Team Canada Online

Raw Deal => Rules Forum => Topic started by: Keith0913832 on December 06, 2017, 06:08:51 PM

Title: According to contract table
Post by: Keith0913832 on December 06, 2017, 06:08:51 PM
According to the Contract Table

Action: Foreign Object

When this card is in your Ring area, once during each of your turns, as a Mid-match Action, you may name 1 non-unique non-Superstar-specific card and then all copies of this card in all Ring areas are considered to also have that title until the start of your next turn.

Active

F: 3      D: 0

Is the 'naming' an ace? This was debated in both Discord channels with different answers.

-A card is considered to have an Activated Card Effect (ACE) if (a) it is in your Ring area AND (b) you have to do something (like discard a card) (c) to generate an effect.

So (a) according is in my list, (b) as amid match action I name 1, (C) the card is now considered that title

https://discord.gg/dEhHFeU
https://discord.gg/HBE3YzM
Title: Re: According to contract table
Post by: Eric RD on December 06, 2017, 06:51:37 PM
I found an old, poorly formatted Vengence FAQ online that has an ACE list containing this card in it.
Naming a card would be the activation cost. The card having "and then" distinguishes a cost and effect for the ACE.
Title: Re: According to contract table
Post by: Scotty on December 06, 2017, 07:10:32 PM
I don’t like posting in the rules forum to give an answer, but I wanted to show why I argued “no” on Discord.

Part three from the FAQ under Activated Card Effect specifically states:

“All ACEs have a specific cost to use that effect, ranging from discarding a card, skipping a Draw Segment, or removing cards.  If there is no cost for a card effect that occurs while it is in the Ring, it is not an ACE. ”

I didn’t think naming a card is considered a “cost”.
Title: Re: According to contract table
Post by: Daeva on December 06, 2017, 07:34:20 PM
I'm inclined to agree with Scotty here. Costs have to be game actions; saying words, jumping up and down, or humming the Demolition intro song aren't game actions, they're just things that you do.
Title: Re: According to contract table
Post by: Eric RD on December 06, 2017, 07:53:24 PM
I had a long drawn out reply explaining why I think it is in more depth too. Oh well, personally I'm happy with it not being one and I'm pretty sure we've played it locally in the past that it isn't.
Title: Re: According to contract table
Post by: niiiiick on December 06, 2017, 07:59:04 PM
But the action here to activate is saying the name of a card...cost I think has a negative connotation where it makes you think it has to be something like discarding.

I think of it this way, if you don't name a card, nothing happens with this card. It does nothing for you when you play it as the, so to activate the effect, you must name a card. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

I also thought that anything that had that "as a midmatch action" text was an ACE
Title: Re: According to contract table
Post by: Keith0913832 on December 06, 2017, 08:00:40 PM
While we discuss on whether it's an ace or not, after naming the card as a mid match action, can I play a technical splash?
Title: Re: According to contract table
Post by: niiiiick on December 06, 2017, 08:04:08 PM
While we discuss on whether it's an ace or not, after naming the card as a mid match action, can I play a technical splash?

No because you're not playing anything, just naming something to activate the effect of the card

That is unless you played it, named something then played Tech Splash. Because activation of a card does not break the string of playing cards
Title: Re: According to contract table
Post by: Keith0913832 on December 06, 2017, 08:07:00 PM
Then how would I reverse this naming? Or I can't reverse it at all, just like managed by Sharmell for example.
Title: Re: According to contract table
Post by: niiiiick on December 06, 2017, 08:11:12 PM
It depends, if ruled it's not an ACE, you can't reverse the naming. If it is an ACE, then it reverses just like any ACE with something like Don't Try This At Home
Title: Re: According to contract table
Post by: niiiiick on December 06, 2017, 08:14:52 PM
I'm inclined to agree with Scotty here. Costs have to be game actions; saying words, jumping up and down, or humming the Demolition intro song aren't game actions, they're just things that you do.

I'd also like to jump in on this and say that's not true, and not trying to change subject or be disrespectful, but speaking definitely is an action within the game. When you play something like Precision Haymaker, Vice Lock, etc you have to name something for its effect. If spoken words are not a part of the game, then how do you use those effects?

I get what your argument against it being an ACE is, I just don't agree as per the omnifaq a) it is in your ring area to b) perform an action to c) activate an effect from the card
Title: Re: According to contract table
Post by: Keith0913832 on December 06, 2017, 08:16:39 PM
Thanks guys thus far for your input. Both sides seems very reasonable. So... Should we have a vote to see whether or not this it's an ace? Or can someone give a definitive answer whether it is or not.
Title: Re: According to contract table
Post by: CreedP on December 06, 2017, 08:23:18 PM
No ruling EVER is decided by a vote.

Please hold further discussion while Daeva & I research and consult on this.  Thanks.

CREED
Title: Re: According to contract table
Post by: Daeva on December 06, 2017, 08:25:37 PM
I'm inclined to agree with Scotty here. Costs have to be game actions; saying words, jumping up and down, or humming the Demolition intro song aren't game actions, they're just things that you do.

I'd also like to jump in on this and say that's not true, and not trying to change subject or be disrespectful, but speaking definitely is an action within the game. When you play something like Precision Haymaker, Vice Lock, etc you have to name something for its effect. If spoken words are not a part of the game, then how do you use those effects?

I don't take your question as disrespectful. Please feel free to ask questions; that's what the Rules Forum is for.

Those effects work fine without spoken words being game actions; the spoken word defines the magnitude of the game action. The game action on Precision Haymaker is drawing cards and reducing Haymaker's Fortitude; both of those actions' magnitudes are defined by the chosen word, but that doesn't make choosing a word a game action.

Quote
I get what your argument against it being an ACE is, I just don't agree as per the omnifaq a) it is in your ring area to b) perform an action to c) activate an effect from the card

B is where this all breaks down. Naming a card isn't a cost. It doesn't cost you anything to name a card. Contract Table should not have been formatted with the "and then" templating that was used on ACEs.

And to answer the previous questions: I can definitively say that Contract Table is not an ACE (since that's my job in Raw Deal and all). Rules discussions are never settled by voting. Since it's not an ACE, an ACE reversal won't tag it, and you would need something that reverses an effect that applies a title to a card. No such reversal exists.
Title: Re: According to contract table
Post by: Keith0913832 on December 06, 2017, 08:29:09 PM
Got it! So to summarise, I can't volley this when my opponent name a card too right? Since the card is just considered a mid march action when I name and not being played as a mid match action.
Title: Re: According to contract table
Post by: CreedP on December 06, 2017, 08:30:47 PM
This is where the 'old wording template' issues come in, yeah.  There's absolutely no further use for ACEs 'as a Mid-match action' in the game.  It was a failed attempt, so they abandoned it in favor of Activated Card Effects.

It was phased out when possible in reprints, but there is no Survivor Series version of Contract Table, so we make do with the old wording.

As Daeva notes, not an ACE, there is no way to reverse the in-ring effect.

CREED
Title: Re: According to contract table
Post by: Keith0913832 on December 06, 2017, 08:34:49 PM
Awesome! Thanks for the clear conclusion:) will update the pic later.
Title: Re: According to contract table
Post by: Hogtrail on December 07, 2017, 06:17:27 AM
I have a separate Contract Table question I just thought of:

If I play contract table, then immediately name it, say, Irish Whip, could I play Leaping Knee To The Face right after?
Title: Re: According to contract table
Post by: Mitch! on December 07, 2017, 07:47:29 AM
That would be a no:

-With 3 or more foreign objects in the Ring area, playing Contract Table and naming it Busted Wide Open will not allow for the victory condition, as the card was not played with the required title.

Same idea, it wasn't played with the title Irish Whip it only gained it after it was already played.