Home | About | Tournament Winning Decklists | Forums

Kitara Cycle: I bless the rains down in africaaa~


I respect the distinction between “unofficial” and “official,” but I don’t understand why something so egregious as Standoff can’t be rectified unofficially AND officially.

Just say “No” off the record and on the record. I think the fact that it represents an errata is less critical than creating a general state of confusion and continual reversal. Just get it right?


Changing Standoff via a UFAQ would’ve created a state of confusion, not cleared one up. For one thing, it’s unreasonable to expect all tourney organizers to read every UFAQ, whereas they should read every FAQ. This could lead to situations where one player interprets Standoff one way and the other interprets it the opposite, and if the organizer has read the UFAQ they will rule one way, but if they haven’t they will rule it as written.

For another, had Boggs stated that Standoff cannot trash the other player’s cards without errata-ing the card, people could claim that Hunter Seeker cannot trash the other player’s cards as it contains the same text.


Then update the official FAQ immediately? Why is there not a Day One solution for cases like these not available using some combination of remarkably accessible internet technology for a community of gamers who tend to be very very clued in to this sort if thing? The outcome is that people play the game “wrong” for weeks. If the answer is “No,” make it happen.

If I was a tournament judge with nothing official to go on, staring at Standoff for the first time, I’d take the common sense interpretation of the card, which is a) based on Weyland thematically trashing their own things for profit, b) cases where trashing your opponent’s cards is an option is almost always handled with more precision or self-evidence (“trash an installed piece of hardware,” the corp’s deck cannot contain hardware), c) the Apex precedent, d) an effect that smells too strong for a zero-point agenda.

If I ruled based on common sense, I’d be more confused rather than less upon, and probably would have felt bad for my ruling on the day once I read the UFAQ.

Anyway, I feel I’ve made my point; I do appreciate clarification of “the way it normally works,” even if to me it seems like the definition of insanity.

Back to Kitara.


Mmm actually, about Standoff, case was closed like a month or two ago (edit - 17 october) and that is the UFAQ that needs a correction, not the FAQ ?


It wasn’t just standoff, a bunch of cards in TD and Red Sands were badly edited and inaccurately worded. I don’t know if that was because Damon had to leave in a rush, or because they had an inexperienced producer/editor getting Damon’s cards ready for print, but the amount of cards that needed errata to do what they were intended to do were way more than just Standoff. Boggs’s first FAQ had more new errata than there had been in the first 5 years of the game! The reason it took so long to fix Standoff was simply because it was one among dozens of cards that needed fixing, and there was no reason to fast-track that one alone. (Or to put Kitara development and MWL balancing on the backburner to fix these crappy cards faster)

The fact that its design INTENT was clear to most of us wasn’t because it was obvious from the wording, but because it was such a crap card if you actually went by the wording! The way it was ruled to be played before the errata was absolutely correct going by its strict wording, it would be confusing for everyone to rule that it should be played differently without also fixing the wording to say what it means.



Quick, everyone act surprised for them!

Kampala Ascendent got announced.


Mti Mwekundu is a powerful Jinteki identity that lets the runner bypass your defenses in exchange for suddenly installing a piece of ice from your hand and forcing the runner to approach it.

That’s interesting, because I didn’t thought it would work like that. Sounds like if you trigger the ID, the Runner directly encounters the inner ID and bypasses all outer layers of ICE.
Preview articles don’t necessary reflect the actual rules, I know, but it sounds (a bit) less scary that way. Still super strong in asset spam, though.


It’s wrong.

FFG news articles are no strangers to mistakes.


Nah, the article is super wrong (Who write these things, like, really? Has there even been one that didn’t get a rule blatantly incorrect?). The runner approaches the server at step [5]. This is after all of the other ice have been dealt with in the normal way (steps [2]->[4], looping back to [2] if there is still ice, going to [5] if there is not).


But I want to believe! :frowning:


My favorite was the person writing the Terminal Directive articles. That PERSON had a strange WAY of using all caps ON random words.






There were a lot of factors.


They could always errata mti if they want it to work the way the article says


At first, I thought CAPS LOCK INTERN was trying to do a fun “secret message game” with all the words that were all capitalized. It turns out, this was not the case.


Council of the Crest (pack 3) has a US release date of 3/1.


The rest of Council of the Crest got spoiled on reddit (including the spicy include of the first virtual hardware, i think?)


Pretty sure that’s a mistake. One of the ice is missing STR too.