Immortal-JyNxX said:

Well, to complicate matters there isn't actually any such rule, at least not exactly so far as I could find. The best I could find was the one that says that after the "generation of an effect" that the effect exists independent of the source. Which, depending on how you interpret it, could have absolutely nothing to do with the playing of abilitieis in general. It could just mean that after you use something like Retrun to Southtown you'll draw the card even if the foundation is blown up after the ability resolves and the floating effect is generated.

Immortal-JyNxX said:

Awkwardly formatted, however, is another story.

Cetonis said:

Ctrl + F entering: Indep

First result:

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.

Antigoth said:

God thank you. I didn't wanna search for this myself.. MegaGeese, hope ur reading this..

Immortal-JyNxX said:

You're welcome, but at the same time, people who aren't me, need to read this document, and learn how to use Ctrl + F.

There's been a pile of stuff lately where people are "unable to find stuff", when all it takes is ctrl+F+ one word.

It really makes me question the logic of doing an update to the document if people aren't going to use the one that they have. (Update = more wall of text rather than less.)

I did ctrl+f, and that's the exact rule I was referring to in my post. Just didn't quote it because I already did earlier and didn't want to rehash. But anyway, as I said, 2.13.1 doesn't apply here unless you use a somewhat creative interpretation. It talks about "effects" that are "generated," which sounds like it refers to floating/continuous effects like Float Like a Butterfly or Quest for Vengeance, and what happens if the foundation is blown up after the effect is created. Which has nothing to do with the playing of abilities and what happens if the source is messed with before resolution.

Antigoth said:

exactly. they should just errata the card since they just started to do erratas again.

I do think with that cost, DFOTY needs an errata, or its pretty worthless, which is not to say that some worthless rares dont exist.

The problem is that it doesn't say anywhere in the rules when the effect is considered generated.

On the upside, if the effect isn't generated as soon as the cost is paid, most of the cards int he game break, so the assumption is that as soon as the cost is paid, the effect is generated and therefore separate from the source card. Which means DFOTY does not negate the effect and the rest of the cards in the game continue to work.

Sorry Osei, I can't agree with you on this one. I seem to be in the severe minority here, but I will attempt to explain my position.

This card was DESIGNED to do exactly what it does. It was not a mistake. If you look at all of Rashotep's other blanking stuff, it all happens as a result of your playing an enhance or form. This is the ONLY response. Let's go back a step and take a look at the design process. Why does Rashotep blank things? He blanks them to add a new mechanic to the game that gets around all of the current things that react to destruction. He also allows people to get around static text. It's a great ability that he has on multiple cards, but what if the opponent has negation? His abilities just get canceled. His abilities are designed to get around anti-destruction and static abilities, what if he were to get a rare blanking R that got around negation and didn't use the "negate" word? It would have to have a high cost and be one time use.

What we ended up with was a 4/5 foundation with a destruction cost. It doesn't have the word "negate" so that anti-negation doesn't stop it. It doesn't destroy your card so that anti-destruction does stop it. As to the reasoning that the rules stop it, that also does not work. Below is the 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.

The source of this ability is the card it is printed on. As stated before, the card has not been destroyed nor has it been removed from the game. The source is in tact. The ability itself has been erased.

As many of us have seen James has been very careful in his wording of cards. This is a case where the card was worded perfectly so that we could find this ability and use it to our advantage. Or in this case Osei's disadvantage.

Baranor said:

A suggestion:

DFOTY removes card text . Can this card text itself be perceived as the source of an effect rather than the card itself?

If so, DFOTY triggers under rule 2.1.3.1 as removing card text; where the card text itself is the source of an ability. As such the generated effect exists independently under this rule.

My reasoning for this argument is Keywords. A keyword itself is a source of a generated rule. The rule is not printed on a card, instead the printed keyword which references the keyword-specific rule.

"Can this card text itself be perceived as the source of an effect rather than the card itself?"

The card text can't be the source. The source is the location where the effect comes from. If you say that the text is the source, you get into a whole metaphysical argument involving whether the source is the ink on the paper or Hata's physical brain. As described by the rule, the source is the card. The card is what can be destroyed or removed from the game by game mechanics. Card text cannot be destroyed or removed from the game.

An effect is generated after it has resolved... NOT before it resolves. IMO.

Play ability > Blank source > go to resolve ability, OOPs nothing to resolve > effect (none) generated

Baranor said:

But by Rashotep's mechanics, card text can be removed from the game (blanked).

The rule appears to describe the source. There is no clarification as to where this is located. By your own definition, the source is clarified as "the location where the effect comes from," which in itself is not specific as to card or card text.

We've had a ruling from Hata as to how this card works, passed on by 2 rules arbiters. While I'll agree that the card would be clearer if it included the word "negate" or "cancel" somewhere in the text, we've been told how this works and why it works that way (and why it doesn't break the rules in doing so).

I just think we're getting a bit too deep into this. The card does what it does.

Obviously, this card has caused a lot of fervent disagreement as to what it says/does. That alone should be reason enough for an errata.

Baranor made a strong case that adding "negate" makes the card vulnerable (to anti-negation), and that perhaps James intended it to get around anti-negation.

If that is the case (I'll leave it to those eventually in charge of functional errata to figure this out), I would suggest:

"R Destroy this foundation: After your opponent plays an ability on a foundation or asset, all copies of that card are considered to have a blank text box until the end of this turn. The played ability has no effect."

(You'll notice I've removed the "in their staging area" section. It was redundant in all but a few Legacy edge cases, and unnecessary in those; I felt that adding new text deserved removing extraneous text to keep the ability's length down.)

What's happening with this card is it's changing the ability after it's played, but before it resolves.

Imagine a card that said "R: After you opponent plays an enhance that has a plus, change the plus to a minus until end of turn."

Or the word "instead".

ChaosChild said:

Then Hata should test now people would react to wordings on cards. Focus group of UFS if you will. Sometimes this game has too many poorly worded cards that as a game designer Hata should be weary of. Yes there are around 200-300ish cards in each release (now down to just 1 box) To be honest 2 months+ (including delays and subtracting printing times)? of designing time should be enough.

vermillian said:

Play ability > destroy source > go to resolve ability, OOPs nothing there > effect (none) generated. This means that DFOTY wouldn't actually be able to do anything as it is destroyed as part of the cost.

aslum said:

Your hypothetical card specifically targets the ability, not the text on the card, so it's another Tekken is the same as orange bushes argument.

Centipede said:

Except that it's long been established (and is clearly stated in the AGR) that destroying a card does not cancel the ability unless the card says otherwise. That applies whether you destroy the card through an effect or as a cost to pay for the ability itself. The card still has text on it, it's just moved to a different game zone.

Blanking the text box is a different, and new, ability that isn't yet covered in the AGR. Comparisons to existing rules aren't all that helpful as this is a different situation entirely.

The thing is, the TR doesn't explicitly state a special case for destroying a foundation before its effect activates.

It states a general rule. Effects exist independently of their source. Once you play an ability, if you don't negate it, the ability resolves no matter what happened to the card that created that effect.

ChaosChild, when you say that "This is a new circumstance that is not covered by the existing rules" you're also saying the current rules aren't enough, that they include NO guidance in this situation. I cannot accept that. I can deal with the fact* that this card's words (interacting with the TR as I understand them) do not work the way they were intended, and for now this is a "play it as ruled, not so much as its printed" situation.

*I call it a fact, even though I only have second-hand reports from Antigoth.... it's enough for me lol

No where anywhere in the rules does it state that a cards text is either relavant or irrelivant before or after an effect is generated. To imply it is one way or another is false. This ruling was made because thier was an ambiguity with the card, pure and simple. Most of us feel that the ruling falls to the confusing or unintuative side of the spectrum.

The fact of the matter is 2 things need to happen. 1) the TR needs to have more consise timing for response windows in it. I mean people are literally now saying there are 3 or 4 different timing windows between costs payed and effect. One before the the effect is generated, one during, one after, so on and so forth. thats stupid. 2) the card should just get eratta, if only as a clarification that either states the blanking will affect the ability or not.

maybe something like "R, After your opponent pays the cost to play an ability on a foundation in their staging area:"

lol. Nah, not wordy at all.