PDA

View Full Version : Financial Troubles VS all anti discard cards



Kenzo
06-13-2010, 08:26 PM
Here we go...

When my oponent plays the hability of Financial Troubles,
I discard Gut Drill...

can i play the attack??


I need the answer and the explanation please

ATLDrew
06-13-2010, 08:56 PM
Nope it doesnt trigger. It was ruled on the old boards that since Financial Troubles is an optional discard, it doesn't technically force you to pitch so the anti-discard effect does not trigger.

And yes we hated the ruling back then and hate it now lol.

Yoko Charming Fox
06-13-2010, 09:05 PM
ATLDrew is completly right, but to be slightly more specific, I'm prety sure that Finacial Troubles discard effect was rule as you oponent paying a cost, so its just like if you diched Gut Drill to pay for somthing like Evil Sparrow.

Nubian God
06-13-2010, 11:00 PM
It's similar to Stand Off giving the opponent the opportunity to commit 2 foundations to cancel it's effect; it's an optional cost that has its own effect. Therefore Torn Hero cannot trigger.

In that same vein, Soul Wave** and Tien Lei, Iron Thunder both trigger off of discard due to your opponent's card effect, so no dice via Financial Troubles.

On a side note, if the cards were worded "If you discard this card due to your opponent's card...", would it then apply to cards like Financial Troubles?

Baranor
06-14-2010, 11:13 AM
I don't know if this is the place to suggest things like this, but it might be the time to format new cards with an optional cost apart from the effect.

E: Blah Blah Blah

Your opponent may discard 1 card as a cost to negate the above effect.

The rules would need to add a clause stating that paying costs on opposing cards cannot be used to trigger effects on your cards.

It would solve a lot of rules questions with not much rigamarole.

Kenzo
06-14-2010, 08:16 PM
Well...
mmmmm
before of read this i think...

Instinctive Sword Swinging
After you play this foundation into your card pool, your opponent either discards 1 card or discards 1 of their momentum (their choice). If they choose an option they cannot fulfill, they lose 2 vitality.

Can i play gut drill here??

Nubian God
06-14-2010, 09:50 PM
Yes, as in this case there's no cost; the opponent just has the option as to which effect happens.

Amano Jacu
06-15-2010, 09:26 AM
Now that we have a fresh start, we could correct this ruling and have cards like Financial Troubles trigger anti-discard, and the other stuff in general (costs provoked by other played not counting as card effect, etc.). That's my opinion.

Kenzo
06-15-2010, 11:45 AM
OK...

Thanks to all..

Da_ghetto_gamer
06-15-2010, 03:22 PM
Now that we have a fresh start, we could correct this ruling and have cards like Financial Troubles trigger anti-discard, and the other stuff in general (costs provoked by other played not counting as card effect, etc.). That's my opinion.

Thats something that you would have to talk to jasco about....I personally wouldnt like the rules to change since they are already set in stone and most of the older players nows how it works already and it makes sense

But if its going to get changed at all the nows the time to do it since were in a major overhaul anyways

NJBrock22
06-15-2010, 07:33 PM
yeah we've already had TOO many reversals of rulings in the past and changing the rules will make more mad than happy... if you guys do want these to work as you want them to... they should have been worded as such: for example Financial Troubles would have been worded:

F: Commit: Draw 2 cards.
R: Discard 1 card: after this card's form ability's cost has been paid, negate it's effects. Only playable by your opponent.

but as you can see thats not how the card was worded...

N.J.

Nubian God
06-15-2010, 08:32 PM
I definitely would like to see that as an errata, as it'll cause less confusion amongst newer players. Of course, you'd have to make the response "Playable while committed" or it'd be ban worthy. =P

Yoko Charming Fox
06-17-2010, 03:05 PM
Now that we have a fresh start, we could correct this ruling and have cards like Financial Troubles trigger anti-discard, and the other stuff in general (costs provoked by other played not counting as card effect, etc.). That's my opinion.

Personally I don't think this ruling needs to be changes, becasue in every TCG I've played cost are payed independent of the ability and are not part of the abilty. A ruling saying other wise on Financial Troubles could end up causing problems down the line by changing modifying this rule.

Not if UFS player thought that Financial Troubles is to powerful because of this rule, I feel that the appropiate action would be to errata is to say somthing like
"F Commit: Either you draw two cards or your opponent discards 1 card." This would solve the problem without having to mess with the rules. Personaly, I hate it when games try to modify the rules inorder to weaken or strengthen individual cards. It just leds to inconsitance and confusing rulings (An example being Dead for 1000 years). And besides the purpose of errata is to modify individual cards so why can't we just let errata do its job.

Tagrineth
06-22-2010, 02:06 PM
I don't think the rule should be reversed. You'd be turning Financial Troubles from a strong but not-always-reliable card into kindling that could backfire horribly. I for one wouldn't use FT at all if it triggered anti-discard.

TripsEX
08-12-2010, 11:09 PM
I really think it should be reversed, because man does that piss me off.

Tagrineth
08-13-2010, 01:49 AM
I don't think it should be reversed simply because it weakens the card TOO much, but then again, For the Money kinda needs some kind of nerf and being able to hit it with Unexpected Consequence (or whatever that GenCon promo action is called) would be very awesome.