| 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: |
| X-Gene Decoded | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 5 2009, 09:36 AM (2,003 Views) | |
| Shadowtrooper | Jun 6 2009, 04:50 PM Post #46 |
![]()
I Hate Rebel Scum!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But it isn't. Victor Mancha can do far worse damage than an X-Gene Decoded since he doesn't discriminate about the cards that are eliminated from a deck: characters, equipments, locations and plot twists, it's all the same to him. You put a Wolvie next to Victor Mancha and attack directly and not only are you losing your endurance your also losing your deck. Honestly I find much more devastating losing my characters than my non-character cards, but thats just me. Honestly I think you guys are doing yourselves some harm by playing a card one way when you know that the rest of the community plays it in another fashion. That means that if it should come to a time when you play outside of your group you will not have the experience and knowledge of how to play your decks effectively when you get hit by a real X-Gene Decoded. |
![]() |
|
| Zanth | Jun 6 2009, 05:07 PM Post #47 |
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Point taken on Victor, and in playing him (since I run Runaways) he is quite good, as long as you have initiative and he doesn't stun in the attack. If you don't have initiative he probably is going down with out much endurance loss happening. I agree our way of playing these cards probably is a disservice to us, we make sure to let those in our group know the way they are played, but if I chose to make my game more difficult so be it. Unfortunately at this time my opinion of some of these cards and how they should be played is not going to change (to my detriment) until I hear from the maker of the specific card that can clarify the wording. |
![]() |
|
| Shadowtrooper | Jun 6 2009, 05:14 PM Post #48 |
![]()
I Hate Rebel Scum!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Actually endurance loss is the only thing that is going to happen. Forgive me but that is just plain dumb. You are a judge you shouldn't really need for the creator of a card to come and tell you specifically how a card should be played. You know how the card is played you just admitted to it, you simply choose to play it your way. |
![]() |
|
| Guglio | Jun 7 2009, 07:31 AM Post #49 |
![]()
Don't You Know Who I Am?
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The reason it says "a card" is because if it only reveals one card, "a card" is grammatically correct. Much in the same manner that cards say "he" referring to an opponent, as he is the personal pronoun, not a declaration of gender. If you played against a female opponent and had a card that said "he," and she claims it doesn't work because it should say "she," would you agree to that? If not, then your arguement about grammar inconsistencies falls apart. Remember that the grammar of a card game will always be slightly incorrect in regular writing terms. The grammar on a card is meant to explain the effect as best as it can, even if the grammar is indeed wrong. Take some random cards, input the text exactly into Microsoft Word and see if there's an green underlining squigles. I gaurantee you there will be. Also keep in mind that you have heard from the card creators. The FAQ entry is the card creators telling you how the card is meant to be played! How can you dispute that!? It seems to me that what Lupercal said it correct - you don't like the intreptation of the card so you use semantics to change the effect to something that doesn't hurt as much. Any card with slightly incorrect grammar can be argued but why bother, everyone here but you two guys know what the card actually does. If it wanted you to choose one of the revealed cards, it would have said JUST THAT. CHOOSE ONE OF THE REVEALED CARDS, etc etc. BUT IT DIDN'T, it said what it's supposed to say. There's no syntax error here, it's your own incompetence to play past 1 plot twist because it mills your deck. Edited by Guglio, Jun 7 2009, 07:38 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Shadowtrooper | Jun 7 2009, 08:21 AM Post #50 |
![]()
I Hate Rebel Scum!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Quote Guglio. I love you. That is all. |
![]() |
|
| lupercal | Jun 7 2009, 08:25 AM Post #51 |
![]()
Regular
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Just thought i would let you know why i posted my interpretation of your reasoning, this is all stuff you wrote. 1. "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." 2. “Not because I demanded it. But because we interpreted the card to be played in that manner. I made them aware of this situation.” 3. "But my point was only that if the creator the card wanted it to be played the way everyone on this thread says it does, it should have been written like so:" This is a way of saying you can never convince me otherwise. Judges should not be this intimidating about rule queries. 4. “I am simply stating that those cards can be read two ways, and I prefer the least powerful one.” |
![]() |
|
| Bliven731 | Jun 7 2009, 08:28 AM Post #52 |
![]()
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm just wondering why you guys are even bothering? He's not going to budge, so you are wasting your time. EVERYONE knows the correct way to play the card. |
![]() |
|
| vs_savant2 | Jun 7 2009, 03:03 PM Post #53 |
![]()
Zen Master of the Versus Arts
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think he now knows though that if he plays against a deck with X-Gene Decoded in it, and they get lucky and hit 3-4 plots, he is gonna lose 12-16 cards and there is no way a judge is gonna swing his way. I won't, my level 2 friends won't.
Edited by vs_savant2, Jun 7 2009, 03:42 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| bkwrds | Jun 7 2009, 03:11 PM Post #54 |
![]()
is a Gypsy Doom
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think the flaming here is unnecessary. We should not be insulting people just because we think they're wrong. |
![]() |
|
| vs_savant2 | Jun 7 2009, 03:42 PM Post #55 |
![]()
Zen Master of the Versus Arts
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Your right. I apologize and will edit my post. |
![]() |
|
| HeroComplex | Jun 8 2009, 02:12 AM Post #56 |
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Since I've been asked to weigh in---no, X-Gene's wording does not have players pick one of the removed cards.As the game's templates evolved, Combat Protocols moved from the first text above to the second---the two texts are functionally equivalent, differing only in terms of the design teams' preferred wordings. Combat Protocols is a pretty clear indication that cards do not use "a" to implicitly signal choices in the way you're suggesting, FHR-X. A) Such an interpretation conflicts with the wording of the earlier template, and B) such an interpretation would also make the card's references to team affiliations nonsensical. At some point in the development of the game, the design team decided to use the singular for wordings like this---wordings that will refer to or compare against multiple cards overall, but only one card at a time. Those wordings have never been used to indicate implicit choices, they just indicate R+D's preferred templating. |
![]() |
|
| FHR-X | Jun 8 2009, 02:35 AM Post #57 |
|
Regular
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thanks everyone, you've all miss my point. But you will be happy to know that after I talked it out with our community, they decided that following the popular way was better. So it's now a moot point and we will be playing the card the way you people do. Peace! Harvey |
![]() |
|
| unclechawie | Jun 8 2009, 04:20 AM Post #58 |
![]()
Elite Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
FHR-X, You're point wasn't totally lost. You're point was simply that the way we described the card was too powerful and you think that it does not function as it may have been intended to by the creator. As such, it may need an errata. As you've pointed out, you were going to let your community decide how it should be played amongst your playgroup. It looks like they have made their decision on how to play it. I don't think a local errata would necessarily have been a bad thing as long as everyone was in agreement. The issue would have only developed on a non-local level or local tournaments with the presence of those from outside the community. And that of course could easliy have been fixed with a notice about the errata. That being said, I hope it was a discussion regarding how to play it as opposed to let's just settle for what those outside our community say. Anyway, hope you are doing well and keep flipping them cards man. Later. |
![]() |
|
| FHR-X | Jun 8 2009, 12:23 PM Post #59 |
|
Regular
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Actually Chawie, I wanted to exempt you from my previous post. As I knew you understood. Cheers dude! Oh and Shadowtrooper... Where X-Factor Investigations will be different is when it says. "Activate -> Negate Target effect from a non-ongoing plot twist with the same name as a card removed this way." So although the wording is similar, I think we can agree that because you have to target an effect you will never be able to negate more then one plot twist effect per activation. Edited by FHR-X, Jun 8 2009, 12:34 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Shadowtrooper | Jun 8 2009, 04:15 PM Post #60 |
![]()
I Hate Rebel Scum!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't think that was ever in question. Why X-Factor Investigations was brought up was because even though I target an effect that was played I can still negate an effect from all 3 plot twist that were possibly removed. You see the point was that the card just like X-Gene Decoded: a) removes plot twists from the game b) it has the "a" wording that you were so inclined to embrace as a substitute to "choose" Just because X-Factor Investigations has the "a" wording doesn't mean I can't negate anyone of them at any time I can activate it. Just like X-Gene Decoded has the "a" wording that doesn't limit me to remove all the copies of all the plot twists that were removed by it. HeroComplex came and explained everything to all of us, and your play group has agreed to play the card as it is meant to be played. I don't see why you keep on pushing the subject. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Rules · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)









8:18 AM Jul 11