How good is this card, load up an opponents little creature with most likely 8 amber then destroy and fill your pool.

I hope that's right

7 minutes ago, Mightyhawks said:

How good is this card, load up an opponents little creature with most likely 8 amber then destroy and fill your pool.

I hope that's right

I'm not quite sure how what you're saying has anything to do with the card, it just makes your opponents keys cost more to forge.

the way i read it is, an upgrade you can put on any creature. that creature gains opponents key cost plus two amber, it doesn't say keys cost extra to forge. so that creature gains amber equal to opponents key cost plus two, most likely 8 amber. to me a creature gaining something is only incumbent on that creature

this clearly says your opponents keys cost

2 minutes ago, Mightyhawks said:

the way i read it is, an upgrade you can put on any creature. that creature gains opponents key cost plus two amber, it doesn't say keys cost extra to forge. so that creature gains amber equal to opponents key cost plus two, most likely 8 amber. to me a creature gaining something is only incumbent on that creature

this clearly says your opponents keys cost

You're mistaken, it's exactly like grabber jammer except +2 instead of +1. Notice how the "You're opponents keys cost +2" line is a new sentence in quotation. This is why the "y" is capitalized. If it meant you put aember equal to the opponents keys cost there would be no "," and the "y" would not be capitalized and none of it would be in quotations.
It's merely stating the card it upgrades gains that constant ability similar to grabber jammers.

Not to mention creatures cannot gain aember. That is not a thing the rules define. Players can gain aember and creatures can capture it.

1 minute ago, thespaceinvader said:

Not to mention creatures cannot gain aember. That is not a thing the rules define. Players can gain aember and creatures can capture it.

Yep, the only time creatures would have aember on them the card will either indicate to "place" aember on them (such as blood money) or for them to "capture" aember.

On which not it is odd that blood money uses that phrasing and not 'capture from the supply' as some others do. Consistency!

ok i understand, what does the reference to creature gains mean, why even have it written there, if not written there would be same as grabber jammer. how done's gain change card.

dosen't the card say," This creature gains" then tells you what it gains, " your opponents key cost plus 2 amber. its one sentence as there is a coma not full stop, quotations to high lite what has been gained by creature.

This creature gains can not be sentence by itself.

your understanding of this card may be correct but right now i cant see it

6 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

On which not it is odd that blood money uses that phrasing and not 'capture from the supply' as some others do. Consistency!

Well no capture takes from the opponent of the creature with capture, place does not. The point of blood money is to put 2 from the general pool on an opponent creature then to kill it so you gain it. Putting your own on as per capture would be pointless

4 minutes ago, Mightyhawks said:

ok i understand, what does the reference to creature gains mean, why even have it written there, if not written there would be same as grabber jammer. how done's gain change card

It’s just indicating the creature gains that ability. If I’m not mistaken (don’t have my cards in front of me) all upgrades have this.

agree capture from supply would be more understandable

ok ,i can see that. creature gains an ability which is costing opponent + 2 amber.

thanks i have been enlightened

With all the weird rulings lately I wouldn’t be surprised if jammer pack would be ruled to do that tho

3 minutes ago, Poposhka said:

With all the weird rulings lately I wouldn’t be surprised if jammer pack would be ruled to do that tho

I don’t know, the only genuinely bad ruling I’ve seen so far was Biomatrix Backupx and with that it was even admired to be a typo. Most of the others just seem to have been people having odd misunderstandings then not wanting to admit they’re wrong and thus spurring on ridiculously long discussions where they hold to the “I get it but I think I’m right so I won’t entertain the alternative”.

3 minutes ago, TwitchyBait said:

I don’t know, the only genuinely bad ruling I’ve seen so far was Biomatrix Backupx and with that it was even admired to be a typo. Most of the others just seem to have been people having odd misunderstandings then not wanting to admit they’re wrong and thus spurring on ridiculously long discussions where they hold to the “I get it but I think I’m right so I won’t entertain the alternative”.

I don't think that's a fair assessment at all. There are cards and rules where the actual wording is being ignored and the intention is being clarified in direct contradiction to the words on the card/rule. The latest was changing the meaning of the "may" on A Safe Place to mean they have permission, not the choice.

38 minutes ago, dperello said:

I don't think that's a fair assessment at all. There are cards and rules where the actual wording is being ignored and the intention is being clarified in direct contradiction to the words on the card/rule. The latest was changing the meaning of the "may" on A Safe Place to mean they have permission, not the choice.

I was unaware of said ruling, I was talking about threads here like spindowns beings counters, multiple creatures with elusive, gabos long arms vs elusive etc where example after example from the rules and cards are provided to support a ruling that get ignored by some of those who thought they worked differently which turn into long arguments that go nowhere but ultimately get resolved decisions that show exactly what the one side using the existing rules to support there arguments where saying the whole time. That said we do have a few unanswered and a few where the questions get answered and don’t drag on forever.

Oh yeah, absolutely agree about your examples. There does seem to be certain argumentative faction here.

52 minutes ago, dperello said:

Oh yeah, absolutely agree about your examples. There does seem to be certain argumentative faction here.

Yeah I don’t get it, I’ve been happy to admit when someone’s provided rules showing me wrong several times now because it helps me understand the game better. Digging ones heels in and taking it personally seems not only silly but counterproductive if you want to do well in competitive.