If you use sword of no name's Xianghua form, and add an asset or foundation will they add to the staging area at the end of the turn?

also, I would like an official rule mod reply so Korrin/Gouhadou/Antigoth.

because many seem to think that tag is still a rules mod when he is just as much of a rules mod as I am.

kiit said:

8.1.5 If you successfully play a character card, foundation, or asset, the card will have no
effect while it is in the card pool. Typically these cards will move to your staging area during
your End Phase (See 9.0 The End Phase).

9.6 Any asset will be moved to the staging area.
9.7 Any foundation that was played will be moved to the staging area.

Looking at those rules foundations definitely won't add because you don't PLAY the foundation, it's just added to your card pool. Assets should follow the same logic using common sense, but Anti will prob have to clarify that since it doesn't specify that the Asset has to be played

Strange, because one of Rera**'s foundations from cutting edge {polar opposite} if you added a foundation or asset to your pool with its first form, it was added to your staging area {guess they changed it because of some of Lu Chens foundations and a couple of Taki's new ones}

Kiit

Just as an FYI - if someone copies and pastes the applicable ruling from the AGR as rC has done in this situation, you shouldn't need my official response, because they have copied and pasted from what I wrote.

Additionally Rera was created and roamed about in the world prior to the AGR. Back in the STG days.

The AGR changed a number of rulings / interactions. It was done purposefully to standardize as much of the UFS rules set as possible. We're trying to get away from one card works one way, another card works another. Something that your playgroup complained to me about as one of the biggest negatives regarding the game.

Yes it makes Polar Opposite more sh*tty then it already was. James and I had this conversation specifically when we were discussing the implementation of this aspect of the rules. Nerfing a poorly worded uncommon, that almost never saw play to begin with seemed like a fairly low impact to the game overall. Perhaps... one day... maybe it'll see functional errata. (Don't hold me to it)

At the end of the day we're listening to player feedback, and trying to make the game better.

Antigoth said:

where did I disreguard rC's rules c&p, I didn't edit anything, if you were thinking that I added stuff to the original post, what is written, was all written at the same time or was it from mentioning polar opposite, and making a sort of connection with lu chen's/Taki's E add this foundation to your card pool: gain effect with the change?

kiit said:

In your initial post where you demand that only a response from myself, Omar, or Kevin is acceptable.

kiit said:

No... in that case you're comparing apples and oranges.

I was entirely commenting that you demand that I respond. If someone responds, and I don't have an issue with the answer I don't always stamp it, if it's really clear and correct.

I understand that you have personal issues with Tag, but just because he's a **** <love ya Tag!>, doesn't mean he's wrong.

Antigoth said:

I can somewhat see where he is coming from in the sense that if someone "answers" a question, and there is no confirmation of wether the response is correct or not, you may take a "unofficial" (and incorrect) ruling and run with it.

Now to ask for YOU specifically to answer instead of anyone else official....thats another topic all together.

Edit: Fail for me for reading forums while at work. I completely missed the part of the quoted AGR. If someone answers a question (without quoting AGR) i personally would like to see a "stamp" or at least a written confirmation from someone official.

Keep in mind I don't have to be official to be right, and even without the official tag, I still have the kind of connections most of you don't.

Smazzurco said:

Fair enough. But if the AGR is quoted, and that answers the question, my stamping seems somewhat redundant.

Tagrineth said:

Tag thinks he is in the mafia with his "connections".

Seriously tag, these kind of comments, basically saying "well i am usually right because im just special that way" are why people don't seem to like you much. I never had a problem with you before but in the last month its gotten pretty bad.

Edit: @ anti-G, yeah if the AGR is quoted (and clear, unlike that whole multple vs gut drill thing, lol) then i'm fine with that. It's when someone (unofficial and "uninformed", someone such as myself) jumps in with a "best guess" and there is no response. I try to answer questions all the time (you guys can't be on 24/7) and i would say I have a decent grasp of the rules, but I am still wrong fairly often (again, gut drill thread, lol).

Appreciate what you guys do in these forums, because without this forum there would be a LOT of people misplaying i think (myself included). And for the most part you guys have to put up with a lot of **** (whining, "argueing", "thats lame", etc) and do it with a level head.

Smazzurco said:

Well, for once I kinda meant to come off like a **** because it was a response to the OP's rather rude dismissal of my responses... but I didn't quite mean it THAT way.

You probably don't know this because you haven't been around that long but even back in the STG days - ranging all the way back to set 3-4ish - I've been on the UFS boards prowling Q&A, and even back then I was right more often than not. I DO have a reputation for being right about the rules.

What I meant about connections is I talk to Brian and James pretty regularly in private, and sometimes it's about rules stuff.

Smazzurco said:

...and some of us with a not so level head, heh.