Can Fizzle negate the effect of Mutant Nation..not the on-going part but the draw card effect?

Just wanted to know if the card contains the on-going symbol, would it be considered an on-going plot twists and therefore, fizzle cannot even target it in the first place.

Thanks in advance.

Fizzle cannot target any effect generated by a plot twist with the ongoing symbol on it.

so fizzle actually cant negate anything with the ongoing symbol printed on the card as it checks for the symbol?

theres another ruling running over here that fizzle can actually negate the first part of the card without the word "Ongoing: ... " such as global domination's first effect "Negate target location effect"

so is it really true that you can negate the card drawing part too? or the ruling have been wrong all the time here? what bout this card :

Hidden Surveillance

Card Text:
Ongoing: Each of your opponents may not flip a location on the same turn it was placed into his resource row.

Each of your opponents may not play a plot twist on the same turn it was placed into his resource row.

flipping up location is totally understood that cant be negated by fizzle, does fizzle negates the 2nd part? where theres no Ongoing: "Each of your opponents may not play a plot twist on the same turn it was placed into his resource row."

thx in advance for those who takes his/her time to read =)

If the plot twist has the Ongoing symbol on it, any effect it generates is an illegal target for Fizzle.

If you think about it, that makes sense.

Any "ongoing effect" is actually a continuous modifier, not an effect so it's not a legal target for Fizzle to begin with.

That leaves us with one-shot effects from plot twists and there are only two types of plot twists: ongoing and non-ongoing.

So that part of Fizzle's text is referring to the plot twist type, not the effect type.

[non-ongoing plot twist] effect vs. [non-ongoing] plot twist effect.

okay, that makes alot more sense.. seems that fizzle isn't that broken to begin with.. thx

watch out u corrupted GCPDs! I'm gonna tear apart u GK army decks =D

I doubt it :)

any help on tearing down those annoying PCPD? plz no solution such as political pressure,flame trap or berserker rage... cause it it just doesn't work

There is no way, they are unstopable! Maybe total anarchy.

Why don't those work?

Total Anarchy would also be helpful, as well as against low-drop decks like TT.

this is a competitive environment - you wouldn't wanna chuck in 4 cards just to anti the only army gcpd deck running around in your area as they could be deadweight in your deck, like when you hit turn 6-7 where its crucial and u get 2 flametrap/political pressure.. you would go like "OMG! what's this crap"

i think splashin in some scarecrows would be ok in trade of some of your 5 drops ... can even boost on later turns such as 12-13 if u get stalled till then,i would love to see the reaction of 8 cost doom getting bounced when they are doing their gamma lock =D but i dont think it will last till turn 12-13 =)

Scarecrow doesnt work. Probably your best bet is total anarchy. Regardless, whatever you put in your deck will be put in just to stop them and sentinels. Kinda sucks like that with no side board in this game.

sideboard will ruin the game... really bad

scarecrow will crush GCPDs on turn 6 - the most crucial turn and its not a PT, where fizzle can only sit in his resource zone and for every PD u bounce u get +2/+2 ... 3-4 PD will earn you +6/+6 or +8/+8 making ur crow 14/14 or 16/16 which is beyond the curve making it a 7 drop lookalike

well i mean u can bounce them back on 6, making ur crow big enough and when you use crow to hit on batman turn 7, he have no choice but to bounce it back to hand and thus slowing suprman coming down on turn 8

"scarecrow will crush GCPDs on turn 6"

That depends.

at this period in time, a sideboard isn't a good thing...

maybe by next year, the concept of a sideboard would be something to talk about, since the variety of the card pool may make the game more enjoyable...

... or not... we'll see... :D

Hang on guys,

back to the original topic, can anyone quote any part from the comprehensive rule book to affirm this? Sorry for the hassle but around my circles I have a couple of blockheads who are really difficult to convince otherwise...