Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Once you've registered and completed email validation, you'll need to reply to the thread in The Welcome mat before you gain full access to the site.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Power-Up; UDE's Documents contradictions
Topic Started: May 16 2009, 04:14 PM (293 Views)
Shadowtrooper
Member Avatar
I Hate Rebel Scum!
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I was recently looking through the Games rules ver. 2.7 and through the Summary of FAQ Terms document. I found this on Power-Ups based on discarding character cards.

Summary of FAQ Terms
 
27.1 Power-up effects

A power-up effect is any effect whose modifier could power-up one or more characters. The power-up game-based effect reads, “Power-up target attacker or defender you control.” The cost of this effect is discarding a character card with the same name as the target character.

Then on the rules document it states:
Rules 2.7
 
708.5cAny player may play a game-based effect that reads, “Target attacker or defender you control becomes powered-up,” the cost of which is discarding a character card that shares a name with the target character.

Out of curiosity I decided to check the Hellboy rules and it states the same as the Summary of FAQ Terms, saying that the character card discarded must have the same name.

I no longer have the rules that came with the starters (MOR, MSM, DBM, MFF, MXS) and if anyone still has them I would like to know what they state according to power-ups. Just to kill my curiosity.

So the Questions are:

When there is a small contradiction like this what document has the higher authority? Now I always go by the rules, but how much validity do the other documents like the Summary of FAQ Terms and the FAQ for each set really have? Was there a rule change regarding power-ups somewhere between the Hellboy and the release of ver. 2.7 of the rules that I just don't recall (perhaps the change came before)? If so can anyone tell me why this change was made? If there wasn't a change then why do these other documents state something different than the rules?



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Melonball
Member Avatar
Regular
[ *  *  * ]
The difference between the two rules that in the second option you can power someone up that has an identity that is the same as another characters name (using Azrreal <>Batman to power up Batman), where as the first makes it sound like it has to specifically be the same name, right?

I just looked this up recently when I was making a multiple man deck, and i was surprised to notice this too.

I dont suppose anyone could try to quickly check this on the Vs DS game, that usually has the comprehensive rules figured in...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shadowtrooper
Member Avatar
I Hate Rebel Scum!
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm sorry to say that you can't power-up characters based on identities Melonball. There is a distinct difference between NAMES and IDENTITIES.

The Rules
 
After some character card names, there is a diamond (<>) symbol followed by text. That text is the printed identity of the character. The naming format for these characters is “Name <> Identity.” If a character’s name isn’t followed by a diamond, its printed name is also its identity. A character’s identity is ignored when determining the uniqueness of that character.

This one doesn't have to do anything with power-ups but it does use the Batman example you gave. I posted it to make clear the difference between names and identities.
The Rules
 
201.2e If an effect or modifier refers to another card by name only, it’s referring to a card with that name, whether or not it has the same version or identity, and whether or not it has other names as well.

Example: Batarang, Cutting Edge reads, "Equip only to Batman." This equipment can be attached to Batman <> Cape and Cowl, but not to Azrael <> Batman, Knightfall. Batarang refers to Batman by name only, so a card with version or identity Batman does not qualify.

Just like for equipments like Batarang, Cutting Edge and cards that look for specific names power-ups do the same thing. Identities or versions do not count for power-ups, only names.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bkwrds
Member Avatar
is a Gypsy Doom
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
The summary is intended to uh... summarize in plain english. I would go with what the CRD states, especially since it matches my current understanding of the rules.

I checked my Hellboy Rulebook and it had the "same name" text you described from the summary.

I know there is a distinction between "sharing a name" and "having the same name" but it would be lost on just about anybody looking at a summary of terms in an FAQ.

I think it is likely that the CRD changed as of... MUN? When Carrying the Torch and The Captain came around. Until then names were not as fluid. Cards like the Mystique 1-drop added to the mix once the floodgates had opened. It is most likely that the CRD was changed to its current text at that point, so that the rules matched what players would intuitively assume was correct.

Edited by bkwrds, May 16 2009, 05:07 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
vs_savant2
Member Avatar
Zen Master of the Versus Arts
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
The Consolidated rules form Hellboy have a few inconsistencies. If I remember correctly someone from UDE stated that the rules form the FAQ's should be followed because the rules from HEllboy were vague or inconsistant.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bkwrds
Member Avatar
is a Gypsy Doom
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Well that too.

That said, I can't think of any instances pre-MUN where characters would have more than one name. Am I missing anything?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadian Bacon
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ST,

I'm sorry to say but the issue is pretty self explanatory.

The Comprehensive Rules Document is the last word in all rules questions (hence why HC quotes it exclusively). In the Introduction of the CRD it even says:

Quote:
 
These rules are designed to be the ultimate authority on the Vs. System trading card game (TCG) for competitive play.


But even if that weren't the case, the Summary of Terms FAQ was added in February 2008 while the latest CRD was released in December 2008. Since the latest CRD was updated 11 months after the latest Summary of Terms, it stands to reason it has the correct wording.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bkwrds
Member Avatar
is a Gypsy Doom
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Bacon wins the thread.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shadowtrooper
Member Avatar
I Hate Rebel Scum!
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Bacon, I never said that the rules aren't the authority I was just asking what document(s) have the highest authority. As I stated I follow the rules but I do like to read the other documents too, and it just really bothers me that UDE didn't take the time to update or revise all other documents. Guess I didn't read the rules that well cause I missed the whole quote you posted.

So question #1 was answered and the highest authority belongs to the CRD. I guess all other questions are pretty much explained with that but do anyone knows for sure when the change occurred in the rules? Was it done exclusively for the fact that characters can gain names, or was there another reason?

Edited by Shadowtrooper, May 16 2009, 08:59 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HeroComplex
No Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Early 2006 and 2007 CRDs already use that same "shares a name" wording as the CRD uses today, so I don't think this rule was ever changed. Rather, this just reflects that the SoFT has always been a more casual introduction to keywords and such. Plus, for the majority of the life of the game, there was no functional difference between two cards sharing or having the same name---with double-naming impossible, the difference in phrasings was insubstantial and fairly involved. In an introductory document, wouldn't really be any need to preemptively delve into weird naming issues that couldn't happen anyway.

All told, not really much to it. A new-player-focused document uses the wrong wording, but at a time before the issue could come up. The CRD, on the other hand, has always given a clear answer, even before the issue could arise. Like the FAQs, SoFT has never been able to overrule the CRD, it just tries to explain what's already in the CRD. Here, SoFT has just lagged behind a bit due to lack of updates.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bkwrds
Member Avatar
is a Gypsy Doom
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
HC comes in like a 9-drop. Game over.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shadowtrooper
Member Avatar
I Hate Rebel Scum!
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
HeroComplex
May 17 2009, 12:56 AM
Early 2006 and 2007 CRDs already use that same "shares a name" wording as the CRD uses today, so I don't think this rule was ever changed. Rather, this just reflects that the SoFT has always been a more casual introduction to keywords and such. Plus, for the majority of the life of the game, there was no functional difference between two cards sharing or having the same name---with double-naming impossible, the difference in phrasings was insubstantial and fairly involved. In an introductory document, wouldn't really be any need to preemptively delve into weird naming issues that couldn't happen anyway.

All told, not really much to it. A new-player-focused document uses the wrong wording, but at a time before the issue could come up. The CRD, on the other hand, has always given a clear answer, even before the issue could arise. Like the FAQs, SoFT has never been able to overrule the CRD, it just tries to explain what's already in the CRD. Here, SoFT has just lagged behind a bit due to lack of updates.
Thanks a million buddy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Rules · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Marvel Comics Character Images, Character Names and Card Text Copyright 2009 Marvel Characters Ltd. and/or Upper Deck Entertainment, LLC. DC Comics Character Images, Character Names and Card Text Copyright 2009 DC Characters Ltd. and/or Upper Deck Entertainment, LLC.