7. Twitter

Oh boy. Have I saved the best (worst?) for last. I guess let’s start with the positives, the fact you can actually ask a question on Twitter and get an answer is great, at least in principle it should be. Whoops, let some shade slip in there, my bad. Okay, so let us dig in a little bit here. The current account that you’ll get an answer to a rulings question from is FFTCG_SQEX. Before that it, it was Kageyama’s Twitter account, I won’t point you to that specifically since he doesn’t generally take direct rulings questions any more, but that does mean on Twitter we have various rulings for things split between two accounts.

Twitter has by far the most rulings information in general, besides the Comp Rules, but it also has the most rulings information not in the Comp Rules by far, and is really the only good way to get up-to-date rulings. This is a major problem, and let me tell you it can be infuriating at times. Sometimes, since both Kageyama and the people running the FFTCG_SQEX account aren’t fluent in English, things can be misunderstood. That’s not really an issue per se as much as it can occasionally make things a little confusing, or it can make it harder to use certain answers as proof for players asking elsewhere. Let me be clear, their English is way better than my Japanese, and while it would be good to have someone who is fluent in English answering English rulings questions, it’s a small issue compared to everything else. The reason I mention the language issue is because it feeds slightly into my biggest gripe: when the rules are actually changed, or, I guess I should instead write: when the rules, that only ever existed on Twitter, are changed. As I mentioned when talking about Facebook, Kageyama has previously corrected rulings he’s made. Not the worst, not what I mean with this. We’ve had rulings that were a mistake in the language used and later clarified. Which is why I brought it up, but again, not what I mean. No, I’m talking about the rules straight up being changed.

Actually, probably a good point to sidebar and mention that there have also been, what can only be called, “erratas” applied via Twitter. Cards like Minwu (6-123L), that cast a Summon “without paying the cost,” actually allow it to be cast for 0CP, which can bypass restrictions like Bahamut (8-015H). This was given as a ruling in tweet, and they’ve done nothing about actually updating the text. We’ve also had proper errata, like the Monsters with power printed on them from Opus VII, where the text was errata’d, not mentioned in the errata page but mentioned on Twitter and even updated in the card browser on the official page. Although those cards have now been rolled back to the previous wording there. At the time of writing, I used an image of Varuna (7-006R)’s errata version in my Advanced Rules (this will likely change at some point), if you want to see what the errata text looked like. I’ve no idea why they rolled back the errata, but whatcha gonna do.

Back to them changing the rules now. Kept you hanging on that one for a little bit, huh? Due to the nature of this stuff, there are a couple of changes where it’s hard to say if it was a language issue, or an actual change. Some might even have been because of a communication problem, who knows. However, one that seems like a pretty clear change relates to modular abilities and Summons. Things that say “select up to X of Y.” Now, I’ll try not to get too in the weeds here and have people drifting off to sleep, but basically, the original ruling was that at resolution of these, first, all the effects would be checked that their targets were still legal (if any), then each effect would resolve in order, but then, before each effect would resolve it would be individually checked to make sure legal targets for it still existed. Let me give you an example, the Summon, Ramuh (6-102R), has text that reads:

“Select up to 2 of the 4 following actions.

“Choose 1 Monster of cost 2 or less. Break it.”

“Choose 1 Forward of cost 4 or less. Dull it.”

“Choose 1 active Forward. Deal it 7000 damage.”

“Choose 1 Lightning Forward. It gains Haste until the end of the turn.””

Now, if the two effects picked when the Summon is cast are “Choose 1 Forward of cost 4 or less. Dull it.” and “Choose 1 active Forward. Deal it 7000 damage.” and both of the effects pick the same target, at resolution what used to happen, according to the ruling given at the time, was that first both effects would check their targets are legal. For this example, the target is legal for both effects still. Next, the first effect is resolved, first checking the target is legal, and if it is (which it is for this example), the target is then dulled. Then, the second effect is resolved, first checking the target is legal and if it is…oh it’s not because it’s no longer active. Okay, well, cancel that effect and, well that’s the end of the Summon resolving I guess. Now, this new ruling is that that second check, the check for each part that’s resolved, doesn’t happen. It’s not a real boy check after all. So the 7k damage would still happen if Ramuh dulled the Forward. Given some people believed when Ramuh came out that they changed the rules, since the second check wasn’t known at that point (although this is more because it wasn’t relevant than because it was likely changed), it’s quite funny to see it actually verifiably change. Well, Twitter verifiable anyway. Shame neither of these rulings ever existed in the Comp Rules.

Hopefully now you can see just how disorganised the whole rulings situation is currently, and can understand my frustrations with the rules, and why, for some, trying to get a fairly complete picture of the rules is like trying to catch sand while standing up on a Tagada.

Alright let’s move on, but first, and be honest now, did you have to go and Google what the fuck a Tagada was?