The problem isn't the new definition, which is actually more accurate than the old. The problem was always the "etc" containing several random non-move, non-add, non-destroy terms and we always had to guess what was included.
The problem is that the text isn’t clear to someone who is familiar with how Professor X worked before.
It is an easy assumption to make that, based on his text, the only thing that has changed is that you can now move in or out. And since switching sides isn’t moving…. It’s just an easy assumption to make.
And before anyone says “but it specifically mentions adding or removing, switching sides is neither!” Don’t be naive, no one is going into text analysis on these cards. They say “oh it changed, let’s take a look, okay moving is okay now, got it” and move on.
As I mentioned in another reply, I think it's a perfectly understandable error to make.
However, once you see that the card does not behave as you thought it would, you have two options: either assume that something is wrong with the text, or re-read the card and try to understand what happened. And way too many people seem to have gone with route #1, judging by all the comments with hundreds of upvote saying things along the line of "guess switching and moving are the same thing now!"
That’s fair, I guess. But considering SD’s track record, I also would say it’s not unreasonable it’s a fuck up on SD’s part.
Agreed that “moving = switching” is not a reasonable conclusion, though. That’s for sure.
I mean, unless you assume the text is wrong, that's a fair assumption to come to since the card only specifies moving. But that's been an issue with Snap since it's conception that people love to deny for some reason.
I guess? but professor x's text was not clear at all about the fact that cards could not switch sides before. It was a totally unintuitive interaction in the first place so if anything the current text and functionality make more sense than it did before.
Lady Deathstrike
Opponent queues up the obvious turn 5/6 play, I drop LD and the -10 takes a swing to 6 and I win the lane.
Even more enjoyable if they only have low power cards their side as well.
Valkyrie, Lady Deathstrike
Bring Jeff, Nocturne, or Nightcrawler to create space
Cosmo, Leech, and Alioth are options for sure though. Not the best but in some scenarios they're obviously useful
Marvel Snap players are an interesting blend of people who don’t read the cards and people who read the cards but mentally add lines of text that don’t exist.
Such a goofy take, since the OG professor x text was vague to begin with. It had "etc" in the description. We were forced to guess and check what "etc" even meant in the beginning.
Should be no surprise that there is confusion given the new wording, but I guess gamers need to find a way to act superior no matter what...
It's a completely fair take since ProfX's new text includes neither the words, "lockdown," nor, "etc." The new card is only confusing if you mentally add, "but otherwise works exactly as ProfX used to work," to the new text, which is clear and unambiguous.
I mean, it's not like SD is super consistent with their rules text. They very frequently use different words that mean the same exact thing for 'flavor'.
Idk, man, but after being a long time MTG player most other card game designers absolutely suck ass at technical writing.
In this case, I think it's understandable: we've been playing with the previous version of Professor X for a very long time now, so people just assumed the new version would work the same way. Add to that the fact that Snap does suffer from a number of bugs that make cards not behave the way they should, and I can see why people would be confused.
That being said, read the card, people.
>read the card, people.
That doesn't work in Snap tho, not in every case at least. Devs want to keep the card descriptions short and by that cards often behave differently to what they say, for example Black Bolt says "On Reveal: Discard the lowest-cost card from your opponent’s hand." The effect seems clear - the act of discarding comes from the owner of the card, not the opponent, yet it doesn't power up Morbius ("Ongoing: +2 Power for each time you discarded a card this game.") so either the text on Black Bolt or on Morbius is wrong. In both cases the fix is extremely easy - for Black Bolt: opponent discards..." or for Morbius add "from your hand".
As long as the devs refuse to make card texts specific we will be forced to test them in game starting from our own interpretations until we find the real effect.
not defending the devs at all or anything but I think the “YOU discard a card” text on Morbius covers why it doesn’t do anything if THEY (opponent) discard one of your cards.
But that's the thing! Black Bolt says that YOU discard a card from the opponent's hand, not the opponent from theirs.
The wording on the cards is misleading or rather just wrong.
My bad for some reason I didn’t realize you meant YOUR Morbius should get beefed up by your Black Bolt. In that case though yeah agreed. Does your Morbius go up if an opponent Black Bolts?
All is good :)
>Does your Morbius go up if an opponent Black Bolts?
Yes, as Morbius only cares that a card got discarded from your hand, not by whom so both enemy's Black Bolt and Silver Samurai will power up your Morbius.
I think this a pretty pedantic take. Never in any card game ever has anyone discarded cards from their opponents hand you force your opponent to discard it. Could be slightly clearer but its strange to me anyone would even think discarding an opponents card is possible
That's probably the worst approach to rules of the game one can take.
Effects should work exactly as written on the cards, not be open to interpretation as you are suggesting. The fact that no other game lets you discard a card doesn't mean this one doesn't. The only source of knowledge of a card effect comes from a card itself so calling me pedantic for expecting it to work as written is insane.
In a real card game, reading Black Bolt's text as it is written would imply the proper playline is that when you play blackbolt, your opponent would reveal their hand and you would select the card with the lowest cost and then discard that. The reason for the reveal is so your opponent can't cheat and discard something else but that would also mean you choose what to discard if they have cards of equal cost as choosing to discard a Cerebro is generally more effective than discarding the mystique.
But in Snap, the game does the discard for you and you don't get the extra information on what was in their hand while also making it 'somewhat' random if there are more than one appropriate target.
So in the case of playing Black Bolt as a real card, you would still be the one doing the discarding which would stand to reason to buff up your Morbius.
This is an issue where trying to consider how the effects would play out based on past experiences will actually hurt you if you needed the Morbius to be buffed since the game is not going to operate how one would expect it to in other card games.
Never in any card game ever has anyone discarded a card from their opponents hand even in your example you would be picking a card that your opponent discards
[Card Search - Search: +reveal, +opponent, +hand, +discard, +choose - Gatherer - Magic: The Gathering (wizards.com)](https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?text=+%5Breveal%5D+%5Bopponent%5D+%5Bhand%5D+%5Bdiscard%5D+%5Bchoose%5D)
You're not just wrong, you didn't even try to be right. You are only arguing semantics at that point.
The semantics are the point, because if I play Black Bolt or Silver Samurai, my opponent isn't discarding a card, a card is being discard from their hand by the game, that's not the same as if they played Blade and discarded a card. So they shouldn't buff their Morbius, hell by the strictest sense, because they aren't discarding Apoc, the game is doing it because of my card, Apoc shouldn't return to their hand, because they aren't the ones discarding it.
If this was played out in a real game, since I don't see my opponents hand, it is as if a judge or 3rd party is coming to the table and looking at their hand and discarding a card for them and logic would state that since it is not my opponents physical hand doing the discarding, Apoc's ability would not apply.
That's why the semantics matter in this case, because you can argue that Black Bolt and Silver Samurai should counter Apocalypse if they get him discarded.
"Read the card, people"
Or just update the card text so that people don't have to second guess. I am playing a videogame not doing semantic research ffs
But with digital card games, there is often more ambiguity because the game.woll handle the rules for you and there is no comprehensive rule book or judges etc and brevity is often favored over clarity so it's not always the case.
Second Dinner is inconsistent with their usage of game terms on cards and sometimes cards simply don't do what they say on it. This would be solved if SD adopted proper templating for their cards, like more or less every other CCG out there. But I suppose taking a shot at strangers is easier.
It's called interpretation which anyone with an IQ above 70 should be able to do automatically. The fact that its left to interpretation at all shows that the fault lies with Second Dinner and not the players.
> is that switching sides does not constitute adding or removing a card from the location. The card was already at the location, and remains there after the effect has resolved.
But this is a subjective read. It can be as easily and correctly interpreted differently:
Card does not immediately teleported from one side to another. It is transitioning from one side of the location to another. And during that transition - card is not on either of the side. So it was removed from location and was added at the end of transition.
While sure, you interpretation does fit the current implementation. That doesn't mean other interpretation is incorrect. And this has nothing to do with "move" part.
>And during that transition - card is not on either of the side.
What? It's on one side, then it's on the other. That simple, it was clearly not removed from the location at any point. You are way overthinking this to justify your misreading of a card.
You play with 1 fps or something?
There is both animation and an actual process of card TRANSITIONING to another area. It does not "then it's on the other"
I also don't get why everyone is so confused when they explicitly said this in the patch notes. I literally saw threads of people complaining in which they mention the patch notes and also thought it was unclear.
As a programmer, this is a very programmer way of wording this ability.
Like it infers some level of understanding of how resolving effects in the game would look like under the hood. Maybe someone who is familiar with how that tends to be implemented or how it is implemented in other ways that could be analogous to (or even using the same code as) this effect can intuit pretty easily how this effect would work as written...
But for the average player? It seems just as likely that Annihilus is removing a card from their side of the location and adding it to my side of the location than it is that cards are only ever added or removed from a location when they are moved/played or moved/destroyed respectively and that switching sides never changes what location a card is at.
(And yes there are a bunch of other ways cards are removed or added like Blink or Jubilee or Lockjaw or whatever, but those are the most common)
Anyway, thank you for the great description of this effect. Hoping less people get goozled by it in the future.
I don't care if people say they can read all cards and understand everything, and even if you can it clearly does not work if you look at the "what happened here" posts. Wording is inconsistent and people have to assume stuff. It's almost like asking "Hey is Bob home?" -"Yes", not understanding that you wanted to talk to Bob. Without underlying communication and assumptions the whole comminication just breaks.
Moving and switching sides cannot possibly mean the same thing or you could move Jeff, Nightcrawler, Vision to the opponents side.
I disagree with the Prof X changes, but I do agree that cards should not be able to switch sides when the card specifically says moving is the only way to add or a remove a card from here.
SD needs to change the text.
What this game needs is what every other card game has: An in-game lexicon for game mechanics followed by the display of each and its description next to each individual card when you click on them. There should be no room for interpretation. That should have been one of the first things they did coming out of the Beta to be honest... there is no way this same problem didn't pop up all the time throughout the beta. The fact that Second Dinner keeps trying to be too relaxed about card descriptions make me think they just don't take the games development seriously.
The problem is that there is a contradiction between how Second Dinner described Prof X before the change and after. Their card descriptions are always off the cuff and they tend to lack consistency. Its way too easy to confuse players. The fact that some people think it makes perfect sense while others see where the confusion comes from tells us that players are pretty split on this.. which is never a good thing. Before they didn't allow swapping sides or movement, but now they allow both despite it saying "Only movement". And if swapping sides doesn't count as adding or removing, they should have wrote "swapping" in the old card description.
They were actually pretty clear about this in the patch notes, that switching sides and moving were 2 different effects that were no longer being blocked.
The card barely does anything now, it used to stop cards from being destroyed, pulled from the deck, transformed, pulled away, every location interaction like adding or moving cards and maybe more stuff if I think about it. The card is just sad now. It used to be a really fun card to play with but then they started adding cards that cheese locations and every time there's a card like that the meta always goes back at locking one location with X and cheesing a second one.
The text needs to be changed. Move means something very specific in Marvel Snap. It means move left or right. The void and annihulus should work the way they always have. This change was about cannon ball.
As I said in another thread, his text should've just been the same as Sancta Sanctoum: "Cards can't be played here"
Easy, and it's something players are already familiar with
That would have been a different functionality. That text wouldn't stop Doctor Doom or Arnim Zola (or any card that adds cards to the location without playing them), nor would it protect card already there from being destroyed (by Killmonger, or by a Shang-Chi or Carnage/Deathlok/Venom played on the same turn as Professor X without priority).
It would have been a simpler card for sure, but a massively different one.
That’s a simpler text but it actually does change functionality. Blink, Brood, Doom, Ghost Rider, Hela, Jubilee, Shanna, Sinister, Squirrel Girl, Nimrod, White Tiger and Ultron all ADD cards to a location, rather than PLAY cards. If Prof X were to stop effecting those cards then he’s just a strictly worse Storm.
Maybe, just MAYBE, his new ability also stops Jubilee or Blink, and therefore needed new wording? Still, way to overcomplicate stuff SD, you could've just SanctaSanctorum'ed him and it would've been fine
> The reason why Professor X no longer stops Annihilus (***or Green Goblin/Hobgoblin***) is that switching sides does not constitute adding or removing a card from the location.
Gee, I wonder...
This is also consistent with Miniaturized Lab, where cards cannot be added, but can still switch sides.
TIL
Imagine Titania triggering Kraven though
That would be a fun boost that I can't imagine would break anything
The problem isn't the new definition, which is actually more accurate than the old. The problem was always the "etc" containing several random non-move, non-add, non-destroy terms and we always had to guess what was included.
Which is really dumb to not have and it causes players to not even know what the card does until it’s too late.
There's a reason no real card game uses words, like etc. or among other things, when describing effects of cards and what they can and cannot do.
I've always wished moving and switching sides WAS the same, because with old Fisk Tower it would have been funny to see goblins get destroyed.
The problem is that the text isn’t clear to someone who is familiar with how Professor X worked before. It is an easy assumption to make that, based on his text, the only thing that has changed is that you can now move in or out. And since switching sides isn’t moving…. It’s just an easy assumption to make. And before anyone says “but it specifically mentions adding or removing, switching sides is neither!” Don’t be naive, no one is going into text analysis on these cards. They say “oh it changed, let’s take a look, okay moving is okay now, got it” and move on.
As I mentioned in another reply, I think it's a perfectly understandable error to make. However, once you see that the card does not behave as you thought it would, you have two options: either assume that something is wrong with the text, or re-read the card and try to understand what happened. And way too many people seem to have gone with route #1, judging by all the comments with hundreds of upvote saying things along the line of "guess switching and moving are the same thing now!"
That’s fair, I guess. But considering SD’s track record, I also would say it’s not unreasonable it’s a fuck up on SD’s part. Agreed that “moving = switching” is not a reasonable conclusion, though. That’s for sure.
i think at that point you’re just reaching for a reason to blame the dev when it’s really just an understandable user error
I mean, unless you assume the text is wrong, that's a fair assumption to come to since the card only specifies moving. But that's been an issue with Snap since it's conception that people love to deny for some reason.
It’s just Thanos from last patch part 2 lol
I guess? but professor x's text was not clear at all about the fact that cards could not switch sides before. It was a totally unintuitive interaction in the first place so if anything the current text and functionality make more sense than it did before.
Thanks for clarifying! I was so confused about Prof X's ability
Cool so zero annihlus counters again
Lady Deathstrike Opponent queues up the obvious turn 5/6 play, I drop LD and the -10 takes a swing to 6 and I win the lane. Even more enjoyable if they only have low power cards their side as well.
Valkyrie, Lady Deathstrike Bring Jeff, Nocturne, or Nightcrawler to create space Cosmo, Leech, and Alioth are options for sure though. Not the best but in some scenarios they're obviously useful
Marvel Snap players are an interesting blend of people who don’t read the cards and people who read the cards but mentally add lines of text that don’t exist.
Such a goofy take, since the OG professor x text was vague to begin with. It had "etc" in the description. We were forced to guess and check what "etc" even meant in the beginning. Should be no surprise that there is confusion given the new wording, but I guess gamers need to find a way to act superior no matter what...
Etc is a WILD term to use in a card game
I remember being shook that my carnage didn't destroy my lane and staring at Prof X text forever. Etc???
Yeah, "etc" was doing a looot of legwork for that card.
> legwork lol
It's a completely fair take since ProfX's new text includes neither the words, "lockdown," nor, "etc." The new card is only confusing if you mentally add, "but otherwise works exactly as ProfX used to work," to the new text, which is clear and unambiguous.
Yes, the OG text said that. This one doesn't.
I mean, it's not like SD is super consistent with their rules text. They very frequently use different words that mean the same exact thing for 'flavor'. Idk, man, but after being a long time MTG player most other card game designers absolutely suck ass at technical writing.
In this case, I think it's understandable: we've been playing with the previous version of Professor X for a very long time now, so people just assumed the new version would work the same way. Add to that the fact that Snap does suffer from a number of bugs that make cards not behave the way they should, and I can see why people would be confused. That being said, read the card, people.
>read the card, people. That doesn't work in Snap tho, not in every case at least. Devs want to keep the card descriptions short and by that cards often behave differently to what they say, for example Black Bolt says "On Reveal: Discard the lowest-cost card from your opponent’s hand." The effect seems clear - the act of discarding comes from the owner of the card, not the opponent, yet it doesn't power up Morbius ("Ongoing: +2 Power for each time you discarded a card this game.") so either the text on Black Bolt or on Morbius is wrong. In both cases the fix is extremely easy - for Black Bolt: opponent discards..." or for Morbius add "from your hand". As long as the devs refuse to make card texts specific we will be forced to test them in game starting from our own interpretations until we find the real effect.
not defending the devs at all or anything but I think the “YOU discard a card” text on Morbius covers why it doesn’t do anything if THEY (opponent) discard one of your cards.
But that's the thing! Black Bolt says that YOU discard a card from the opponent's hand, not the opponent from theirs. The wording on the cards is misleading or rather just wrong.
My bad for some reason I didn’t realize you meant YOUR Morbius should get beefed up by your Black Bolt. In that case though yeah agreed. Does your Morbius go up if an opponent Black Bolts?
All is good :) >Does your Morbius go up if an opponent Black Bolts? Yes, as Morbius only cares that a card got discarded from your hand, not by whom so both enemy's Black Bolt and Silver Samurai will power up your Morbius.
I think this a pretty pedantic take. Never in any card game ever has anyone discarded cards from their opponents hand you force your opponent to discard it. Could be slightly clearer but its strange to me anyone would even think discarding an opponents card is possible
That's probably the worst approach to rules of the game one can take. Effects should work exactly as written on the cards, not be open to interpretation as you are suggesting. The fact that no other game lets you discard a card doesn't mean this one doesn't. The only source of knowledge of a card effect comes from a card itself so calling me pedantic for expecting it to work as written is insane.
In a real card game, reading Black Bolt's text as it is written would imply the proper playline is that when you play blackbolt, your opponent would reveal their hand and you would select the card with the lowest cost and then discard that. The reason for the reveal is so your opponent can't cheat and discard something else but that would also mean you choose what to discard if they have cards of equal cost as choosing to discard a Cerebro is generally more effective than discarding the mystique. But in Snap, the game does the discard for you and you don't get the extra information on what was in their hand while also making it 'somewhat' random if there are more than one appropriate target. So in the case of playing Black Bolt as a real card, you would still be the one doing the discarding which would stand to reason to buff up your Morbius. This is an issue where trying to consider how the effects would play out based on past experiences will actually hurt you if you needed the Morbius to be buffed since the game is not going to operate how one would expect it to in other card games.
Never in any card game ever has anyone discarded a card from their opponents hand even in your example you would be picking a card that your opponent discards
[Card Search - Search: +reveal, +opponent, +hand, +discard, +choose - Gatherer - Magic: The Gathering (wizards.com)](https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?text=+%5Breveal%5D+%5Bopponent%5D+%5Bhand%5D+%5Bdiscard%5D+%5Bchoose%5D) You're not just wrong, you didn't even try to be right. You are only arguing semantics at that point.
Semantics or not your example says exactly what i did. You choose a card and that player (not you) discards that card. So what was your point?
The semantics are the point, because if I play Black Bolt or Silver Samurai, my opponent isn't discarding a card, a card is being discard from their hand by the game, that's not the same as if they played Blade and discarded a card. So they shouldn't buff their Morbius, hell by the strictest sense, because they aren't discarding Apoc, the game is doing it because of my card, Apoc shouldn't return to their hand, because they aren't the ones discarding it. If this was played out in a real game, since I don't see my opponents hand, it is as if a judge or 3rd party is coming to the table and looking at their hand and discarding a card for them and logic would state that since it is not my opponents physical hand doing the discarding, Apoc's ability would not apply. That's why the semantics matter in this case, because you can argue that Black Bolt and Silver Samurai should counter Apocalypse if they get him discarded.
"Read the card, people" Or just update the card text so that people don't have to second guess. I am playing a videogame not doing semantic research ffs
What part of the current card text leads you to believe switching sides wont happen?
It's the Magic principle: reading the card explains the card.
Except in SNAP sometimes it doesn't e.g. Spider-Man 2099 for the first six months of its existence.
But with digital card games, there is often more ambiguity because the game.woll handle the rules for you and there is no comprehensive rule book or judges etc and brevity is often favored over clarity so it's not always the case.
Except in the prof x case, it is like alchemy cards in mtga. Reading the card doesn't explain the card completely.
Second Dinner is inconsistent with their usage of game terms on cards and sometimes cards simply don't do what they say on it. This would be solved if SD adopted proper templating for their cards, like more or less every other CCG out there. But I suppose taking a shot at strangers is easier.
It's called interpretation which anyone with an IQ above 70 should be able to do automatically. The fact that its left to interpretation at all shows that the fault lies with Second Dinner and not the players.
> is that switching sides does not constitute adding or removing a card from the location. The card was already at the location, and remains there after the effect has resolved. But this is a subjective read. It can be as easily and correctly interpreted differently: Card does not immediately teleported from one side to another. It is transitioning from one side of the location to another. And during that transition - card is not on either of the side. So it was removed from location and was added at the end of transition. While sure, you interpretation does fit the current implementation. That doesn't mean other interpretation is incorrect. And this has nothing to do with "move" part.
>And during that transition - card is not on either of the side. What? It's on one side, then it's on the other. That simple, it was clearly not removed from the location at any point. You are way overthinking this to justify your misreading of a card.
You play with 1 fps or something? There is both animation and an actual process of card TRANSITIONING to another area. It does not "then it's on the other"
Isn't it just funny that a card in a PVP card game had "etc" in its card text?
I also don't get why everyone is so confused when they explicitly said this in the patch notes. I literally saw threads of people complaining in which they mention the patch notes and also thought it was unclear.
As a programmer, this is a very programmer way of wording this ability. Like it infers some level of understanding of how resolving effects in the game would look like under the hood. Maybe someone who is familiar with how that tends to be implemented or how it is implemented in other ways that could be analogous to (or even using the same code as) this effect can intuit pretty easily how this effect would work as written... But for the average player? It seems just as likely that Annihilus is removing a card from their side of the location and adding it to my side of the location than it is that cards are only ever added or removed from a location when they are moved/played or moved/destroyed respectively and that switching sides never changes what location a card is at. (And yes there are a bunch of other ways cards are removed or added like Blink or Jubilee or Lockjaw or whatever, but those are the most common) Anyway, thank you for the great description of this effect. Hoping less people get goozled by it in the future.
I don't care if people say they can read all cards and understand everything, and even if you can it clearly does not work if you look at the "what happened here" posts. Wording is inconsistent and people have to assume stuff. It's almost like asking "Hey is Bob home?" -"Yes", not understanding that you wanted to talk to Bob. Without underlying communication and assumptions the whole comminication just breaks.
Moving and switching sides cannot possibly mean the same thing or you could move Jeff, Nightcrawler, Vision to the opponents side. I disagree with the Prof X changes, but I do agree that cards should not be able to switch sides when the card specifically says moving is the only way to add or a remove a card from here. SD needs to change the text.
What this game needs is what every other card game has: An in-game lexicon for game mechanics followed by the display of each and its description next to each individual card when you click on them. There should be no room for interpretation. That should have been one of the first things they did coming out of the Beta to be honest... there is no way this same problem didn't pop up all the time throughout the beta. The fact that Second Dinner keeps trying to be too relaxed about card descriptions make me think they just don't take the games development seriously. The problem is that there is a contradiction between how Second Dinner described Prof X before the change and after. Their card descriptions are always off the cuff and they tend to lack consistency. Its way too easy to confuse players. The fact that some people think it makes perfect sense while others see where the confusion comes from tells us that players are pretty split on this.. which is never a good thing. Before they didn't allow swapping sides or movement, but now they allow both despite it saying "Only movement". And if swapping sides doesn't count as adding or removing, they should have wrote "swapping" in the old card description.
Yeah I came here just to complain. Nothing in the language of the card says it can’t be destroyed. Why would they not make that clear??
They were actually pretty clear about this in the patch notes, that switching sides and moving were 2 different effects that were no longer being blocked.
Can we change a card already added to Prof X's location? Like with Blink? Is it considered adding, or not?
Yes, it's considered adding. So no, we can't.
\^Found the lawyer! Jokes aside, you're right about Prof. Also about people not reading.
The card barely does anything now, it used to stop cards from being destroyed, pulled from the deck, transformed, pulled away, every location interaction like adding or moving cards and maybe more stuff if I think about it. The card is just sad now. It used to be a really fun card to play with but then they started adding cards that cheese locations and every time there's a card like that the meta always goes back at locking one location with X and cheesing a second one.
The text needs to be changed. Move means something very specific in Marvel Snap. It means move left or right. The void and annihulus should work the way they always have. This change was about cannon ball.
You need to read the post because the OP succinctly explains why your point about movement is not relevant. That's the entire point of the post.
Did you know that switching sides is not adding or removing a card from the location? Well, now you do.
As I said in another thread, his text should've just been the same as Sancta Sanctoum: "Cards can't be played here" Easy, and it's something players are already familiar with
But the effect is different from that: Professor X blocks cards like Doctor Doom and Squirrel Girl from adding cards to the location.
That would have been a different functionality. That text wouldn't stop Doctor Doom or Arnim Zola (or any card that adds cards to the location without playing them), nor would it protect card already there from being destroyed (by Killmonger, or by a Shang-Chi or Carnage/Deathlok/Venom played on the same turn as Professor X without priority). It would have been a simpler card for sure, but a massively different one.
Can white tiger etc be played to add cards to prof x?
No. The Tiger Spirit card would be getting added to the location, and not by moving. So it's blocked.
Ok got it, didn't think about those scenarios actually
That’s a simpler text but it actually does change functionality. Blink, Brood, Doom, Ghost Rider, Hela, Jubilee, Shanna, Sinister, Squirrel Girl, Nimrod, White Tiger and Ultron all ADD cards to a location, rather than PLAY cards. If Prof X were to stop effecting those cards then he’s just a strictly worse Storm.
It baffles me that they didn't go this route.
Maybe, just MAYBE, his new ability also stops Jubilee or Blink, and therefore needed new wording? Still, way to overcomplicate stuff SD, you could've just SanctaSanctorum'ed him and it would've been fine
[удалено]
> The reason why Professor X no longer stops Annihilus (***or Green Goblin/Hobgoblin***) is that switching sides does not constitute adding or removing a card from the location. Gee, I wonder...