I think everyone needs to just realize that what R&D 'intended' with Parademon was not an infinite combo. It's pretty obvious that this is another wording issue (like Adam Strange) and that rules-lawyering this infinite combo is abusive and counter-productive to what the VS team is trying to create.

Seems pretty clear that a Parademon errata or re-wording will be coming soon. I'd put money on it.

does Parademon work the way it was supposed to work?
no.

is a turn 6 win "broken"?
not really in today's meta.

what does that mean for UDE?
watch out for this thing after you restrict/ban EomE...

;-)

Very well said. Its not the deck or the card itself that is the problem its the whole wording issue/rules lawyering thing. With JLOA that is not the problem. With Ghostbusters and the whole Rama-Tut crap it is the intent of the card.

Intent = Design or purpose. R&D =Research and Design. In no way did R&D intend for this to happen.

I play many games competitvely like MTG and some of you may know me from the Pokemon World. But I love VS. the most and the whole concept but its stuff like this that drives me batty about this game that I love.:eek:

They are going to errata Parademon. The designer of the card came into the Players Lounge and said as much.

Which makes JM a sad sad panda.

Wouldn't be surprising, it's the easiest thing to do. "Use this power only once per turn."

Which I'm sure was left out to prevent effective negation, not for a loop.

With the current rules for revealing, that wouldn't really help. A few solution possibilities present themselves. They could simply require the stunning of the character to come from the source of a different character, or get funky with a 'if you haven't controlled a character named Parademon this turn' requirement.

It wouldn't? I'm probably very rusty on the rules for reveal, but what are you referring to?

by turn 6 you could have manhunter 6 drop out

now that's tech

Oh, how I yearn for UDE to make a statement on Metagame about this weeks going-ons ( Callisto/Parademom, JLoA, and Enemy of my Enemy ) . It would sure put my troubled mind at ease knowing that they are seriously considering the level of unrest now prevalent in the VS community ( and its not just here - other sites like VS.Tcgplayer are having the exact same discussions with the same level of heat ). Maybe if I said please ? Please ?

Have they EVER done that, Frog?

Nope. We'll hear if a change is made, and that's it. Until we do, everything is the status quo.

:(

They may have recently added something to the rules on this, so I'd go look first before making changes, but the issue with 'once per turn' being on a power that works from an area of private information is that it's intrinsically difficult for the game state to be able to keep track of this. If you have 2 copies of Parademon in your hand, for example, 'once per turn' in its traditional form would apply once for each card's effect, but there's no way in the current payment of the effect that would make it clear to the opponent whether you've got two seperate copies in your hand or not.

In Magic, the recent Forecast mechanic is step-limited, and it forces the card's 'reveal' effect to remain revealed throughout that step in order to keep clear that effect can only be used once per turn per copy of the card. If this was how Parademon worked, you'd break the combo until they gain access to free/recursive recovery effect (e.g. Monitor). If I have a single Parademon, for example, I can set up one instance of his delayed trigger, since I can only keep a single copy of it revealed from my hand. With this solution, the combo is limited to (stunnable 4+ drops × copies of Parademon in hand) times per turn. A potential additional +4/+4 in a Morlocks deck is not bad, but not nearly as exciting.

Of course, this all hinges on whether UDE determines this to be a real problem. If games tended to last longer, I'd equate this to a less stable but more potentially potent CS. It's somewhat unfortunate that there aren't a ton of solutions, but that's generally the case of playable combo decks.

Hmm, I'm not sure what the rules say about it, but I suppose the wording would have to be more complicated.

"Reveal Parademon >>> Whenever a Secret Six character you control with cost 4 or greater becomes stunned this turn, you may put a card named Parademon from your hand into your front row if you don't control a character named Parademon, and have not put a character named Parademon into play this turn. Use this power only if Parademon is in your hand."

Not exactly what they wanted to do with his power, though.

Or a restriction (though I'm not sure if the game currently supports it) such as "Reveal Parademon >>> Whenever...Use this power only if Parademon is in your hand. You may not reveal a card named Parademon this turn."

The second one won't work because you reveal them a thousand times before the first one resolves.

Before, I was wondering why it said "a card named parademon" instead of "parademon" (which is what causes the loop in the first place), but Canamarock's mention of private information explains it. You can't be specific about an object when it isn't visible to both players.

Hmm.. I was thinking of maybe changing the cost to Discard Parademon, so he's then visible, but that goes a bit far in changing how the card works. Looks like the first solution above would be the best, even though it's a bit strangely worded.

No no, that's not at all what it *should* do...

Just like the end of a power has "Use only once per turn," this restriction applies even before the power resolves. You can't use a "Once per turn" power even if it's negated, because the restriction isn't PART of the power.

But the reason I said I don't know if the game supports it is because I haven't checked the rules to see why "Once per turn" restrictions work that way.



They definitely won't change it to Discard Parademon, though.