This video was reuploaded due to an error in the first upload! Please note that the timing on Magnetic Bubble is incorrect! A comment from @alexisyaghil3136 brought this to my attention: "At 9:20 when you're referencing Magnetic Bubble, it would actually not protect a tough status card as the wording on magnetci bubble is "When Magneto would take any amount of damage" which is step 3, after any tough status cards would be removed. You're correct in that if the wording was "When magneto would be dealt any amount of damage", it would protect any tough status cards."
I think your section on costs has an error as well. "» When the amount of damage a character takes is modified (such as by damage being prevented), the amount of damage dealt is not modified" This would mean that You can deal damage to a character that cannot take damage.
@@Ucklator-t9i hmm interesting, the way I read it a character who cannot take damage is not a valid target for actions which deal damage. That probably deserves more clarification somewhere!
For the new find rulings around 12:40, it should be noted that not all keywords on minions are created equally. Some will be impacted by the find ruling, and some will not: These are the keywords (from p. 24) that trigger when revealed: Incite Surge These are the keywords were that trigger on enter plays: Hinder Teamwork (triggers after engaging but also requires to be entering play) - which by the way they failed to fix on p. 24 (in v.16) Toughness Uses These are the after engages keywords: Quickstrike See also Teamwork (also requires enters play) So incite and Surge always will work with find, Teamwork and Toughness will not work with find, and Quickstrike only works with find when the minion engages a new hero.
Nelson!! I recently adopted your storage system!!! Got the dividers and the binder on your accessory vid!! 🙏🏽🥳 thank you so so much your content & energy!! You truly help me get through the week!
for Steel Fist at 4:55, since "damage dealt" and "damage taken" are separate, wouldn't it still work against an enemy that didn't take the damage? Quote from Alex at FFG: "We are choosing to distinguish the phrases “deal X damage” and “take X damage” when used in the costs of player cards. If a player card requires you to “deal X damage” to a target, the damage does not all have to be applied to the target for that card’s cost to be considered paid ... On cards that require you to “take X damage”, though, all of that damage must be applied for the effect to occur."
I'm struggling with the wording in the enemy attack section. The previous rules reference said that if an attack is undefended the identity (hero or alterego) takes the damage but the new rules say the target character. The new rules also say that each attack has two targets a player and a character (hero, ally, alterego) so who is the target character if an ally who is defending leaves play before step 4? Does it revert to the target players identity or is it the character (hero, alterego or ally) which the attack was initiated against? Step 2 of the chart says the target player can change during this step but it doesn't mention the target character changing and it is only in step 4 when damage is being dealt when it is determined which character is taking the attack. Thematically it would make more sense for it to be the initial character who takes the damage. If my ally fails to jump between a Hope summers and the villain why would the villain turn to attack me when they could finish attacking Hope? Or if Black Cat fails to defend SheHulk why would Rhino show up at Peter Parkers house and beat him up when he is in the middlee of fighting SheHulk?
I think this is a really good question. From what I understand around the rule is they are trying to solve the Hope Summers + Mister Sinister timing. I think we need some explanation around bullet point 2 stating that/if a defending character becomes the new target of the attack as well as the player controlling that character or if just the player changes target and there is no way to change the character target of the attack. As it is stated now I think we are missing an edit there which is leading to our confusion because I cannot tell where, if there is a defender, the attack ever changes from the target character of the initial attack. That combed with Bullet point 4, as you state - if an ally is defending then the damage is assigned to them (or a hero defends) that damage is then assigned to that character. I think now how it is worded is that if the attack is undefended due to the ally who was defending leaving play then the character targeted initially by the attack never changed and damage is then assigned to them. That would mean that Hope would take the undefended attack (probably losing the game) or the identity of the player which the attack was initialed against. Excellent question, a head scratcher for sure and hopefully someone with a better understanding can help shed some light on it! My eyes are going crossed trying to figure this one out, so please do not take this is the correct interpretation - it is just how I understand it at this time!
Official response from FFG Once a player defends an attack with a character they control, that player is the “attacked player” and the character is the “attacked character.” Say that Player A has an attack initiated against them, and Player B defends with their ally; Player B is the attacked player and the ally is the attacked character. If that ally then leaves play before the attack finishes, Player B’s identity will take the undefended damage. Similarly, if Player A controls Hope Summers and Hope Summers has an attack initiated against her, Player B can defend with their ally, making Player B the attacked player and their ally the attacked character. If the ally leaves play before the attack finishes, Player B is still the attacked player, and their identity takes the undefended damage.
As I told VT with regards to Widow's Bite. I recognize the council has made a decision, but given that it's a stupid-ass decision, I've elected to ignore it. But seriously I will continue to play it as BW's WB stuns before quickstrike but QS immediately removes stun. It's just way more thematic and I usually use the thematic rule over the grim rule. Also if you get a chance to talk to the designers again pester them for an errata pack that changes WB to interrupt and just updates older heroes some to match newer content and just overall clarifications and updates for older cards
A lot of these changes are just how I was playing anyway, lol. The reference priority clarification is interesting with nemesis sets of the same character as the villain; it could be pretty rough if a nemesis encounter card attached to the villain or made the villain activate against you. For the thing about indirect damage being dealt all at once, I think the bigger loss is with the basic Ghost-Spider ally; without this ruling, you could throw some damage on her first to go grab whatever identity event you needed to handle the rest of the damage.
Ok so let me ask a question about "For Each" as it pertains to Wiccan. I have been playing it that, let's say he thwarts and the top card of the encounter deck has 3 boost symbols, he can deal 1 damage to each of 3 different targets. Sounds like that is wrong, and that it has to be the SAME target? However, you said they are three instances of damage, so it sounds like I could take off a tough and still do 2 damage, inseatd of all three damage being absorbed by the the tough. is that right?
For Wiccan it would be one target - because it does not say "For each boost icon CHOOSE ...." Therefore you only apply the damage to one target! Hope that helps!
@@NelsonAllOverCards It does! But would it be three separate instances of damage, so I could potentially take off the enemy's tough and still deal the remaining 2 damage to them? Or is it one "packet" of 3 damage, all of which would get absorbed by the tough?
The most needed rule change IMO is allowing all players to play their turns at the same time. 4 player games taking as long as it does really sucks. Allow all players to do all basic actions and plays on anyones turn.
So what you're saying is that I can use the same Warrior Skill to interrupt three times the same attack? I thought that was against the rules. Otherwise the arrow cost states it's only one counter therefore I could not pay more than one in a single interrupt. And it says THAT attack, so I don't think you can split among different enemies
A lot of the new rules seems intuitive, and looks like how it was originally intended. Its jusr some really like looking at loopholes, though understandable in some cases. Though im not happy with Quickstrike update, but understandable.
Can someone explain if I use Operative Skill along with even the odds would be 2 threats per player or and additional one after the whole threat removal? Also if I use warrior skill with dominos pistol would be 2 damage per resource icon?
Cards with the Preparation trait should be highest priority in activation/resolution order. I think that would allow Toe to Toe and Widow's Bite to both coexist and function as intended.
In order for widows bite to "function as intended" all that would need to happen is to change the rules so that minions engage a player after they enter play instead of when they enter play.
Changing the game state is pretty common verbiage used in alot of card game rules, including Star Wars Unlimited. I always think that's very intuitive. The card you play has to be able to do something. This whole valid target thing is awful, and I'm not going to be playing that way lol.
I think a lot of the confusion was in weird interactions with how the cards worked - a good change for us was the Super Human Strength ruling - under change the game state it would be discarded, under valid target it isn't. Or for like resource generators - if I change the game state by exhausting a card to pay for something that does not change the game state - is it still a valid game state change? There were a lot of questions and I think the valid target is a bit easier to wrap my head around especially when considering paying, interrupts, and responses. I do think we could have stayed with the changing the game state verbiage - I think this is just a bit easier to explain! Most of the time I think they are the same, but with some differences that are exposed - the nice thing is that its a cooperative game and we can play however we find it to be fun!
@NelsonAllOverCards True, and given that you play in front of people I'm sure it's all the more important to get those rules right down to the letter haha. I definitely don't envy that, I prefer to do common sense rulings as I go. Keep up the good work man!
That's an interesting perspective. I was subconsciously looking for a valid target with the old rules and wasn't really even aware of the changing game state verbiage since it seemed kinda vague anyways. Having a valid target always seemed more tangible and logical, at least with respect to Marvel Champions.
If a character has steady they are not considered stunned unless there are two status cards - so you can use tackle on that enemy if they have 0-1 stunned cards but not two!
For the most part, I think a game's rules should mostly be self-contained and that a person shouldn't be expected to know "made up" rules that aren't explicitly stated on cards or by definitions of key words. In this case, I am referring to the "find" rulings. I think it's a mistake to just make up new rules that people are supposed to keep track of. It's one thing to clarify what is meant be rules, and a whole other thing to just seemingly randomly make up rules. Saying that "find" suddenly means a card triggers that's already on the board isn't a fair rule to expect people to know. If the cards says to do it, then fine, but "find" isn't a key word in the game.
I don't think the new "Find" rule will be that impactful, based on the current cards that we have. A search on MarvelCDB pulled up 10 cards (as written) that uses "find" (the mechanic, so ignoring anything that refers to "Find the Senator"), and in all cases you are instructed to resolve an effect if the minion/side scheme is already in play. Find would only trigger if the element is not in play, which means that duplicate when revealed triggers should not happen. Perhaps they are future proofing upcoming designs with this rules change...?
To be honest this "do damage and if you paid with fist then stun" ruling does not make any sense to me personally. I'm not arguing that the ruling is wrong but I do not see the requirement to be able to do damage before stunning. It would have been much clearer to me if these type of cards would have used the arrow "->" icon to indicate that the first part HAS TO HAPPEN for the other part to be able to take effect. But these current wordings to me personally do not indicate that at all. To me it is logical that these type of cards can do both effects and they are not related. Meaning that IMHO to a tough enemy damage is not applied but stun still applies. I'm not a native english speaker and I just do not understand the nuance that is being explained. There are many, many, many players like me who will read the text of the card and never understand this specific ruling and play the game by word.
I like the anti-cheese rulings. I'm against that sort of exploits existing, so if they can be stopped without rewording the cards I'm all for it. And even though it screws over Black Widow a bit, I think the timing rules they've set up makes the most sense.
We’re that many people confuse by the most of this stuff? I agree that wording on many cards is inconsistent but 99.9% are still fairly obvious. Just complete 1 sentence at a time.
I think there are a lot of people who prefer to see the rules set out in a video which is what I was hoping to accomplish here. There are people who probably didnt even know there was a new update because they dont follow it as closely!
@@NelsonAllOverCards I agree, videos, with examples are much easier to follow. My question though was more on lot of these “changes” were more clarifications to rules. Clarifications that weren’t really needed (IMO). The only 2 that were eye opening to me where: 1. Finding minions/schemes in play 2. Searching your collection (not allowing to pick cards in the current game).
@@TheVlad1616 Oh yea I think a lot of the changes were very minor (compared to our last update) here. I think a lot of clarifications were around to help out with the questions they probably get all the time or to open up clarifications for future designs!
@@NelsonAllOverCards I wish the rule book wasn’t such a legal document, and they had a larger FAQ section to provide specific examples. Or just word cards clear and consistent to avoid confusion.
*Hi Nelson.* I'm SO sure that when the base game was released the designers *didn't create a solid enough foundation for the game.* Sad 😢 They simply weren't aware of all the branches of language and timming the system would open to in the future. Sadly, these issues are pretty much out of control at this point. I still remember the whole problem with "You (the hero) vs you (the player)", also they messed up the concepts of Alter-ego, Hero and Superhero, when all they needed to do is make *Identity* the word defining: 1) the player, and 2) the double sided card which is the foundation of your identity. Sadly, some unnecessary intricacies still appears to date. All of this could have been easily avoided by using surgeon-level of precision for the use/creation of language and timming windows. FFG still needs to learn... A LOT!
I do not think there is a card game that is multiple years old that does not have this as well. And the foundation of the game I believe is very solid - and the fact they are updating the rules to continue to expand I think is great. It would have been sad if they never updated rules and then stopped creating content because they did not update wordings.
This video was reuploaded due to an error in the first upload! Please note that the timing on Magnetic Bubble is incorrect! A comment from @alexisyaghil3136 brought this to my attention: "At 9:20 when you're referencing Magnetic Bubble, it would actually not protect a tough status card as the wording on magnetci bubble is "When Magneto would take any amount of damage" which is step 3, after any tough status cards would be removed. You're correct in that if the wording was "When magneto would be dealt any amount of damage", it would protect any tough status cards."
I think your section on costs has an error as well.
"» When the amount of damage a character takes is
modified (such as by damage being prevented), the
amount of damage dealt is not modified"
This would mean that You can deal damage to a character that cannot take damage.
@@Ucklator-t9i hmm interesting, the way I read it a character who cannot take damage is not a valid target for actions which deal damage. That probably deserves more clarification somewhere!
For the new find rulings around 12:40, it should be noted that not all keywords on minions are created equally. Some will be impacted by the find ruling, and some will not:
These are the keywords (from p. 24) that trigger when revealed:
Incite
Surge
These are the keywords were that trigger on enter plays:
Hinder
Teamwork (triggers after engaging but also requires to be entering play) - which by the way they failed to fix on p. 24 (in v.16)
Toughness
Uses
These are the after engages keywords:
Quickstrike
See also Teamwork (also requires enters play)
So incite and Surge always will work with find, Teamwork and Toughness will not work with find, and Quickstrike only works with find when the minion engages a new hero.
Nelson!! I recently adopted your storage system!!!
Got the dividers and the binder on your accessory vid!! 🙏🏽🥳 thank you so so much your content & energy!!
You truly help me get through the week!
Loved this video. Appreciate the concise explanations for important ruling changes so i don’t have to read the whole RRG
for Steel Fist at 4:55, since "damage dealt" and "damage taken" are separate, wouldn't it still work against an enemy that didn't take the damage?
Quote from Alex at FFG:
"We are choosing to distinguish the phrases “deal X damage” and “take X damage” when used in the costs of player cards. If a player card requires you to “deal X damage” to a target, the damage does not all have to be applied to the target for that card’s cost to be considered paid ... On cards that require you to “take X damage”, though, all of that damage must be applied for the effect to occur."
Only real fans know this is a reupload
But now with more content!! 😉
Haha something went wrong in the last upload and cut off half the video! So now I am ready to release the directors cut!
Heck yeah :) I was “first” on the other video! Awesome content, love to subscribe
I'm struggling with the wording in the enemy attack section. The previous rules reference said that if an attack is undefended the identity (hero or alterego) takes the damage but the new rules say the target character. The new rules also say that each attack has two targets a player and a character (hero, ally, alterego) so who is the target character if an ally who is defending leaves play before step 4? Does it revert to the target players identity or is it the character (hero, alterego or ally) which the attack was initiated against? Step 2 of the chart says the target player can change during this step but it doesn't mention the target character changing and it is only in step 4 when damage is being dealt when it is determined which character is taking the attack. Thematically it would make more sense for it to be the initial character who takes the damage. If my ally fails to jump between a Hope summers and the villain why would the villain turn to attack me when they could finish attacking Hope? Or if Black Cat fails to defend SheHulk why would Rhino show up at Peter Parkers house and beat him up when he is in the middlee of fighting SheHulk?
I think this is a really good question.
From what I understand around the rule is they are trying to solve the Hope Summers + Mister Sinister timing. I think we need some explanation around bullet point 2 stating that/if a defending character becomes the new target of the attack as well as the player controlling that character or if just the player changes target and there is no way to change the character target of the attack.
As it is stated now I think we are missing an edit there which is leading to our confusion because I cannot tell where, if there is a defender, the attack ever changes from the target character of the initial attack.
That combed with Bullet point 4, as you state - if an ally is defending then the damage is assigned to them (or a hero defends) that damage is then assigned to that character. I think now how it is worded is that if the attack is undefended due to the ally who was defending leaving play then the character targeted initially by the attack never changed and damage is then assigned to them.
That would mean that Hope would take the undefended attack (probably losing the game) or the identity of the player which the attack was initialed against.
Excellent question, a head scratcher for sure and hopefully someone with a better understanding can help shed some light on it! My eyes are going crossed trying to figure this one out, so please do not take this is the correct interpretation - it is just how I understand it at this time!
Official response from FFG
Once a player defends an attack with a character they control, that player is the “attacked player” and the character is the “attacked character.” Say that Player A has an attack initiated against them, and Player B defends with their ally; Player B is the attacked player and the ally is the attacked character. If that ally then leaves play before the attack finishes, Player B’s identity will take the undefended damage.
Similarly, if Player A controls Hope Summers and Hope Summers has an attack initiated against her, Player B can defend with their ally, making Player B the attacked player and their ally the attacked character. If the ally leaves play before the attack finishes, Player B is still the attacked player, and their identity takes the undefended damage.
Looking good nelson!
Thank you!
As I told VT with regards to Widow's Bite. I recognize the council has made a decision, but given that it's a stupid-ass decision, I've elected to ignore it.
But seriously I will continue to play it as BW's WB stuns before quickstrike but QS immediately removes stun. It's just way more thematic and I usually use the thematic rule over the grim rule. Also if you get a chance to talk to the designers again pester them for an errata pack that changes WB to interrupt and just updates older heroes some to match newer content and just overall clarifications and updates for older cards
A lot of these changes are just how I was playing anyway, lol.
The reference priority clarification is interesting with nemesis sets of the same character as the villain; it could be pretty rough if a nemesis encounter card attached to the villain or made the villain activate against you.
For the thing about indirect damage being dealt all at once, I think the bigger loss is with the basic Ghost-Spider ally; without this ruling, you could throw some damage on her first to go grab whatever identity event you needed to handle the rest of the damage.
just getting started and not sure what wild resources cant pay for. it says cost and abilities are fine
Ok so let me ask a question about "For Each" as it pertains to Wiccan. I have been playing it that, let's say he thwarts and the top card of the encounter deck has 3 boost symbols, he can deal 1 damage to each of 3 different targets. Sounds like that is wrong, and that it has to be the SAME target? However, you said they are three instances of damage, so it sounds like I could take off a tough and still do 2 damage, inseatd of all three damage being absorbed by the the tough. is that right?
For Wiccan it would be one target - because it does not say "For each boost icon CHOOSE ...." Therefore you only apply the damage to one target! Hope that helps!
@@NelsonAllOverCards It does! But would it be three separate instances of damage, so I could potentially take off the enemy's tough and still deal the remaining 2 damage to them? Or is it one "packet" of 3 damage, all of which would get absorbed by the tough?
@@sambafreak13 it would be one packet
The most needed rule change IMO is allowing all players to play their turns at the same time. 4 player games taking as long as it does really sucks. Allow all players to do all basic actions and plays on anyones turn.
So what you're saying is that I can use the same Warrior Skill to interrupt three times the same attack? I thought that was against the rules. Otherwise the arrow cost states it's only one counter therefore I could not pay more than one in a single interrupt.
And it says THAT attack, so I don't think you can split among different enemies
Would hawkeye the ally stun a quickstrike ally before or after it attacks?
quickstrike now always resolves first
@@j_atkinson i meant iceman ally oops but i figured the keyword would precede the interrupt. Just good to make sure!
A lot of the new rules seems intuitive, and looks like how it was originally intended. Its jusr some really like looking at loopholes, though understandable in some cases.
Though im not happy with Quickstrike update, but understandable.
Can someone explain if I use Operative Skill along with even the odds would be 2 threats per player or and additional one after the whole threat removal? Also if I use warrior skill with dominos pistol would be 2 damage per resource icon?
You only get plus 1 to the total in both instances, not to the per.
Cards with the Preparation trait should be highest priority in activation/resolution order. I think that would allow Toe to Toe and Widow's Bite to both coexist and function as intended.
That would make a ton of thematic sense!!
In order for widows bite to "function as intended" all that would need to happen is to change the rules so that minions engage a player after they enter play instead of when they enter play.
Changing the game state is pretty common verbiage used in alot of card game rules, including Star Wars Unlimited. I always think that's very intuitive. The card you play has to be able to do something. This whole valid target thing is awful, and I'm not going to be playing that way lol.
I think a lot of the confusion was in weird interactions with how the cards worked - a good change for us was the Super Human Strength ruling - under change the game state it would be discarded, under valid target it isn't. Or for like resource generators - if I change the game state by exhausting a card to pay for something that does not change the game state - is it still a valid game state change? There were a lot of questions and I think the valid target is a bit easier to wrap my head around especially when considering paying, interrupts, and responses.
I do think we could have stayed with the changing the game state verbiage - I think this is just a bit easier to explain!
Most of the time I think they are the same, but with some differences that are exposed - the nice thing is that its a cooperative game and we can play however we find it to be fun!
@NelsonAllOverCards True, and given that you play in front of people I'm sure it's all the more important to get those rules right down to the letter haha. I definitely don't envy that, I prefer to do common sense rulings as I go. Keep up the good work man!
@@jareddempsey6479 I appreciate it!!
That's an interesting perspective. I was subconsciously looking for a valid target with the old rules and wasn't really even aware of the changing game state verbiage since it seemed kinda vague anyways. Having a valid target always seemed more tangible and logical, at least with respect to Marvel Champions.
Cant double stun. What if he has steady?
If a character has steady they are not considered stunned unless there are two status cards - so you can use tackle on that enemy if they have 0-1 stunned cards but not two!
For the most part, I think a game's rules should mostly be self-contained and that a person shouldn't be expected to know "made up" rules that aren't explicitly stated on cards or by definitions of key words. In this case, I am referring to the "find" rulings. I think it's a mistake to just make up new rules that people are supposed to keep track of. It's one thing to clarify what is meant be rules, and a whole other thing to just seemingly randomly make up rules. Saying that "find" suddenly means a card triggers that's already on the board isn't a fair rule to expect people to know. If the cards says to do it, then fine, but "find" isn't a key word in the game.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about steel fist
What if I use Drop Kick on an enemy with Stalwart? I know I could do the damage, but do I draw the card if I can't stun him?
Yes you still draw a card. The card draw is dependent only on the resources paid and the damage having a valid target.
I don't think the new "Find" rule will be that impactful, based on the current cards that we have. A search on MarvelCDB pulled up 10 cards (as written) that uses "find" (the mechanic, so ignoring anything that refers to "Find the Senator"), and in all cases you are instructed to resolve an effect if the minion/side scheme is already in play. Find would only trigger if the element is not in play, which means that duplicate when revealed triggers should not happen. Perhaps they are future proofing upcoming designs with this rules change...?
Random speculation but there is a certain character with teleporting powers coming out soon...
Yes. I don't think this rule changes how any card in Marvel Champions is played.... yet.
I'm sorry, but tackle and drop kick use the exact same kind of wording. I don't think they are any different.
To be honest this "do damage and if you paid with fist then stun" ruling does not make any sense to me personally. I'm not arguing that the ruling is wrong but I do not see the requirement to be able to do damage before stunning. It would have been much clearer to me if these type of cards would have used the arrow "->" icon to indicate that the first part HAS TO HAPPEN for the other part to be able to take effect. But these current wordings to me personally do not indicate that at all. To me it is logical that these type of cards can do both effects and they are not related. Meaning that IMHO to a tough enemy damage is not applied but stun still applies. I'm not a native english speaker and I just do not understand the nuance that is being explained. There are many, many, many players like me who will read the text of the card and never understand this specific ruling and play the game by word.
What are some of the rulings that you like or dislike?
I like the anti-cheese rulings. I'm against that sort of exploits existing, so if they can be stopped without rewording the cards I'm all for it.
And even though it screws over Black Widow a bit, I think the timing rules they've set up makes the most sense.
We’re that many people confuse by the most of this stuff? I agree that wording on many cards is inconsistent but 99.9% are still fairly obvious. Just complete 1 sentence at a time.
I think there are a lot of people who prefer to see the rules set out in a video which is what I was hoping to accomplish here. There are people who probably didnt even know there was a new update because they dont follow it as closely!
@@NelsonAllOverCards I agree, videos, with examples are much easier to follow. My question though was more on lot of these “changes” were more clarifications to rules. Clarifications that weren’t really needed (IMO). The only 2 that were eye opening to me where:
1. Finding minions/schemes in play
2. Searching your collection (not allowing to pick cards in the current game).
@@TheVlad1616 Oh yea I think a lot of the changes were very minor (compared to our last update) here. I think a lot of clarifications were around to help out with the questions they probably get all the time or to open up clarifications for future designs!
@@NelsonAllOverCards I wish the rule book wasn’t such a legal document, and they had a larger FAQ section to provide specific examples. Or just word cards clear and consistent to avoid confusion.
*Hi Nelson.* I'm SO sure that when the base game was released the designers *didn't create a solid enough foundation for the game.* Sad 😢
They simply weren't aware of all the branches of language and timming the system would open to in the future.
Sadly, these issues are pretty much out of control at this point.
I still remember the whole problem with "You (the hero) vs you (the player)", also they messed up the concepts of Alter-ego, Hero and Superhero, when all they needed to do is make *Identity* the word defining: 1) the player, and 2) the double sided card which is the foundation of your identity.
Sadly, some unnecessary intricacies still appears to date. All of this could have been easily avoided by using surgeon-level of precision for the use/creation of language and timming windows.
FFG still needs to learn... A LOT!
I do not think there is a card game that is multiple years old that does not have this as well. And the foundation of the game I believe is very solid - and the fact they are updating the rules to continue to expand I think is great. It would have been sad if they never updated rules and then stopped creating content because they did not update wordings.
@@NelsonAllOverCards you're correct: the emphasis they put updating the rules is a very good sign of they caring about the game. Sorry for the rant.