I'm Elena. I use the Air seal, or one of Siegfried's things (give me Air) and play Diving Wind Throw, a 9/3 5M9 throw. +1 damage, +1 speed, +1 damage, resolve attack.

Then proceed to play Descending Dragon Spear, which has a Temujin Combo. According to current rulings, this means that since the character I'm using is not the name on the keyword, the card is not considered to have the keyword.

So, this is when it gets weird. I have one momentum and share all three symbols with Descending Dragon Spear now. Can I, or can I not, use Elena's first E for +1 damage, second E for +1 speed, +1 damage, then Elena's third E by discarding a momentum, then adding the "Combo(Throw)" keyword and proceed later to give Descending Dragon Spear +9 damage by playing its Combo E now?

Same for the Algol Combo card, Alshain Najm?

guitalex2008 said:

theres no reason i can see to say no. so yes

Except Elana can only give it "Combo(1)".

See the new TR. A Combo's rating is the value(s) inside the parenthesis.

On the other hand, the only way to interpret Combo(1) as far as I can tell would be that you have exactly 1 card preceding it in the card pool.

2.14.2.2 Combo
Combo: (X) - In order to play the Combo ability written in the card text box, you must have cards with the required traits (noted in the parentheses) in the card pool immediately preceding this card in the listed order. Any references given to zones in the requirements refer to attack zones.

Basically Elena creates a situation where if she gives an attack the combo Keyword, it has the combo rating of 1, which means nothing, and cannot be met.

So that would not be an optimal Keyword for Elena to provide.

That's what I thought at first, but ratings are preceded by a colon, not enclosed in parenthesis. While the rules have the colon, none of the cards do.

Not that I'd try to pull off that sort of janky insanity, but it seems to me that you could define the entire keyword, since a rating is a number and Combo has "required traits" in parenthesis, not ratings according to the rule 2.14.2.2.

Then again the case is so **** specific and totally out there that I wouldn't be surprised if it was ruled to not work just because. lol