Post by irefrixs in Two bugs playing against the Sinister Six

Marvel Champions: Digital Edition » Community

Viewing post in Two bugs playing against the Sinister Six

Hi @quantumodo,

Thank you for bringing these issues to our attention and for providing your save file. Let’s discuss them one by one, starting with “27104” (Taunting Presence).

We reviewed the FAQ you provided, and we understand it suggests that an asset card won’t function when its attached card is defeated. However, after updating the code to align with that rule, we believe this interpretation may be incorrect.

For example, if you have a minion with the upgrade “01007” (Spider-Tracer), you can definitely trigger its effect when you defeat that minion.

“01007” reads:

Forced Interrupt: When attached minion is defeated, remove 3 threat from a scheme.

Therefore, we believe “01007” can be triggered because it is in play when you defeat the minion it is attached to, and “27104” should also work for the same reason, as it is also in play at that time.

We aim to avoid creating special rules for specific cards (unless that card has special text printed on it stating otherwise), as this could lead to more complications in the future.

Thank you for your understanding, and we appreciate your feedback!

quantumodo217 days ago (1 edit)

Yes, I see your point and I think it makes sense. However, this is not the only card with a similar behaviour. For instance, Sanctuary (https://marvelcdb.com/card/21116) states that Thanos cannot take damage, but its "When defeated" ability is, precisely, to deal damage to Thanos. In that case, if an exception is not implemented, then the "When defeated" ability simply makes no sense.

irefrixs216 days ago

Hi @quantumodo,

Thank you for pointing out this example.

Card “21116” can function as intended because we have a special rule: a card with an effect that deals damage will ignore all damage prevention effects on it.

For “27104,” we have added a rule stating that all non-keyword effects on an asset will be ignored if its attached card is defeated. This change allows it to work in accordance with the FAQ and has passed all our unit tests.

Thank you for your understanding, and we appreciate your feedback!

quantumodo216 days ago

That's awesome, thanks!

irefrixs156 days ago (1 edit)

Hi @quantumodo,

Sorry for the late update. We have decided to remove the special rule for card “21116” because we found an errata in rule v1.6 that states “Added ‘from player cards’” for it.

Additionally, in the “DAMAGE” section of rule v1.6, the following was added:

The order of resolution for effects surrounding the dealing and taking of damage are as follows:

8 “When Defeated” abilities
9 Discarding of a defeated character.

We believe the FAQ you provided is out of date, as it predates the v1.6 rule update. As a result, we will also remove the special rule for “27104”.

Thank you for your understanding. If you believe we are mistaken, we welcome your feedback!

quantumodo154 days ago

Hi,

Thanks for your message. I do not see why this ruling should be out of date. I think it still applies, because it is specific for the Sinister Six scenario, to make all the interactions behave as intented by the designers.

Thanks in advance!

irefrixs154 days ago

Hi @quantumodo,

Thank you for your response.

As we mentioned earlier, we aim to avoid creating special rules for specific cards. The updated resolution order in the “DAMAGE” section of rule v1.6 clarifies the following:

“27104” is discarded at step 9.
“When Defeated” abilities trigger at step 8.

This means that at step 8, “27104” is still in play, and its effect should apply.

If FFG intends for “27104” to function as you suggest, they would need to issue an errata stating that “Threat cannot be removed from Light at the End by abilities from player cards.” Since no such errata has been provided and the resolution order has been updated, we believe this indicates a shift in their ruling.

We appreciate your understanding and welcome any further feedback you may have.

quantumodo154 days ago

I think that the ruling is very clear in this case. To me, it is obvios that the intention of the designers is that threat is removed from the scheme when a villain is defeated in this scenario and this is why the ruling was issued. To me that takes precedence over any other thing, because it is specifically instructed for this particular situation.

irefrixs154 days ago

Hi @quantumodo,

Thank you for your input.

The FAQ states:

You can remove threat from Light at the End when you defeat a Sinister Six villain, even if that villain had Taunting Presence attached.

However, it does not provide a rationale for this ruling. Based on the updated rules, it appears that you cannot remove threat in this case.

This creates challenges for us in coding. While we could apply our previous special rule for “27104,” it is not explicitly included in the rulebook, which could lead to new bugs and complicate code maintenance.

We hope you understand our position. If you strongly believe that “27104” should function as you suggest, we recommend reaching out to FFG for an errata regarding this card.

Thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to any additional thoughts you may have.

quantumodo154 days ago

Hi,

I think that no rationale is given for this ruling because, if there were a rationale, probably there would be no need for the ruling :) But, of course, I completely understand your situation and I'll be more than happy with any decision you take.

Thanks!

View more in thread

itch.io

Viewing post in Two bugs playing against the Sinister Six