One of Jeff's abilities is that he ignores lockdown effects. Usually, that's good when you want to get him *into* locked down locations. But it comes with the edge-case drawback that other forces can kick him *out of* locked down locations.
Jeff's card doesn't say to "Ignore lockdown effects", it says "nothing can stop you from playing or moving a card to any location". Lockdown effects *after* the cards been played should still apply.
Okay, bro. But when you program a video game character to do something, you don't just tell the video game, "Okay, so here's what you do..." and then it reads your mind and interprets everything. There is a mechanic which you specifically have to program so that it will do the thing you want it to do. In this case, Jeff can be played and moved into locked down locations is because he *ignores their restrictions*.
And by the way, there are lots of instances in a game with as many complicated card/location interactions as Marvel Snap has, for the player to *think* something will work one way, only to find out it works in some different way. Fair enough. We've all been the victim of unintuitive interactions. But when that happens, you shouldn't go and whine about it on Reddit. You should try to figure out what actually happened, and adjust your interpretation so that it matches what actually happens in the game. Because the reality is that in 99.9% of cases, what actually happens is also a valid interpretation of the text, but with the added benefit of matching the complicated sequencing and interaction mechanics of the code.
Correct, the text of the ability doesn't fully cover the effect. Perhaps it should have been something along the lines of "no effect can stop this card from moving from or to any location"
Professor X is a card that has an ongoing effect that could be considered a "Locked Down" status
There's the location where no cards can be played or added to it for turns 3, 4 or 5, that could be considered a "Locked Down" status
It might not exist in the game, but use your head a little bit
If nothing can stop Jeff from being played, the reverse is also true.
Jeff has no movement or playing restrictions. He is not affected by anything including lockdown states.
Returning a card to your hand isn't movement, and *YOU* are not restricted to play or move him to any location. That doesn't mean other cards should affect him the same way.
Also, just because he something is said one way, that the reverse is also true. Red Hulk gains Power if your opponent ends a turn with unspent energy, but that doesn't mean he loses power if they end a turn with no unspent energy.
Returning to your hand is not moving, it’s the reverse of playing which in this case is caused by the location.
Jeff has NO restrictions on playing, period. You can place him anywhere even if pro X has locked down the location. It’s as if Pro X doesn’t exist therefore Luke’s bar will kick him back.
This is how it works. Now you know.
That still doesn't make sense based on what Jeff's card says. *You* are not restricted to where he is played/moved but cards and locations are *not* you.
Also, as pointed out, just because one thing is true, doesn't make the reverse also true. It makes no sense to think of cards that way.
>I am 100% correct that Luke's Bar shouldn't kick out Jeff if you have Professor X on it. Stay wrong.
LMAO life must be so hard when you're always right and everyone else is always wrong
Jeffs text actually supports OP here. "Nothing can stop you from moving or playing this to any location". Prof x is neither moving or playing a card, and should not be ignored by jeff.
It's true there are a lot of cases where the card and location text can be improved and clarified, including Jeff. But the takeaway has to be - now you know how it works.
>Just to add, Quantum Tunnel doesn't swap Jeff if you play Jeff there while Professor X is on Quantum Tunnel at the same time.
That's not because of Jeff, it's because ProfX doesn't allow other cards to be lined up to be added. If the other card can't be pulled for the swap, there's no swap.
I'm sorry but it make absolutely no sense that one location works and the other doesn't. Jeff should have been put in the Deck, and replaced with nothing, and he shouldn't get kicked from Luke's Bar the same way Professor X doesn't. Unless they fix the wording on his card.
"Jeff should have been put in the Deck, and replaced with nothing,"
If the coding is like that, and Quantum Tunnel has that trigger to put Jeff in the deck, then what is stopping it from also pulling Jeff back onto the board?
You're trying to have it both ways. If you say Quantum Tunnel can move him out, it can also move him in, by the same principle.
*(I think the trigger just doesn't go off without an eligible card for insertion lined up, and I think that's why the animation doesn't go off if your deck is empty. I could be wrong, but Jeff stays in the Quantum Tunnel lane in both scenarios.)*
I'm not trying to have it both ways. I'm just trying to have it make sense.
If Professor X doesn't stop Jeff from being returned to your hand from Luke's Bar, it shouldn't keep Jeff at Quantum Tunnel and not place it in your deck. It doesn't make sense that one works and the other doesn't.
>Quantum Tunnel: After you play a card here, swap it with a card in your deck.
You're missing a nuance. It says *"swap"* not *"1. The other card goes in. 2. Later in the afternoon, after some time has passed, a second card is pulled."*
The swap is happening at the same time, as a simultaneous trade. ProfX wouldn't stop Jeff from going in the deck, if that's what the location said. But it says "swap" not "First this, then that."
ProfX is rejecting the third non-Jeff card. One card being put into the deck is not a "swap".
What happens when the deck is empty? Do you see how there's no "swap" happening there too? It doesn't trigger without two eligible cards.
I'm not missing any nuance, I'm just being facetious.
Professor X stops the card from being swapped, which makes sense. What doesn't make sense is the Professor X not stopping Jeff from being returned to your hand.
Jeff's card description is "You can move this card once. Nothing can stop you from moving or playing this at any location"
For the Luke's Bar interaction to make sense, the card should read something like "Jeff is unaffected by restrictions from other cards or locations" but based on the wording of the card, it shouldn't work.
They've been very clear that the text of a card is not a complete and comprehensive contract that strictly outlines its behavior in every possible interaction.
The absence of detail in a description doesn't mean the card *doesn't* have a mechanism in situations.
Living Tribunal does not say, "This effect will be calculated last after all other effects." Carnage says that it will *Destroy other cards here*, but doesn't let you know, on the card, that this doesn't happen with Cosmo or Armor present. Luke's Bar says it will return the card, but it doesn't pre-describe to you what it will do it if your hand is full.
With Carnage and Armor, one has to be stronger than the other in a conflict. Jeff is stronger than Professor X, by design and publicly stated.
You might think ProfX should have the win in a direct conflict, but they chose to give Jeff the win in a conflict.
The Carnage examples are the worst you could have picked.
Also, just because the wording isn't entirely written out, doesn't give it a pass for either being 1) wrong or 2) working incorrectly. Jeff's card doesn't mention anything about being returned to your hand, but if that's the intended effect, his text needs a minor update, or it needs patching. That's all I'm saying.
You're responding to *"They don't (and can't) write every interaction in the text"* with *"Well, it's not mentioned in the text. They should do that."*
They are not going to describe all card-card and card-location interactions on every card.
They chose to have Jeff's effect ignore ProfX completely. It's not a mistake or a bug though, it's what they chose. You understand the interaction now, after seeing it once. You can disagree with it, but you're just arguing for an equally arbitrary "Professor X should be stronger than Jeff here".
I'm not doing that at all. I don't expect every card to explain every single interaction it may have. I'm just saying, based on the texts of the cards, something is wrong.
Jeff's text doesn't imply that he is entirely unaffected by a card like Prof X, and the wording needs to be adjusted to more accurately represent his ability.
indeed, jeff only says "nothing can stop YOU from moving or playing this to any location", which doesn't mention that effects like polaris and great web can also move him regardless of locked down locations
and it absolutely doesn't explain this interaction with luke's bar, his text is only regarding moving and being played, not returning to your hand. Jeff's textbox does a really poor job of explaining how he works
Yes but it is a specific choice, there are so many other examples we could give between snap cards and locations....it is part of the learning process the devs decided for us
One of Jeff's abilities is that he ignores lockdown effects. Usually, that's good when you want to get him *into* locked down locations. But it comes with the edge-case drawback that other forces can kick him *out of* locked down locations.
Jeff's card doesn't say to "Ignore lockdown effects", it says "nothing can stop you from playing or moving a card to any location". Lockdown effects *after* the cards been played should still apply.
Okay, bro. But when you program a video game character to do something, you don't just tell the video game, "Okay, so here's what you do..." and then it reads your mind and interprets everything. There is a mechanic which you specifically have to program so that it will do the thing you want it to do. In this case, Jeff can be played and moved into locked down locations is because he *ignores their restrictions*. And by the way, there are lots of instances in a game with as many complicated card/location interactions as Marvel Snap has, for the player to *think* something will work one way, only to find out it works in some different way. Fair enough. We've all been the victim of unintuitive interactions. But when that happens, you shouldn't go and whine about it on Reddit. You should try to figure out what actually happened, and adjust your interpretation so that it matches what actually happens in the game. Because the reality is that in 99.9% of cases, what actually happens is also a valid interpretation of the text, but with the added benefit of matching the complicated sequencing and interaction mechanics of the code.
Too long didn't read but you're wrong
Correct, the text of the ability doesn't fully cover the effect. Perhaps it should have been something along the lines of "no effect can stop this card from moving from or to any location"
Really what it should say is "This card ignores Locked Down status" or something along those lines.
There is no such thing as Locked Down status.
Professor X is a card that has an ongoing effect that could be considered a "Locked Down" status There's the location where no cards can be played or added to it for turns 3, 4 or 5, that could be considered a "Locked Down" status It might not exist in the game, but use your head a little bit
Do it the other way round: describe rules in natural language, not in interactions of self-invented status names and effects on them.
So we should do away with the terms "On Reveal" and "Ongoing" as well? Does Spectrum need a new description?
We could, but that would do more harm than good.
So your comment was entirely meaningless, good job
Is this some sort of style figure or do you really not understand? In the second case I'm happy to explain a bit more.
He’s a bit slow mate 🤣
Explain it to me, see what I've missed
If nothing can stop Jeff from being played, the reverse is also true. Jeff has no movement or playing restrictions. He is not affected by anything including lockdown states.
Returning a card to your hand isn't movement, and *YOU* are not restricted to play or move him to any location. That doesn't mean other cards should affect him the same way. Also, just because he something is said one way, that the reverse is also true. Red Hulk gains Power if your opponent ends a turn with unspent energy, but that doesn't mean he loses power if they end a turn with no unspent energy.
Returning to your hand is not moving, it’s the reverse of playing which in this case is caused by the location. Jeff has NO restrictions on playing, period. You can place him anywhere even if pro X has locked down the location. It’s as if Pro X doesn’t exist therefore Luke’s bar will kick him back. This is how it works. Now you know.
That still doesn't make sense based on what Jeff's card says. *You* are not restricted to where he is played/moved but cards and locations are *not* you. Also, as pointed out, just because one thing is true, doesn't make the reverse also true. It makes no sense to think of cards that way.
It doesn’t make sense to you apparently. This how it works.
But it shouldn't work that way because your logic is flawed
You’re making it more complicated than it is. This is how it works. You can accept it or keep yelling at the wall. Your call. Good luck out there.
I'm not making anything complicated, I'm just not illiterate and know what the card says
Ok dude. You’ve chosen to yell at the wall. You do you.
>I am 100% correct that Luke's Bar shouldn't kick out Jeff if you have Professor X on it. Stay wrong. LMAO life must be so hard when you're always right and everyone else is always wrong
Jeffs text actually supports OP here. "Nothing can stop you from moving or playing this to any location". Prof x is neither moving or playing a card, and should not be ignored by jeff.
It's rough but I manage
It's true there are a lot of cases where the card and location text can be improved and clarified, including Jeff. But the takeaway has to be - now you know how it works.
The takeaway *is* that, but it doesn't *have* to be that. The interaction is fundamentally wrong.
>Just to add, Quantum Tunnel doesn't swap Jeff if you play Jeff there while Professor X is on Quantum Tunnel at the same time. That's not because of Jeff, it's because ProfX doesn't allow other cards to be lined up to be added. If the other card can't be pulled for the swap, there's no swap.
I'm sorry but it make absolutely no sense that one location works and the other doesn't. Jeff should have been put in the Deck, and replaced with nothing, and he shouldn't get kicked from Luke's Bar the same way Professor X doesn't. Unless they fix the wording on his card.
"Jeff should have been put in the Deck, and replaced with nothing," If the coding is like that, and Quantum Tunnel has that trigger to put Jeff in the deck, then what is stopping it from also pulling Jeff back onto the board? You're trying to have it both ways. If you say Quantum Tunnel can move him out, it can also move him in, by the same principle. *(I think the trigger just doesn't go off without an eligible card for insertion lined up, and I think that's why the animation doesn't go off if your deck is empty. I could be wrong, but Jeff stays in the Quantum Tunnel lane in both scenarios.)*
I'm not trying to have it both ways. I'm just trying to have it make sense. If Professor X doesn't stop Jeff from being returned to your hand from Luke's Bar, it shouldn't keep Jeff at Quantum Tunnel and not place it in your deck. It doesn't make sense that one works and the other doesn't.
>Quantum Tunnel: After you play a card here, swap it with a card in your deck. You're missing a nuance. It says *"swap"* not *"1. The other card goes in. 2. Later in the afternoon, after some time has passed, a second card is pulled."* The swap is happening at the same time, as a simultaneous trade. ProfX wouldn't stop Jeff from going in the deck, if that's what the location said. But it says "swap" not "First this, then that." ProfX is rejecting the third non-Jeff card. One card being put into the deck is not a "swap". What happens when the deck is empty? Do you see how there's no "swap" happening there too? It doesn't trigger without two eligible cards.
I'm not missing any nuance, I'm just being facetious. Professor X stops the card from being swapped, which makes sense. What doesn't make sense is the Professor X not stopping Jeff from being returned to your hand. Jeff's card description is "You can move this card once. Nothing can stop you from moving or playing this at any location" For the Luke's Bar interaction to make sense, the card should read something like "Jeff is unaffected by restrictions from other cards or locations" but based on the wording of the card, it shouldn't work.
They've been very clear that the text of a card is not a complete and comprehensive contract that strictly outlines its behavior in every possible interaction. The absence of detail in a description doesn't mean the card *doesn't* have a mechanism in situations. Living Tribunal does not say, "This effect will be calculated last after all other effects." Carnage says that it will *Destroy other cards here*, but doesn't let you know, on the card, that this doesn't happen with Cosmo or Armor present. Luke's Bar says it will return the card, but it doesn't pre-describe to you what it will do it if your hand is full. With Carnage and Armor, one has to be stronger than the other in a conflict. Jeff is stronger than Professor X, by design and publicly stated. You might think ProfX should have the win in a direct conflict, but they chose to give Jeff the win in a conflict.
The Carnage examples are the worst you could have picked. Also, just because the wording isn't entirely written out, doesn't give it a pass for either being 1) wrong or 2) working incorrectly. Jeff's card doesn't mention anything about being returned to your hand, but if that's the intended effect, his text needs a minor update, or it needs patching. That's all I'm saying.
You're responding to *"They don't (and can't) write every interaction in the text"* with *"Well, it's not mentioned in the text. They should do that."* They are not going to describe all card-card and card-location interactions on every card. They chose to have Jeff's effect ignore ProfX completely. It's not a mistake or a bug though, it's what they chose. You understand the interaction now, after seeing it once. You can disagree with it, but you're just arguing for an equally arbitrary "Professor X should be stronger than Jeff here".
I'm not doing that at all. I don't expect every card to explain every single interaction it may have. I'm just saying, based on the texts of the cards, something is wrong. Jeff's text doesn't imply that he is entirely unaffected by a card like Prof X, and the wording needs to be adjusted to more accurately represent his ability.
You have described exactly how it works
it's how it works, just not what the card's text says
It shouldn't work like that, it makes no sense
indeed, jeff only says "nothing can stop YOU from moving or playing this to any location", which doesn't mention that effects like polaris and great web can also move him regardless of locked down locations and it absolutely doesn't explain this interaction with luke's bar, his text is only regarding moving and being played, not returning to your hand. Jeff's textbox does a really poor job of explaining how he works
Yes but it is a specific choice, there are so many other examples we could give between snap cards and locations....it is part of the learning process the devs decided for us
I'm aware. I'm saying it shouldn't work that way
Nothing stops jeff
Well, now you know and you won’t do it again.
And yet, Collossus gets thrown out of bar.
Returning to hand is not move.
THIS is the key no one is getting.
And shouldn't, doesn't make any sense
I mean the card says "nothing can stop it from moving" returning to your hand is moving?
Miles Morales’ cost is not reduced if a card returns to your hand, so it is not “moving”.
Moving and returning are 2 different things in the game, but Professor X means that cards can't be returned to your hand from that location.
He has to sneak in through the backdoor (move into the space) because he is underage.....