Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Naturegirl1999]

I've been using a text file for the purpose of tracking what a deck still contains. I use random.org to pick a number, move the corresponding card to the hand, then move the bottom card to the empty slot.

I was sort of under the impression that more than just G3 had the intention to play a game and planned things accordingly. Is this not the case?

Spoiler: The document I use (click to show/hide)

Hand:



Deck:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.

this is similar sort of to what I do, I use a random sequence generator to pot the cards(given numbers to represent them) in a random order, then change the numbers to the names of the cards the numbers they represent, then move the top 5 into a Hand section at the top, above the Hand section is my Field section including stats and whether or not the card is face down, at the bottom of the deck, I have the discard section. I’d quote an example from our team battle but I somehow lost that chain (I made a new PM each turn, quoting the previous and updating things as required)

[Failbird105]

I was sort of under the impression that more than just G3 had the intention to play a game and planned things accordingly. Is this not the case?

(from what I can tell it was mostly just people wanting to gang up on G3)

[Shadowclaw777]

(We’re in the get to the next class phase right now , and me fiddling with my thumbs waiting on what my card will do)

[TricMagic]

Sadly not, I just went to go look for a sempai to talk too instead, maybe pick up some tips. G just decided on a 3 v 1 without consulting all three parties. Then Unraveling's character dropped in on the three of us, which led to G coming to our table..

Is there a duel condition where I can remove his right to use Precure? Next class it is though  Diance/I'll try talking to G after school given how badly he lost it. Unless there is an interesting club.

[Stirk]

I've been using a text file for the purpose of tracking what a deck still contains. I use random.org to pick a number, move the corresponding card to the hand, then move the bottom card to the empty slot.

I was sort of under the impression that more than just G3 had the intention to play a game and planned things accordingly. Is this not the case?

Spoiler: The document I use (click to show/hide)

Hand:



Deck:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.

((It is not. Probably because half of everyone was still in a duel OOC, I'd guess.))

Sadly not, I just went to go look for a sempai to talk too instead, maybe pick up some tips. G just decided on a 3 v 1 without consulting all three parties. Then Unraveling's character dropped in on the three of us, which led to G coming to our table..

Is there a duel condition where I can remove his right to use Precure? Next class it is though  Diance/I'll try talking to G after school given how badly he lost it. Unless there is an interesting club.

((I thought you wanted everyone to use Precure :V))

[TricMagic]

(Such is the permit of friendship, which you need a refresher course on.)


Is a good question. This card states cards in play. If one isn't in play, it would be excluded from that list. Hence targeting the card that was played before it that is in play. Only case that changes is if that card comes back to play.

[Supernerd]

Usually when things get weird I would go with the most literal interpretation. In this case, the card says "The card in play that they control that entered play immediately before it".

In this case, the card would need to be 'in play' in order to count. This means that a card that does not enter play such as lay on hands would not count because it had no hearts and thus was never 'in play'.

But if card 2 enters play, then leaves play, then card 3 enters play, then the card that they control that entered play immediately before card 3 was card 2. The card in play that was 'most recently' played before it would be card 1, but it isn't technically a card in play that was 'played immediately before it'.

... I'm curious to hear other player's thoughts about how this card should be interpreted though.

[TricMagic]

Compare it to his Crusade, which at least deals 1 damage. but if two cards are out, it deals 2, and so on. 4 cards is enough to wipe out anything below 1 star, and severely injure 1 stars with the health to survive. Most don't.

If the effect trickles to the previous card played that's on the field, it's effective. If it fails if there aren't two in play that were played in front of each other, it isn't. Beyond that, cards with 0 hearts do 'enter play' while they are activating their effect, it's just that once their effect is done, they leave play because they don't have hearts. They only persist on the field long enough to do their thing unless another card interrupts it.(Which is something I would like to try and make to counter Smite, reflecting the card effect to the other side.) Least that is how I see it.

Anyway, thoughts other players?

[Naturegirl1999]

Usually when things get weird I would go with the most literal interpretation. In this case, the card says "The card in play that they control that entered play immediately before it".

In this case, the card would need to be 'in play' in order to count. This means that a card that does not enter play such as lay on hands would not count because it had no hearts and thus was never 'in play'.

But if card 2 enters play, then leaves play, then card 3 enters play, then the card that they control that entered play immediately before card 3 was card 2. The card in play that was 'most recently' played before it would be card 1, but it isn't technically a card in play that was 'played immediately before it'.

... I'm curious to hear other player's thoughts about how this card should be interpreted though.

that sounds right, if it says in play, than it needs to be in play. I don’t get the confusion

[TricMagic]

Usually when things get weird I would go with the most literal interpretation. In this case, the card says "The card in play that they control that entered play immediately before it".

In this case, the card would need to be 'in play' in order to count. This means that a card that does not enter play such as lay on hands would not count because it had no hearts and thus was never 'in play'.

But if card 2 enters play, then leaves play, then card 3 enters play, then the card that they control that entered play immediately before card 3 was card 2. The card in play that was 'most recently' played before it would be card 1, but it isn't technically a card in play that was 'played immediately before it'.

... I'm curious to hear other player's thoughts about how this card should be interpreted though.

that sounds right, if it says in play, than it needs to be in play. I don’t get the confusion

The next time an enemy card is destroyed, the card in play they control that entered play immediately before it is also destroyed.

If a card is not in play, it is not a valid target for the destruction, if reading left to right here. Therefore it would target the first card in play that was played immediately before it.


If that target was returned to play however, then it would count as the target, even if it was returned after.

Excuse ramblings, I need to go eat lunch so I can think. But this card does have the two interpretations. Jack's and Diance's.

[Stirk]

I think "Immediately before" is important. One card is immediately before. Two cards isn't immediately before. There isn't really any indication the effect goes to a new card barring Tric wanting his card to be stronger.

[TricMagic]

What's the difference between immediately before and before?

And if the weaker interpretation is used, it is never going in my deck. It's way too weak as a result since the card I need to target would rarely last that long unless I already have a stronger field presence. In which case I wouldn't use it in the first place, but play another card.

Put simply, my foe would either attack me directly, or suicide their card into my own. Or destroy a card to trigger it.

[Stirk]

What's the difference between immediately before and before?

And if the weaker interpretation is used, it is never going in my deck. It's way too weak as a result since the card I need to target would rarely last that long unless I already have a stronger field presence. In which case I wouldn't use it in the first place, but play another card.

123

1 and 2 are before 3. 2 is immediately before 3.

[Failbird105]

(It seems to depend on whether you deem the "In Play" or "Immediately" to be more important. If In Play take precedence, then it will work how Tric describes it, but if Immediately does, then it works how Supernerd and Stirk described)

[Naturegirl1999]

(It seems to depend on whether you deem the "In Play" or "Immediately" to be more important. If In Play take precedence, then it will work how Tric describes it, but if Immediately does, then it works how Supernerd and Stirk described)

hmmm…given that Supernerd is the GM and made the card’s effect, that would theoretically mean Immediately takes precedence