Ok we all know when paying a cost you may commit your character as if it were a foundation. (such as when playing KFTs R)

When your opponent plays standoff, you may commit 2 foundations to negate the effect. May you commit your character? Is this considered a "cost"?

Short answer, yes. Long answer (teh plagerized from the rules):

401.1 Played abilities are preceded by a bold face term (E, F, and R). Each of the different types of abilities has a separate time when they can be played. Played abilities are written as (Ability Type Abbreviation) (Cost): (Game Effect of Ability). The cost is everything before the colon. Anything that appears before the colon on an ability is a cost. Costs are not optional. Costs may only be paid using cards controlled by the player wishing to play the ability. When playing an action card a player must make the control check before paying the costs to play that card. Cards in a card pool may not be used to pay a cost unless specifically stated otherwise. If a part of a cost is to commit foundations you may use your character card as a foundation card to pay these costs.

Zero Cross said:

from that part of it id say that it isnt a cost

Except it's known (and I think ruled) that in the case of Stand Off, the second sentence of the ability is a negation clause, wherein the committing of foundations is a cost, as indicated by the words "may" and "to" (standard card game templating).

Ziephnir said:

Of course it is. You just have to say that your going to play the negation part, then it is mandatory to pay the cost before the effect resolves.

It's similar to Kyo and The Red Lotus of the Sun, discarding a momentum is still a cost despite it not being before the colon.

Not meaning to be a jerk - but there is no section 401 in the rules.

Here is what the Rules say on costs:

2.12 Costs
When playing a card, or an ability, the cost is indicated between the ability type and colon (i.e., F Commit:,
or F(5+): )
2.12.1 Costs are not optional.
2.12.2 Costs may only be paid using cards controlled by the player wishing to play the ability.
2.12.3 If a part of a cost is to commit foundations, you may use your character card as a foundation card to pay these costs.
2.12.4 A player may not pay more for a cost than they are required.

So...

Based on the rules - Stand Off is not a cost. So no, you may not commit a character for that.

Antigoth said:

That's useful Mr. Arbiter. :b

edit: Antigoth's post is now much more helpful, but at one time it was just the quoted line, so don't think I'm a jerk or nothing

Wafflecopter said:

Folks really need to stop using the TR1.9 document. IT will lead to a number of rulings conflicts.

I apologize for using the old rules, but I don't see how the second part of Stand Off is not a cost. Red Lotus has something similar unless that second part is not considered a cost either.

Red Lotus:

R Commit: After your opponent plays an ability that commits, destroys, or removes a card fromy our staging area, cancel that ability's effects. If your character is Kyo, you may discard 1 momentum to play this ability instead of committing this card.

It's a nonstandard clause and should be considered paying a cost, much like *Lizardman*'s discard and Overwhelming Strength's destruction.

Seems odd, but this rare situation snuck past us when the AGR was written, so it'll be made more clear in an upcoming revision.

And until that point...?

Pretend it's a cost.

Zero Cross said:

To me that is pretty clear that the momentum discard is a cost. It says you may do it instead of committing, and there is no argument on committing being a cost...its just something you can do instead.

In the case of standoff however, you are not "paying" a cost with something instead of something else, you are resolving an effect.

If the commital to cancel the effect is not a cost, couldn't your opponent commit your foundations?

looks like it as it doesn't state that they have to be 2 of your own

Stand Off:

E Commit 2 foundations: This attack gets -4 damage. Your opponent may commit 2 foundations to cancel this effect. E Commit 2 foundations: Your attack gets +4 damage. Your opponent may commit 2 foundations to cancel this effect.

Nice, I didn't even consider it that way. If it's not a cost then I can see that you can commit your opponents foundations to negate the effect. But then there would just be a functional errata to "2 of their foundations" to make it more fair.

or just another bad card in the game oh well, if it needs an erratta then lets see it get one

mods do ur thing

...they already DID.

??? show me maybe please

cannot commit characters.

Must commit your own foundations.

Tagrineth said:

There has never been any card (to my knowledge) that allowed you to pay its cost by committing/destroying/discarding your opponent's resources.

MegaGeese said:

Right, and who said that's the case here?

Tuesday said:

For that, Tag =P

Antigoth said:

confused as to the whole its a cost not a cost now???

rules arbiter=rules arbiter.

the clause on standoff is close enough to being a cost for you to commit your character for it