First of all, I searched all over and didn't find an answer so I apologize if this has been asked in some different way somewhere.

Path of the Master

R: After you play a symbol-specific ability, draw a card.

Take to the Air

E Commit: Your high zone attack gets +2 speed. If you are playing an [Earth] character, it gets +1 damage as well.

Do effects, such as Take to the Air's enhance trigger POTM? I would assume it's Resource-only abilities, but i just want to make sure. Thanks in advance.

The example would not trigger POTM.

Has to be the Symbol: effect

type of abilities.

As I figured, thanks. Can we get this man a stamp, please?

ROTBI said:

Stamp for citing without citing 2.9.0.7 from the AGR?

Antigoth said:

It's statements like that which make me hesitate to post here. All I asked for was some clarification, which Smazzurco was kind enough to help with. As a rules moderator, I'd expect you to be a little less snarky. Having re-read 2.9.0.7, it is clear to me now how it works, however 2.9.0.7 doesn't say anything about abilities such as Take to the Air's enhance specifically NOT being symbol-specific.

To the uninformed (which I was) the interaction makes sense. TttA's E (an ability ) grants a damage bonus if the player's character has a specific symbol . In any case, I just wanted an official confirmation from a rules moderator, which I have now.

My apologies if I sound snarky.

There are a number of veteran users who are veteran players, who rather then reading the AGR, and rather then checking an available resource are speculating on answers.

There was a lot of work that went into creating the document, and there is a significant expecation from many users that a similar amount of work be put in to maintain the document. If people aren't going to use it, it makes me question why bother to do the work in the first place.

Again my apologies if I have made you heistant to post here, that was not my intention.

sorry i dont read thru the tournament rules...as far as i am concerned this forum is a lot more resourseful lol.

If i know how something works, not how i think or interpret, but how i know from previous ruling or whatever, i will say one way or the other.

If i don't know i usually pop in another question because everytime i see some card interaction that is unclear it makes another pop in my head.

If i am not 100% on something i usually ask for clarification or say how it appears to me, and ask for someone to step in and correct if necessary.

Honestly i took anti's post as a form of sarcasm. This is the internet and if impersonal text offends you, you will be in for a world of hurt

I haven't really got into any heated debates with mods and had any problems with them, so i have no reason to assume any of them are attacking me personally or anything. That is not to say i always agree, many times i say "but what about" or "i thought" and get further clarification. But as long as you don't go around saying they are wrong and you are right (sounds simple enough but ive seen many a ppl argue about how that is not the way a card works) i see no reason why intelligent conversation can't lead to a better understanding of the cardboard.

Now, i am not saying i NEVER use or don't appreciate the document. I do very much. But i find it sad when a teenager is asked 6+3 and he pulls out a calculator...i feel the same way about T.R. If the answer is clear, no need to look it up IMO.

Iv noticed in other threads i have said something, then a mod or whatever comes in and says "yes per x.x.x.x of the A.G.R. yada yada yada". That way the OP can look it up if they have any questions or wonder specific text in the AGR.

Anti posted, and didn't say i was incorrect. To the OP that should be good enough as a stamp. As a rules moderator i would think he would be somewhat obliged to correct me if i was wrong more so than to toss in a "snarky" comment

Words words words, you are probably not reading this far, or if you are down here its because you skipped all the other text to see how i ended it lol.

All correct. Where my concern comes in is that there are some previously ruled items that are invalidated by the AGR, and if people keep going by the old rulings rather then checking the AGR, there are going to be some ugly interactions at things like worlds.

I'm just trying to avoid that as much as humanly possible.

Antigoth said:

Yeah usually threads turn ugly somewhere around "on STG forums it was ruled...." lol.

Basically i was saying i took no offense, i don't think you meant any offense, and don't let internet sarcasm keep you from posting on a board

I guess in a way im lucky im a fairly new player because i dont even know most legacy cards let alone how they were ruled lol

Smazzurco said:

Sounds good. I think we're on the same page.

I'll third that.

Touching quickly on what was said though, you're right about being "lucky". The biggest problem I have is not being able to be the completely-trusted scout I should be, when I say a ruling is one way (and it impacts the outcome of a game) and then have to turn around later and said that the official ruling is different now. I've always loved this game, but I must honestly say, that I don't wear rose-colored glasses, and I know not all is perfect. There have been quite a few rulings I have downright hated (God of Metal, Pieces of Eight, Bitter Rivals, to name a few). Not because the ruling was "wrong" but because they were played one way correctly, and then later another way was correct.

If I didn't work over 40 hours a week and knew that I could get compensated for my effort, I'd like nothing more than to make a definitive rules compendium. I appreciate all the effort FFG has made so far, but the forum's search function is the definition of failure. It's the number one thing that could ensure a level of clarity for all players and a lot less repetition for the rules moderators.

All in all your apology is both appreciated and accepted, sir.

Regarding the rules compendium...

Part of the purpose of the AGR was to try and nail down the rules so there wasn't a bunch of "Niggly little points" that people know "It works this way, because it's been ruled this way", but there is no official documentation to cover that.

The AGR as you currently see it was done on my own time, and in about another month I have to sit down and do all the updates to it. (Some stuff minor like changing a piece of problem punctuation, some stuff major like adding lines that I missed in the first go through)

It's a living document now, and what I am desperately trying to avoid is ruling flip-flops because of exactly what you say in terms of credibility.

I've seen players leave other games because of it.

I've also seen players quit this game because of rulings based on card text, because there was no rules in place to govern it, so you had retarded situations. (IE Damage step, and Injury assets, where the original intent during the design step was always to be able to reset the damage to printed via holding ground.)

While I can't go back in time, the rules team, and the design team is committed to trying to fix all of that, and try and have things make more sense.

Keep in mind - the rules arbiters are volunteers who don't get compensated, and still have to support themselves in the real world too.

As for that "Stalwart Rules knowledge scout" that you desire to be. Just to put some things into context:

1) I still have players when I issue a ruling locally who want to post the question to the forums, because they don't believe my answer.

2) I always state that I reserve the right to make a mistake. UFS is an incredibly deep game, and unsurprisingly many of the interactions have a chain of effects where one ruling impacts another. Sometimes it's scary how an inconsequential ruling can have a massive butterfly effect somewhere down the line.

Is adding a friend the only way to PM? I just don't wish to derail this forum from it's intention. You have no idea how much better I feel to here that your players are the same as mine in regards to doubting your calls. I always try to make the right call, but your right about the whole butterfly effect thing.

ROTBI said:

PM's head to my @gmail.com address.

Feel free to email there if you so desire.