The Warp wrote:
A card played from your hand is not the same as a card discarded from your hand.
But it doesn't say "a card discarded from your hand"; it says "cards from your hand which are supposed to be discarded," which is a different definition. I think Ryucoo is asking a reasonable question, because his encounter card is indeed a card from his hand
that is supposed to be discarded
Now, I also agree with you, Jack, that the intention was probably cards discarded directly from your hand
. (Actually I don't know/remember why it doesn't just say that.) But even that more direct wording, and other clauses on Evil Twin, still have plenty of issues. There are tons of situations that make the text unplayable for me, but I'll try to limit myself to just a handful of examples here:
1. ET is Plague
d. Let's say he has some attacks and an artifact, while GT has some attacks and a negotiate. It's ambiguous whether GT has to lose just an attack, or an attack plus the negotiate, because the power never makes it clear whether GT has to suffer ET's potential
losses or his actual
losses. If it's his actual losses, do the attack cards have to match? Does ET have to say which
attack card he is about to lose so GT can match it? What if GT can't match it? (See #7.)
2. Does GT have to lose cards in situations where ET was not going to lose anything at all? For example, Angler
asks ET for an Attack 12. ET doesn't have one but GT does. What happens? If you answered "potential losses" to #1 above, then to be consistent you have to require GT to give Angler one of his Attack 12s.
3. A planet is destroyed (The Entropy Beast
, Wild Guerrilla
, Wild Locust
, Omega Missile
) and ET and GT both have ships on it. It's undefined what happens to ET's ships, but I think we can assume they should return to other colonies. The bigger question is, can GT use ships he was already losing anyway
to satisfy his twin obligation?
4. When losing cards or ships that are constrained by particular conditions, does GT have to forfeit cards or ships that have the same conditions? For example, a hazard warning is drawn and Poison
is forcing ET to lose a ship from a foreign colony. If GT has colonies in Poison's system, does he have to lose two
ships from colonies in that system? Or just the one required directly by Poison and then another ship from anywhere? If the conditions have to be met, and GT can't meet the conditions, does he get off scot-free? (Also see #7.)
5. ET makes a deal
to give his opponent two artifacts and his highest attack card. As discussed above (potential vs. actual), it's unclear whether GT has to give up his highest attack card or an attack card matching the one ET would have given. Furthermore, in this example GT only has one
artifact. Does he still give it? Is this still even a valid deal, since the items were not delivered "as agreed to
" as the rules require? Does ET have to confer with his GT before finalizing any deal involving the delivery of cards, to make sure GT can fully deliver so the deal can be valid? (Of course GT should just lie.) If not, then ET can promise anything under the sun since it's GT's responsibility to deliver it, but ET can't know with any certainty what is in GT's hand. Or even simpler: ET agrees to trade a Card Zap in a deal but GT doesn't have one. What the hell happens? Deals with Evil Twin are just a trainwreck.
6. Whenever ET plays a flare that says "Give this flare
to the Belcher after use," if the Belcher is playing then that is without question "a card which he must give to another player." Of course GT will never be able to give the same card since all flares are unique, so he gives ... a different flare? any card from his hand? nothing? Whatever the answer, I assume ET just keeps all such flares for re-use, which seems unadvisable since wild flares like that are among the strongest in the game, they are not intended for repeat use, and it's part of those aliens' designs that they are supposed to be much more likely to receive their own Supers.
7. In general, what happens when the GT is unable
to suffer the loss on ET's behalf? Does ET still not pay the loss? The text says the GT "must" suffer the loss for him, but it's unclear whether this is a required condition
for ET to avoid the loss or an optional outcome
of ET avoiding the loss.
The whole thing is very vague and leaky, and that's why Evil Twin is not in my play set. The examples above are just the tip of the iceberg (don't even get me started on the Super flare). For me this is one of the most incomprehensible designs FFG has published.