Nfxon said:

Then who's upping their post count?

At least I'm contributing to the conversation.

I'm not referencing logic. I'm saying something makes sense TO ME. If it makes sense for others and they just don't want to abide by the rule, make a **** house rule.

Sure, I'll leave things alone. Nothing's going to be done about this so-called "situation" any **** way.

In all honesty what needs to change is the rules, not the card. It would be better if in the future templating was more standardized. If cards like this reacted to the actual destruction, rather then the potential these kind of arguments would be largely moot. The game would be simpler for people to understand.

But that's probably too much to ask.

Well, you can't technically "negate" using the current templating without somehow having to deal with potentiality somewhere down the road... unless more cards like Journey of Repentance are printed (or the functional errata to Torn Hero which many aren't even familiar with).

I personally wonder why people don't run it. Then again Torn Hero protects better against committal for better stats and effect.

Instead of MAC, something that says "R Commit: Before your opponent would draw or add cards to hand, they do not draw or add cards to hand instead."

Instead of Killer Android, something like "R Commit: Before your opponent destroys one of your assets, it is not destroyed instead."

Instead of Pommel Smash... oh wait, that still wrecks half the meta hardcore...

Replacement effects are the closest you'll ever get to specific mechanic negation that will never be affected by potentiality. Blanking doesn't have a counter so introducing more blanking might be an issue, depending on what resources it's being given access to.

I don't mind an errata saying it requires an errata, because as we've already stated, Red Lotus shouldn't work until an asset is actually targeted by Amy's, not just when Amy's is used in general.

If Killer Android required an asset be in play, it'd certainly make sense.

Like I said, the closest we can come to negation that isn't affected by potentiality is... substitution effects.

Torn Hero was given functional errata to be a substitution effect worded almost exactly like Journey of Repentance so it couldn't trigger off of Amy's.

Negation will always have issues unless it's flat out blanket negation or worded with more words than the Bible.

We need something short and sweet and since people don't seem to like potentiality, the word "instead" comes to mind.

aslum said:

It's been too much to ask since the beginning.

MarcoPulleaux said:

But see then you get annoying stuff like

E Commit: Either your opponent discards 1 card or destroy 1 of your opponent's assets and you draw a card.

I know it's broken, but it still works for my point. Now, if your opponent chose the destroy asset part and you had Red Lotus or Killer Android out, and responded... if they worked as "replacement" effects, your opponent would still get the card draw.

Alternatively, if their response trigger was "before X was destroyed/whatever" but still negated.. but you're still halfway through the ability. What if we reword things?

E Commit: Either your opponent discards 1 card or you draw 1 card and destroy 1 of your opponent's assets.

When would you get to respond with the more-conditional-version of RL/KA/whatever? Would you respond before or after the card is drawn?

I can make it worse.

F Commit: Draw 1 card. Discard 1 card. Add the top card of your deck to your momentum. You may destroy one of your opponent's assets.

If your opponent has Killer Android out, what if you draw your card... then pitch your card... then add the momentum... then you get to the last part. Your opponent has KA out. What if you decide, then, to go ahead with the destroying effect? If KA is a negate, how would you rewind all that? You can't. :|

It's a necessary thing, because, again, this game CAN'T support general negation. We KNOW that now, from several formats worth of experience. All-purpose negation is overpowered. Situational negation is a necessity, and this is the only way to do it.

Or do you think this game should have NO negation? Because that would be far, FAR worse.

Tagrineth said:

You understand why we need the potentiality ruling as much as I do. However, not a lot of people like it because it opens up the way for rulings they say are ilogical. That's apparently the issue here.

I say that we can't possibly have negation without having to deal without potentiality unless:
1) We make the cards wordier...
2) We make the negation a blanket negation a la Yoga Mastery and Lost Memories, or...
3) We instead have substitution effects.

Carefully placed "and then" and "if you do" in card effects that have multiple parts will prevent confusion from the substitution effects. However this requires a lot of bending over backwards. It is the only plausible way to have "negation" that isn't affected by potentiality. That first example you showed could be stopped by three different negation cards in the future, at minimum.

- Something that prevents discarding a card due to the opponent's card effect
- Killer Android
- MAC

Instead, if the ability was worded slightly different...

E Commit: Either your opponent discards 1 card or destroy 1 of your opponent's assets. If you destroy an asset this way, draw a card.

This way, if a MAC-like substitution card came in, the ability wouldn't be negated but the card draw would. If a Killer Android-like substitution card existed, it would stop the opponent from destoying an asset, and thus from drawing the card (which will effectively act as negation if the asset destruction is the purpose).

"E Commit: Either your opponent discards 1 card or destroy 1 of your opponent's assets and you draw a card."

That's some pretty bad templating right there.

If your opponent chooses to discard a card, do you get to draw a card? Regardless of which assertation you make, why do you believe that? The instructions are completely vague. This is the exact problem that is profilgate in the game (though it has been curbed to some extent in the latest releases). The game needs precise, unambiguous and clear instructions everywhere. The less people need to use their judgment to interpret how a card works the better of the game will be.

While in general I am much more in favor of Errata then the general public is, I don't feel that this is a case where it's needful.

I actually like the original proposed errata only because I don't really like the current ruling. I see its logic, but I agree with Protoaddict on this.

The card should not be able to prevent the destruction of staging areas that contain no assets, since it's supposed to prevent the destruction of assets specifically.

I strongly dislike that it responds to the playing of an ability, rather than the effect. As Proto said, the proposed errata makes the point moot, and so is okay.

If I were to errata it, it would say: "R Commit: When your opponent's ability would destroy an asset, cancel that effect and destroy 1 asset."

This hits it on the timing of the effect, rather than on the timing of the play, and completely circumvents the "potential destruction" Protoaddict was talking about. I think this sort of thing should be standard templating.

All that said, I can't see Killer Android being that killer or seeing much play if it doesn't stop Kazuya. Stopping Kazuya is the only really good effect it has.

ARMed_PIrate said:

Saving PotM from asset destruction? Nailing your opponent's PotM?

One problem with AP's version of the templating - now you're negating continuous abilities? One of the points of them is that they can't really be "negated".

Homme Chapeau said:

Of course, this would only work if another asset is in play besides your PotM; otherwise, you'll be forced to resolve Killer Android by zapping your own PotM.