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 I do not see why this ruling should be out of date.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!
Viewing post in Two bugs playing against the Sinister Six
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.
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.
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.
Hi @quantumodo,
Thank you for your understanding and flexibility regarding this matter.
We appreciate your perspective on the ruling. While we recognize that the absence of a rationale can lead to ambiguity, our priority is to ensure clarity and consistency in our coding and gameplay.
If you have any further thoughts or suggestions, please feel free to share. We value your input as we navigate this situation.
Thanks again!