After much discussion and feedback from the community Saiyan Lunar Drill as been reworded to read “you only need to reach 3 anger to advance a level.” This help clear up any rulings questions and potential abuse from cards like Krillin’s Power Tap. A lot of cards from early in game suffer from bad wording. What other cards would you guys like to see receive a make over?
Dragon Ball Z: New Moon
Related Posts
About The Author
garrett_in_the_hat
I am an event and game designer. I have worked in the game and event industries since the early 2000's. I have won multiple event industry awards. I was the lead designer of the Inuyasha TCG. I have worked on Dragon Ball Z/GT, Mortal Combat, Street Fighter, Case Closed and Fruits Basket card games. I worked with Paninni on the relaunch of the game and helped develop the all of the sets during the run of game.
Latest Comments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Vegeta lv 1 hit from saiyan saga. 😉
Dragon’s Victory immunity, nice
I especially love how in TE this will combo nicely with S. Hurricane Kick, S. Power Kick, and S. Prepared Smash.
So this card overrides the popular TS Blue Style Mastery?
I think Krillin’s Power Tap itself should be re-made with the correct wording. I have to demand that my opponent pull up the CRD almost every time they run the card.
I think people don’t know the way power tap works because it feels like kind of a stealth change. I don’t remember it having to be attacker attack’s phase during the game’s actual existence, and it clearly doesn’t say it anywhere on the card. I don’t remember it being in the expanded CRD when I started playing against in 2009ish.
Here’s the thing about that. If you follow the CRD, like you said, it states the Attack phases (which suggests the Attacker Attacks phase) as being the only time the copied drill is active. I’ve brought this up to Josh and basically if you played it this way, nearly every drill in existence would be useless to power tap since both ‘if successful’ effects and damage calculation happens during the ‘Defender Defends’ phase (not the ‘Attacker Attacks’). The way its always been played is you just can’t use ‘When entering combat’ effects and I think this is what the CRD was going for. Only used during combat.
Is there are CRD on the Trunks Saga Blue Mastery? Cause if not, it says that you need 6 anger to reach a level, while this one says 3… So which one wins?
This is why a bunch of those subset cards that changed the # of cards needed to capture a DB got reworded in the errata, because of this exact conflict. Learned the hard way that forcing a value instead of a modification will start to cause conflicts as soon as a second forced value exists. Which, unless the Blue Style Mastery has an errata to change it’s forced value of 6 anger, we now currently have.
Chippy
Force vs Modification
This probably won’t help but wouldn’t it then become a matter of who the “active” player is?
Scenario 1 – Example: Player A is playing this Saiyan drill and performs an attack that has a secondary effect of “raise your anger 1” and Player B has Blue Saga Mastery TS in play. Since player A is the “active player” and it is his phase, his drill would take effect before the mastery.
Scenario 2 – Example: Player A is using Blue Style Mastery TS and has Time to Party in play. His opponent has this drill in play and is at 2 anger. The Blue player uses Time to Party but since it is his attack turn, his Mastery is active before the drill player’s drill becomes active.
Actually I don’t know if that would apply at all but is sounded good 🙂
There’s not an errata, but there’s an MRP. Says “Your opponent must reach 6 anger to advance a personality level.” This card says “you only need 3 anger to advance a personality level.”
While they do not use the specific words, I’d look at this as a case of “can” vs “cannot”. The Drill taking the role of “can” (you can advance with only 3 anger), and the Mastery taking the role of “cannot” (you cannot advance unless you reach 6 anger). Trying to swap their positions for a counter argument doesn’t create a logical syntax, so I’d imagine this works as a conceptual precedent.
I would say this is the correct ruling based on the “Can Vs. Cannot” ruling. Shannon also brings up a relevant ruling with “active player”, but I think “can vs. cannot” will be easier to rule, should it come up.
I think there needs to be a better ruling than trying to force a ruling that doesn’t apply to the situation. I understand how you interpreted the situation, as it makes sense most of the time. Forcing the opponent to reach 6 anger is restricting his ability to level while reducing the amount of anger need to level enables their ability to advance. But what if I don’t want to level? Maybe I’m using the drill as a damage buff and the anger clause is restrictive to me. I could just as easily reverse the “can”(you can advance with 6 anger) and “cannot” (you cannot advance unless you reach 3 anger) based on my preference.
Ultimately at the end of the day Joshman and Garret can say “it works this way (insert ruling). . . . . because we said so” since it’s their card and their format.
For the uninformed masses, of which i am apparently a part at the moment, which side wins in a “can vs. cannot” conflict?
Cannot.