Fearless Defense vs. Bow negation

If someone If someone plays Impressive Resilience, can they use the same personality for Fearless Defense, or would it just fizzle since the cost of bowing can not be paid even though the rest of the unit can bow?

Impressive Resilience Battle: Give a target opposed Personality +2F. Negate his bowing and movement during the current Combat Segment

Fearless Defense Battle: Choose your performing unbowed Personality and bow all unbowed cards in his unit: Bow a target enemy Personality. Destroy him if his unit's total Gold Cost is lower than your Personality's unit's total Gold Cost.

So just a clarification on this.

The good faith rule wouldn't stop you from announcing this action in a battle where you had 2 units (1 targeted by Impressive Resillence), right? And nothing prevents you from "choosing" the Impresively resilient personality as the performer. However, the prevention of paying the cost would cause the action to fail, yes?

While you could not announce Fearless Defense in a battle where your only unit had been targeted by Impressive Resillence, The blanket idea that playing Impressive Resillience precludes the playing of Fearless Defense, is incorrect. You could play it in a battle where there were two personalities only 1 of which was under the influence of Impressive Resillience. Then during Targetting, no rule prevents you from selecting the Impressively Resilient personality as the performer, right? The Good Faith Rule only applies to announcement. Short of some kind of enlightenment Jank I can't think of a good reason to burn a card for no effect, but that's just me.

In referense to this response.

MacBeth2001 said... The Good Faith Rule goes on to say: "A player cannot announce an action on the basis of a legal card to play, but then choose an illegal attachment or Personality for the actual play choice."

Let's look at the entire section that contains that statement shall we... "If the action involves putting one or more cards into play as a non-optional effect, the player must be able to bring those cards into play legally to meet the Good Faith rule. This includes being able to pay any costs of bringing them into play, and having a Personality who can legally attach any attachments to be brought into play. A player cannot announce an action on the basis of a legal card to play, but then choose an illegal attachment or Personality for the actual play choice."

Now call me crazy but that is talking about taking actions that involve bringing cards into play. It stops a player from announcing Obfuscation with no items in hand and no items in his discard pile that he can legally attach and pay for. The specifc phrase you mention doesn't say anything about costs, only being able to legally bring something into play. Which is not what Fearless Defense is doing, therefore this rule does not apply, as written. Nothing is being selected to be brought into play by Fearless Defense. Now if somewhere in the Good Faith Rule it said something like "A player cannot announce an action on the basis of being able to satisfy the costs of the action, but then choose to fulfill those costs by selecting something that cannot do so.", then I could agree with you. It doesn't therefore I can not.

Further, if the clause of the Good Faith Rule you are talking about applies the way you say it does. Then let's just say hypothetically, if there was an effect being applied that said the "personalities attachments do not bow", or "Negate the bowing of his attachments." Then the good faith rule as written and as you have applied it cannot be used to say that Fearless Defense is not legal to play under the circumstances outlined. The attachments are not being selected for the play choice, the unbowed personality is (card text), at which point the game state must move on, the performing choice is made, the cost cannot be payed, and the effects cannot resolve for failure to pay the cost. This argument could also be applied to any card that is brought into play, that could have a theoretical "can not bow" effect applied to it that is not specifically mentioned in this rule (holdings and Regions for instance). That is a pretty big loop hole to just leave lying around.

And lets be clear, I agree that what you say is the intent. I just don't think you can get there with the rules and the cards written the way they currently are. And even if I accepted your rulling at face value, I would be remis in not pointing out the loop hole you are leaving open.

And what about the ruling for Acrobat Troupe in relation to Only Actions Speak and Hamstrung? The game state knows the resources are already committed to being used, but it magically ignores that when it is time to pay the cost of Hamstrung, because of the timing of the reactions. It seems just as against the spirit of the Good Faith Rule as this. If not against the exact letter of the rules.