Ok, so we had out Store championship the other day and a few people said that there had been a ruling that when an opponent uses Stand Off or For the Money, you cant commit your character to pay the cost of negating it.

Now I couldnt find this ruling anywhere in the Q & A so I wanted to check on it. this sounds completely ridiculous, since it was ruled before that the commit part at the end of each card's ability was a cost, thus the reason things like Torn Hero cant go off because of them. It seems like it completely goes against rule 2.12.3 "If a part of a cost is to commit foundations, you may use your character card as a foundation card to pay these costs."

the last line(s) of text on standoff and a majority of pauls cards is considered a cost and:

2.12.3 If a part of a cost is to commit foundations, you may use your character card as a
foundation card to pay these costs.

basically so pauls support isnt completely screwed when a person commits torn hero to negate for the money or blows up a regretful existance for a rivalry with a bear or discards an anti discard card for financial troubles.

as I said in my first post, I know that it was ruled that the commiting for both cards are costs, that wasnt under question. The situation here is that I want to check on this specific incident. As I said two Highly recognized player who play at my store, were telling people that there had been a special ruling on this, something like because its not the cost of your card you are paying, that you can not use your character to pay it. As I said I cant find this ruling anywhere and just wanted to check on it because to me, it would make absolutly no sinse at all. But because they are high end, Highly recognized players and there are rulings all that time at events that never get posted or made widely public knowlede, I wanted to see if its true, or just complete BULL.

I'd really like to get a official word on this just to be certain (not a put down to Ziephnir or anyone else, but official is official and actually has backing behind it)

If it were me, I'd actually agree with Ziephnir.

The reasoning behind my answer is that if the additional negation part wasn't considered paying a cost, then anti-discard would work on Financial Troubles (which it doesn't), Torn Hero won't trigger if you commit it to negate For The Money, etc. If it weren't a cost, the opponent facing the For The Money could commit the foundations of the same For The Money player, because it would be an effect and it's his choosing.

I mean think about it. "Your opponent may commit 2 foundations to negate and destroy this card." Since the clause doesn't specify "2 of their foundations", if it weren't considered a cost, For The Money would give the opponent the choice of committing some of YOUR foundations to negate and destroy For The Money! This of course makes no sense, so it must be a cost. And it has officially been determined as such from rulings about Torn Hero and Stand Off/For the Money and Financial Troubles vs. anti-discard.

So from that all we can gather is that the committing/discarding for the negation in the ability is a cost. Then cue the ruling quoted earlier. Character cards can be committed to pay the cost of a committed foundation. Thus, character cards can be committed to negate Stand Off and For The Money.

It's not such a direct and self-explanatory thing, but it does work based on the precedence mentioned, combined with the cost ruling quoted by Ziephnir.

You can use the character to pay the cost.

2.12.3 was correctly cited as the ruling in this situation.

Stamps for Z

Alright, thank you very much for everyone's help. This is exactly what I told them, but they wanted to go by "their" ruling. As I said I just needed an Official stamp inorder to back it up to them.