Quote

“Limit X per [card/game element]” is a limit that appears on attachment cards...

But this isn't an attachment card.

I understand "in play" to mean the entire play area and all cards that are in play. Hence, Unique, for example, means only one investigator can have a copy of Dr Milan Christopher out at any given time.

I point again to Dark Horse and Lone Wolf. If this card was meant to be per investigator, why wouldn't it say "per investigator", like these, the only two precedents that I know of?

Quote

Does the text on Composure do anything to explicitly change that? Nope. So it doesn't.

I'm arguing that yes, it does, that "in play" by definition means the entire "in play" field.

1 minute ago, CSerpent said:

But this isn't an attachment card.

Well, then, the Limit X per... text is meaningless. "Limit X per..." is defined per that section of the rules. Is it defined somewhere else? I can't find it. So you can either assume we're in a completely uncharted area with no defined rules, or we can figure that it's considered attached to the play area.

3 minutes ago, CSerpent said:

I understand "in play" to mean the entire play area and all cards that are in play. Hence, Unique, for example, means only one investigator can have a copy of Dr Milan Christopher out at any given time.

Unqiue is a defined keyword, not a limit. Like Maximums, it's a totally different rule. Yes, "in play" considers everything in play, but that doesn't do anything to override the per-investigator rule. The question here is not what "in play" means, it's whether its existence is enough to override the implied "per investigator".

4 minutes ago, CSerpent said:

I point again to Dark Horse and Lone Wolf. If this card was meant to be per investigator, why wouldn't it say "per investigator", like these, the only two precedents that I know of?

<shrug> I have no idea. Maybe they decided that the redundant "in play" was clearer than the redundant "per investigator".

But we can ask the opposite question with just as much (if not more) validity: As BD points out, we have standard established wording for group limits. If they meant it as a group limit, why wouldn't they just say that?

Is it possible they're introducing a new templating for group limits on assets? I guess. But it really doesn't make any sense. We have terminology for group limits, they don't use it. It honestly doesn't make any sense for the cards thematically, either - "Hey, I feel like I could pull myself together, but Roland looks pretty composed still. I guess I should keep freaking out."

7 minutes ago, CSerpent said:

But this isn't an attachment card.

It also isn't a unique card. Given that it explicitly uses the "Limit" templating, that's probably the safer rule to look to.

Also:

27 minutes ago, BD Flory said:

Bauta

Fair enough. I don't have Carnevale so I didn't know that one.

28 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

Well, then, the Limit X per... text is meaningless. "Limit X per..." is defined per that section of the rules. Is it defined somewhere else? I can't find it. So you can either assume we're in a completely uncharted area with no defined rules, or we can figure that it's considered attached to the play area.

Unqiue is a defined keyword, not a limit. Like Maximums, it's a totally different rule. Yes, "in play" considers everything in play, but that doesn't do anything to override the per-investigator rule. The question here is not what "in play" means, it's whether its existence is enough to override the implied "per investigator".

<shrug> I have no idea. Maybe they decided that the redundant "in play" was clearer than the redundant "per investigator".

But we can ask the opposite question with just as much (if not more) validity: As BD points out, we have standard established wording for group limits. If they meant it as a group limit, why wouldn't they just say that?

Is it possible they're introducing a new templating for group limits on assets? I guess. But it really doesn't make any sense. We have terminology for group limits, they don't use it. It honestly doesn't make any sense for the cards thematically, either - "Hey, I feel like I could pull myself together, but Roland looks pretty composed still. I guess I should keep freaking out."

Oh, I agree it wouldn't make sense thematically. It's just that I'm used to this game following the letter of the law rather than the spirit. But you're probably right. Maybe not "uncharted", but I think the Limit section and the way it's been used in practice so far is a bit mushy.

6 minutes ago, CSerpent said:

Oh, I agree it wouldn't make sense thematically. It's just that I'm used to this game following the letter of the law rather than the spirit. But you're probably right. Maybe not "uncharted", but I think the Limit section and the way it's been used in practice so far is a bit mushy.

It definitely is. It's one of the more naked cut and paste jobs from other LCG rulebooks, and could have used a bit more adjustment for Arkham specifically.

33 minutes ago, CSerpent said:

Oh, I agree it wouldn't make sense thematically. It's just that I'm used to this game following the letter of the law rather than the spirit. But you're probably right. Maybe not "uncharted", but I think the Limit section and the way it's been used in practice so far is a bit mushy.

I do think this is following the letter of the law. I'm not necessarily presenting the thematic nature of the card as ruling, but there's a lot of fuzzy interpretation and implication going on here which kind of opens the door to other fuzzy implications, like what the theme of the card means.