I was reading the TR for my wall-of-text Yoga Short Kick thread { link! }, and I noticed this:

• 500.12 If a card has a variable on it that is undefined, then the player who played it gets to decide what that variable is equal to. If a player plays a card that references their height and/or weight and they are unknown then they will be the worst possible value for that card. If a player plays a card against their opponent that references their opponent’s height and/or weight and they are unknown they will be the worst possible value for that card.

Did I miss an earlier segment where the TR specifically references other unknown values? If not, doesn't this mean that - for example - when I play a copy of UR Twelve I can decide, "I grant thee the Female gender!" and be able to play both E's on Gorgeous Team? Or {in a less outlandish and easily hole-ridden example} Demitri won't gain extra life by sucking on Ibuki's not-AB blood, and Blood of the Innocent won't give life bonuses when my opponent is Twelve?

It was ruled that in the case of undefined values on a character card (height, weight, gender, blood type), the person with "??" would always be on the losing end. So in your examples, because Twelve has the gender "??" he would automatically find the worst case scenario for a card that specifies a gender, so the Gorgeous Team would see him as male.

Demitri will gain extra life because he can suck on Ibuki's "??" (therefore AB) blood.

Blood of the Innocent will give a life bonus as Twelve will be seen as Twelvette.

The only time a "??" value can be on the better side is if there are two different "??" values in play, cards such as Virtue of the Small, etc, in which the "??" of the person who uses the effect will be assumed to be inferior to the "??" of the other person.

Cascade almost got it. ?? vs. ?? has no clear winner so an effect like Virtue will just do nothing.

So despite the first sentence of 500.12, this is another TR-bypass issue? 'K, just wanted to be sure

I mean, after all, Twelve's card has "a variable on it {gender and BT} that is undefined" and that is not covered by the rest of section, but on the other hand you never actually play your starting character card... I can live with the ruling, especially because Twelve is going to the land of YWNE Bison in a few short weeks.

Wafflecopter said:

I've been out of the game recently but back when i played this ruling fluctuated wildly so bear with me >.<

The way the TR says it if you reference a value on an opponent's card you get the worst possible value for that card. This could apply to the card being played or the card your card is referencing. If its referencing that its the worst possible value for the card you are playing then demitri would not gain life from a ?? bloodtype. However if it is referencing that its the worst possible value for the card that your card is referrring to then it would mean a ?? bloodtype tastes like good old AB to Demitri. This would work the same with other cards such as The Bigger They Are..

I can't differentiate between which it means by looking at the first part however since if you play a card referencing yourself and it gives you the worst possible value for the card you played it is most likely also the worst value for the card your card references since either way it is probly bad for you and not going to work, unless you find a way to play a card on yourself that would give your opponent an advantage and doesn't but thats neither here nor there.

So since in my mind i can see it going 2 ways every time i see it and it just boggles my brain horribly, i want to know what the current ruling is on it so i can just go with that, so please, what is the exact current ruling on this card, and can you also list any crazy exceptions that i probly can't think of?

Sakendo said:

read below:

Cascade said:

does this overlooked TR statement reverse yuri killing herself ruling?

maybe if you actually post a coherent question you can be answered...?

500.12 If a card has a variable on it that is undefined, then the player who played it gets to decide what that variable is equal to. If a player plays a card that references their height and/or weight and they are unknown then they will be the worst possible value for that card. If a player plays a card against their opponent that references their opponent’s height and/or weight and they are unknown they will be the worst possible value for that card.

does this statement say that when yuri uses her "E Commit: until the beginning of your next turn, you have no maximum vitality.", since your maximum vitality becomes undefined, you pick an arbitrary value so as that she doesnt have a maximum vitality of 0, killing her due to what i understand was ruled on the old forums

you have got to be making this up. NO one ever said yuri would kill herself.

yuri removes her vitality cap, she in no way changes how much vitality she has currently. this is in no way related to 500.12.

GouHadou said:

He's more asking along the lines of using something like Dan's Dragon Punch while she's removed her vitality cap, which returns her to her maximum vitality, since it's undefined, there's an argument that her maximum vitality would be counted as 0, effectively killing her.

No, it's not even that complex. If she has no maximum vitality, and undefined variables are 0, then her max vitality is zero.

If you have more vitality then your max vitality you are instantly reduced to your max vitality.

If you are ever at 0 vitality you instantly lose the game.

QED if you use her enhance you lose the game.

I'm not saying it is GOOD or that we play that way, but technically that IS what the rules (as they currently stand) say.

aslum said:

this is what im talking about, at our local store this is how its played so noone plays her. was this actually a ruling or a discussion

but 500.12 says that values that are undefined are decided by the player that own the card, thus suggesting you can set an arbitrary value for the undefined max life you dont have anymore

I hate to use this kind of logic, but in this instance what you have to think is:

If the developers had wanted the ability to kill her, they could have worded it much simpler EG F Commit: Lose the game.

Since they didn't word it that way it shouldn't be too hard to figure out that they wanted her to have an unlimited maximum vitality.

This is not what the rules say, but this is how we play, and this is likely how it'd be handled at any major tournament you go to.

It's the same as Cleansing Nirvana or Ready for Anything, or any number of other cards that have been "ruled" to work but have not been errataed to fix the poor wording that was printed on them.