Ok I can deal with loosing. I'm not that sore of a looser. But when a card isn't working the way its supposed to beats me. It just pisses me off. The card in question Dead For One Thousand Years. After being duped by the card at Nats, its become a obsession of mine to prove the majority of UFS players has the same opinion.

Ok so DFOTY says this..

R: Destroy this foundation: After your opponent plays an ability on a foundation or asset in their staging area, all copies of that card are considered to have a blank text box until the end of this turn.

Now since it says "After your opponent plays an ability " the logical thought would be that the ability is succsessful! Unsurprisingly the likes of Fred, Omar, Macek and countless others at Origins. Most ppl knew the ruling already but none agreed with it. In general ppl asked like that the card works that way. But says the card should be worded differently. Hata claims its just fine lemmie explain why its not.. Here's how Hata explained the rule and how it takes place.

1) Player 1 activates BRT. Pays cost, ability is in play..

2) Player 2 activates DFOTY. Pays cost, ability is in play..

3) All of player 1's become blank foundations as DFOTY is resolved

4) The now blank BRT is ready 2 resolve but with no txt it "forgets" what it was doing to begin with hence the ability dies.

Sounds like its fine right?? OK so why doesn't Memories that Stain its Armor or those M. Bison foundations effectively cancel abilitys as well?? Here's what Memories that Stain its Armor says..

R: Destroy this foundation: After your opponent plays an ability on a foundation in their staging area, destroy that foundation.

And this is how its used...

1) Player 1 activates BRT. Pays cost, ability is in play..

2) Player 2 activates MTSIA. Pays cost, ability is in play..

3) Player 1's BRT is destroyed as MTSIA is resolved

4) The now destroyed/non-exsistant BRT is ready 2 resolve and continues to hack Player 2 CC..

Now call me crazy but if the ability of the blanked foundation gets knocked out. Then how the flying FORK does a non-exsistant foundation manage to push its effect throught??? Wouldn't this all be fixed if Dead For One Thousand Years read like this...

R: Destroy this foundation: After your opponent ATTEMPTS TO PLAY an ability on a foundation or asset in their staging area, all copies of that card are considered to have a blank text box until the end of this turn.

Ok thanks for reading my rant... If u don't agree please explain why and prove ur just not retarded!!

Personally I don't agree with the ruling on death for a thousand years. It should say negate on it somewhere, and removing a source from the game should not negate the ability, in if it's in response.

For instance lets say I throw a grenade at Osei, and Osei sees me and shoots me with an AK-47, the grenade is still thrown and he would still probably be hit by it.

The reason why it still goes off is because the ability has already been played, you are not negating or cancelling the ability, so it is already taking effect. If you do something to the card after the ability is already happening, it will still resolve.

sir_shajir said:

Using your metaphor, I say he'd be shooting the grenade, and all the grenades equipped to you, not you yourself. Or even just disabling the grenade (this is a very limited metaphor) by... oh shut up.

Rule 2.13.1: "After the generation of an effect, it exists independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability."

Presumably, the effect is considered to be "generated" when it is played? In any event, whatever the exact logic is, Bison's stuff can't stop the effect or else foundations that destroyed themselves as the cost wouldn't work by the same reasoning. The reason this doesn't apply to DFOTY, apparently, would be because DOFTY does not destroy or remove the source. Or something like that.

It's a bad ruling. It happens during an ambigious timing window and i feel people read to much into the card.

I mean people are giving some rules (Card is played when costs are payed) more importance than others (once an ability is played it exists independently of its source) for arbitrary reasons.

There were threads upon threads of this before. I mean even if you sort of make a timeline for abilities being played:

Ability announced _____ Control check made (as needed) ____ Remaining costs payed _____ Card is played ______Effect

Assume the blanks are windows to play responses. As soon as the card is played step is hit according to the rules the ability now is independent of source, so anything that happens after the card is played shouldnt affect anything that happens afterwards. When i frist read DFOTY I honestly thought it was to stop multiple uses of things like LOTM or Brooding, and to this day i still think the rules support that.

I freaked out too, but hey it's a 4-diff foundation that only happens once...

The difference between DFOTY and destroying the card via say impetuous is that the source card still exists and has an ability you may reference. DFOTY removes the text of the ability entirely.

Immortal I agree ful hearted with you...When I had the cards played on me at Nats during Teams by John Herr I picked it up...read it 3 times...mainly cause I wanted to thinka bout burning a cursed blood on it which I didnt....and then when he tried to hanzo kick me I tried to mysterious stance it and he responded and it "cancels" the effect because if I remember right "there is no text for the card to refer a ability to"...just another degenerating thing that if it should continue to be ruled as is...it will need a functional errata also.

It may still exist, but it's in an out of play area. Unless the ability is already separate from the card, the ability no longer exists in play. In order for those cards to work, the ability must exist independant of the card once the costs are paid. If the ability exists independent of the card once the costs are paid, DFOTY does not negate the first use of the ability. This is upheld by the fact that nowhere on DFOTY does it say that it does negate the ability. That was an erroneous ruling that actually breaks the timing of the game and goes completely against the reading of the card. The reason FFG is so against errata is they want the game to be played as read as much as possible. The ruling on DFOTY means the card isn't played as read, and there's no errata on it either. One of those two things needs to change. Personally I think the card would be perfectly balanced if it did play as read.

I'm taking a little bit of time away from the Rules Q&A area to "recharge" my batteries a little, and to give James a bit of a break from hounding him consistently over various rules stuff.

When I'm back in the saddle, I'll table this ruling to be looked at.

But by all means please keep discussing this because I'll use the various opinions and points brought up. Feel free to cite sections of the AGR that you feel applies to it one way or the other to support the case. It'll make it easier when I have to discuss it with James.

If it doesnt work by the current ruling the the card is absolutely STUPID and i would take the 4 i have in my deck out....it better had better cancel the ability of the target or else its a 4 diff foundation that destroys itself to suck...

I would prefer it just had an errata where is states that the effect is negated to simplify things.

The card requires either:

1. An errata to the card text to include the word "negate."
2. A functional change to the ruling upon how the card is played, so as to provide that the card is played as read.

For the life of me, I am not quite sure why the card was ruled to function as it currently does. The ruling is counterintuitive to the card text of the card itself.

In terms of new players, the card functions perfectly well, as read and can be played using it's own card text. The current ruling upon how this card functions will confuse new players and therefore is detrimental to one of the core concepts of UFS.

Not gonna put my 2 cents in about how the card should work, I will just say the text is not perfect.

To reply to the topic. The best, nigh only, way to deal with a bum ruling (which I take is a ruling you do not agree with) is to 'know it beforehand'. Ultimately everyone plays by the same rules, so a full knowledge of the way everything has been ruled will, at the very least, put you on the same playing field as everyone else - if not above the ones that haven't read everything and know the specific rules and card interactions.

- dut

this ruling simply fails to make sense. the player already played the effect, your just blanking the source. this card should work like rev's calling.

DFOTY and all of M. Bison's foundation should work the same way. If both respond after costs which is when the ability is "played" but before the "effect" can resolve. While you "played" the ability there is no text, or in the case of M. Bison's support there is no card to reference. This being the case, there is no "effect" because there is nothing to reference.

If "effects" are independent of their source then the ruling for DFOTY is incorrect. If the "effect" needs no source to reference, wether or not the text is there or the foundation is gone it would not matter.

Either way both M. Bison's support and DFOTY should work the same way.

WhatAboutBob? said:

There is a distinct difference between a card being destroyed and a card losing it's text. If M Bison's stuff cancelled abilities (or made it so the card is destroyed, i.e. nothing to reference) then you have a problem with every single card that has a cost - E/R destroy this foundation/asset :

i.e. seal of cessation wouldn't work, along with a plethora of other things that have a cost being destruction.

I agree that the card DFOTY needs an errata or text change to help players understand the timing of the blankout, becuase it is confusing.

I also agree that the way it was ruled, i.e. text gone after 'playing' but not 'resolving' the ability does make some sense, and is clearly a different situation than cards that are destroyed after abilities are played.

- dut

I was under the impression that once an ability has been added to the stack/chain, then it no longer has any relation to the card that originally added the effect unless there is some kind of reference. If you play the effect of a card, and before the effect resolves, destroy the card that added the effect via Impetuous, that doesn't stop the effect from happening. Blanking the card makes no difference. If a card is destroyed then it is gone. You blank a card, then the effect will still happen as it is no longer attached to the card and thus does NOT NEED REFERENCING. The card is one seperate entity, and the card effect is a seperate entity. You must target the effect before it resolves. Take a note from magic... They do it right.

Also, saying that blanking a card is different then destroying a card does not make sence. The game does not recognize the destroyed card as the same card that was in play. The game sees the card in play as a single copy. If that card is destroyed and is now in the discard, the game sees that card as a different card than the one that was in play. This was ruled ages ago back in like sets 1-2. There is no referencing to a card if the card was destroyed. The game does not recognize that.

Nowhere in the rules does it state that, in order to play an effect, you must reference the text of the card when resolving the effect. You reference the text of the card in order to play the effect. Then the effect is added to the stack. Then the effect exists no matter what happens to the card.

Bad rulings is bad...

dutpotd said:

I agree the first part was more scatter brained that didnt make sense. Whoops!

Anyways you're right that the "effect" will resolve without having to reference the card. A perfect example would be SoC like you mentioned. Without an errata DFOTY does the exact same as any M. Bison foundation ie. blanks or destroys without negating.

Gotta agree with it was a bad ruling.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Pay cost, yes. But then, in between "cost payed, ability played" and "ability resolves", the ability itself is erased. You can say "but zomg what about cards that destroy themselves as a cost", but it's apples and oranges, since one literally blanks the card to where it has no text (and thus no point of reference for the ability at all, whatsoever), and the other, well...doesn't.

Pretty simple to me.

Non-DFOTY two cents: Not much you can do about bum rulings after the fact. See Syndicate + TCB from last year. Personally, I was rather annoyed that the Alluring Beauty/Program Malfunction ruling was overturned in the middle of one of my games at Worlds. But once it's overturned, not much you can do about it.

MegaGeese said:

Dude you're dead wrong. The rules state that AFTER AN ABILITY IS PLAYED that ability exists independent of the card. Thats why the ability of a foundation or Asset isn't cancelled after the card is destroyed. So blanking the foundation or asset shouldn't matter because after that ability is already independent..

Havoc said:

This 100%.

Seems to me that Hata is wrong. Also seems like DFOTY is pretty over-costed unless they throw in a negate ability via errata.