how come heihachi isnt stackable
SCIV Spoilers - Sacrifices for the Cause and Full Moon Disembowel
ShippuJinrai said:
Sacrifice for the Cause is amazing! This may be the card that actually makes Christie and Ivy viable. Being able to commit stand off or man behind the mask at almost no cost is phenomenal and probably shoot both characters up a tier. I heart the card.
Searching for Family + Sacrifices for the Cause = free Stand Off commit for Christie
And seeing as how All is pretty much her best symbol, that's saying quite a bit <3
Sol Badguy said:
Immortal-JyNxX said:
The foundation is trash but Hata already had me in love with that attack! Combo with Mist Stance and massive hurting happens..
Trash? No Commit 4 Man Behind the Mask for free? yes please?
Yea sure.. Like that's enough to make me play a trash card with trash numbers..
DvON said:
Immortal-JyNxX said:
The foundation is trash but Hata already had me in love with that attack! Combo with Mist Stance and massive hurting happens..
I get the feeling that you were one of the people who were pissed at rotation because I think your comparing it to block 3 order support. while this would still be a decent card in legacy, especial if you were to but out a character who could draw on your opponents turn (i.e. promo Rock Howard and Alba) this isnt block 3. if you were to hold this up to anything else that commits cards in block 4 it has the largest cost but tis also the most versitile, HFOP need you to be in desperation and rashoteps support can only death so far. while commital and order support was needed, hata made sure it was usable when you needed it unlike program malfunction. if you were cursed to play nothing but order for the rest of your life, you would want it there beside you.
Nope quite the contrary.. I wanted this rotation before FFG came up with it. Fact is I am thinking Block 4. And in Block 4 theres not one **** Card in Block 4 that would warrant cards out my hand and sh*tty numbers in my deck... 4 check and 3 Block Mod is crap.. Then we have 2 enter PSoB and Torn Hero. Like I said crap card NEXT PLEASE!
Immortal-JyNxX said:
The foundation is trash but Hata already had me in love with that attack! Combo with Mist Stance and massive hurting happens..
Trash? No Commit 4 Man Behind the Mask for free? yes please?
sorry but you MUST discard atleast 1 card for Sacrifice for the cause... or your not paying your cost.
Hayamachop said:
how come heihachi isnt stackable
He is stackable. you just don't gain any extra abilities or resources from doing so.
Immortal-JyNxX said:
Sol Badguy said:
Immortal-JyNxX said:
The foundation is trash but Hata already had me in love with that attack! Combo with Mist Stance and massive hurting happens..
Trash? No Commit 4 Man Behind the Mask for free? yes please?
Yea sure.. Like that's enough to make me play a trash card with trash numbers..
DvON said:
Immortal-JyNxX said:
The foundation is trash but Hata already had me in love with that attack! Combo with Mist Stance and massive hurting happens..
I get the feeling that you were one of the people who were pissed at rotation because I think your comparing it to block 3 order support. while this would still be a decent card in legacy, especial if you were to but out a character who could draw on your opponents turn (i.e. promo Rock Howard and Alba) this isnt block 3. if you were to hold this up to anything else that commits cards in block 4 it has the largest cost but tis also the most versitile, HFOP need you to be in desperation and rashoteps support can only death so far. while commital and order support was needed, hata made sure it was usable when you needed it unlike program malfunction. if you were cursed to play nothing but order for the rest of your life, you would want it there beside you.
Nope quite the contrary.. I wanted this rotation before FFG came up with it. Fact is I am thinking Block 4. And in Block 4 theres not one **** Card in Block 4 that would warrant cards out my hand and sh*tty numbers in my deck... 4 check and 3 Block Mod is crap.. Then we have 2 enter PSoB and Torn Hero. Like I said crap card NEXT PLEASE!
one again i will have to disaggree. first +3 block mod on a foundation isnt that bad, so for fun i grabed 100 random cards from the current block legal sets. out of the 100 cards 55 were foundations and the breakdown was 35-20 for non block foundations and only 1 card had anything better then a +3 block (seeking treasure) and im pretty sure that if we looked at the rest of the sets that we would see similar ratios, so if your going to complain about a foundation with a +3 block mod then you might as well go and run blockless foundations.
as far as PSoB and torn hero, i dont see much of a problem with the PSoB if you puting it in an All based deck, pitching 2 cards to clear the card that might be holding you back. Sure Torn Hero will allways be an issue for commital, but unless they have momentum you can usualy dance you way around it. If your not experienceing situations where you would discard 2 cards to get rid of the cards stoping you, then i must question what kinds of games you are playing. either your building decks soo well that no one in your group can set up any kind of defence, or your groups deck building just isn't up to snuff.
when I look at this card i see not a card to spray out controll but to carefully snipe away when it count most. i don't think we will be able to convince each other that our point is right so we will have to see how SC4 02 will fall.
No point in arguing, DvON. 3-whores will always exist.
These are the people that will never run:
1) 2-check or lower attacks
2) 4 or lower control foundations
3) assets not named Olcadan's Mentoring
Just let it go. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.
As for the card itself, if 2/4 with a +3 block is bad, then Relentless, by association, is even worse crap because it doesn't have a block, even though it's widely regarded as one of the best draw cards in the block. Additionally, Martial Arts Champion is crap, besides already being widely regarded as one of the most important control pieces in the current block.
Hence, logic fails.
kiit said:
sorry but you MUST discard atleast 1 card for Sacrifice for the cause... or your not paying your cost.
Wrong
Nowhere on Sacrifices for the Cause does it say F Discard X cards (minimum 1), neither does it say anywhere in the rule book, "any X variable must at least be defined by 1 to have considered paid."
It's similar to how Omar Chavez does not have to discard to tutor Man Behind the Mask, or how *Dhalsim* didn't have to destroy any foundations to cause the opponent to discard cards.
You use the form, discard 0 cards to define the variable of X as 0, and then you commit a card with a 0 difficulty.
MarcoPulleaux said:
kiit said:
sorry but you MUST discard atleast 1 card for Sacrifice for the cause... or your not paying your cost.
Wrong
Nowhere on Sacrifices for the Cause does it say F Discard X cards (minimum 1), neither does it say anywhere in the rule book, "any X variable must at least be defined by 1 to have considered paid."
It's similar to how Omar Chavez does not have to discard to tutor Man Behind the Mask, or how *Dhalsim* didn't have to destroy any foundations to cause the opponent to discard cards.
You use the form, discard 0 cards to define the variable of X as 0, and then you commit a card with a 0 difficulty.
Sad, but he's right. Unless it specifies that you must define a certain number, you pick.
Still, can be very interesting to commit that Paid to Protect annoying you, or even better, Undisputed Ruler.
MarcoPulleaux said:
kiit said:
sorry but you MUST discard atleast 1 card for Sacrifice for the cause... or your not paying your cost.
Wrong
Nowhere on Sacrifices for the Cause does it say F Discard X cards (minimum 1), neither does it say anywhere in the rule book, "any X variable must at least be defined by 1 to have considered paid."
It's similar to how Omar Chavez does not have to discard to tutor Man Behind the Mask, or how *Dhalsim* didn't have to destroy any foundations to cause the opponent to discard cards.
You use the form, discard 0 cards to define the variable of X as 0, and then you commit a card with a 0 difficulty.
I do believe that by paying your optional cost, you are indeed defining what X is directly, so you need to discard at least 1 card to commit Man Behind the Mask. Sorry.
guitalex2008 said:
The rules DO however state that when X needs to be defined, it must be a positive number (for things like Lynx Tail giving -X to the damage, so people couldn't define X as -72000 and as a result give Lynx Tail +72000 damage and -72000 speed). Zero is not a positive number.
I do believe that by paying your optional cost, you are indeed defining what X is directly, so you need to discard at least 1 card to commit Man Behind the Mask. Sorry.
Precedence shows otherwise. We'll need someone to rule on this, but 0 is not a negative number, as much as it is not a positive number. It still fulfills the condition of the card without breaking it.
And you ruined my perfect Homme Chapeau non-sticky first page. ;.;
Homme Chapeau said:
guitalex2008 said:
The rules DO however state that when X needs to be defined, it must be a positive number (for things like Lynx Tail giving -X to the damage, so people couldn't define X as -72000 and as a result give Lynx Tail +72000 damage and -72000 speed). Zero is not a positive number.
I do believe that by paying your optional cost, you are indeed defining what X is directly, so you need to discard at least 1 card to commit Man Behind the Mask. Sorry.
Precedence shows otherwise. We'll need someone to rule on this, but 0 is not a negative number, as much as it is not a positive number. It still fulfills the condition of the card without breaking it.
And you ruined my perfect Homme Chapeau non-sticky first page. ;.;
I have no idea what you meant in that last sentence...
As for precedence, the reason Omar works is because it does state "Discard any number of cards" as the cost, and zero IS a number. This says "discard X cards" which means that to play the card, you have to define X and pay the cost accordingly. You can't define an X of zero because zero isn't positive.
If the rule regarding the un-breaking of Lynx Tail and Dual Wielding stated that when defining X you can only use "non-negative" values, then I'd totally agree here. But it says you can only define X with positive values. Again, the fact that zero isn't negative isn't what I'm aiming at here; it's the fact that because it's NOT positive (or negative for that matter, sure), then you cannot define an X of zero. Which means that when you go to pay the cost of Sacrifices for the Cause, you can't willingly discard 0 because that means you will have defined X as zero and you can't do that .
Don't get me wrong, I'd totally be in favor of a card that commits Man Behind the Mask for free, but the way the rules are written it simply doesn't. (hint hint AG?)
Guitalex what he means by precedence is that it's already been ruled that X can be defined as zero. You can interpret zero as negative or positive all you want, that doesn't change the fact that the ruling stands. If it really bothers some people just think of it as a defined 'Whole' number instead (0,1,2,3,4,5...).
If you want example of very similar abilities in which the same ruling was upheld im sure people on the forums can give you tons of examples. Off the top of my head I can think of the UR Dhalsim with a form that made your opponant discard X+1 cards.
And just in case anyone else tries to make a counter-point for this, it's also already been ruled that discarding zero cards can constitute paying a cost for defining a variable.
Tader Salad said:
Guitalex what he means by precedence is that it's already been ruled that X can be defined as zero.
So... someone care to add that to the AGR? Do consider a lot of people here weren't even around when his brokenness UR Dhalsim was still around.
DvON said:
one again i will have to disaggree. first +3 block mod on a foundation isnt that bad, so for fun i grabed 100 random cards from the current block legal sets. out of the 100 cards 55 were foundations and the breakdown was 35-20 for non block foundations and only 1 card had anything better then a +3 block (seeking treasure) and im pretty sure that if we looked at the rest of the sets that we would see similar ratios, so if your going to complain about a foundation with a +3 block mod then you might as well go and run blockless foundations.
as far as PSoB and torn hero, i dont see much of a problem with the PSoB if you puting it in an All based deck, pitching 2 cards to clear the card that might be holding you back. Sure Torn Hero will allways be an issue for commital, but unless they have momentum you can usualy dance you way around it. If your not experienceing situations where you would discard 2 cards to get rid of the cards stoping you, then i must question what kinds of games you are playing. either your building decks soo well that no one in your group can set up any kind of defence, or your groups deck building just isn't up to snuff.
when I look at this card i see not a card to spray out controll but to carefully snipe away when it count most. i don't think we will be able to convince each other that our point is right so we will have to see how SC4 02 will fall.
Mark my words.. This is a foundation that "sounds" like it might be useful but in the end the cost is too high it won't see too much play past the first weeks of ppl testing it out.. The only time its useful is if you're sure to kill your opponent that turn. UFS is in a world of 6HS characters and avg most troublesome foundations are 2 diff. Loosing 2 cards 2 commit 1 foundation w/o killing your opponent leaves you at a terrible disadvantage. Oh and trust me when I say the ppl I play with are more than great at UFS, I'm not too bad myself either ask around lol!
But what ever I'll let you guys loose on your own playing that bum card...
I'm pretty sure the part in the AGR that says when you pick an X number, it has to be positive, is in the section about the Effects of cards, not the costs. I was looking at this yesterday, for paying costs there is no restriction about having to have a positive or negative number.
Immortal-JyNxX said:
DvON said:
one again i will have to disaggree. first +3 block mod on a foundation isnt that bad, so for fun i grabed 100 random cards from the current block legal sets. out of the 100 cards 55 were foundations and the breakdown was 35-20 for non block foundations and only 1 card had anything better then a +3 block (seeking treasure) and im pretty sure that if we looked at the rest of the sets that we would see similar ratios, so if your going to complain about a foundation with a +3 block mod then you might as well go and run blockless foundations.
as far as PSoB and torn hero, i dont see much of a problem with the PSoB if you puting it in an All based deck, pitching 2 cards to clear the card that might be holding you back. Sure Torn Hero will allways be an issue for commital, but unless they have momentum you can usualy dance you way around it. If your not experienceing situations where you would discard 2 cards to get rid of the cards stoping you, then i must question what kinds of games you are playing. either your building decks soo well that no one in your group can set up any kind of defence, or your groups deck building just isn't up to snuff.
when I look at this card i see not a card to spray out controll but to carefully snipe away when it count most. i don't think we will be able to convince each other that our point is right so we will have to see how SC4 02 will fall.
Mark my words.. This is a foundation that "sounds" like it might be useful but in the end the cost is too high it won't see too much play past the first weeks of ppl testing it out.. The only time its useful is if you're sure to kill your opponent that turn. UFS is in a world of 6HS characters and avg most troublesome foundations are 2 diff. Loosing 2 cards 2 commit 1 foundation w/o killing your opponent leaves you at a terrible disadvantage. Oh and trust me when I say the ppl I play with are more than great at UFS, I'm not too bad myself either ask around lol!
But what ever I'll let you guys loose on your own playing that bum card...
Immortal-JyNxX said:
DvON said:
one again i will have to disaggree. first +3 block mod on a foundation isnt that bad, so for fun i grabed 100 random cards from the current block legal sets. out of the 100 cards 55 were foundations and the breakdown was 35-20 for non block foundations and only 1 card had anything better then a +3 block (seeking treasure) and im pretty sure that if we looked at the rest of the sets that we would see similar ratios, so if your going to complain about a foundation with a +3 block mod then you might as well go and run blockless foundations.
as far as PSoB and torn hero, i dont see much of a problem with the PSoB if you puting it in an All based deck, pitching 2 cards to clear the card that might be holding you back. Sure Torn Hero will allways be an issue for commital, but unless they have momentum you can usualy dance you way around it. If your not experienceing situations where you would discard 2 cards to get rid of the cards stoping you, then i must question what kinds of games you are playing. either your building decks soo well that no one in your group can set up any kind of defence, or your groups deck building just isn't up to snuff.
when I look at this card i see not a card to spray out controll but to carefully snipe away when it count most. i don't think we will be able to convince each other that our point is right so we will have to see how SC4 02 will fall.
Mark my words.. This is a foundation that "sounds" like it might be useful but in the end the cost is too high it won't see too much play past the first weeks of ppl testing it out.. The only time its useful is if you're sure to kill your opponent that turn. UFS is in a world of 6HS characters and avg most troublesome foundations are 2 diff. Loosing 2 cards 2 commit 1 foundation w/o killing your opponent leaves you at a terrible disadvantage. Oh and trust me when I say the ppl I play with are more than great at UFS, I'm not too bad myself either ask around lol!
But what ever I'll let you guys loose on your own playing that bum card...
I think Sacrifices for the Cause may see some play with some 7hs characters. With Christie's ability to draw like crazy, it may be a card that can be really useful to her (you know, to get rid of that pesky stand off) or maybe Ivy where she draws basically 2 cards per attack that deals damage, it could work for her as well. Also with the popularity of Financial Troubles, it may be a card that sees more play than you think.
I am almost postive that it has been ruled before that you can choose for X to be 0. Dhalsim of course being my first character and all when the game first started. So yeah stop trolling my posts kilt and learn to play the game -___-
chinese boxer said:
I think Sacrifices for the Cause may see some play with some 7hs characters. With Christie's ability to draw like crazy, it may be a card that can be really useful to her (you know, to get rid of that pesky stand off) or maybe Ivy where she draws basically 2 cards per attack that deals damage, it could work for her as well. Also with the popularity of Financial Troubles, it may be a card that sees more play than you think.
Immortal-JyNxX said:
Mark my words.. This is a foundation that "sounds" like it might be useful but in the end the cost is too high it won't see too much play past the first weeks of ppl testing it out.. The only time its useful is if you're sure to kill your opponent that turn. UFS is in a world of 6HS characters and avg most troublesome foundations are 2 diff. Loosing 2 cards 2 commit 1 foundation w/o killing your opponent leaves you at a terrible disadvantage. Oh and trust me when I say the ppl I play with are more than great at UFS, I'm not too bad myself either ask around lol!
But what ever I'll let you guys loose on your own playing that bum card...
rC(
)
said:
I'm pretty sure the part in the AGR that says when you pick an X number, it has to be positive, is in the section about the Effects of cards, not the costs. I was looking at this yesterday, for paying costs there is no restriction about having to have a positive or negative number.
this
Immortal-JyNxX said:
The only time its useful is if you're sure to kill your opponent that turn.
Umm, isn't that the best time for something to be useful? >>
Y'see, what you see as overcosted, I see as game balance. And it's a beautiful, beautiful thing to me.
Sol Badguy said:
I am almost postive that it has been ruled before that you can choose for X to be 0. Dhalsim of course being my first character and all when the game first started. So yeah stop trolling my posts kilt and learn to play the game -___-
I
just
came
@ Chinese Boxer: Correct maybe a few but that surely doesn't make the card widespread useful..
guitalex2008 said:
Immortal-JyNxX said:
Mark my words.. This is a foundation that "sounds" like it might be useful but in the end the cost is too high it won't see too much play past the first weeks of ppl testing it out.. The only time its useful is if you're sure to kill your opponent that turn. UFS is in a world of 6HS characters and avg most troublesome foundations are 2 diff. Loosing 2 cards 2 commit 1 foundation w/o killing your opponent leaves you at a terrible disadvantage. Oh and trust me when I say the ppl I play with are more than great at UFS, I'm not too bad myself either ask around lol!
But what ever I'll let you guys loose on your own playing that bum card...
I'd rather ditch 2 on my kill turn than commit 2 every time they use Stand Off. Me, and everyone else in this forum sans you.
Ah but what if they have multiple Stand-Offs?? 2 Stand-Offs alone makes your idea crumble.. What you gonna pitch 4 cards with a likely 6hs Character?
ZeeroYui said:
Immortal-JyNxX said:
The only time its useful is if you're sure to kill your opponent that turn.
Umm, isn't that the best time for something to be useful? >>
Y'see, what you see as overcosted, I see as game balance. And it's a beautiful, beautiful thing to me.
No the best time for a foundation to be useful is most if not ALL the time! Like BRT, Stand-off, Ka Tech, Shinobi Tradition, Higher Cal, Need Too Destroy, etc... Cards that sit around until you may have a chance to kill are almost useless. I'll stick to cards that will be useful to me from the second it hits my Staging Area..
Immortal-JyNxX said:
Ah but what if they have multiple Stand-Offs?? 2 Stand-Offs alone makes your idea crumble.. What you gonna pitch 4 cards with a likely 6hs Character?
And kill in two cards? (Or get them through other card draw?)
Yes.
Homme Chapeau said:
Immortal-JyNxX said:
Ah but what if they have multiple Stand-Offs?? 2 Stand-Offs alone makes your idea crumble.. What you gonna pitch 4 cards with a likely 6hs Character?
And kill in two cards? (Or get them through other card draw?)
Yes.
If it matched anything with siggy then yes all i would need is my mid weapon and DGB
Or ill just draw cards through other means and discard those....that sounds pretty good