Just ran across a scenario I haven't seen addressed here yet. It was Spite's turn, with 4 drugs in play. Absolute Zero had Sub-Zero Atmosphere in play. Following the order of the card, at the start of turn (because of S-ZA) Spite played a card which just happened to be the 5th drug, and then dealt damage to the highest HP hero. Then, since the last thing listed on Spite's card is to flip Spite at the start of the turn if 5 drugs are in play, he flipped. Is that correct? Spiff's FAQ for Sub-Zero Atmosphere says that "Each villain’s start-of-turn action is always listed before their end-of-turn action on their card," but Spite appears to be the lone exception to this rule.
So is the ordering of actions of Spite's card intentional, or is it just an anomaly?
Interesting. It's in the opposite order on the oversized card. With things the way they are written on the normal-sized cards, it seems you did the right thing.
I'm not positive if the order is listed intentionally or not. But since it does list the End of Turn before the Start of Turn, that would mean he would flip.
Edit: Ahh, if it is listed the opposite way on the Oversized, looks like it was an over sight when Rook City was first released.
Interesting. I think that this requires an official ruling, although in every case so far where there's a discrepancy between the small cards and the oversized cards, the small cards are correct. I'm surprised that it hasn't been noticed yet.
Actually I think it's the opposite, the oversized cards seem to be rife with misprints (the Dreamer and La Capitan having substantive changes, as well as GWV, Dawn and Cosmitron being missing the Thorathian, Citizen and Device keywords - in all cases the small card is correct).
This is exactly why SOTM needs some sort of searchable archive with the OFFICIAL rulings, errata and FAQ for all cards, akin to Magic: the Gathering's "Gatherer" app. Right now all we have is an endless tail-chase of hearsay and a bad search engine. There needs to be a database where you simply put in the card's name, and get back a concise summary of every confirmed fact and still-open question about how to handle it. (I have no idea how to create the technical infrastructure of such a thing, but would happily donate some of my copious free time to providing content for it, by systematically searching the forum archives for relevant data and plugging it into the forms.)
It is infrequently updated, less than 100% complete, and takes a fair length of time to scroll through.I have read the entire document and it fell far short of answering all the questions I had. It is certain better than nothing, but not on the scale of what I am proposing.
Right, which is part of why it's not complete. The database I'm proposing would not need to be as condensed as read-through document; it would have room to aggregate forum speculation, labelled as such. (Also, it would automatically update, so there'd be no need to disregard old versions and download new ones.) >G doesn't have time to give very many official answers, so the use of forum consensus as a GEFN answer would be good...the critical part is the ability to obtain such information quickly, which is not possible when you have to read through pages upon pages of forum in order to find it. Thusly, the database would serve largely as an index.
I would say that the wiki would be a fantastic place for this. An individual page for each card in the game, containing clarifications, official rulings, and errata. However, it would be dependent on us getting permission to upload the full card text for each card to the wiki.
I'd be happy to help contribute some time to such a project if this ends up happening.
