Let's say I play Jin's ability giving my checks +3. I have 2 shadow flares in play giving all checks -2 and go to play the combo enhance on curse of the ancient mariner what would the powerful rating on curse be?

without looking at ancient mariner, i am thinking it says "the amount the CC was modified by".

I am going to guess (50/50) and say "5". (+3 and -2 means it was "modified" by 5)

I am thinking it takes the absolute value of the modifications, but I am basing that on nothing other than a hunch so don't hate me if i am wrong

I'm pretty sure Smazz is right, meaning if you play the enhance on Shadow flare as well, you'd end up netting a powerful 7, throw in a sailor's rest and you have powerful 8. Curse of the Ancient Mariner is a beastly attack when set up right.

I think it was ruled that it was the total.. so +3 and -2 would net a total change of +1

Yeah. It was originally thought to be the total amount of modifications (+1,-1,+3 = 5), but recently I believe it was stated that the end 'modification' to the check is the total net change (+1,-1,+3 = 3), as those static changes are applied at the same time.

We will see.

-Tinman

Tinman said:

No, they're applied one at a time.

Pretty sure it'd be the total modifications, so +1 -1 +3 would be +5 powerful

Doesn't that run counter to the ruling(s) from Evil Plans?

the final ruling on evil plans as i remember was that it would return the check to printed but only give a bonus for the 1 modification it was responding to.

so since its not responding to a specific modification i dont think we can reference evil plans on this one

Odd, because they have functionally identical text.

That was R: After your CC is modified"

Not "how much it was modified by"

Similar to hildes E vs something that sees the "most recent" dmg reduction.

Evil plans is reacting to a specific modification, not looking at the total amount modified by.

Compare:

Evil Plans:

X equals the amount the control check [to play that attack] was modified by

Shadow Flare:

X equals the amount the control check to play this ability was modified by

Functionally identical.

(And the only way to modify a control check is with a card effect.)

aslum said:

No.

Evil plans is a Response to a single modification and it references that modification.

Mariner is like hilde where it looks at the total modification. The Response trigger is the key...

Aslum's right, I think the final value modification stands (aka +1 -1 +3 would be +3, not +5 as I originally stated). Good catch with Evil Plans..

If your check was getting +2, then it got -5 from BRT and you use evil plans, is it 3 dmg or 5 dmg? I thought it was ruled to be 5 dmg (the most recent mod, the one you are Reacting to)

Keep in mind by the time i started this game it was after evil plans so maybe i am way off.

Smazzurco said:

would have gotten +5 at US nats 2009

The thing is, Evil Plans is dealing with one specific modification, because when that modification is applied, it reacts during that R window. With CotAM, you are getting a number that is either the total or the sum of the modifications, after all of the modifications have been applied to a past check. Unfortunately, 'amount' as it is on the card, can mean both sum and total.

If it is 'total' modification, then the result is +1 -1 +3 is 5.

If it is 'sum of' modification, then the result is +1 -1 +3 is 3.

Basing the ruling on previous cards that do not actually deal with the same type of situation does not really set a precedence.

-Tinman

Smazzurco said:

That is how it was ruled, but the wording on Shadow Flare suggests that was not the intent. IMO either Evil Plans should be errataed to specifically affect only one CCHax or the ruling on it should be changed to be inline with how Shadow Flare works.

aslum said:

while the text is almost identical, the clause is used referencing 2 different things in the rest of the effect. though it has already been said: since evil plans is a reaction to the trigger of a singular modification of a control check, the modification referenced later in the ability (the part with the almost identical text) is the singular modification evil plans was reacting to. since sweaty man grapple specifically says that its referencing any and all card effects (plural) that modify the control check to play the ability.

they are not used in the same context.

sweaty man grapple also specifies that its "the amount the control check to play this ability was modified by card effects."

so evil plans can stay as it is and we can take CotAM as itself and not reference it to something with the same words in a different context.

The fact that it references returning the check to it's starting value, and does not specify that it is only referencing the most recent modification says to me that it's looking at the total. Considering we both interpret it differently it's obvious it's not clear, and then the only recourse is to look at cards with similar or identical wording. SF has functionally identical wording. You're trying to hand wave that away but the fact remains that evil plans is ambiguous and needs clarification.