I find myself thinking that this situation is a harbinger of the back-slide that could happen with the NEWFS if there is not a bit of careful planning. We are currently in the midst of attempting to change/improve the game, make it more new-player friendly, and overall avoid counter-intuative card interactions. This is an example of where we are attempting to fix, or at least mend, a problem with a broken system.

Painfully obtuse metaphor:

Its like you are working on the pipes in a new house. You are getting everything set up and pretty much doing a good job. A lot better than your last job, where half the pipes had been installed by someone else, and you were really in there to try and keep the water pressure up while not flooding the basement. In the new house, you notice a bit of a leak at one point. Instead of fixing it, you run back to the old house, grab the plumbing manual that you found there(and made additions/alterations to) and try and use that to fix this new leak.

Instead of using the manual to a (almost) broken system, shouldn't we be working to fix the leaks in a newer improved way? I am sure no one wants their basement flooded again, and I am very sure that the store owners want to keep the water pressure at max.

I would move, say this were an actual forum, to kick around the idea of not ruling based solely on the old manual, just because that is what was used before. We need to do a bit better job at looking at what will make this game easier for new players, and more fun for every player. I am not saying that this will happen overnight, or even ever. But if the wording on cards is going to consistently cause problems for players, something need to be put into action.

-Tinman

The English language? In a card game?

Let me remind everyone trying to apply rules of the English language the word "preceding". (Ready for Anything)

Truth is I found many cards that would not work as written when the "If" rule was first stated. Originally, only the sentence that says "If" would wait until resoution. Examples include:

Hooligan Combo: "If this attack is not blocked, remove it from the game. Add 1 card from your removed from game pile into your momentum."
+B: "If this attack deals damage, you may add any number of cards from your hand to your momentum. Discard any number of momentum. For each momentum discarded this way, place 1 Soul token on your character.
A Year's Difference...
Akuma's Tomoe Nage...

That's just 4. The change made was that EVERYTHING following an "If" statement would only resolve if the "If" condition was met. Most of the cards that say "If this attack deals damage/is not blocked, etc." are followed by a second ability. The AGR didn't introduce the new "If" rule; it just clarified it.

Are we gonna get a stamp on this any time? I mean I understand what everyone is saying but I find it odd that a rules arbiter has yet to post here. Maybe we are getting a functional errata? that would be nice....Either way could we make this official?

Tag is a rules arbiter and he posted here. He agrees that the adding of the ability is also conditional to the attack dealing damage.

In short, if the original Spinning Demon deals no damage (or deals zero damage, same end result), then the copies will NOT get the enhance ability.

guitalex2008 said:

The top of the forums says that that is not entirely true. We still have yet to hear from an arbiter.

Ooh, when did THIS happen? I could've sworn he was still an arbiter.

A while back. Regardless, I'm fairly certain he's right. If the original SD doesn't deal damage, then the multiples of it don't have the enhance.

Folks, Tag is correct here. The multiple copy would not get the enhance on it if the attack does not deal damage.

See ATR 2.13.5, it's black and white.

This is just another case of cards not working how they were intended. There is a LONG history of them in UFS, resulting from poor wording and from players trying there utmost to be a pain by breaking a card due to poor wording. In our playgroup we pretty much disregard anything that we don't agree with as intuitive ruling and play our way.

Yes if we ever travel to play other groups we will abide by official rules, but in our opinion 9 out of 10 of the rulings a stupid. This is a case in point - yes it makes sense in reference to the rules, but it works counter to how the card was intended (IMO) due to poor templating or proofing by FFG or FFG's belief that players would play the game and not nit-pick (WRONG!!).

2 pointless and most likely ignored cents duely added.

Duckman said:

So I guess you know better than the guys that created the cards how they were "INTENDED" to work?

You sound pretty full of yourself here, insisting that this card was definitely NOT meant to work that way with NO visible evidence that this is the case.

Duckman said:

So what game are you playing, since you clearly aren't playing UFS?

Tagrineth said:

I am almost positive that the card was not supposed to work like this as i almost everyone else on this thread. I just goes against the way it is worded. Like i said I see why the ruling exists I just wish that they would take these things under consideration when making cards.

Sol Badguy said:

That's some interesting math when three out of nine people is almost everyone. Reread the thread Sol, most folks seem to be in agreement with Tag (myself included, and how often do you see that?) Maybe it DOES work the way the designers intended, maybe not. Regardless it works the way the rules say it does, and that's fairly clear.

Tagrineth said:

You sound pretty full of yourself insisting that you know better than me. Did you design the card? Have anything to do with it? Unless you did then my opinion is as good as yours. Ramp down the ego which I insulted by suggesting that in all your wisdom you are not the only one who has an idea about the mechanics of this game and consider - do you really think that the way the card is ruled is the way it was intended? And when you immediately say 'yes' without consideration think of the Hardley Boys episode of Southpark. Really? REALLY??!?

Sorry, but conforming to your standard of UFS is not really important to me. The designers/owners have made it pretty clear we can pretty much make up rules when playing locally as long as we abide by standard rules when not. Or post them very clearly when out-of-towners show up. As this is the standard and all my cards have UFS printed on the back, I am fairly certain I am playing UFS. Maybe. Really?

Yeah, Duckman, I DO know better than you, as a former forum moderator, former rules arbiter, and former playtester, as well as someone who talks to James directly on a regular basis.

But yeah, you know better than me. REALLY?!

Settle down, people.

The "If" rule is clear and was made for situations like these. If the attack does not deal damage, the rest of the effect does not resolve. Meaning the multiple copies will not gain the ability.

I put it in bold letters in case some poor soul tries to get an answer out of this thread!

The answer is WRITTEN in the rules. It's not a generally achieved consensus that you are not aware of (like it happened to me and Financial Troubles, although I finally gave in and accepted it as true). You should be aware of the rules document.

You cannot argue a written rule. Don't even try.

Also, I see people tossing out the word "intent" like if it was dollar bills at a ADHD strip club. "Intent" is something that varies depending on who's talking. Killer Android, Financial Troubles, Red Lotus, Higher Calibur... lots of cards cause arguments about intent.

NO ONE knows the true intent of a card but one person: James Hata. Everyone else is left to speculate.

THAT is why there is playtesting. The playtesters are people that read a card, draw their conclusion and test as such. If something is a problem anywhere, I assume it would be addressed. If you see cards creating weird interactions like Killer Android, ask yourself, do you REALLY think they would test Tekken without taking it into consideration?

If you think so, then you should probably become a playtester and help instead of making a useless rant about a rule that's already written in the official rules document.