The question is, does the rule "An on-guard may only be revealed if it could have also been played during the movement/hazard phase. This means all targets of the card must have existed during the movement/hazard phase in order for the card to be revealed." even apply to Foolish Words? I looked into it and I think NO, it does not.
There are numerous rulings/clarifications where it is unclear exactly which portion of the rules that they apply to. This is even an issue with statements in the Standard Rules and how the apply to the Starter Rules. This is something I've frequently had to look into.
Anyway, if you look at the CRF (version 15 (15.2 actually), 1999/07) you can see that this on guard rule is in the Turn Sequence Rulings. But it is also in the Complete Errata Listing. But if it is "errata" then by definition of "errata" it must be a change/correction to some specific line of printed text. So I went back back to the original ruling in the CRF (version 4, 1997/05/15) and I saw that this rule is specifically errata to the statement on page 61 of the Unlimited Rules: "In the first two cases, the card is handled as if it had been played during the movement-hazard phase (i.e., short-events are discarded, long-events last until your opponent’s next long-event phase, etc.).."
Basically the rules errata is stating that not only is the card "handled as if it had been played during the movement hazard phase" (as originally printed) but also "all targets of the card must have existed during the movement/hazard phase" (per the errata). By the way, this same wording (from Unlimited) is still used on page 67 of the Lidless Eye rules.
So, the on-guard errata "all targets of the card must have existed during the movement/hazard phase in order for the card to be revealed" only applies "in the first two cases," which are (1) The company decides to face the site's automatic-attack and (2) The company plays a card that potentially taps the site.
Given that Foolish Words is not revealed based on these two cases, I don't think the errata applies. And as was already stated, there are several other cards having their own reveal on-guard allowance that would not work if this rule did apply.
So I agree. Foolish Words can be revealed on guard and played on a character that was brought into play during the Site Phase. The errata on "all targets must have existed" does not apply to on-guard cards revealed by their own card text.
-----------
There are several rules in the rulesbook (especially in MEWH) that supersede card text. After looking into this a lot I've realized that it's more "Restrictions vs Allowances" rather than "Card Text vs Rules Text." It's incorrect to say that card text overrides the rules (which I see thrown around). Instead, allowances of the cards can happen without an allowance in the rules. And a specific allowance in a card can even override a specific restriction in the rules. But a general allowance in a card does not overcome a specific restriction in the rules (or specific restrictions on cards).Mordakai wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 11:01 pmAgain, if not such paragraph was in the card, I totally agree that you cannot play it on a character that was not present in the m/h phase, but it's an specific way of playing that card on guard, it would be contradictory to me that a rule in the rulebook supersedes the text on the card.