Okay, the situation is this.
Over the weekend here at my place we had a little event in which people from other countries and states attended and had a blast. We were sitting down and playtesting and talking environment when a situation arose. One person playing Kazuya the other playing King. King player has a Killer Android in his staging area. So we all get to talking about the bullsh*t ruling on this card. 900,000% of the people attending agreed that the card needs to be dealt with. And these arent just a bunch of scrubs (well we are but, ya know) these are people who are good players and study the meta and know it and participate in it.

Here is the text of the card for reference:

R Commit: After your opponent plays an ability that destroys an asset, cancel its effects and destroy 1 asset.


The general agreement was that the card should be changed, as it is right now the ruling on the card is that it negates Kazuya due to the same crap ruling that Red Lotus negated Amy's and the promo Zangeif. Remember the question isnt to change the rules its to change the card so it doesnt make an entire character useless. I had hoped we had moved past situations like this. One card shutting down an entire character, rulings like the Red Lotus vs Amy's, and everyone at the event agreed. So we sat down and talked about it and i went to james with it. I proposed an easy solution, to which everyone here again agreed on, errata "Only playable while you have an asset in your staging area". So james asked me to come here and make a post and get some more feedback on it...so here iam and we would like to get some more of your feedback on the issue. Please do not getinto arguments or flame wars, we just want the feedback without hacing to sift through peoples personal conflicts with one another.

Killer Android seems fine to me.

One card shutting down a entire char is a problem?

Like how Pommel Smash or Pauly P shuts down everyone with a defensive ability.

Or how JJ/Rashotep completely shuts down anyone who relies on their ability.

Or how Martial Arts Champ shuts down Omar(and to a lesser extent Algol) completely.

Killer Android is a limited use check and balance for one of the mostp owerful abilities in the game.

Not seeing a issue.

Done and done, that's how I feel about it as we discussed yesterday. It's a simple errata that makes the card as it was intended to be and makes it much more fair. It also doesn't cripple the card, since we all know that the most logical solution is to add a conditional to it that makes a LOT of sense. Kazuya is a great character with unique abilities, and it's silly that Killer Android competely shuts him down for no apparent reason. This errata would solve that problem and return Killer Android to a foundation that was not meant to be a catch-all solution to MASS removal (just a good answer to spot removal) .

I would prefer to see the rules changed, as I have always hated the way these "Potential" Effects seem to work.

Here's the problem with the cards wording. It's trigger is after an opponent plays an ability that destroys an asset. It dosen't say can destroy an asset, which if you wanna play with the rules we currently have would make more sense.

SO we have established that this wording is bad, but we also know it cant work if it said "After your opponent destroys an asset" because by then the trigger to resolve would be moot because the ability already resolved.

So we know the ability can destroy an asset, what we should be looking for in my opinion is WILL it destroy an asset. IF killer android said "after your opponent plays an ability that WILL destroy an asset" it would make more sense, because you would have to have an asset in play for it to do so, problem there is that with cards like Amy's that have multiple abilities or multiple potential targets, you would have to have some level of targeting in the rules, something we don't have.

So since none of these solutions really work, my vote is still revise the rules somehow. Potential based abilities have ALWAYS been a problem from addes to Ibuki to redl otus to this. Fix that and you fix a lot of problems.

Sharing a Moment neuters Nina. To make matters worse, it's a card in her support. I don't see anyone complaining about that one or asking for errata.

Sorry bro, I disagree on errata on Killer Android. It should stop Kazuya because it's the ONLY CARD IN THE META THAT CAN.

Really? We're arguing that a reusable, field-removal card can be countered by a mediocre foundation and as such we should errata the mediocre foundation? We WANT field removal to be completely uncounterable? Logic sort of fails here.

No one cares that Steve Fox is immediately shut down by Paul or Pommel Smash, but THIS is far more important. A foundation which is only ever used to try to protect an asset, and which might become the target of the same card if there are no other assets out? I can't make heads or tails of this!

Besides, Kazuya doesn't have fire, so why should anyone care right now? lol

I agree with the errata. Kazuya RFG his own staging area, when the opponent only destroys. Of course its basically a -oh crap im gonna lose button. but many decks kill turn 2-3. If Kazuya goes 2nd its unlikely that he will have another kazuya by the end of his turn 2 (or has a chance to play it). Just saying that this would make Kazuya a bit more feasible.

Kazuya HAS ANOTHER ABILITY.

IT IS VERY GOOD.

HE IS RIDICULOUSLY VIABLE.

I AM NOT SEEING THE PROBLEM HERE.

I could actaully care less about the interaction of this card with Kaz, there is a greater point to be made here though and thats the existance of these rules based around a cards potential, which is and will always be an issue in my eyes.

in the current meta, there is a point to redo killer android. In a later meta, maybe not so much. Thats all I'm saying.

failed2k said:

You make a good point of comparison, the only difference that I have is specifically, Android is worded in a weird way and that makes it strange with the ruling. The card essentially is meant to be an asset protector with a reactive defense ability that makes the asset player think twice about playing a destroy effect. However, with no asset in play, the ruling still allows it to function and shout something down.

The problem is not hosing a character as specifically being worded so strange.

I dont see a need for errata its dealable. U can attack, use Ka Technique. blank it. and laugh

It really is the ONLY way to stop him so i think its legit.

failed2k said:

Thank you.

When you stack a SINGLE Kazuya, you gain +2/+2 to any attack for ditching a card, which is leaps and bounds better than most simultaneous speed/damage pump... because there's not much of it!

My confusion lies in wanting to errata a ridiculously situational card whose only REAL purpose in a deck with those symbols is not to protect Path (because in the lack of other assets, it may destroy your own), but its +2L block, which is the lowest block modifier on a foundation in the current meta, in the zone with the least available blocks. Then again, if All wants a +2L block in a foundation they only need Hunt for Jin.

Off-topic: Anyone else notice 2HD is up with Tekken?

Link said:

JJ. Also last I checked nothing could stop King's F. Nor any character F for that matter.

Honestly for once I'm with proto on this - it's not Killer Android that's the problem. It's the whole "It doesn't HAVE to do it, it only needs the potential to do it." that is - it sucked back then and I realize now it sucks now.

And if someone says "WELL THEN NOTHING TO LOSE IS USELESS!" I will smack them very very hard because :
a) It was already useless
b) Golden Rule it.

Thing is this should Character cards be counterable by non-character cards? If so then nothing is wrong. If not then Pummel smash and Rashotep need to be errated as well. The issue to me is if Character cards can be blanked or shut down by any number of foundation, assets, or attacks , and that is acceptable then the we are wasting our time debating this.

As for Android protecting before something happens it has to be worded like that. If something is removed from the field it can not trigger thus the wording has to stay the same. I say this because Kazyuma will blow up the field and Android would never trigger because it can't trigger from the discard pile. Unless you are going to give it limbo triggering effect.

Protoaddict said:

The potentiality ruling is messy at best, so I actually had no quarrels with your post. If it get redoneI sure wouldn't shed a tear.

But As for Killer Android, I dont think it needs to be errata'd, nerfed, or anything else. The Card is significantly less confusing then some of the stuff that game has spawned, and even some cards that still currently see play.

It is a single card check and balance for a Exceptional char, that can be dealt with in a few ways. The wording is clear, and the card does what it says, the weird part is the potentiality ruling, not the card itself.

The problem with the potentiality ruling being changed is that opens up cards to new problems. Like, "if this attack deals damage" effects become ridiculously hard to put in check, since they are conditional.

But that to me is a whole nother discussion.

This is about killer android, and im oka ywith killer android.

failed2k said:

Exactly - I personally find it dumb, but it's no less dumber than other cards.

Amy's Assistance could be "cancelled" by Torn Hero. Everyone just ran Torn Hero to deal with Amy's, I didn't see people complaining about that one.

Killer Android is fine. Think about it this way. Take Red Lotus of the Sun. Change its symbols to All, Earth and Void. Lower the block to +2L. Remove the Kyo part.

Now change "commits, destroys or removes a card" to "destroys an asset" and add "and destroy an asset", which could potentially end up destroying your own asset if there are no more, such as when Kazuya blows everything up.

How is that broken? How is that even worth a look? How does the potentiality ruling need to change because a card that causes mass destruction (read: Twilight Embrace's Combo, Destruction in his Wake, Kazuya) is stopped by something that no one in their right mind would run (other than for random anti-meta)?

Hell, I'd run it just so people go "Why in the hell are you running that? Kazuya doesn't have fire!"

edit: It's also not the first time, and won't be the last, where a card does something that was not its original intention. What makes it even less of a problem is how targetted this "additional unintended ability" is. Only targets things that state they would destroy a "card". It's not a ridiculous blanket effect like Red Lotus had, because it's only a THIRD of what Red Lotus was. It's actually less than a third, because even though it only negates destruction, it only negates destruction of "assets" or "cards".

guitalex2008 said:

And wouldn't you like those Red Lotus effects be, y'know... curbstomped in the dirt like they should have been already? I'd like for, y'know, the card I play to do exactly what it says on the tin instead of having to read about potential uses in a far-off ruling based on what it may destroy and not what it will.

I really don't see the problem with Killer Android.

Wasn't everybody howling over Kazuya's psuedo-Infiltrating anyways? A LOT of people at Gencon were raving about Kazuya during Steve's Q&A session, saying that Kazuya is broken and needed to be dealt with.

James' response was "Guys, you have no idea what's in the set yet."

It's the only card in standard right now that can deal with Kazuya. Killer Android does not make Kazuya unplayable by any means. In fact, Kazuya should be able to take care of it most of the time by means of stun (Wheel Kick). If not (Torn Hero), then just lean towards his ridiculous offensive ability.

Killer Android does not stop me from playing Kazuya.

However, Martial Arts Champion stops me from playing Omar.

Shaneth said:

People are dumb as well. Kazuyas ability even with out android floating around really isnt all that in the current game, where often if he can do it he could also probably be in position to win already with his other ability. This is no infiltrating, and he certianlly isnt ibuki with it.

But all that aside, the card is fine if it work pruely as intended. But it dosent. and its not the power level of it not working that is an issue, it's the akwardness and possibility for rules issues.

Also one of the bigger problems is once again the seal of ceseation problem, where by the best way to stop this card is with itself, however ill leave taht for another thread.

We had a drunken 4 am talk about that very subject this morning. Way I see it, its not a bad thing to have an answer to Kazuya's form since its retarded sauce otherwise,

We figured Killer and android would only work if you had an asset to protect. IE I kazuya F, you have a POTM on your side and react with killer android, losing the asset and saving your board. Seems to me that theres a word or two missing from the text. ( Would destroy and asset, could destroy an asset etc )

I'm ok with the way its been ruled. As of now Killer android only really neuters Kazuya, making it sideboard material at best. and even then, with only 8 sideboard card, you'll be hard pressed to use it instead of other better sideboarders.

Protoaddict said:

If his ability isn't all that in the current metagame then why is Killer Android even a problem?

If you say the potentiality ruling, why is it all of the sudden a huge problem now when it wasn't nearly as big in the past?

...Really? >_>; I don't see what the big deal is in the slightest. Oh no, it stops Kazuya. QQ.

Shaneth said:

It has been a big thing in the past though. Ibuki + redlotus was enough of an issue to ban ibuki. Red lotus vs Shadowblade was another crap show. Anything interacting with any choice card like amys. Plenty of other examples.

Tagrineth said:

Not the problem. Kazuya stops Kazuya by the merit of his F being situational at best at the cost of depowering his E.

The problem is that it's another goddamn annoying card that does more than it says on the tin because of a ruling that broke so many other cards before and some of us are fed up with it.