3.2 deced VALID Sparacus sits at his oak table, composing his new Doctor Who epic (in outline form). He considers how to resolve the thematic tensions that are developing in his Ben Chatham character.

I knock, abruptly, on the table.

"Russell?" He looks up. But it is no-one Sparacus recognizes. A shadowy, insubstantial figure in a dark blue cloak draws a card from behind the Emperor's left ear, and lays it face down on the table.

He is struck with a vision. And in this vision he sees Ben Chatham, and he is speaking. Ah, such honeyed tones, but his words are strange: "Each Fantasy Rule contains references to all previous Valid Fantasy Rules' card names within a Fantasy Rule that consists of a story (if there are any previous such card names). A card is played, in such cases, by having a first-person character explicitly and clearly place it during the narrative; and restrictions on or descriptions of other Fantasy Rules are made by including them in a third-person character's speech."

Then Ben takes his shirt off.

"That's it!" Sparacus ejaculates. "Thank you, stranger."

I turn over the card. A single, fiery Ace of Wands. I bow to the Emperor, and take my leave.

I rule that this FR is Valid.

It isn't Inconsistent:

• FR3.2 says "'Each Fantasy Rule contains references to all previous Valid Fantasy Rules' card names within a Fantasy Rule that consists of a story (if there are any previous such card names).'" The one earlier valid FR (3.0) didn't consist of a story, but it didn't have to because at the time of that FR, there were no previous card names; therefore, this isn't an inconsistency.
• I quote from my ruling on FR3.0: "Was a card 'specified to be removed from the hand of the member who is posting the FR'? I believe that when deced says 'I play Major Arcana 4' that is equivalent to the card Major Arcana 4 being specified to be removed from his hand, since that is the common definition of 'playing' a card in most card games, even though 'playing a card' hasn't been defined specifically for this game."
• Once again, in FR3.2, a card was "played," but this time according to its own definition of "played": it had "a first-person character explicitly and clearly place it during the narrative" when it said "I turn over the card." Since it was played, we can again assume it has been "specified to be removed from [deced's] hand."

I don't see any reason why it'd be Illegal or Unreasonable, and it's not Irrelevant.

It isn't Contradictory:

• It contains a reference to the only previous valid FR's card name (Sparacus) in a Fantasy Rule (itself) that consists of a story.
• A first-person character explicitly and clearly places the card: "I turn over the card." Note that the initial placing of the card by the shadowy figure, if it was the only reference to laying down the card, would be troublesome, because it's not absolutely clear that the figure is the narrator. But because the narrator later turns over the card (and turning over the card obviously involves "placing") this becomes moot.
• All of the restrictions and descriptions of other FRs are contained within a third-person character's speech (Ben Chatham).

Because it isn't any of the above, it is Valid.