Plain and simple, can face down attacks be added to momentum (i.e. Attack generated by padma's F)?

AGR says...(not quoted)
All face down cards are discarded
however,
Attacks that have dealt damage may be added to momentum.

Multiple copies cannot under any circumstances go to momentum. I believe thats the only way to get a face down attack.

Fair question.

To the best of my knowledge (Antigoth can confirm or refute this), AGR rules are resolved in order; i.e., if a later rule is not a clarification or exception to an earlier rule, then the earlier rule takes precedence.

"9.4 Any face down card in the card pool will be placed in the discard pile.
9.8 Any attack is placed in the discard pile.
9.8.1 If the attack has generated a vitality loss of one or more to the opponent during the Damage Step, it may instead be placed in the momentum."

9.8.1 is not an explicit exception to 9.4, so 9.4 takes precedence: face-down attacks generated by abilities like Padma's (or Turnabout, or several others) always go to discard, just like momentum. This was a new rule as of the latest AGR (2.0). This simplifies things and makes the rule easier to remember, doesn't it?

Although Padma's F creates an attack, I don't think it's considered an attack, meaning it cannot be added to your momentum...

Except that actions which "become" attacks can be added to momentum, and they're normally discarded as well.

I'm with pirate. Short of any external ruling the card is both an attack and a face down card, but will be discarded as a face down card before you get to the "if an attack has caused a loss of at least 1 vitality..." clause. Actions that become attacks are not actions when you are clearing your card pool, they are almost always still attacks, and the end phase doesn't look for anything printed, it just takes the card as-is. face down is not a card type however, so an attack can still be face down at the same time.

Stamps Ahoy!

9.4 is in fact where the line is drawn. All face down cards are added to the discard pile.

I hope this doesnt sound too annoying,
Could we add a line of text for this in the next AGR?

Hayamachop said:

You read my mind.

Just as an FYI - when I'm in full swing of answering Q&A, what I do is I actually document threads like this one, and if it was answered simply by quoting the AGR, I do nothing. If like this one, I have to further define what's written, I add to my working document either a note to address the issue, or the actual extra line in the AGR.