I was thinking about it and i was wondering what other people think about integers being in UFS. I belive there is no simple yes or no but more of when should integers be applied? For example if someone used BRT on me when i play a Chester, I revealed a 5, we both draw a card and then I make my check and it is a 3. v.v My check is a -2 and I fail. Easy to understand right? Another one, Lets say someone plays a Chain Throw with base damage of 5, when i get to enhance i use Amy's to look at the top of there deck and they revealed a 6 check. (Got to be Chester's Backing right since this sounds like an Evil deck lol) So the attack becomes -1. Now what about *Makoto*? Remember her? Her E was just.. retarded...

E commit one foundation: this attack gets -X damge. X equals the number of cards in opponet's hand minus the number of cards in your hand.

They had to give her an errata so it would say (minimum 0) since the card would give a damage bonus if you had more cards in your hand then your opponet and well lets face it with her that is pretty easy to do. Another card I know of that makes things crazy with integers is from the new set, Lynx Tail from Warriors Dream.

E: This attack gets -X damage and +X speed. X may not be greater then 4

Ok i see why it was worded this way since the base damage of the attack is 4. so the orignal thought for this card is you take away up to 4 damage and give it to the speed.... BUT this is how integers mess things up. Since I can choose X I will choose -9000 which technically is less then 4. Now if you do the math 4-(-9000)= 9004 so instead of taking away damage you will be giving damage. It would be a 9004 damage attack. (insert joke now) So what should be done? Even if they make an errata for this card I personally dont see this issue of Integers going away. I think a rule change maybe in order. I dont know maybe something like "when reducing the value of a number it must be reduced by a number that is positive". They can put this in the new starters or something. This is just my two cents. I personally enjoy that integers are apart of the game so i hope they dont just kill them off by making a rule saying "nothing can go below zero" that would suck so much and water down the use of so many cards but like i said this is just my thoughts on it. I am curious what other people think about that matter so i hope to hear some good insight soon.

i think comon sense just dictates you can't do certain stuff. integers are an enjoyable part of the game and i hope they keep them. not being able to go below zero would suck (control haxs).

I actually asked FF about the use of Makoto when we realised it didn't say "minimum 0". The integrates issue does give some ackward situations sometimes, but I also think they should be a possibility for CC Hack and so. A ruled possibility? OK, cause if not it's clear that things go really wild with examples like above, but I think they should be there.

There are SO SO SO many stupid things you can do with this.

Bitter Rivals + Star of the Ring?

Good old Hand Discard?

Deceptive Quickness + CCHax.

What's worse is most of 'em match fire. At least there's not an enhance (that I can remember off the top of my head.) that resets to printed speed.

It should have read: "|X| can not be greater then 4"... of course I imagine using absolute values would have given someone a brain hemorrhage.

Magumo makes an excellent point.

This belongs in the TR:

"201.7.3 Undefined Variable
201.7.3.1 Being Played, In Play: If a variable card value is not defined by card rules or an ability, the card's controller may specify any positive number for that value immediately after declaring that they are attempting to play the card. The value is considered to be that number for as long as the card remains in play face-up."

There's no reason for a player to ever declare X to be negative, so don't let 'em.

Magumo said:

My biggest concern with such posts and rules "issues" is you fail to consider the MASSIVE, MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION WHICH IS THAT OF COMMON SENSE.

Is what you are doing:

1. Against the spirit of the cards?
2. Manipulating the rules without the application of common sense and design intent for your own advantage?
3. Against the spirit of the game?
4. While logical, counter-intuitive to the thought processes of a reasonable individual?

If any or all of these apply, I would think very seriously whether your argument is logical to a normal person, or merely trying to create problems for problems sake?

Hewittzil said:

Makoto was abused quite strongly before the whole "Gotta go to FFG to get this fixed.", and the rules arbiters ruled that, yes, it was legal. It's not because Tag says he rules through "the spirit" of the cards that he actually does so. Same goes with the others.

SPEAKING of which, I need to contact FFG on fixing cards that makes no frigging sense since Yuri came out.

Hear, Hear for Hewittzil.

In response to Mr. Hat, Makoto is an interesting ruling, but when I heard the ruling it made sense and while very strong doesn't in my opinion hurt the core mechanics of the game. This would be opposed to the wording on Harrier Bee. Enhances with no cost that force your opponent to discard two cards just don't work. That's against the spirit of the game.

how would that be any different then what happened last saturday. player playing new terry, turn 2 neo deadly rave {floating makes it unblockable} first E with terry, discards 6cc card making it speed -4 for 6 unblockable, then enhances with cage arena " attack gets -X (damage reduced minimum 1) x = speed" "well because lynx tail currently stands at give it negative value for x gives damage pump, NDR is now -4 for 10, unblockable so -4 for 16"

honestly common sense would be "if you get to select X, it cannot be less then 0, if ability says to reduce by x (listed as -x) and the target value of x is a negative value (in case of negative speed and cage arena) it gets treated as being 0.

unless of course everyone is wanting someone to win a card winning event with a deck that goes turn 1 builds a few foundations for best results but more or less going on first {if opponent isn's a rejection matching character} or second (if they are to get a kun-fu training 2 foundation cost out if opponent matches rejection) "lynx tail at 4, passes, E with lynx tail for -100000000000000000000000000 damage, but since its a -x ability, my attack gets that as damage pump +printed 4, but it is that value -3 for speed, but I'll E with raphael for game"

Honestly, if I heard correctly the new rules should be in the horizon at some point.

You know, at some point between now and the next presidential election.

I don't understand how "X has to be a non-negative integer" is common sense. You can have negative values in UFS. On the otherhand this card is even more open to abuse then Makato was. In this instance it's the card that needs to be fixed, not the game rules.

And from what I've heard the new rules will be released w/ the next set (In March I think).

On the otherhand, there are plenty of means of combating this. Rejection. Fight or Flight. Holding Ground. To name some of the best known ones. People still run these right?

aslum said:

I do find this very hard to believe.

This entire thread actually I find really aggravating, simply because of the lack of common sense. Therefore, please consider the below example.

Magumo said:

Let us examine this from the rather fitting perspective of school children with sweeties.

Child A, whose schoolboy nick name is little Johnny * DAMAGE has four sweeties.

Child B, who, for the sake of arguments is a bully called Nasty Omar * SPEED has no sweeties.

Child A gives Child B one sweetie.

• Child A has three sweeties.
• Child B has one sweetie.

Child A gives Child B two sweeties.

• Child A has one sweet..
• Child B has three sweeties.

Child A wants to give Child B two sweeties. Unfortunately Child A only has one sweetie. Child A cannot have minus one sweeties (he may well "owe" a sweetie, but he cannot physically possess minus one sweeties). Therefore the maximum that Child A is able to give Child B is currently one sweetie.

• Child A has no sweeties (poor little Johnny!).
• Child B has four sweeties (nasty Omar!).

If we apply this example to the card, there is a finite resource that can be moved (up to four). You are exchanging one resourse (damage) for another resource (speed). In this way you cannot exchange what you do not possess (equivalent exchange). Were you to increase this resource (increase the damage on the card), this is still capped at four.

Likewise, please consider the following:

• An attack with negative damage does not heal your opponent.
• An attack with negative speed does not make blocks easier.]

If these two statements are common sense, then why, is the above also not common sense?

* Nasty Omar Speed is bullying Little Johnny Damage because of Little Johnny's bad Herr cut.

comon sense people. comon sense. where can this be found in a game this crazy? hopefully somewhere becuase i don't wanta wait till the new rules for this to be corected.

Aw, I was kinda hoping for a joke thread regarding the complaints about what "should be" in UFS. =P

Sorry Hewittzil, but we already know from other DR cards (all of the ones that don't have (Minimum 0)) that numbers can go into negatives.

The assumption that X has to be an integer, much less a rational number is one I'm willing to accept because of the simple fact that there is not a default rounding rule, nor rules to cover taking half a damage. TBH though there's nothing in the rules that covers fractions or round, so theoretically if you are at 20 life and I deal 19.5 damage to you you are not dead. Most cards specify what X can be, or where math is involved if rounding is up or down, and limits one the values.

If a player chooses Pi for X they are well within their rights by the current set of the rules. I'm not saying that it's a good idea, or should be encouraged, but it IS technically legal.

aslum said:

And this qualifies my previous point rather nicely.

Is what you are doing:

1. Against the spirit of the cards?
2. Manipulating the rules without the application of common sense and design intent for your own advantage?
3. Against the spirit of the game?
4. While logical, counter-intuitive to the thought processes of a reasonable individual?

If any or all of these apply, I would think very seriously whether your argument is logical to a normal person, or merely trying to create problems for problems sake?

Please consider your argument in light of such phrases as "I'm not saying that it's a good idea, or should be encouraged" and with reference to numbers 1-4 above.

Attacks with negative speed and cards with negative block modifiers [only available afaik through E. Honda-4] actually do reduce the difficulty of blocking and can result in a negative block difficulty. Unless I missed something.

Lynx Tail [and T. Hawk] should hopefully be getting functional erratas soon. [ link , see GH's first post]

The argument invoking common sense is extremely shallow as I see it. When someone first showed me how to play UFS, it made no sense* that I discard the top card of my deck before I try to play a card. Or the way Responses work - explain that to someone you meet on the street, and see how many times before they can explain it back without a narrow paraphrase. Include the way Constant Training negates Ancient Arts of Combat, or Material Advantage (even if you know there aren't any attacks in momentum!)

*Common or otherwise

You can either have difficult jumps of logic and bad-for-the-game conclusions, or you can have text boxes with 4-point font on 80% of cards to clearly and explicitly describe what it can and cannot do. I'd much rather have to explain or reason through a dozen special cases where the logical ruling comes out in a weird spot than have to deal with inevitable special cases with no guide from the past.

Edit to respond to OP: TBH I wouldn't mind removing the negative side of the number line from UFS. It'd certainly be a bit simpler to explain than the somewhat mixed application [ which... I think first manifested itself with Makoto allowing bonus/penalties to switch with a negative sign. ]

Hewittzil, The problem there is that's a slippery slope. Common Sense isn't common, and the spirit of the game is different to different people. I know several people who would be overjoyed to see a trillion damage Lynx Tale and even more overjoyed to then Rejection it. I know others who've pretty much quit because of the excessiveness of Life Gain in the current meta.

1 and 3 are uncodifiable, unqualifiable, and impractical. If you're talking about commiting "foundtions" sure I'll accept it... but expecting us to magically decypher when UFS is using "crazy math" instead of real math that's a bit much.

2 is kind of silly to suggest unless you actually have the card designer in the room. (FREX Circle of Steel which clearly doesn't work the way it was intended because cards don't enter the card pool before they are played ... anymore/ever.)

4 I'm sorry, but I would hope that the "normal individual's thought process" was logical. If it's not, that might explain a lot about the problems with this game.

Seriously you're basically asking for us all to tap into the collective unconscious to play cards the same way, which is, to be blunt, kind of a ludicrous proposition.

The problem with common knowledge is that rules have to be concrete and uniform wherever the game is played so that we are all playing the same game. For rules to be rules they need to be 100% objective.

There is no interpretation in chess. Major league sports all have the same rules, sure they have a ref or an umpire who sometimes will make a bad call but they are still judging them on the same set of standards, IE a touchdown is when a player with the football crosses into the end zone, end of story. Granted UFS is substantially more complex than chess or popular sports in its governing rules but still needs to follow the same principals.

This is why common sense cannot be applied but basic mathematics and such can. Math is the same all over the world. 4+4 = 8 in America, Canada, the UK and wherever else. Common sense does not. 2 people can easily come to two conclusions using common sense and be at a place where neither is necessarily wrong, because common sense is subjective.

In America common sense dictates you don’t walk around downtown waving a gun in the air because bad things might happen, however in the Congo you probably should because bad things could happen if you’re unarmed. Likewise a magic player who’s used to cards of a specific power level might use common sense in a UFS game and come to a totally different conclusion than a YGO player.

This is why most contracts have 300 pages to them, and this is why things called loopholes exist. What has been happening is that we have been finding loopholes in the rules. They are there because no one though of the occurrence until the loop hole was found. SO we go back and add addendums to the rules to patch up those holes. Technically speaking the rules don’t say you have to pick a positive number or you cant pick decimals and such, but I would suspect that will be changing soon so as to remove the need to use common sense.

Omar already said this somewhere in another thread but the defining x thing is going to be in the next TR.

Actually, all this discussion is based on fallacy. From dictionary.com:

in⋅te⋅ger [in-ti-jer]
–noun
1. Mathematics. one of the positive or negative numbers 1, 2, 3, etc., or zero.

Therefore, integers OBVIOUSLY belong in the game.

(perhaps you mean "Do double negatives belong in UFS?")

MegaGeese said:

Hehe funny you mention that. I guess when most people hear the word integers the first thing that comes to mind is negative numbers which is associated by positive numbers, since no one really goes around saying oh let me borrow positive 5 dollors from you john. Also it seems everyone who posted seems to understand what i ment so it is all good anyway. So dont worry about little things like that. It will give you wrinkles at an early age. Anyway If i notice any other silly things in the game or just want to get something off my mind UFS related I will make another topic since it seems the ones i wrote so far have gotten such good attention.

tannerface said:

Yah that would be in reply to a thread compilating cards that don't work so we can send a list to FFG and hopefully have it work. In relation to Lynx Tail.

Off-topic, Elena is now known as Miss Shinycrotch.

Homme Chapeau said:

qwhah?

don't act like you don't like the ball buster

aslum said:

Actually, yes I am asking you to tap into the collective unconscious... sort of.

I've heard Lynx Tail described as a "loophole", as something that "should not be encouraged" and also that it is the players "duty" to find such loopholes as Lynx Tail. Truth be told, I don't particularly think a loophole in Lynx Tail even exists. Instead it feesl much as though players are attempting to find faults from a preconception that there are faults to be found.

When examining Lynx Tail for defects, has the card been examined from the point of view of a workable, playable card, or examined from the point of view of attempting to find a defect within the card and the rules?