Do Integers Belong In UFS?

By Magumo, in UFS General Discussion

Posted at

Hewittzil said:

aslum said:

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.

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?

lynx tail has been examined to try to find a posible ultimate win condition.

Posted at

trane said:

Hewittzil said:

aslum said:

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.

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?

lynx tail has been examined to try to find a posible ultimate win condition.

Yes, but my question still stands:

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 ?

The attempted win condition is not as a result of Lynx Tail itself, but through mis-applying both rules and common sense to Lynx Tail, so as to find a loophole that generates a win condition.

Posted at

unfortunely that is how some people including myself, look at cards. how can i brake this?

Posted at

trane said:

unfortunely that is how some people including myself, look at cards. how can i brake this?

In what sense do you mean "break"? If you are referring to "break" as in, say, Defender Loop, I really don't think it is relevant. To clarify, I am referring to deliberate mis-interpretation of a card and the rules so as to create an effect that is not present. This is very different to what I understand as the meaning of "breakng" a card, per se.

From the original post and it's implications, the intent here seems to have never been to "break" Lynx Tail as a move, it has instead been to create defects in the rules and gain some sort of credit from showing these defects. If the original poster had any sort of interest in this as a rulings issue, this thread would be in the Rules forum, not in General Discussions.

Posted at

Hewittzil said:

From the original post and it's implications, the intent here seems to have never been to "break" Lynx Tail as a move, it has instead been to create defects in the rules and gain some sort of credit from showing these defects. If the original poster had any sort of interest in this as a rulings issue, this thread would be in the Rules forum, not in General Discussions.

The problem is the rules have to be as airtight as possible, however, they aren't.

Come the TR revision, they probably will be.

Posted at

As far as whether it is a misinterpretation of a rule, or a ruling that kind of falling between the cracks, I think it falls into both. I think that STG and FFG when designing cards assumed people would understand the intent of the wording of the cards, and that no one would even attempt something like what has been described here.

Notice, I didn't say they expected us to use the card to it's intent, instead it is the intent of a rules wording. I fully advocate breaking cards and using them to any means not within their "intended" use. However, this is a ruling's issue. I would say that instead of waiting for rotation, scouts just advocate ruling against this abusing the wording of a rule, and implement the intent of the rule. I say this due to there being Regionals that are going to be before rotation or the new TR is official.

Also, I'm slightly shocked that any of the rules arbiters did not instinctly quash this back door, unintended way of gaining large boosts to go through, since they are usually very tight on the intent of cards. I feel they should be tight on the intent of a rule of the game.

Posted at

TBH I don't think it's as bad as people are making out. Sure you can make it a 100damage attack, but then it's a -97 speed attack. If you've got a complete block you can't fail. And there are TONS of other things you can do against it. And against anyone trying to make it unblockable, or a throw, there are even more counters... not to mention that most of those will require 3-4 cards to pull off.

Posted at

Hewittzil said:

In what sense do you mean "break"? If you are referring to "break" as in, say, Defender Loop, I really don't think it is relevant. To clarify, I am referring to deliberate mis-interpretation of a card and the rules so as to create an effect that is not present. This is very different to what I understand as the meaning of "breakng" a card, per se.

From the original post and it's implications, the intent here seems to have never been to "break" Lynx Tail as a move, it has instead been to create defects in the rules and gain some sort of credit from showing these defects. If the original poster had any sort of interest in this as a rulings issue, this thread would be in the Rules forum, not in General Discussions.

See the problem here is that your definition of a "deliberate mis-interpretation" is utterly subjective. You cannot ever assume that anyone else will see it the same way is you using common or any other kind of sense.

I mean look at it like this, 2 things have always been consistent in UFS, and that is mathmatics and precedent. Mathmatics would dictate that X could equal any number, including negatives and technically decimals, all the card states is that it cant be greater than 4. While the game has never catered to illogical numbers, in the past there has never been a reason to have an illogical number or a negative. In most cases X is determinend for you, and in cases where it wasn't it has never in the past been a worthwhile task to make X a negative number, if allowed. Most cards made it clear that X was minimum 0 as well.

So this is where common sense fails. You say that its not in the spirit and intent for the card, and I would agree, however at the same time if that's the case then should the card say so as did every other card in the past. Also shouldnt the rules cater to this fact and have some line that dictates X = Positive whole number. Common sense also dictates that if you couldnt do it the rules would say so, and in this case they do not. Precident further compounds this because you can look back and find cards that either speficy what X could not excede or be under, or cards where X can be anything and you just wouldnt want to have it be that. The lack of thoes 2 things on this card is what brings us where we are.

With all of that being said i think common sense would dictate that we all can see an update to the rules comming and this being covered in it.

Posted at

aslum said:

TBH I don't think it's as bad as people are making out. Sure you can make it a 100damage attack, but then it's a -97 speed attack. If you've got a complete block you can't fail. And there are TONS of other things you can do against it. And against anyone trying to make it unblockable, or a throw, there are even more counters... not to mention that most of those will require 3-4 cards to pull off.

Hi. I'm ::Dhalsim::, you go first.

F Commit, add TWoP to my staging area, play Lynx Tail, discard 4 cards from your hand and make it for 9000 damage with -9000 speed. Game 2?

Posted at

quarzark said:

aslum said:

TBH I don't think it's as bad as people are making out. Sure you can make it a 100damage attack, but then it's a -97 speed attack. If you've got a complete block you can't fail. And there are TONS of other things you can do against it. And against anyone trying to make it unblockable, or a throw, there are even more counters... not to mention that most of those will require 3-4 cards to pull off.

Hi. I'm ::Dhalsim::, you go first.

F Commit, add TWoP to my staging area, play Lynx Tail, discard 4 cards from your hand and make it for 9000 damage with -9000 speed. Game 2?

You can already do this with any number of things. Turn 2 victories arent so uncommon sadly. Honestly this card hitting for fatal is probably less demoralizing than Hanzo loop which is yet another I draw one card and I win situation. Just because fei longs kick cant go into silly illogical numbers means that the effect is any less brutal.

Once again though, it will be fixed with the new TR I'm sure. I mean hell the TR BARLEY covers static abilities to the point where the rules that we are all playing at this point are almost completely undocumented now that the old forums aren't there and we are passing them down like folk lore of old.

Posted at

Exactly. There are already early game clinchers that are harder to stop that are completely w/in the rules. Hell, video games themselves show that you can't use the same move over and over to win (if your opponent knows how to counter it), and generally when a move can be use infinitely w/out fear of counter it's banned.

Posted at

Wilding said:

As far as whether it is a misinterpretation of a rule, or a ruling that kind of falling between the cracks, I think it falls into both. I think that STG and FFG when designing cards assumed people would understand the intent of the wording of the cards, and that no one would even attempt something like what has been described here.

Notice, I didn't say they expected us to use the card to it's intent, instead it is the intent of a rules wording. I fully advocate breaking cards and using them to any means not within their "intended" use. However, this is a ruling's issue. I would say that instead of waiting for rotation, scouts just advocate ruling against this abusing the wording of a rule, and implement the intent of the rule. I say this due to there being Regionals that are going to be before rotation or the new TR is official.

Also, I'm slightly shocked that any of the rules arbiters did not instinctly quash this back door, unintended way of gaining large boosts to go through, since they are usually very tight on the intent of cards. I feel they should be tight on the intent of a rule of the game.

Well, Omar stated on Q&A that you shouldn't be able to pick a negative number arbitrarily for X, but the thing is, while we can in theory make patchwork rulins like that... in a general sense, we can't completely turn the rules upside down to meet our agenda. There's no rule that limits what X can be set as, so we can't really make one up per se.

Posted at

no, we can't, but we can ask James for his input on the thing, which i did, and he resolutely told me that picking numbers for X had to be positive.

i don't make things up on a whim, y'know :P

Posted at

GouHadou said:

no, we can't, but we can ask James for his input on the thing, which i did, and he resolutely told me that picking numbers for X had to be positive.

i don't make things up on a whim, y'know :P

Which is awesome.

Posted at

Protoaddict said:

Hewittzil said:

In what sense do you mean "break"? If you are referring to "break" as in, say, Defender Loop, I really don't think it is relevant. To clarify, I am referring to deliberate mis-interpretation of a card and the rules so as to create an effect that is not present. This is very different to what I understand as the meaning of "breakng" a card, per se.

From the original post and it's implications, the intent here seems to have never been to "break" Lynx Tail as a move, it has instead been to create defects in the rules and gain some sort of credit from showing these defects. If the original poster had any sort of interest in this as a rulings issue, this thread would be in the Rules forum, not in General Discussions.

See the problem here is that your definition of a "deliberate mis-interpretation" is utterly subjective. You cannot ever assume that anyone else will see it the same way is you using common or any other kind of sense.

I mean look at it like this, 2 things have always been consistent in UFS, and that is mathmatics and precedent. Mathmatics would dictate that X could equal any number, including negatives and technically decimals, all the card states is that it cant be greater than 4. While the game has never catered to illogical numbers, in the past there has never been a reason to have an illogical number or a negative. In most cases X is determinend for you, and in cases where it wasn't it has never in the past been a worthwhile task to make X a negative number, if allowed. Most cards made it clear that X was minimum 0 as well.

So this is where common sense fails. You say that its not in the spirit and intent for the card, and I would agree, however at the same time if that's the case then should the card say so as did every other card in the past. Also shouldnt the rules cater to this fact and have some line that dictates X = Positive whole number. Common sense also dictates that if you couldnt do it the rules would say so, and in this case they do not. Precident further compounds this because you can look back and find cards that either speficy what X could not excede or be under, or cards where X can be anything and you just wouldnt want to have it be that. The lack of thoes 2 things on this card is what brings us where we are.

With all of that being said i think common sense would dictate that we all can see an update to the rules comming and this being covered in it.

Again I'll return to the same issue.

On the one hand you are arguing that negative numbers are common sense, on the other you are qualifying with such phrases as "While the game has never catered to illogical numbers." If you, or Aslum, or Trane or others in this thread are attempting to demonstrate the legality of Lynx Tail in this way, as common sense , ask yourselves why you find it necessary to refer to this misuse as "illogical," "not encouraged," or a multitude of the qualifiers already used?

Posted at

Homme Chapeau said:

GouHadou said:

no, we can't, but we can ask James for his input on the thing, which i did, and he resolutely told me that picking numbers for X had to be positive.

i don't make things up on a whim, y'know :P

Which is awesome.

Definitely.

Posted at

Homme Chapeau said:

GouHadou said:

no, we can't, but we can ask James for his input on the thing, which i did, and he resolutely told me that picking numbers for X had to be positive.

i don't make things up on a whim, y'know :P

Which is awesome.

Awesome like the SUN!

Posted at

BlindProphet said:

Homme Chapeau said:

GouHadou said:

no, we can't, but we can ask James for his input on the thing, which i did, and he resolutely told me that picking numbers for X had to be positive.

i don't make things up on a whim, y'know :P

Which is awesome.

Awesome like the SUN!

sure is cuase i was gonna use linx tail next time i showed, so now dave doesn't have to get mad at me.