Static text Reads: "If this card is in your cardpool after being played as a block, before a player makes a control check you may discard this card from your card pool and commit one foundation to give that control check minus 1"

Because this is static and not an actual played ability, I was wondering if the "Commit one foundation" was considered a cost, or if you could commit one of your opponent's foundations.

It is considered a cost and you must commit one of your own foundations.

Not sure if that is explicit in the AGR but definately how it is to be played.

real card text and real arguement ftw.

the AGR states that when in a cost "commit 1 foundation" means commit one of your own foundations, but this isnt a cost for an ability. it just says you may do this to have this effect. it may be that arbiters say that it's commit one of your own foundations but id rather say play as written to commit any foundation

if you can commit ANY foundation (including your opponents) then im adding 4 of these to my deck.

Since it is a static it can't be Red Lotus'd...although i guess Torn Hero/JoR could still give it some trouble...

I have a feeling this is "functional errata" to make it commit one of your OWN foundations.

This got me thinking...(its not no 2HD) whats the card text for Stand-Off?

Isn't it considered a cost when you have something like "commit a foundation/discard 1 momentum" followed by "to", regardless of where it is in the ability.

Conditional cost or something like that?

kinda reminds me of the fact that when heel snipe is played it reads commit any card in play and enhances cant be negated during this attacks enhance step. In the case of heel snipe you can commit one of your opponents cards but that may be because it says "commit any card in play". But back to SLK i think the text implies that u should be able to commit 1 of your opponent's foundtations

GeneralReaction89 said:

"Commit 1 foundation" and "Commit any foundation" are nowhere near the same thing in meaning.

I am standing by this means commit one of YOUR foundations. Im not sure why, but i feel thats the way it is, lol.

If anti/tag is lurking about and you have any opinion care to step in here?

Detached says commit 1 foundation, and it can be THEIR foundation instead of yours...

reads the same way, ruled to work the way we all want it to...

Lord Aries said:

Not quite, Stepping Low Kick says "commit 1 foundation TO..." while Detached says "commit 1 foundation AND"

The "TO" on SLK implies that commiting a foundation is a requisite for haxing the check, while the "AND" on Detached just means that it's happening at the same time as the opponent discards a momentum.

Looks similar to Stand Off or 1 dot Lizardman. If the condition is met a cost can be paid for the effect to go off, which seems to be the case here. If you are going to pay a cost then you won't be able to commit your opponents foundations for the cost.

Could an arbitriter iether come in with a ruling or a "we will talk it over with Hata".

If you can infact commit an opponents foundation i would like to know.

Ok this card is worded exactly like standoff which does NOT let you commit your opponents foundations.

Any official ruling yet?

i like how the rules arbiters have been on and arent paying attention to this thread or are ignoring it for some reason

i mean even if it does work like people are saying and it counts as a cost like things such as stand off it would be nice to have an official ruling

Hata's been busy lately, and there's a bunch of stuff that's pending, until that gets cleared off, there's no point in adding something else to the list of stuff.

I'm personally torn, because I would love to see the common card work with a "powerful" effect, assuming you could actually block with it, and that the -1 would actually have an effect. (and not just be willful'd / destiny'd)

At the same time, I'm reviewing my notes of upcoming alterations to the AGR, including the stuff around stand-off, where I have to write in that costs stated within an ability are costs, for the purposes of stand-off. And I'm trying to weigh whether stepping low kick actually a cost, or part of the effect.

Unfortunately this is one of those where what I rule has a ripple effect, and until I have a chance to talk to some of the other rules folks about it, I'm dodging coming down on one side of the fence or the other.

How's that for a non-commital statement from an Arbiter saying we're looking into it?

For what it's worth, I think it's supposed to be a cost.

The key wording is "You may ___________ to _________."

Based on the placement of the "and" it seems like commiting a foundation is a cost.

thats exactly what i needed to hear at least we know someone is working on it