MarcoPulleaux said:

I just told you that what you 'think' I was trying to say (literally auto for auto) is wrong, i.e. your thought process is wrong, add some understanding of the context of my response to your read of my phrases and you won't be inspired to one-word me...

Because you need it written out AGAIN, if FT was an auto-include (which nothing is, so yeah, my 'ifs' were heavy with exaggeration) similar to the way people said Olcadon's, BRT, Red Lotus, etc. were auto-includes then something that counters it would be an auto-include as well.

What my 'ifs' were really saying is that when cards begin to see play so often that they are expected, the cards that counter them begin to see more play as well.

War Between Sisters isn't an auto include... NOTHING is an auto include.

Finally, it's called forum courtesy, etiquette, etc. to give someone a concise and complete response, quoting 'one part of what I write', tossing a one word reply in, and not offering an explanation is RUDE and IMMATURE, two things I was starting to put past you, but that I will now bring back to the forefront of my understanding of the person that is Shinji.

- dut

dutpotd said:

I agree with most of what you said except one thing. There is one Auto include right now and it's called Path of the Master =/

That's never the case. Even if draw is important, MAC won't be in every Death/Fire/Void deck in playsets. Why? No block, low control, extremely situational.

Even a Fire deck which has the option of running both will most likely run FT over MAC because quite frankly, other than a few symbols, not every deck will have card draw or addition to hand from card effects. Not every deck will run card draw abilities; thus not every deck will run anti-draw.

It would be like saying that Mishima Zaibatsu Leader is annoying and powerful (well it kind of is), or that Solitary Assassin is too powerful in Zi Mei, but it's perfectly OK because we can all run You Have no Rhythm and War Between Sisters. What kind of help are TWO cards? In this case, you're saying that because three symbols have access to one anti-draw card, then it's OK and everyone should run it.

guitalex2008 said:

My point 'again' was a general one, namely your argument that FT is auto-include and yet MAC still won't be run is contradictory. The fervent use of FT will naturally see a rise in the use of MAC, all I am pointing to is a simple correlation, a correlation that goes against what you were saying...

You, like Shinji, are taking my one point out of context becuase it is the only defense you can think of against the undermine of your silly belief that FT is OP, the undermine which has been summarized most elegantly by Protoaddict after I tried in countless ways to get the same across to you.

What is more frustrating is that your only defense, picking at an absolute I used to make a point, is vocalized by Shinji in a irresponsible and disgusting one-word manner. Such approach does nothing to further the discussion, is insulting, and generally makes us all look bad.

- dut

Sol Badguy said:

Oddly enough, I don't use it in my 2/3 of my Hilde decks... But yeah, every other deck I've built is infinitely better off with it in it.

- dut

At least I refrained from just saying "no" or "wrong" then leaving it like that.

Sadly, nothing I've read here is leaving me even in the slightest convinced that FT is balanced. It's not surefire card draw, I never stated as such. But it is surefire card advantage.

guitalex2008 said:

Right you are, and thank you for it, even after I explained it was taken out of context to believe I meant word for word MAC would become an auto include of the same magnitude, assumming FT does become what can narrowly be defined as an auto include.

I don't see what's wrong (especially in this meta) with surefire card advantage relative to surefire damage pump, surefire foundation advantage, surefire damage reduction, or surefire control check pump - i.e. there are a lot of way to get surefire 'x' and what 'x' is varies in value based on situations and timing...

Maybe if you went about explaining why +1 card advantage is any worse than +3/4 damage (an average damage pump for commit) we'd have a real argument. We'd also have a surefire argument for tossing PotM, tossing Relentless, Hilde's asset, and Paul's Gi. Along with a lot of other things that gave +1 card advantage for a small cost. Espeically considering there is a 'direct negate card advantage card' MAC. Is there a 'direct negate damage pump card'? Sure, a follow up enhance to reduce... which isn't surefire...

All I am saying is reducing your argument to, definate +1 card advantage , seriously hampers your argument. i.e. +1 card advantage for a commit is not so OP that any one will care to do anything about it...

- dut

Honestly dut, I've stopped reading your posts anymore. As was the case with worlds, it really appeared to me your entire existence was to stalk my posts, and call them out at any instance. I love a debate, but now you're being a **** about it, saying that you're correct, and that Alex and I are only dissecting one part of your argument, when we're CLEARLY dissecting the entire thing. You think I'm backing into some corner, that you're right, and I refuse to admit that I'm wrong, but dude, you DO realize we're arguing OPINIONS, yes? OK, so, now that you've acknowledged that, you do realize that an opinion can never be right or wrong, yes?

I think FT is more than *****-worthy, you do not. I think this not because it's broken, but because it's unfair, and has no drawback (just as Ira-Spinta has no drawback).

There's nothing rude about posting a 1 word response when I've already given you a novel and a half of words. I've already said, repeatedly, why you're wrong on this topic. Instead of doing the civil thing that I have done, which is to AGREE TO DISAGREE, you INSIST that Alex and I are not just dead wrong, but are now being sore losers, and are looking for ANY semblence of incorrectness to call you out on.

Arrogance, dude. Arrogance.

Either way, why in the Hell is this thread still being bumped?

I disagree with you.
Seems Alex disagrees with you.
You disagree with us.

Why can't you just leave it at that? Why do you have to assert your dominance over us? I have an opinion, he does too, and so do you. Neither opinion here holds more water than the next.

If you want me to start reading your posts, thinking critically, and actually caring about the words you say, maybe you should stop being such an OBVIOUS **** to me, and me personally. I'd like to think I could actually post something without you winging-in with your opinion OF my opinion. I have my word, you have yours.

Debates are fine, but you're trying to crown yourself the victor when all we're doing is arguing theoreticals and hypotheticals.

F that dude.

@ Shinji:

I believe my first response today, after we agreed to disagree yesterday was in response to B-rad. Then you personally attacked my limited scope...

But, becuase you obviously feel like a victim and I (the one suffering your one word abuses) should not, I apologize if you think I have a personal vendetta against you.

I have a problem with disrespectful behavior, in so much that I take it on myself to act instead of ignore. If you can forgive me for that, I'm sure we can get along.

I also have a huge problem with most of what you put in your last post. Opinions are a reflection of the person holding them, and people are inherantly right sometimes and wrong sometimes. Opinions are just that - opinions. But in order to improve the quality of a future opinion you need to uncover the processes and motivations that go into the opinions being voiced, and so oft vehemently by you. Part of uncovering this involves identifying assumptions and conclusions that underly the opinion, these assumptions and conclusions, made personally, are often right or wrong and can be id'd as such. The result is the opinion should change or the opinion does not hold any water at all...

All you have given me is that 'draw' is important mixed in with some capital letters, laughter at peoples particular support for opinions, and silly mantras about why a counter means nothing... I am simply asking for more real debate, not nonsensical rubbish about an obvious generalization.

My problem is that you spend all your time arguing theorheticals and hypotheticals but with words that should back serious implications.

You are the epitome of the person that runs their mouth but refuses to ever put his money where his mouth is for fear of actually having to be wrong. You like to hide behind the fact that you 'can have an opinion', like this is a right that can't/shouldn't be taken away. I always give you the benefit of the doubt, read all of your essays on meta, wheras you do not always offer others the same respect.

This irritates me and I am done posting in this thread.

- dut

Protoaddict said:

You can't say the symbol spread doesn't have anything to do with it either.

Homme Chapeau said:

Yeah Order doesn't need anymore love!

Sol Badguy said:

I was thinking All and Fire but yeah.

Homme Chapeau said:

I was being sarcastic but yeah....

MarcoPulleaux said:

Yep, pretty much.

So i cant believe that after 11 pages that people are still going on about one card sure it has advantages and maybe there is no reason not to run it.

Can we at least wait until some importaint tourneys come up and we can get a real look at the meta and how things are going....i understand that people are concerned but from what ive seen in games i havent lost games because my opponent has got a few on the table and there are definitely cards that i would much rather not see on the other end then FT

MarcoPulleaux said:

This may be your opinion, but it's wrong. Many people are of the opinion that homeopathy works. They are wrong. Their opinion on the subject is wrong. An opinion can be wrong. It can be right. It can also be neither. My opinion on strawberry (they taste good to me) will always be right. My opinion that blue is a nice color is neither right nor wrong.

True fact: This card grants card advantage, at the cost of ready foundation base.

True fact: Other cards do this also.

True fact: You are not complaining about those cards.

My Opinion: This thread needs to die.

LOL, oh man you all slay me. Never.............. ever ever ever ever ever would I have thought this post would go this far. After a night of heavy drinking I post this and watch this monster grow. For those who know me, know that me and April are laughing at what started. I seriously go to bed laughing about what this is and just watch the posts and views go up and up. I am the master troller, take off your championship belt Shinji, its mine!!!!!

And also, Ive been drinking tonight as well, CHEERS!!!!

but...but no. This isn't very good trolling though; dut and I just don't ever agree on ****. It's just how we are. Trolling is when you're just being yourself, ah dah dah duhduh as Christian Bale would say, and here come a million people labeling you troll. Then, when you realize their misnomer, you feed off it and troll the hell out of them just to anger them since you weren't a troll in the first place.

It's lawlbananas.

WELCOME TO THE INTERNET

AirCody said:

It's not the number of pages that count.

It's what it contains.

Homme Chapeau said:

if post count do matter...

Admiral Ren said:

It's not the size that counts.

It's the motion of the ocean.

Homme Chapeau said:

This man is clearly a veteran.

Arbiter & Hata have discussed the issue.

There will be no functional errata issued to Financial Distress.

There will be no rulings reversal issued to the costs ruling. (IE - Anti-Discard, and Anti-Committal cards will still fail to work against cards like Financial Distress and Stand-Off)

Antigoth said:

That's a given.

What I'm more curious about is whether or not future instances of this wording will be clarified for newer players or non-forumites. Or will there be a clarification in an upcoming ruling document/Omni-FAQ?