Charismatic reads:

R Destroy this foundation: After your opponent plays a response ability on a card in their staging area, cancel its effects and destroy that card.

Since theres at least one line of thought divergent from mine I'm asking this. My line of thinking is that Charismatic can not be used to stop responses on character cards because by the rules it can not destroy them. To me this falls into the 'all or nothing' pile of play. Why? Because it says do something and do something. If it had read "After your opponent plays a response ability on a card in their staging area, cancel its effects. Destroy the target card." I could see it falling under the 'resolve as much as you can group'.

Now to put this out there I -hate- the 'all or nothing' crap, to me it makes little sense as it is seemingly completely arbitrary. But as I understand it, because it tells you to do these things as one action you can't do one without doing the other.

Now I've heard several people state that yes you can cancel character abilities with this card. Which is correct?

Part 2

If I am wrong and it is 'resolve as much as you can' does this mean I don't need a momentum to utilize Hybrid Style as it is the same wording after you get past the "If this attack does damage" part?

it falls into "resolve as much as you can".

If it read after your opp plays a response "destroy that card and THEN cancel its effects" then you would be correct.

Wording of "and" means do as much as you can. "And then" means only do the 2nd if the 1st was completed. See God of Metal.

can i get a stamp?

Charismatic negates the ability, but because of game rules, fails to destroy the card.

*Stamp* for Mr. Smazzurco

Antigoth said:

lol, and actually my last name is "mazzurco", first initial is S. I should change my handle...i have had internet people call me smazzy, smazzurc, etc for far too long, lol

And just to add to this, there's also nothing on Hybrid Style that says you can't use it if you have no momentum, and nothing tying the two effects together (aside from "and", which again does not imply requirement). If anyone told you otherwise, they were wrong.