Because we really don't have enough questions about multiple copies....

By The Token Token, in UFS Rules Q & A

Atoning for the Past Now, assuming* that a multiple copy becomes a "blank attack", Can I use Atoning for the Past to add it to my momentum face up?

* = based on what I've been told

No, because the AGR states outright that a multiple copy gets discarded if it would go to momentum.

Note that you can use Atoning to discard it from your card pool.

2.14.2.4 ... If a multiple copy would go to a player’s momentum for any reason, it is discarded instead.

what about padmas foundations that she turns into attacks(or anything that turns facedown cards into attacks)? can they be added to momentum with atoning? and if so is it still considered face-up? how would you go about referencing that if you had to?

Sure. With Padma, they'd just go faceup and stay there as whatever they are. Note that if you add a foundation to your momentum faceup with that effect, you won't be able to play any abilities on the foundation, though.

The agr only states that MULTIPLE copies cant go to momentum.

So in theory you could do know when to talk a few times, get like 3 cards in your cardpool facedown. Then play some ability that "adds all the cards in your cardpool to your momentum". In this case they would go.

To clarify, it is only mutiple copies with the "cant go to momentum" restriction, NOT facedown cards.

Uh guys... Padma's Ability wares off after the attacks resolved, and it's just a face-down card in your card pool.

So Atoning wouldn't be able to touch it.

Antigoth said:

Uh guys... Padma's Ability wares off after the attacks resolved, and it's just a face-down card in your card pool.

So Atoning wouldn't be able to touch it.

Still don't get why this does not work.

Come to the Aid did the same thing. So did Turnabout (although not relevant to the facedown thing). And the end result was that if the generated attacks deal damage, they went to momentum. More importantly, they were still considered attacks.

Is there a particular reason Padma's attack generation, which is not an E, fizzles?

not sure but padma says to "play it as a 3spd...etc"

It does not say that card IS an attack, just that you play it as if it were one.

Smazzurco said:

not sure but padma says to "play it as a 3spd...etc"

It does not say that card IS an attack, just that you play it as if it were one.

Antigoth said:

Uh guys... Padma's Ability wares off after the attacks resolved, and it's just a face-down card in your card pool.

So Atoning wouldn't be able to touch it.

Wait, you're kidding right?

F: Take a foundation in your staging area and add it to your card pool face down. Play that cards as a 3 difficulty, 3 speed, mid, 3 damage attack with [Chaos], [Death], and [Void]. Only playable once per turn.

aslum said:

Antigoth said:

Uh guys... Padma's Ability wares off after the attacks resolved, and it's just a face-down card in your card pool.

So Atoning wouldn't be able to touch it.

Wait, you're kidding right?

F: Take a foundation in your staging area and add it to your card pool face down. Play that cards as a 3 difficulty, 3 speed, mid, 3 damage attack with [Chaos], [Death], and [Void]. Only playable once per turn.

to quote the Aslum in a Together Again thread

2.13.2 Effects will last until the end of the turn they are played unless otherwise stated.

so the way i see it, since Padma's form dose not have a time limit on it. it would stay an attack until the end of turn

Yeah, I spoke to Brian about this earlier. It's under review.

As a note, though, Padma's generated attacks won't go to momentum normally as facedown cards are discarded before anything else during the end phase, unless another effect is placed on them (e.g. Taki's enhance).

Tagrineth said:

Yeah, I spoke to Brian about this earlier. It's under review.

As a note, though, Padma's generated attacks won't go to momentum normally as facedown cards are discarded before anything else during the end phase, unless another effect is placed on them (e.g. Taki's enhance).

if were saying that the attack generated by padma lasts until the end of the turn, then we create 2 conflicting rules. it still goes 1 at a time when clearing from the card pool. the rules say discard a facedown foundation, but they also say put an attack that deals damage into the momentum

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.

Update - Still waiting to hear back from James.

Ziephnir said:

Tagrineth said:

Yeah, I spoke to Brian about this earlier. It's under review.

As a note, though, Padma's generated attacks won't go to momentum normally as facedown cards are discarded before anything else during the end phase, unless another effect is placed on them (e.g. Taki's enhance).

if were saying that the attack generated by padma lasts until the end of the turn, then we create 2 conflicting rules. it still goes 1 at a time when clearing from the card pool. the rules say discard a facedown foundation, but they also say put an attack that deals damage into the momentum

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.

This appears to be the age long struggle of Optional vs Non-Optional and i think we all know how that ends. But seriously since you have a choice weither or not to add to Momentum it seems that it would get discarded no matter how much you wish, but this is the Xmas season so sometimes wishes do come true lol.

"Discard the facedown card" comes before "Add attack to your momentum". Go down the list. It's discarded.

Tagrineth said:

"Discard the facedown card" comes before "Add attack to your momentum". Go down the list. It's discarded.

And was written specifically so that it was an ordered step to be followed.

alright but those rules are designed for the end phase, so what if we're trying to add a face down attack that is not a multiple copy to momentum during the main phase?

DvON said:

alright but those rules are designed for the end phase, so what if we're trying to add a face down attack that is not a multiple copy to momentum during the main phase?

Afer an attack resolves, it reverts back to its original state and any effects effecting it end, unless stated otherwise specifically in the ability text. Similarly, upon resolution, a face down attack in your card pool is no longer considered an attack but a blank, face down card in your card pool. Any card that states "add an attack in your card pool to your momentum" cannot add a face down card to your momentum.

CultKiller said:

DvON said:

alright but those rules are designed for the end phase, so what if we're trying to add a face down attack that is not a multiple copy to momentum during the main phase?

Afer an attack resolves, it reverts back to its original state and any effects effecting it end, unless stated otherwise specifically in the ability text. Similarly, upon resolution, a face down attack in your card pool is no longer considered an attack but a blank, face down card in your card pool. Any card that states "add an attack in your card pool to your momentum" cannot add a face down card to your momentum.

It has also been proven you can use Atoning for the Past as away to discard multiples from the card pool.

What makes even less sense is how a form which does not state it doesn't last until the end of the turn (and so as the rules state, it should as a result) can outlast multiples created during the enhace phase, yet multiples are considered attacks for the rest of the turn and attacks generated by Padma are not.