Be it that they don't work the way they should, be it whatever, these cards just don't work. I'm just one guy, so I can't see them all ergo I'm asking you guys to fill in the blanks so I can send a comprehensive list to FFG of cards that may be in need of errata. 99% chance they know this already but hey if they don't it's better to do it NOW than later. Especially with the TR revision coming eventually.

I've got two particular examples.

1) Anything that refers to maximum vitality in it's effect
Why it needs errata : *Yuri*. That should say it all, but a character with no maximum vitality is confusing to new players when an effect is triggered that refers to said maximum vitality.

2) Traveling Man
Card Text : After you block with this card, you may look at the top 7 cards of your deck, choose 1 card, reveal it to your opponent, and then add it to your hand. Discard the other revealed cards.

E Discard X cards: Search your deck for a card with a difficulty equal to X or less, reveal it, and then add it to your hand. Only playable during your opponent's attack.

Why it needs errata : WHAT other revealed cards? No seriously, you look at the top seven, take one, and the rest of the cards? They aren't revealed so they go back to top of deck. You don't get to place them, but they still do. You may think "Blah blah spirit of the card." but card text > all in most cases. Why not nip this one in the bud?

Lynx Tail

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

Fix: needs a (minimum 0) after the effect. Cause right now I can discard your hand, play this, then give it -9000 damage to hit you for over 9000.

quarzark said:

Someone in our playgroup must never see this post.

NEVER.

I didn't suggest fixes because that's not my department, but yeah I see how that's busted.

Actually, in that case, Hatman, Yuri would be the card that needs clarifying errata. The following sentence needs to be tacked onto the second E: "When a card would reference your maximum vitality, use your current vitality instead."

Now, EVERY card that says "once per turn" in the effect has a problem, because it reads as if the effect happens once per turn regardless of whether the ability is ever played again. The Once per turn should either appear before the cost (like character or desperation keywords) or it should say "this ability may only be played once per turn."

Felikiri is wack. Any thing that lets you copy E's or R's is problematic, if you can copy them from attacks.

...Balrog..., Taunt, and .M. Bison. never got the errata that would allow them to work with current rules. (Balrog and Taunt should say "form," not "action." M.Bison has no idea when cards are in-play or in the card pool.)

Beginner's Luck never got the errata that would allow it to work with current rules.

All cards with static text (continuous abilities) are wack, because it is completely unclear whether continuous abilities only work from the staging area, or always work. (If they only work from the staging area, than continuous abilities on attacks and anti-discard actions do nothing. If they work outside the staging area, then continuous abilities on many "permanents" work from the discard pile, card pool, or hand).

Chicanery never got errata'd to explain anything about what it did or how it works.

Cleansing Nirvana never got the errata to change it's continuous ability to an R. As things stand, it's Breaker can never be used.

...Cody... talks about discarding characters... except discarding characters from the staging area would be "destroying." And it doesn't say anything about not being able to discard characters from the card pool.

Every card that references "form card" or "enhance card" or "response card" is wack.

God of Metal is completely wack. The debate around this card led to the infamous and idiotic "and then" ruling.

Harrier Bee? Wack.

Move to the Rhythm is 15 kinds of wack. That card should never have allowed folks to block for cheap.

Nicholas the Saint is wack, for reasons of character switchery. The "If... you when the game" section of the F ability should also include the phrase, "if you removed an X-mas token this turn," to prevent it from being used by imitators or swap-ins.

Ready for Anything is wack with respect to the situation when it is preceded by nothing (situation unclear).

...T. Hawk... is just plain wack.

:.:Taki:.: is wack because it has static text that calls for in-game action to happen before the game begins. And since static text doesn't do anything until the game begins, it does nothing. (She depends on time travelers to work.)

Yoga Flame's E is wack under the current definitions of "unblockable."

Every card that says, "the next card you play" has the potential for wackness, since some are intended to affect the difficulty or check of the next card you _attempt to play_, while others are intended to affect the speed, damage, etc. of the next card you _successfully play_ (two very different concepts).

I hope this helps. Take what you will.

Please have a care. This message may make some of the FFG staff's brains explode.

quarzark said:

Hmm. That card gives me the immpresion that x cannot be greater than 4. Also even if you could give it -9000 dmg, I didn't know speed could kill you since speed is what the card gains.

He's saying that you could give Lynx Tail a damage reduction of MINUS 9000. A minus of a minus is a plus, so instead of reducing the damage you are actually raising it, hence why the minimum 0 is needed so as to not cause that situation, as Quarzark so eloquently put it, it doesn't matter if it has a speed of negative 9000 if you have no hand to block with.

On a side note isn't it ironic that Lynx Tail's artwork features Makoto? Since we're essentially facing the same problem we had with her.

Cascade said:

Oh didn't understand that he was saying give it negative 9000. Still, dosn't change the fact that the highest number you can use is 4.

re: lynx tail

when defining "X" you must use a positive integer, or counting number. (note: this is nowhere near the same as makoto, as she, through the math of her ability, could produce a double negative. there was no 'user-defined-X' involved).

i mentioned this to James, and i suspect that a note about defining X will be in the upcoming TR update.

tannerface said:

No it doesn't. But -9000 is less than 4.

Cascade said:

You win this time gadget.

Internal Struggles' sentence "Your opponent does the same with you choosing." Technically, nothing's wrong with that sentence, but it is vague and confusing when you read the entire card in context. Perhaps my opinion is unique or the card doesn't require any attention; nevertheless, I feel that the card qualifies as "whack".

In case that contribution fails...

Ibis Minuet- I'm sure that players intuit the resolution of attacks differently, especially those silly reversaled Reversal situations and Multiple copies. At the least, that timing window was off-limits for my team's asset because it's not readily intuitive.

Does anyone remember Annihilation? "E: If this attack deals 5 or more damage, during your End Phase you may move this attack into your staging area as a foundation instead of adding it to your momentum." Players believed that they could use its Enhance when it is in Foundation form on other attacks to convert those attacks to Foundations,

YWNE is a dicy card for a few reasons, but it should say "attempt" for the reason that I care about. Otherwise, YWNE + BRT = hardlock.

Overwhelming Strength- I remember an interesting situation at CCUC... The card's trigger is "During your opponent's ready phase", which is inspecific, so the opponent may choose to activate the effect after the typically desired Ready Step. The result is a destroyed Overwhelming Strength yet the opponent's character also remains committed. This may have been a spot ruling, but it makes sense given some thought, which leads to an unexpected situation that propably shouldn't exist.

Also, last I heard UR Twelve can copy an effect from a card in your opponent's hand if it remains revealed. I always found that "whack".

How about the conditional and preemptive triggers on Ibuki**, Higher Caliber, Constant Training, The Red Lotus of the Sun, etc.? That variety of trigger qualifies as "whack", meaning unconventional and unintuitive at the very least, and can potentially become a bannable offense. Granted, we can look at those triggers as more of a design flaw or fault to avoid rather than an issue that requires resolution, but that allowance doesn't address a Red Lotus' "inappropriate" negation of an Amy's Assistance intended for damage reduction. I considered a TR clause ammendment or addition to fix Higher Caliber and Ibuki** when they were legal, but I conceded that the solution was not so easily discerned to warrant further personal exploration. Those preemptive triggers never sat right with me.

Static effects with no stated trigger are active in out-of-play zones, apparently (see: Bitter Rivals discarding Hozanto). <Subtle inference of new or ammended TR clause.>

Evil Plans' Foundation side deserves clarification because players keep on bringing it up in the Q&A Forum. The card's reference of a starting control check value that is not exclusively a printed value seemingly remains unobserved by new players. The card also specifies a modification to a (control) value, which excludes instances where that value is set to one number. Both of those concepts should be added to the new TR for completeness.

I've encountered truckloads of other shady rulings, but I can't remember them now.

ARMed_PIrate said:

Can anyone explain why its Breaker can never be used?

dakkon said:

When using the breaker, the card is discarded from the card pool, but in order to have the breaker to take effect, the card must be in the card pool

domination is wack. it is a f that says "this atack." this card needs to be changed so you can play it.

trane said:

IIRC that was already done : It should say Your next attack. It, however, was never in the TR.

Yar, codification on the various correcting erratas (like promo Ken and Domination) should really happen sooner rather than later. It's one thing if players have to bring a 300 page binder of rulings to events, and it's another when that 300 page binder had to be taken from a only-partially official Q&A forum with no publicity.

@Pirate: Were you sitting on that list, just waiting for a thread like this?

Wafflecopter said:

He was. Why do you think it's so warm to the touch?

GouHadou said:

That's an interesting theory, but to the best of my knowledge it is not currently codified in the rules.

"Now, EVERY card that says "once per turn" in the effect has a problem, because it reads as if the effect happens once per turn regardless of whether the ability is ever played again. The Once per turn should either appear before the cost (like character or desperation keywords) or it should say "this ability may only be played once per turn."

There's a difference between abilities that say once per turn and abilities that say only playable once per turn. Means two different things.

F Commit: Draw 1 card. Only playable once per turn.

If negated, you can't try again.

F Commit: Once per turn, draw 1 card.

If negated, you can ready it and play the ability again (no restriction on playing the ability multiple times!) to draw a card. But, if you ready it again after that, it won't work a second time.

All cards with static text (continuous abilities) are wack, because it is completely unclear whether continuous abilities only work from the staging area, or always work. (If they only work from the staging area, than continuous abilities on attacks and anti-discard actions do nothing. If they work outside the staging area, then continuous abilities on many "permanents" work from the discard pile, card pool, or hand).

There's another level I'm surprised you're skipping here.

The work while in play, though foundations, assets, and characters will not take effect from your card pool (per the TR) unless the card says otherwise.

There are a small handful of exceptions though - for example the restrictive effect on Happy Holidays works while removed from play.

...Cody... talks about discarding characters... except discarding characters from the staging area would be "destroying." And it doesn't say anything about not being able to discard characters from the card pool.

Destroying a card means sending it to the discard pile, but discarding doesn't automatically mean destroying too. All Catholics are human, but not all humans are Catholic.

Also, remember that the rules clause about not being allowed to destroy characters says unless the ability specifically refers to characters, which Cody's ability quite clearly does.

That, and you may not pay costs from your card pool so you can't discard characters from your card pool. That's in the TR too..

Every card that references "form card" or "enhance card" or "response card" is wack.

This was fixed sime time ago, but for posterity, a "_____ card" is an action card played specifically for the referenced type of ability. If you Enhance with Absurd Strength, it is an Enhance Card, but not a Response Card. If you block with Absurd Strength, it is neither - just an Action card.

Nicholas the Saint is wack, for reasons of character switchery. The "If... you when the game" section of the F ability should also include the phrase, "if you removed an X-mas token this turn," to prevent it from being used by imitators or swap-ins.

This has been covered multiple times. It's a bit shaky but it works - his ability says 'if he has no more tokens', and the only way to satisfy that is by having one to begin with and remove it.

If you say "Tag, do you have any apples?" and I say "No, sorry, I have no more apples." the implication is that I had one or more apples at one point, and no longer have any. You would not assume I never had any apples to begin with!

Also, last I heard UR Twelve can copy an effect from a card in your opponent's hand if it remains revealed. I always found that "whack".

This is false, lol. he can copy any of his opponent's in play cards. Staging area, card pool, and face-up momentum are all valid.

Static effects with no stated trigger are active in out-of-play zones, apparently (see: Bitter Rivals discarding Hozanto). <Subtle inference of new or ammended TR clause.>

Hozanto is actually a specific exception, simply because its continuous ability involves lowering its difficulty. If it was not in effect while in the hand, the card could never be played at anything other than 6 difficulty. A theoretical attack with "If you have no momentum, this attack gets Stun:3" would not be discarded from hand with bitter rivals because the continuous ability would not be active in the hand.

(bolds because of broken quote tags... sigh)

Cutting edge is wack because it says distroy instead of destroy.

tannerface said:

Yah I'm trying to avoid typos because those still make the card work regardless. Example : Doll from Grandma which speficically states "in front you"

Homme Chapeau said:

They were the cards that I thought were most in need of errata, a.k.a., the cards I gave unofficial errata to in my Pirated TR.

And while I appreciate Tag's attempt to clarify, he really exemplifies my main reason for such a list, and such errata: there are a lot of card wordings that are unnecessary, unclear, or just plain wack, and we shouldn't need a rules arbiter or rules lawyer to translate any of this.

Here's something most CCGers can probably agree on: Magic: The Gathering is the most-popular, best-selling, and best-organized CCG out there. It's also the oldest, but the main reason it continues to do so well is that its designers and developers (it has both!) continue to learn from and fix mistakes of the past.

MTG's Oracle database is one of the best things that ever happened to MTG. They have gone back and errata'd a TON of cards to make them make more sense, to fit with card art, to eliminate loopholes, and (above all) to be more consistent and elegant.

The biggest reason why these various UFS cards are wack is that they avoid consistency and elegance, and invite loopholes. (For those who were unaware, elegance in coding and card design roughly translates to short, clear, and sweet.)

I think UFS deserves something like Oracle, complete with card overhauls for consistency and elegance. In fact, UFS needs it more, because so much of the rules were unclear when UFS was first released, and various card designs have been building for years on rules documents that were full of holes and rarely received more than band-aids.

In order for UFS to reach it's full potential, FFG will have to do what Wizards of the Coast did: write a rules document that makes sense (not one that makes allowances for poorly designed cards of the past), then errata past cards to fit with that document.

Regardless of your feelings on how fun MTG is, we should all be able to agree that it is THE benchmark for card design, set design, and iteration management for CCGs. It should be used as the primary model when dealing with UFS cards or fixing those of the past.

ARMed_PIrate said:

It is also the case when it comes to written communication.

ARMed_PIrate said:

MTG has got there through learning from their mistakes, but TBH I think better examples of card/set design and iteration management would be On The Edge, Illuminati:New World Order and the EVE ccg. Those games have/had a ridiculously small amount of errata, or rules questions throughout their life cycles. Then again, SJG and Atlus both understand the importance of extensive and comprehensive playtesting. No offense to FFG, they're my third favorite game company (well, fourth if you count Cheapass Games, but they're halfdead/ subsumed by SJG) but they've got an intrinsically flawed product. It's an awesome product that I love, but it has many severe flaws that can't be corrected without an extensive revamp of the rules, and errata for dozens of cards. Part of the problem is that STG didn't understand the importance of playtesting, nor listening to the playtesters. They ignored pertinent advice (sorry but Dave's ego did more damage to the game then anything else) and passed off to FFG a playable, but only barely, game held together with spit, case specific rulings, and unofficial errata.

Armed Pirate has it right though, the first thing that needs to happen is the rules need to be rewritten in a comprehensive manner. Then cards need to be errataed to work with the rules. Then templates need to be set out for abilities.

When new "effects" are created they need to be examined carefully, tested in house, then tested by a wide playtest circle, then the suggestions of the playtesters need to be listened to, put into effect, and another round of playtesting of the changed cards needs to be done.

Also, the card designer (Sorry James, but it's true) needs to spend an hour or two every day in the Q&A forum reading the questions, seeing where wording isn't clear, so he'll know what not to do in the next sets. There's no better place to learn what your (or your predecessors) mistakes were. If no one asks questions, then you did your job right. Well, at least until the rules + errata are well enough written that there aren't half a dozen or more new questions every day.