5 Weirdest Rulings in Marvel Champions
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 сер 2024
- Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @webwarriorfanatic
Are these rulings weird for you too? What other weird official Marvel Champions did I miss?
Check out D20 Woodworking's video on the updated retaliate ruling: • Retaliate Gets A Rules...
#marvelchampionslcg #marvelchampions #fantasyflightgames
That 5th ruling I’ve never heard of and it seems silly! I’ve always used double reds to pay for wasp ally. Lastly, what would you change about Magneto’s errata?
I would just change it to “when there are exactly 3 magnet counters on this scheme…” instead of “3 or more magnet counters”. That way it still triggers on 3, but when Metal Shards adds a 4th counter it won’t trigger the main’s scheme forced response and we can resolve the magnetic card first, then remove 3 magnet counters without causing a loop.
@@webwarriorfanatic totally agree. That’s a good idea and it seems like it should be that way
@@bradymccann thanks! Yea I’m hoping the wording will at least be different with future prints for Mutant Genesis because as it is now new players need to keep up with that specific ruling
@@webwarriorfanatic i think it would be much easier to just remove the counters before doing the discards
@@webwarriorfanatic Agreed that's how it should've been fixed to preserve the threat level of some of his magnetic cards that just feel like they currently don't do anything when they get revealed from the main schemes trigger.
one of my favorite things about Marvel Champions is it is cooperative and can be played solo. When a ruling doesn't make sense I just ignore it. The last ruling you mentioned, is one I will not follow. A power of will give Hank 2 counters for me always. Also, I never thought you could overpay Moon Girl and that ruling that you couldn't overpay always made sense. It felt weird when someone would crazy overpay Moon Girl in a play through. So I play Moon Girl as they intend, and I play Ant-Man and Wasp allies in a way that makes sense as well.
Also, I play Asteroid M as written on the card and don't clear the counters 1st.
Haha good point. Yea I’ve played all those rulings the way you described at one point. The reason why i always try to play by the official rules is because i want my playthroughs to help other players learn the game. It’s entirely up to the individual player to houserule however they want, but i want them to make that decision understanding the correct ruling and i don’t want to make that decision for them by house ruling myself.
@@ericweaver2691 totally agree on the moon girl thing, that seems obvious. I also feel like a power of should work and I will be playing like it does.
@@bradymccann when i play with my wife and she uses the power of aggression for Wasp ally i don’t say anything 🤫
I also don't respect the 5th rules even though I know this official ruling. I think they don't want to errata Power of Aggression/Protection etc to "when you pay or overpay", to avoid mental charge, but that is how Wasp and Hank were designed to be played. Exactly like Moon Girl has been designed to be payed with "Power in all of us". I understand why WWF stick to the rules, to not confuse people who watch him, but I just don't apply the rules. It is unfair nerf that does not bring anything to the game.
New rules 1.6 come out week after next. Hoping they clean up the minion stun stuff.
The rules are out already. One of the other content creators (I forgot which) actually goes through the document. Timing rules are laid out fairly clearly.
@@prufrock1977 do you have a link? FFG just said on their live stream on Thursday that they were coming out in two weeks from now?
@@davew1337 I’m sorry. I just double checked and it was an old video for 1.5, not 1.6. My bad
Looking forward to it too. I think that might be the least complicated one to fix. Possibly just changing the timing window of “Quickstrike” and leaving other keywords at their original timing window.
Great vid-- your uploads offer supported opinions without fluff and they are always concise, which means I will always check your stuff out! I believe some of the particular cards involved in these rulings need errata just for clarity's sake, even if it's just a short explanation on the card itself (ie, "This counts as two separate attacks" or "This counts as one attack"). You are doing the community a service by starting these discussions, even for those who aren't rules lawyers, because it can only help to develop and clarify the game for everyone :)
Thank you! I really appreciate your comment :)
These are honestly just rules that I’ve learned from you guys commenting on my videos so it’s really cool to see things that I’ve seen the community question or get confused by create a discussion
I could see it going either way with the Power Stone ruling, but to play devils advocate for why they keep the deal/take distinction would be to keep the design space more open. If a future villain were to have access to a lot of tough status or other damage prevention methods, the power stone would be near impossible to take away from them for example. Thematically the deal vs take situation could be explained with, even though the damage didn't go through, it distracted the target enough to steal the stone.
For quickstrike ruling, it once again makes sense mechanically while feeling bad thematically. If they were interrupts then you'd get the desired effect of stunning the quickstrike minion as you're jumping in prior to them resolving the rest of the "trigger" but because they are response you need to wait for the full resolution which involves the quickstrike. It would have been nice if they were interrupts but if they rule that these responses "interrupt" play then it could open a lot of issues with every other response across the rest of the game.
Yea good points! I agree the rulings make sense mechanically and i can see why those distinctions are made, it just feels like that wasn’t the original intentions of those cards and feels bad thematically.
Quickstrike happening prior to the thing that's supposed to prevent that from happening is the weirdest rules take I think I've heard yet.
It’s completely illogical 🤦🏻♂️
@@webwarriorfanatic you know the X Men have to be like, "Uh. Hey Bobby? You wanna stop daydreaming and do the stun thing?"
@@dontberash hahaha that’s actually thematic. FFG with the genius ruling we just couldn’t comprehend
To add to the confusion with 'deal vs take damage', basic defending reduces damage dealt: "A hero can use their basic defense power to defend against an enemy attack. A hero must exhaust to use this power. The amount of damage dealt by the attack is reduced by the hero’s DEF value, and any remaining damage is dealt to that hero." So if Ronan did 5 damage, and you defended for 3, damage dealt would be 2, not enough to take back the stone. But if you had a tough? Stone taken. Challenge him to a dance off? Galaxy saved.
Way to put it into perspective. Yea i agree that makes no sense thematically especially when you point it out like that 😵💫
I miss the person I was before watching #5.
🤣🤣🤣
Thanks a lot for the video. I agree with all points. Intuitively, I would play them wrong but feel well. Playin them according to rules would confuse new players, I think, which is not in the interest of the game developers. The piercing issue is the best example for that.
Thank you :)
And yea i totally played all of these wrong at one point out another while feeling like it was right 😂
Thanks…. Looks like I play most of these wrong (and will continue to do so)
Really interesting content and great explanations.
With magneto. I carry the “new/revealed” magnet counters over. So in your example in would go into the next round with two counters on it. This works for all cards imo
Hahaha 🤣
Thank you I’m glad you found this informative. That’s also an interesting way to go about the magnet counters debacle!!
Thank you very much with all theese clarification. I didn't know the change of "retaliation" on new villain step revealed, so now on I won't take damage as before!
I’m glad this video was informative! Yea itll be a hard habit to break because i conditioned myself to take the retaliate 😅😅
I specifically have put off even making content with the Power Stone in it, hoping that wording will get changed, so i can avoid misplays.
I feel that. I played Ronan with Cyclops and thought it was my best game… then learned about the Power Stone ruling 🤦🏻♂️
Great vid. I agree with you on these. That Power Of ruling has always bugged me. Most of their official rulings I agree with though. Moon Girl for instance, overpaying for cards was clearly not intended.
I didn’t realize the Magnet counter one. I thought it only discarded during start of villain phase anyways so that it wouldn’t cause another discard.
Thanks Kyle! Yea i can see the temptation to take advantage of Moon Girl but i agree there was probably an easier way to handle it
@@webwarriorfanaticagreed. I would’ve preferred them just saying that was not the intent of Moon Girl or even an errata. The ruling to distinguish pay vs overpay seemed too far.
Next video idea. Ms. Marvel aggression vs Venom Goblin
lol i gotta get around to playing Ms. Marvel soon
For the Widow Bite, I feel like they can change on how status card work and still keep consistent on timing.
But I refuse to play with the pay/overpay rule. Everytime someone bring the moongirl argument I just sigh. The card is already strong and giving it +1 or +2 extra draw really doesn’t matter. It’s not like that card can be used in all decks and you still have to build around it. It’s not worth jeopardizing bunch of preexisting card for it
Yea i agree to both. I don’t think Quickstrike’s timing has to be the same as other keywords. I believe other keywords have different times would they trigger and don’t trigger iirc
Rules lawyering is such an entertaining side hobby especially with a cold growler of craft ale sitting in an ice bucket next to you.
I read every rules update with great anticipation being a long time lover of creative fiction.
…
Then I shuffle up, get comfy, and play whatever the heck way seems right to me. In a non-competitive,mostly solo game, rules arbitration happens solely at the table and solely among the participants.
I thought the FFG police came for me once but it was only a kitten batting around a ball of tinfoil.
Lol 🤣🤣🤣 honestly that’s how i feel about rulings sometimes… not that the FFG police will come in but that I’m putting out misinformation in my playthrough
@@webwarriorfanatic Tubers have it differently, sadly. They are expected to be conversant with the rules and be sane and sober arbiters.
(I know, right?)
“Rules committee” is an oxymoron like “jumbo shrimp”
@@JJEMcManus 🤣🤣🤣
Honestly it’s still a blessing for all the interactions and to see your jokes so i wouldn’t have it any other way :)
These rulings are so frustratingly dumb and I pretty much ignore all of them and do what feels the most logical and natural. The pay vs overpay one was such an easy fix by just saying "you cannot overpay for cards unless the card specifically says you can," this way you can't have that draw 10 cards Moon Girl situation and you can still use the power of's for ant-man and wasp allies, which is how I play it.
I also refuse to play power stone the way they ruled it. If I have tough, I don't care how much damage Ronan is dealing, he's dealing 0 and I'm taking 0 because of the tough and he does not get the power stone, period lol.
I agree with the updated ruling to retaliate as that's how I've always played it and it's what makes the most sense and is the most logical and natural. The original ruling was insane and I would never play it that way even if they doubled down on it lol.
The quickstrike one I also ignore. Widow's Bite stops quickstrike in the games I play because it makes zero sense for it not to.
And the wolverine one I also ignore. His claws gives both lines of slice and dice piercing. The way they ruled is horrible, makes zero sense, and confuses new and veteran players alike because of how bad, illogical, and unnatural it feels.
Haha you basically refuse all of these rulings. I totally agree with everything you said… it’s hard to justify why they’re this way :/
As the other guy says it is coop/solo so who cares really? (play how you like). On the other hand the pedant in me wants the rulings to follow from the rules. (Doesn't make thematic sense is an empty argument ;) )
They did a pretty bad job templating the cards which is frustrating since it's been an issue for 30 years. Partly I think it was to make the game seem simpler by avoiding the huge action window flow chart things from LOTR but ultimately that just means issues are overlooked.
I remain confused by when an event with multiple attacks/thwarts is supposed to count as multiples not just one. :(
Yea the multiple attack events is the one i always forget too. Like if i have a stun status does the status block both instances and when?!
when they printed wasp and ant-man I thought they were being deliberately obtuse, the cards are so much more concise with an X cost IMO.
Oh true i didn’t even think of that. X as the cost would’ve been a simple solution
Rulings like this make me pull a Nick Fury. "I recognise the council has made a decision, but given that it's a stupid-ass decision, I've elected to ignore it."
Hahaha i feel that
I wonder if they made reprints for some of these cards if it would solve most of these problems.
I understand why they wouldn’t want to do reprints, but i think at least for Magneto’s main scheme it would be an easy fix
I never would've guessed any of these rulings. I go with the intuitive interpretation and don't check online. =D
Haha i feel that. Every one of these rulings i learned from playing wrong, then someone in the comments clarified it
The Widow's Bite thing makes sense to me. If it was an Interrupt, I could see it stopping the Quickstrike. As a Response, it makes sense that the Quickstrike would happen first because the Quickstrike is part of the card entering play. A Response can't take place until after the triggering condition takes place. Thematically, though, I can see it being confusing.
Am I looking at this wrong?
No i think that’s a fair take on it! It just feels bad especially for Iceman ally because he can’t react to the Quickstrike.
I'm happy I don't play on UA-cam where I have to follow the rules to the letter as I remove, add, and alter rules all the time for the game.
I love it but it can definitely be difficult sometimes! I feel more freedom forsure when playing with my group
Now that they are going to change the keyword retaliate which will no longer trigger when we change stages, I wonder if forced responses will work the same way. For example for Venom : "after Venom was attacked and injured (...)", will his response trigger when we change his stage?
That’s a good question. I’m not sure! Hopefully we’ll get clarification in the upcoming ruling updates
@@webwarriorfanatic In my opinion, the logic would be that keywords and abilities responses only trigger if they are kept from one stage to another (example: retaliate for Zola or for Venom's Vengeance from stage 1 to stage 2). Furthermore, It would be the same for responses of attachments or side quests. For example, if "now we are angry" is attached to Venom Stage 2 and i defeat him. I should still be able to trigger the response of this attachment.
The appearance of a new keyword or response should not trigger. Otherwise we could abuse of mechanics, for example "for tooth and nail" we could trigger the response by going from stage 1 to stage 2 using the damage inflicted at stage 1. Same for Thanos' helmet, we could use the response as soon as Thanos stage 2 enter in play and discard the helmet. I don't think that was their original intention when they designed those scenarios.
I'm sorry if i'm not clear, it's hard to explain by message and english is not my native language.
@@aeolus7367 Dude i completely understand your English is 💯
I agree with what you’re saying too. I’ve been playing that when when revealed attachments trigger immediately but i would also like it separate. I think it’s more intuitive and simple for newer players
1 resource for a power of card for wasp or Ant-Man? That is dumb. I could never do that.
Yea it’s a crazy ruling
it's especially weird to me that they'd rather change a ruling than errata a card when they forget to add text to it
like moongirl should just say (max 3) on the draw effect and the problem would be solved
Yes that’s a really simple solution for her. To give FFG the benefit of the doubt, maybe there are other cases with this situation and they preferred to not errata all those cards. Not entirely sure the reasoning behind it
English language and logic is kinda going against that Overpaying ruling - cause you can’t overpay without paying 😃 . Therefore I will not play by that rule. Logic is above the game rules at least for me so there is that 😂
Haha fair point
Yeah some of these rules are uninituitive and hopefully the RRG revision addresses these. As it's a solo game and just me I allow Widow's Bite to stun quickstrike minions. take the 3 damage from Magneto and overpay for Wasp as this is how I feel they were probably intended to work in design. I've also never played, and never will play, the popular She-Hulk rules lawyer deck as it feels like manipulating the rules in my favour and against the original design intent of the cards.
True! I agree with wanting to play the game way the developers intended whether it gives the player an advantage or disadvantage. It’s unfortunate that some cards clearly were meant to be played a specific way, but semantics with wording changed that
At the 3 minute mark and I'm wondering if you'll go over the Iron Man hand size ruling.
Wait what’s his hand size ruling?!
His hand size can never go above 7(because it says Max 7 on his card) so once he's at max tech Assess The Situation can't bring his hand size above 7, nor can other cards that increase hand size.
@@webwarriorfanatic For example if Iron Man has 6 tech upgrades out and he's therefore at 7 hand size the environment "A Game of Mojo's" from the Mojo Mania set would do nothing for him.
This is why I'll always prefer a rules as intended approach over a rules as written. It seems like that cap was designed to ensure he didn't end up just teching into hand size insanity. It shouldn't interact with these other random interactions that often carry their own drawbacks or considerations. It's just a silly call
@@jasco.gaming thanks everyone for the explanation. I did not know that… Yea that’s terrible. I wouldn’t wanna play Iron Man with any hand size increasing situations like Mysterio, Fantasy, or Live Dangerously. I should’ve made a top 6 weirdest rulings 😅
I think #1 is an issue with the perception of the language. If you have the tough status, then he deals 0 damage to you. Damage dealt and damage taken are always the same amount. They can word it either way. Maybe the villian is “attempting” to deal 3+ damage, but if you don’t take it, then it hasn’t been dealt.
I agree with how you define it, but FFG made a specific distinction that “deal” and “take” are different at least in Marvel Champions