If I use Felicia's first ability to add all of the cards in my card pool to my momentum and I have 2 multiple copies in my card pool when this happens, they are discarded instead of added to momentum. Can these two cards count as the two discarded attacks for Shredding Vibrato? I would say yes, but it's a cool interaction so I figured I would ask.

Well the rules do say that multiple copies that try to go to momentum are discarded, the only question is whether or not they are discarded straight from the card pool, or whether they enter a purgatory state between card pool and momentum before being discarded. We'll need that question answered before we can answer yours.

I thought after multiples resolved they became some non-attack card?

They don't go to any sort of other zone before being discarded. And yes they are attacks until end of turn.

Short answer, it works.

aslum said:

Where does it say they don't go another zone? I looked at the rules and it just says they're discarded, but it doesn't say where they are when it happens.

Discarding is the act of moving a card from it's current zone to the discard pile.

There are no other zones involved.

Even when you are playing a card, it moves to the Transitional zone when you announce it and then, once success or failure is determined, you move it to the appropriate zone EG card pool or discard.

The rules don't say that card DO move through some extra zone, so they don't.

Cascade said:

Where does it say that they DO go to another zone? You shouldn't make assumptions like that. Assumptions like those are the type that cause confusion and incorrect rulings to go unnoticed. It wasn't until, what, set 6 until we realised multiple copies of multiple copies fail to carry over damage and speed values, resulting in a card being unbanned (Condor Spirit) because it turned out it wasn't even good at all, let alone broken...

Short answer, stamp for Aslum.

Tagrineth said:

I never made an assumption. You made an assumption that I made an assumption. You shouldn't make assumptions like that.

Notice at no point in my posts do I say that the multiple copies definitely DO go to another zone, only that I thought it unclear as to whether or not they did.

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing here gents, I'm searching for knowledge, since the concept of the "purgatory" state is so deliciously rich in possibility.

Well if there was a purgatory space, there wouldn't be anything at all in the rules to support it, so it'd be quite the case of "arbitrary arbitration".

"No, you can't play Vibrato after doing that, just because we said so"

Tagrineth said:

You act like that's never happened before.

Cascade said:

But seriously though, multiples that are going to be added to momentum are simply discarded instead. They don't even go anywhere near momentum or anything. Meaning Felicia can Melancholic/Spike (if Spike, without the E), F to add the original attack to momentum and discard the two multiples, and since you have discarded 2 attacks you can then play Vibrato.

Cascade said:

You act like we aren't trying to cut down on it (see also: the AGR).

Tagrineth said:

Really? Now I'd love to see how you arrived at that conclusion.

Note that I said "before", perhaps this is where the confusion comes in, so I'll clarify. Before we got the re-tooled gameplay and rules clarification, any and all rulings not featured in the previous guidelines would be settled here on the forums, and those rulings would be take as official. However, since there wasn't anything at all in the rules to support it, technically every one of those forum-origin rulings were, as you put it, quite the case of "arbitrary arbitration" . That's what I meant by what I said.

Since the new rules are in and have been devised in much more detail by the officials behind the game I have little to no problem with any rulings that are given out. Also it is much easier, and is far less necessary, to extrapolate a correct ruling if it's not found in the new rules (not too sure of the grammar of that last bit).

Now I can keep countering your points til the cows come home but we are going wildly off topic, so I think it's best to just leave it here, I won't post anymore in this thread.

A little bit of semantics, but if a ruling is needed to explain a card interaction then it's going to be either an arbitrary ruling, or one based on precedent.

If the rules sufficiently explain the situation then no ruling is needed, merely a clarification of the rules.

Countering my point that we're trying to cut down on arbitrary rulings?

Man, I get that not everyone here likes me but that just makes you sound like a total ******.

Tagrineth said:

Here I thought I was supporting your position and you call me a ******. Classy.

aslum said:

I was referring to Cascade.