jasco games said:

I like that "will" part. Plus it makes for sneaky interaction if you can sneak an asset in their staging mid ability with a response.

So Killer Android stops unidentified card destruction. Whoop de doo?

I still don't see the issue. It's a stupidly situational card. It's not like when MAC stops Omar and Algol's F. It's not something that will never let you destroy something, and it's not like it can be readied, and neither it nor Kazuya has Fire so I fail to see what the big deal is.

I knew the moment I saw it that it stopped mass destruction. I didn't see an issue with it because quite frankly, THAT'S ALL IT DOES.

I don't see the failed logic of this ruling. Or the impact on the current meta. Or why I should care, quite frankly.

If you don't care stop posting to this thread so consistently defending your POV. As we have stated a few times now, the problem isn't android, it's a fundamental rules issue. The fact that you know how android works under the current rules, and the fact that you knew how it worked when you saw it, is moot. Most people did not see it because it is a convoluted rule. Most people wish there was a cleaner way to execute these rules, and most people actually wish android didn't wholesale stop mass destruction where it's not applicable, specifically against someone with no assets. It's beyond a matter of understanding at this point, and now is a matter of wishful and progressive thinking about the flaws of the game engine and how they can be fixed.

I haven't posted in here yet, namely because I wasn't really all that concerned, the topic name didn't lead me to believe we were talking about anything other than the pros/cons of killer android... In fact we are talking about the wording used on certain cards.

It is very clear to me that we have a card that says (in simple terms), 'if your opponent plays an ability that ( can do)/does x, cancel it and do y'. It does not say 'if your opponent plays an ability that will * do x, cancel it and do y'. The will * becuase it also assumes there won't be any intermediate steps to otherwise change or cancel the ability. (this is where it could get confusing).

The next question becomes is the wording we have sloppy? And the only answer to that can come from Hata, being that he can answer whether or not the card is doing what he wanted it to do...

1) Maybe Hata wanted a card that searches to see what text is in the opponents played ability, and based on what it says either cancels it or doesn't. If that is the case then the card is working as intended, i.e. it looks for text that indicates an ability can destroy an asset and it triggers to stop it.

2) On the other hand, maybe Hata 'only' wanted an ability that protects assets in play and punishes the opponent for trying to destroy them. If he did he 'probably' didn't use the correct text to convey this.

A simple errata, to include 'only playable if there is an asset in your staging area' likely solves this.

That is really the real 'immediate' question - is this working as intended?

The long term question - should we have abilities that cancel what other abilities based on what they 'can' do, or should abilities cancel other abilities based on what they 'will do'? Again, the answer to that ultimately lies with the designers. We can all have opinions and mine is nil becuase I don't know what the vast majority of playerbase has problems with.

If the vast majority of playerbase needs things to be simple then ripping 'cancel if can' abilities from the game is probably best. If the vast majority of playerbase can understand the difference between 'cancel if can' vs. 'cancel if will' and is able to recognize the wording that represents either or, then why not include both of them in the game? It adds depth to the game and forces players to determine what is better for them depending on how their decks run.

Example - Obviously, wording changed to designate 'will' and you would only use Killer Android if you wanted to protect and ran assets in your deck. Wheras, wording as of now you would use Killer Android if you thought your opponent would play abilities that 'can' destroy assets, and the same abilities would also do things that would hurt you (hence adding benefit to the cancel of said ability).

- dut

dutpotd said:

Quoting for emphasis. Not to point anything out
But the toaster doesn't say either of these.
It in fact says "After your opponent plays an ability that destroys an asset," this is the relevant trigger here.
The kazuya example in this case has the ability to destroy an asset, but why cant the card check to see ohhh theres no asset I dont work.
Now why it checks to say "IT COULD" destroy asset vs "IT IS" destroying an asset is the gripe here. And I'm on boat, theres no reason the trigger should happen b/c theres no target.

But I understand why it does. Do I agree with it? Absolutely not. Do I think the card is worded poorly? No. Do I think the card should check game state? Yes. Its much easier that in previous examples, asset in play? Toaster makes toast.

This is all a moot discusion. Lines have been drawn, forums divided, and the people who can change it dont read the forums.

My 2 cents.

dutpotd said:

This right here, would solve the problem entirly.

Nfxon said:

My guess is that after discussion is done someone's gonna e-mail the persons who can change this and link to it or provide a report on it.

B-Rad said:

NO IT WOULD NOT.

The card needs no errata. This whole issue is, AGAIN, because people want to apply real world logic to a card game that has a set of rules that go against their logic.

The rules state the card can stop Kazuya even when there are no assets. Logical? Well, since the game state CAN change so that there could be suddenly an asset that can be targetted, the game says YES. People who want to play Kazuya solely for blowing up staging areas instead of working him correctly say this ridiculously underused card shouldn't work that way.

C'est la vie.

you have no say it what is the correct way to use hiim and i think you are making a statement out of your ass by saying that, it was brought up to address the issue that the card shouldnt work unless there is an asset in play...the days of bullsh*t catch all rulings should be over

Touchy. OK, gee. Sorry for making a blanket statement about Kazuya players.

This isn't a bull ruling (I can say the word "blanket" in the forums, right?), we're trying to talk about a ruling that's almost as old as this game.

MAC shouldn't stop FTMH if there's no momentum, but it does. It's the way negation works. It's nothing to "look into", it's nothing new. It doesn't even cause a problem other than the huge fuss created in this thread for no particular reason.

This is not Red Lotus and doesn't even come close. It's a crap card and the ruling brings it slightly up to mediocre sideboard material. The real reason this subject was brought up is there were no Kazuyas in SAS, were they? No one wanted to play Kazuya because of this card? Seriously? Even though he can give damage and speed pump at a meager cost, considering Spinning Demon and Algol's support?

The REAL meat of this isn't some old, true ruling made long time ago for a LOT of different cards. It's about how people think it's unfair that Kazuya can be stopped by it always. Guess what? Pommel Smash stops more characters than Killer Android. It's the reason Steve Fox is barely ever considered. It's the reason JJ is barely considered. The reason Omar is barely considered is the mere existence of MAC.

If you want to use Kazuya for the sole purpose that he can reset the game, have fun. If you don't, have fun. The point is that complaining that a character is made useless by a mediocre card is as pointless as running the mediocre card.

guitalex2008 said:

MAC DOESN'T stop from the mouse or any other card that's draw comes from damage being delt for the same reason that red lotus can't stop grim round house or darkness blade...

guitalex2008 said:

Last I checked you were the one that brought it up so...

kiit said:

Last I checked it did.

I'm confused why people think MAC can't stop things that say "if this attack deals damage, add cards to hand".

First off, I already quoted rulings about negation that fit MAC perfectly. Look back and read them.

Secondly, Red Lotus could negate Akuma's Shoryuken. And that only committed if it dealt damage. It's because of the three points outlined in the ruling in the Omni-FAQ:

#1 This card will only stop cards whose effect will commit, destroy, or remove a card immediately upon the resolution of the cards effect . [Antigoth / Hata 08/13/09]

#2 General reminder that an effect which states "If this attack deals damage" does not finish resolving until after the damage dealing step of the attack sequence . [Antigoth 04/24/09]

#3 If an effect could commit a card upon its resolution (IE Amy's Assistance) Red Lotus will negate the entire effect when it is played . [Antigoth 08/13/09]

So the same can and will apply to MAC and something that, if it deals damage, draws cards. Highlighted stuff is the most important part.

MAC could negate Lord of the Makai's momentum-grabbing E when they were both legal simultaneously.

-o-o-o-o-

Back to the original topic, is it fair to assume that all negation must follow the basis of preemptiveness and potentiality? Otherwise it wouldn't be negation, right?

Preemptive yes, Predictive no. You only need to be predictive when the card is specfically targeting an unknown.

Yoga mastery didnt need to be predictive because it only stopped enhances.
Higher Caliber didn't need to be predictive because a Response is always a response and never not.
Lost memories only needed to know the ability came from a foundation, which couldn't change.

These cards that only target specific things "enhance that destroys an asset" are neblious terms and lead to the need for these rules. Fix teh templating on these cards and there is no longer a need to have these rules.

You need protection like that. You may not want something that says "negate something that destroys an asset" but blanket negation of anything with a boldface letter in front of them is NOT healthy for the game.

Yoga Mastery? Lost Memories? Higher Calibur, REALLY!?!?!?!?!? Did you just mention three of the most powerful cards, one of them which is banned, as a POSITIVE? As an argument FOR blanket negation?

Instead of having cards that flat out negate anything with a certain boldface letter in front of them, it is MUCH more advisable to split into the specific parts. It allows for, you know, ACTUAL deckbuilding, requiring thought and reasoning and much less of a "if it's All, Death or Void, it needs Yoga Mastery" like it happened with Chester's Backing. Oh, what do you know... another banned card.

Would you like a symbol to have access to negating card draw, negating momentum gain, negating abilities that reveal hand, negating foundation destruction, negating foundation committal? Then why consider cards that do multiples of these in one shot?

I wouldn't want cards that negated mechanics in the game, meaning enhancements, responses and forms specifically, just willy nilly. I'd rather negating BE specific, so that control doesn't once again overtake the meta.

Give control players 20 cards than negate one thing each, and one card that negates TWO, and people will flock to that. It's simple and logical. It doesn't say anything bad about the person, it speaks VOLUMES of design flaws.

Hopefully Hata keeps negation specific and doesn't decide to ever create anything that negates forms, responses or enhances straight up.

I'm not saying they were balanced cardss, simpily that the rules were cut and dry. My point is that the cards should accomidate the rules and be written as such, not that the other way around as they are right now. Predictive is not a good rule, because it is open for interpertation in some situations, which is why we are here. Rules should never be interpretive. Ever. No one has rules questions about chess. There is a reason chess is still with us today.

Even chess had rules implemented that make no sense according to the gameplay. This is no different than en passe capturing, promoting or castling.

Rules that seemed unsensical but are part of the rules and accepted by everyone? Count me in.

En passe lets a pawn capture a pawn who just started by taking his two steps to AVOID capture, by moving DIAGONALLY to the space BEHIND the other pawn and capturing it that way. What!? That makes no sense! I'm not landing on the space I'm capturing like the rules say! I'm supposed to only capture pieces on the front diagonal squares! My world is falling down!

Wait, no it's not, because once I learned the rule, voilá, never forgot it and learned to accept it.

guitalex2008 said:

guitalex2008 said:

You know why we don't want this?

It's because it's not intuitive, it's outright dumb and it's turned people away from the game before.

Also, the rest of your argument is crap. Nobody said : "Oh we miss the days where blanket was the norm!" NOBODY. ZERO PEOPLE. What we want is wording that makes some goddamned sense and doesn't have to be ruled every single day. Players shouldn't have to read the Q&A forums just to get the basic interaction of a card! AND THIS IS WHAT THESE WORDINGS FORCE THEM TO DO. It is outright annoying at best, and gamebreaking at worst because you can't even trust what's written on the card!

If the wording matches the intent, then there is no problem. Here, the wording doesn't match the intent. The wording means "Negate any ability that can destroy an asset, then destroy one asset" whereas the intent is "Protect your asset and make your opponent pay by destroying his or by redirecting the destruction on a less important asset."

And if that's not the intent, then the actual wording needed to be clearer.

Either way, Killer Android fails as a card. What we and they have to determine is whether or not it is the wording that is wrong (it redirects an asset destruction effect onto another one) or the intent (it negates any ability that would destroy an asset, regardless of the presence of an asset in your staging area). Note that by wrong I mean "for the game" and not in terms of rules (because that's been determined already).

Also, your comparison to chess is bad. Change it for it lessens your argument.

failed2k said:

JRay and I, we agree in complete concordance.

Not to completely gay it up, but...

If you're Kazuya:

-Ka Technique (given)
-Change tactics to an aggressive stacking strategy (or side into Jin/Heihachi)
-Intimidating Presence until it is destroyed

Jussss sayin

MarcoPulleaux said:

WOOSH.

Homme Chapeau said:

Nobody said anyone missed the days of blankets, but when the logic of how negation SHOULD be is explained by giving Yoga Mastery, Lost Memories and Higher Calibur (the first two of which are BLANKET NEGATION and the third is banned), you tend to see into it.

THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME, NOR WILL IT BE THE LAST, THAT A CARD MAY WORK DIFFERENTLY FROM ITS "INTENT". Intent is a very strong subject, quite frankly because no one but Hata will know, and only Hata can determine if the newfound interaction is a problem.

For all we know it was playtested like that and that's why it's been printed. So why cry over spilled milk when the milk itself is sort of sour and chunky?

Also, I though my comparison to chess was pretty close. Then again, chess has not evolved in thousands of years, whereas a card game evolves every three months, so comparing it to chess in the first place was a pretty sh*tty comparison.

I work with what I am given.

edit: Just in case my symbolism doesn't quite get through again, I mean sour and chunky milk as in Killer Android is a worthless piece of crap card that no one cares about and will only be run as filler in SOME decks.

guitalex2008 said:

Is your caps lock button broken? Because seriously, you're bordering trollish intelligence if you keep that caps thing going.

Anyways back to the point at hand, whether a card is banned or not isn't relative to the argument at hand. Whether a card is unbalanced isn't relative to the topic at hand.

The point being made is that Yoga Mastery and Lost Memories (while OP) are perfect examples of correctly worded negation. If you enhance, I stop it with Yoga... If you do something on a foundation, I stop it with LM... Not: "well Amy's Assitance CAN commit an asset, even though I have no assets out, so I'll negate it with Red Lotus or react with Torn Hero." You see the problem with terrible interaction, which is what killer android is plain and simple. It simple fails as a card as Hatman says. How can it work if you have no assets out?

Because it's a played ability that destroys assets, which is exactly what Killer Android negates.

The logic behind it is pretty simple. Whether you have an asset out or not is not important. The played ability destroys assets. Thus is negatable. Not much to read into it.

You should also keep insulting bits to yourself (to a minimum of 0).

edit: Here are more "mind-boggling" examples.

I've mentioned From the Mouse, Humility about... 75 times now. But it's the exact same situation. I have no momentum, yet I use From the Mouse, Humility. MAC can negate it, regardless of whether there is momentum to add to hand. Maybe I just see the logic a little too clearly on the potentiality ruling and things like these just make sense to me now. Who knows?

Ok Alex seriously. Your acting like an idiot.
Your just spouting off the same thing after every other person's post.

Everyone understands why it works the way it does. People here just dont agree that it should work that way. Is that so hard to understand? Or do I need to pull a you and bring up 5,000 (atlanta math) different examples of convoluted examples so that you can keep the same opinion you had already.

And if you reference logic once more, you'll again just post your own lack of knowledge of this game. When has UFS ever used logic!
Bottom line, I'm sick of you trolling the **** out of this thread for nothing other than a post count.

Your not gonna change there minds, were not gonna change ours. Disagree. Hell only reason I'm posting is bored and felt like calling you an idiot.