On the topic of facedown cards, Sword of No Name

By aslum, in UFS Rules Q & A

you have squirrels.

But i assume the question is using the form that allows you to drop a foundation down, can you drop it facedown?

No. Unless an effect makes a facedown card something, a facedown card is not a card. It would be like putting an empty sleeve down as far as the game is concerned.

No idea where to point that out in the AGR, but it seems right.

A facedown card is not a card unless it is turned facedown by a card effect. Otherwise its just "the back of a card"

Here's a good explanation.

You can't look at facedown cards. So a card that goes from discard pile to the card pool has to be added face up because if you add it face down, how would the ability resolve?

You are going to add a card from the discard pile, which is public knowledge so the opponent can see what it is, into the card pool. However, if you add it face down, you haven't added it to the card pool because the game state would forget what it is. You have to resolve as much as you can, and you can resolve it correctly by putting it face up.

You're thinking Ninja Tactics in Xianghua, aren't you? Well no. Boo to you. :P

aslum said:

Can you add the card face down, when using the Xian. form??

www.coolstuffinc.com/images/Products/UFS%20Art/Quest%20of%20Souls/QOS040.jpg

No, because it does not state to change the orientation of cards in the discard pile.

Cards in the discard pile are face-up because they are public knowledge.

4.0.4 If a card would move from an area where cards are public knowledge (card pool, staging
area, face up in momentum, discard pile, removed from game pile) to an area where
cards are hidden (hand, deck, face down in the momentum), that card must be revealed
to the opponent first, before entering the hidden area.

So... it is going from an area of public knowledge, to an Area of public knowledge, therefore the card must remain revealed.

guitalex2008 said:

You can't look at facedown cards.

Just to clarify - if they are in your staging area, you can.

4.3.7 A player may look at the reverse side of a face down card in their staging area.

Antigoth said:

aslum said:

Can you add the card face down, when using the Xian. form??

www.coolstuffinc.com/images/Products/UFS%20Art/Quest%20of%20Souls/QOS040.jpg

No, because it does not state to change the orientation of cards in the discard pile.

Cards in the discard pile are face-up because they are public knowledge.

4.0.4 If a card would move from an area where cards are public knowledge (card pool, staging
area, face up in momentum, discard pile, removed from game pile) to an area where
cards are hidden (hand, deck, face down in the momentum), that card must be revealed
to the opponent first, before entering the hidden area.

So... it is going from an area of public knowledge, to an Area of public knowledge, therefore the card must remain revealed.

Honestly I don't see how that addresses faceupness* at all. Assuming there's nothing elsewhere that says otherwise, all that says is that before I add the card facedown, I have to reveal it to my opponent. I'm all for something being added to the rules to say that if a card effect doesn't specify whether a card should be placed somewhere face up or down, it should go face up, however, to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the rules currently that specifies that.

*Orientation generally implies committal state, rather then whether or not the card is face up. Sorry for using a made up word.

So you're seriously telling me that the rules need a line stating:

"When cards are in play, they must be placed face up."

Seriously? We really need that rule?

Seriously?

No, I'm saying we need a rule that says:

"When a card would be put into play, it must be placed face up unless the effect putting it into play specifies otherwise." Or something to that effect.

Ok... forgive me... and if I get fired for being an arbiter for this then so be it.

Quote from STG UFS Developer Seth Morrigan:
There's nothing in the rules that says I can't punch you in the face.

I'm not seeing a difference between:

  • Cards must be placed into an in play area face-up
  • Don't punch your opponent in the face.

I realize that I'm writing the rules to try and cover everything, but there comes a point where common sense and reason have to step in.

This is one of them.

Did this situation really come up in tournament play?

Or are you just finding something to pick at?

Antigoth said:

Ok... forgive me... and if I get fired for being an arbiter for this then so be it.

Quote from STG UFS Developer Seth Morrigan:
There's nothing in the rules that says I can't punch you in the face.

I'm not seeing a difference between:

  • Cards must be placed into an in play area face-up
  • Don't punch your opponent in the face.

I realize that I'm writing the rules to try and cover everything, but there comes a point where common sense and reason have to step in.

This is one of them.

Did this situation really come up in tournament play?

Or are you just finding something to pick at?

For starters one of those does not actually affect the game state, while the one other does.

How cards move between zones should be innumerated in the AGR. Behavior should be covered the Tournament Floor Rules (which I understand you are working on also; GL). Physical violence should result in at minimum game loss, if not disqualification from the tourney entirely. Never mind the legal ramifications.

Back to the real topic at hand: Obviously, if we're having this discussion, "reason" isn't sufficient to auto-generate an explanation. We have effects that add cards both face up and face down to the card pool, but aside from this one, they all specify whether they are face up or down. Seeing as this is the exception, and does not specify, a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that it was the effect owner's choice. Personally, I agree that it should be face up unless specified otherwise, but there isn't currently anything in the rules that says that.

Especially as we get more and more effects that deal w/ face down cards, and artificially adding cards to the card pool, is it really that much harder to add a provision to cover this (admittedly rare) occurrence to the next version of the AGR than it is to yell at me for asking difficult questions?

Also, for the record, I really don't think you should be fired.

aslum said:

Antigoth said:

Ok... forgive me... and if I get fired for being an arbiter for this then so be it.

Quote from STG UFS Developer Seth Morrigan:
There's nothing in the rules that says I can't punch you in the face.

I'm not seeing a difference between:

  • Cards must be placed into an in play area face-up
  • Don't punch your opponent in the face.

I realize that I'm writing the rules to try and cover everything, but there comes a point where common sense and reason have to step in.

This is one of them.

Did this situation really come up in tournament play?

Or are you just finding something to pick at?

For starters one of those does not actually affect the game state, while the one other does.

How cards move between zones should be innumerated in the AGR. Behavior should be covered the Tournament Floor Rules (which I understand you are working on also; GL). Physical violence should result in at minimum game loss, if not disqualification from the tourney entirely. Never mind the legal ramifications.

Back to the real topic at hand: Obviously, if we're having this discussion, "reason" isn't sufficient to auto-generate an explanation. We have effects that add cards both face up and face down to the card pool, but aside from this one, they all specify whether they are face up or down. Seeing as this is the exception, and does not specify, a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that it was the effect owner's choice. Personally, I agree that it should be face up unless specified otherwise, but there isn't currently anything in the rules that says that.

Especially as we get more and more effects that deal w/ face down cards, and artificially adding cards to the card pool, is it really that much harder to add a provision to cover this (admittedly rare) occurrence to the next version of the AGR than it is to yell at me for asking difficult questions?

Also, for the record, I really don't think you should be fired.

The default position of any card being placed in the card pool is face up UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THE CARD EFFECT.
Simple, common knowledge rule.

Oh, and in case you didn't notice, Antigoth is a RULES ARBITER. His rulings are OFFICIAL. If he say's that "Sword of No Name" adds the card to your card pool face up. Don't bother disputing it.

Considering I said I didn't think he should be fired from his job as rules arbiter, I suspect I might have noticed that he is one. Also, for the record, "simple common knowledge" is usually anything but. In practice it more often means "It's obvious to me, so it should be obvious to everyone."

As dumb as it sounds, I actually agree with Aslum on this one. Although it seems arbitrary or self-explanatory, some one will try to argue it, after all, Aslum came up with it and he's actually a pretty smart guy (despite his constant, just not always unfounded tomfoolery in Q/A)

Antigoth said:

Ok... forgive me... and if I get fired for being an arbiter for this then so be it.

Quote from STG UFS Developer Seth Morrigan:
There's nothing in the rules that says I can't punch you in the face.

I'm not seeing a difference between:

  • Cards must be placed into an in play area face-up
  • Don't punch your opponent in the face.

I realize that I'm writing the rules to try and cover everything, but there comes a point where common sense and reason have to step in.

This is one of them.

Did this situation really come up in tournament play?

Or are you just finding something to pick at?

Punching Aslum in the face? you bet i will...

I admire your patience Antigoth, for dealing with this chump...