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
X-Gene Decoded
Topic Started: Jun 5 2009, 09:36 AM (2,005 Views)
FHR-X
Member Avatar
Regular
[ *  *  * ]
Thank you. I accept your apology.

The problem with this one, at this point, is that the card needs an official errata. Since this is not a rules dispute, but one of semantics and/or syntax.
But with UDE washing their hands of this game, this comes down to local judges making the call.

I can very well see the card played the way you explained it. I just choose my way simply because I find it overwhelming from your point of view and I truly believe it was intended to be played the way I read it.

I will pass this on to our 3rd judge in our area (Onyx and I being the other 2). And if our 3rd jugde goes by what Onyx originally posted, then I will have no choice but to follow that rule since I will be out-voted 2 to 1.

Onyx when you read this. I hope you agree that essentially Rob will be the deciding vote for our future tournaments (if the card comes in play). I will make sure he reads this thread so he can come to an objective decision.
Edited by FHR-X, Jun 5 2009, 05:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
unclechawie
Member Avatar
Elite Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Dude, do me a favor. PM Herocomplex and get the final ruling and it will save everybody a lot of aggravation. To my understanding he helped write the rule book for VS. He is and has been the rules guru for years. PM him and see what he says. Get the right ruling and play the card the right way so that if there ever is a discrepancy, you'll know how to answer it as opposed to having to be stubborn, especially since you're a judge. People are going to look to you for the ruling.

As I said before, If I am wrong, I will apologize. But don't go play the game saying I'm going to interpret the card(s) how I want to interpret the card regardless of what everyone says.
Edited by unclechawie, Jun 5 2009, 05:12 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FHR-X
Member Avatar
Regular
[ *  *  * ]
I am aware of Hero Complex's expertise Chawie. I met him at Worlds last year and he helped me a lot on how to understand certain obscure mechanics of the game. However, like I said, this isn't a rules dispute it's one of syntax. Even if he reads the card the way you do I still will remain on my side of the fence for this situation.

Who I will choose to be the deciding factor on this situation will be my community. If they want it to be played the way you do, I will have to agree with their decision. But as I mentionned, we have always played it my way.

Not because I demanded it. But because we interpreted the card to be played in that manner. I made them aware of this situation. If they all agree with you, it won't change my resolve but I will abide by their wishes so we can all keep playing with the same regulations.

And you said I was stubborn. Perharps.
But I am not anymore stubborn then you are. You simply find resolution in your position to be stronger simply because, as of now, you are part of the majority on this board.

What I am doing is the exact same thing you are. Defending my point of view on an opinion. If that makes me stubborn, well then I get that makes two of us doesn't it? :-)
Edited by FHR-X, Jun 5 2009, 05:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
unclechawie
Member Avatar
Elite Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Stubborness is definitely something I have been accused of and I do not apologize for it just as I don't expect you to apologize for being persistent in your point of view.

The reason I got so heated in my last post was because of the way the forum was progressing. You presented your opinion on how it should be played and twice said I understand your point of view but I see it differently and choose to use my point of view. I did not see that as a defense of your postion but rather stubborness on your part as did Shadow, thus the hard headed comment. As an FYI, I had started typing my last post prior to your last post posting, which means I did not have some info you provided in your last post. I edited the post to include the judge portion without fulling reading your last post, which I apologize for.

Ultimately, you're correct your playgroup does have the final decision if they feel a card needs to be banned or errated and nothing we can do or say would change that if that how you and your playgroup decide to play it. However that does not change the fact that strictly per the wording on the card, in combination with the rules, it can be legally played in the manner in which we have described, which is what we have been trying to say and what the original post was about.

I'm extremely glad you have a playgroup and am jealous you get to flip cardboard with Onyx. I hope you guys stick together for a long time.

Later.

Edited by unclechawie, Jun 5 2009, 06:34 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FHR-X
Member Avatar
Regular
[ *  *  * ]
unclechawie
Jun 5 2009, 06:32 PM
Strictly per the wording on the card, in combination with the rules, it can be legally played in the manner in which we have described, which is what we have been trying to say and what the original post was about.
I agree.

Do you also agree that the way I described it also matches your position on how to play it, but that simply our interpretations are different?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
unclechawie
Member Avatar
Elite Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
It would be impossible for our points of view to coincide on either.

Here is how you play the card. Reveal top 4. Remove all non-character cards. Search that deck for card description. Remove all card that match that description. This is not optional. I have to remove all cards that match this description.

This is where we differ, the interpretation of the description of the cards to be removed. Your description does not match mine and therefore the interpretation of how to play the card is different.

The portion of the game text that describes which cards are to be removed is "with the same name as a card removed this way." "In this way." references the initial reveal and removal of the cards. So the text essentially states "with the same name as a card removed on the initial reveal and removal. " As I search the deck I have to ask myself for each and every card, "Does this card have the same name as a card removed this way?"

Let's say I remove Savage Beatdown and Mobilize on the initial reveal and removal. Was Savage Beatdown "a card removed this way?" Yes. Was Mobilize "a card removed this way?" Yes. Both are cards removed "in this way." As I search the deck I have to ask myself for each and every card, "Does this card have the same name as a card removed this way?" All Savage Beatdowns and Mobilizes would match that description and have to be removed from the game. It is not optional.

Now if you and your playgroup choose to errate the card so that you get to choose only 1 of the revealed cards, that's a mute point in my estimation because it changes the text of the card and my opinion on how to play it would have to be based on the new text.
Edited by unclechawie, Jun 5 2009, 07:41 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FHR-X
Member Avatar
Regular
[ *  *  * ]
So ... No?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
unclechawie
Member Avatar
Elite Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I've edited it a couple of times because I'm not too happy with how exactly to explain this. The short answer is, the cards your description removes are different than the cards my description removes. Thus the two effects are different and cannot coincide.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FHR-X
Member Avatar
Regular
[ *  *  * ]
Ok let me rephrase my question then.

Do you agree that it is possible that the creator of the card intended the card to be played in the manner that I interpret it but failed in the manner of precision when it came down to write it, thus creating this situation?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
unclechawie
Member Avatar
Elite Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
That is completely possible. But we don't know that for sure. All we have to go off of is the text as it is presently worded on the card. That is why I have absolutely no qualms if your playgroup and you decide to errata the card for your playgroup.

If you'll notice, once I found out you mentioned errata, I agreed with your right to errata the card for your group. Again, the initial thread was about how the card is to be played as presently worded, not whether or not the intent of the card was properly portrayed in the ultimate wording of the card.
Edited by unclechawie, Jun 5 2009, 08:09 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FHR-X
Member Avatar
Regular
[ *  *  * ]
Very good.

Just wanted to make sure you knew the reasonning behind wanting an errata.
Edited by FHR-X, Jun 5 2009, 08:20 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
unclechawie
Member Avatar
Elite Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
For me that was never an issue. Play On!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
vs_savant2
Member Avatar
Zen Master of the Versus Arts
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
It works the way Troop put it. If not then X-factor Investigations would not work as intended either.

2 X-Factor Investigations
To flip, discard an X-Factor character card.
When you flip X-Factor Investigations, remove the top three cards of an opponent's deck from the game.

[Activate] -> Negate target effect from a non-ongoing plot twist with the same name as a card removed this way.

The way FHR-X is interpreting X-Gene Decoded would mean that X-Factor Investigations would only be able to negate 1 card removed from play and not a choice of 3 cards that were removed( if your lucky). Because he states that A Card removed this way is referencing only one card and not all cards.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FHR-X
Member Avatar
Regular
[ *  *  * ]
You are correct Vs_Savant. That is how I read it and play it. So if my opponent plays two different plot twists (Savage Beats and Flying Kick) and when I activate X-Factor Investigation, if I am lucky enough to reveal both those cards (Savage Beats and Flying Kick and let's say the third one is Superman no cost)

Then I choose either Flying kick or Savage Beats and negate the one with the same name. Not both.

But as mentionned before I am waiting to hear from the rest of my community and if they prefer to play it the way everyone else on this board agrees too, then I won't fight them on it.

I am simply stating that those cards can be read two ways, and I prefer the least powerful one. I won't stop anyone from playing it the way they prefer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HomerJ
Member Avatar
Elite Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
This whole thread is complete foolishness!

1) The VS System TCG Official Card Reference (found here: http://entertainment.upperdeck.com/community/files/29/english-rules/entry1591915.aspx) defines the card text as:

X-Gene Decoded (MEV-130R)
Plot Twist, 3
To play, exhaust a Mr. Sinister you control. <p> Reveal the top four cards of an opponent's deck. Remove all revealed non-character cards from the game. Search that deck for all cards with the same name as a card removed this way, then remove them from the game.

2) Similarily, the FAQ document released with MEV also clarifies the card text (found here: http://entertainment.upperdeck.com/community/files/32/vs-faqs/entry1554246.aspx)

This could have been resolved on post #5. The card is worded the only grammatically correct way to make sure you only search for cards that have the exact name of any of the cards, but not all names or combination of names. This is just rules lawyering a difficult card wording, but in the end, the effect is as intended. If you are able to remove 4 different cards, you could in theory find and remove a total of 16 when all done with the effect.
Edited by HomerJ, Jun 6 2009, 03:23 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« 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.