advantage.

King of the Ring, you need a momentum (which Mishima Zaibatsu and simple things like Mishima Zaibatsu and War Between Sisters says a big fat no to) and in addition you can make the attack a big ol' donut. Hilde's stuff? Sure, you have to reduce the dmage of your attack to do it, or use a Combo ability.

PotM is stupid and that's a topic that's been hit on more than a barely legal girl walking past a construction site during lunchtime.

If only FT were even somewhat vulnerable to ANYTHING, other than forcing the opponent to discard a card and thus slow down, it wouldn't bother me. The fact is that it's +1 hand advantage that can become +2 unless the opponent dicards 1 card.

Sorry, but the situation is sort of lose lose against FT. The reason why you barely see people use it is because most see Financial Stress as a card draw card that doesn't always draw. Truth is, it always gives you the advantage. It's true you will almost never draw. That's because people are almost OBLIGATED to discard a card, seeing how important drawing is. It's not much of a choice; you basically have to discard a card and PRAY that the opponent doesn't already have something to kill you with. What's worse is that since anti-discard does nothing, the same thing can and WILL happen next turn. Your opponent will be forced to pitch cards that could be in their staging areas next turn for a shot at preventing the opponent from drawing into MORE options. You might as well consider it a Soul Survivor; keep it committed and see the opponent's hand size effectively drop by 1. Without the vitality burn. If you're lucky you might have your hand size effectively increased by 2 instead.

What's even sadder is that if someone uses Intolerant to Failure with Financial Distress (can easily be dual-symboled with Chaos/Fire, Death/Fire, Evil/Fire, All/Chaos with the help of things like Temporary Being, which is mostly ignored), and you negate it with its own ability, Intolerant can destroy anything. So, you're forced to give the opponent two cards for fear of losing anything from your staging area. Great.

Commit FT and you already have an advantage. If the card is errata'd the way the OP says it, then anti-discard will hit it and people will stand a fighting chance, and not even that. My anti-discard is a one-shot thing if I draw it; next turn you can do it again.

guitalex2008 said:

I rarely quote the whole thing, but the whole thing relates to any response I have. I've heard your argument, this is it in its tenth or more form, yes the card will get you a +1 advantage, a +1 advantage of what - who knows, I mean I never have cards in hand that I don't play, I can and always do pass everything... no cards give a second review step for a reason... +2 top of deck cards of what - who knows...

I get it, cards are important, this card gives you what is important and you don't like that you can't hate on it by more than cancelling it, MAC says not even a discard... But yeah, you don't like that you'd have to want to play MAC, or Algol, or suffer being down 1 or more cards at any point in the game, even if it means you get to draw another card next turn, or even if it means your opponent is down one foundation. We all know there aren't any 'discard a card' your opponent commits a foundation cards out there... becuase, according to you this is never a fair tradeoff.

I've gotten your point long ago, draw is evil, so is f commit: your opponent discards a card without a discard response (even if they do get a choice to not discard).

Why don't you start the tally thread, see how many people share your hate for draw, in particular financial troubles. Then, when the game starts to be designed to satisfy the whims of the majority of forum-goers we will ban the card or seriously hamper it.

What started out as a, this doesn't make sense, quickly showed its true colors - a, this is too strong argument. Change the thread title to - Nerf Errata for Financial Distress. All I ask is that next time you have the guts to start a ban/nerf thread and don't go through it by way of the ruling argument, rules are, after all, imperfect... And it isn't rocket science that an ability that can be cancelled with readliy available resources should be a relatively good ability.

You can start the thread by putting me down as - 'it isn't too strong, uses it seldomly and in a constructed deck'.

- dut

I still think it's funny that most (not all) people have been calling it Financial Distress. That's a Mokoto support card. The card in question is Financial Troubles, lol. Also, it's not like we've actually spent 10 pages talking about this card, most of those pages were about templating in general, which happens to be an issue with this card and others of the same nature.

10 pages...wow.

Smazzurco said:

needs MOAR

I disconnected myself from this convo a while ago but feel like comming back and saying something.

Card advantage dosent mean a **** thing in UFS past turn one. There I said it. I cant tell you how many times ive been sitting with a handful of cards and Still couldnt kill my opponent with them, couldnt defend myself froma killshot, or just couldnt play enough of them to matter. Turn one I feel hand size advantage can be of the utmost importance, just so you have the cards to optimize your drops and get the most out of subsequent turns, but because of the nature of UFS, I dont get it. There does come a point where having cards in hand can be surpurflious, or even a negative.

This whole theory of card advantage comes from Magic, and simpily does not apply to UFS. The reason its important in magic is because you only draw one card a turn. The more you play the less you have in that game (and many others with that model). UFS isnt like like. UFS rewards you for playing cards by giving them back to you every turn. This is why spamming 5+ foudnations turn one has always been silly powerful, your not sacrificing anything on your turn 2 to do it, only helping yourself play more.

Sure drawing cards can win games, and it can be a powerful strategy, but only if your deck is built for it, and not every deck is built for it. This is honestly one of the more tame draw cards we have seen in some time. It offers a way out, many older cards as has been pointed out have not. I would contend that the following draw cards were way more powerful than this one:

Aquakinesis - +1 draw, better numbers, block, no cancel
Bigger they are - +1/+2 draw, block, no cancel
Defender - Not true draw, but often had the same effect, no cancel, card pool clearing, attack split adding versatility, block
LOTM - before banning this was pretty much an everything engine wasent it.
Counter the assault - 2 good abilities, better numbers, block, no cancel

The list gets longer the more you look. This card honestly is only getting flak because of its not instantly straightforward ability and interaction with anti discard. Card is fine.

guitalex2008 said:

Lawl.

Also, FT CAN BE COUNTERED BY MAC! THAT MUST MEAN IT ISN'T BROKEN AT ALL! IT HAS A COUNTERRRRR

MarcoPulleaux said:

This is just childish, we've given plenty of good reasons why it isn't broken, honing in on one thing and CAPSing it is just silliness.

The fact that MAC can commit for commit FT does help keep FT and other oft-run cards in check, especially since MAC has at least 2 (arguably 3) very prevalent, well supported, and strong symbols.

- dut

Just staying true to my ageless motto: no amount of counters makes a great card un-great.

Technically, every card has counters in every prominent symbol. Just because it has counters, it doesn't mean it's good enough. Three symbols get MAC: Fire, Death and Void. Great. Awesome. Superb. There's only 9 others left defenseless now. Neato.

MAC is only anti-meta against drawing, so people will most likely only consider siding it. Not exactly a saving grace for FT.

Tell me, with 2/5 and instand hand advantage every turn, doesn't that make it an auto-include as it is?

guitalex2008 said:

This is very contradictory thought.

First of all, you've just explained that 'draw' is much more important than any other effect, so maining MAC helps against the strongest effect.

Second, if something is an auto-include, the counter that counters it AND much more would necessarily be an auto-include in return.

Third, if counters are so 'not good enough' than why do you care if anti-discard is triggered?

Finally, I'm really finding it hard to say FT is an auto-include, it definately isn't.

- dut

dutpotd said:

Wrong

MarcoPulleaux said:

There are some big 'ifs' there, especially since I don't believe in auto-include... My point was merely to draw a connection between the prevalence of one card and the probable prevalence of it's counter in the case where said card is so 'amazing'. If you need proof of this general trend you need only look to the number of Olcadon counters that were run, the number of destiny that was run, the number of Willful used, and once the symbols these counters had became more viable, etc. etc.

But, you've decided to read what I posted word for word and literally, and in doing so pointed out an obvious fallacy. Good for you, I'm sure we can all agree posting one word responses elevates you to the pinnacle of constructive forum goers.

- dut

Why should I give you more than 1 word? You're trying to say that because Alex thinks FT is an auto-include, then its counters must thus be auto-includes to.

uh...no?

War Between Sisters is an auto-include, but that doesn't make Warrior's Path an auto-include.