This card says "If Drowned Disciple would be killed, instead put it on the bottom of your deck."

Am I right that it probably needs errata to say 'put in on the bottom of its owner's deck'? (Otherwise it may end up being included into an opponent's deck, which is probably not intended).

Errata isn't really necessary because of the general rule from the FAQ:

(3.29) Changing Control and Leaving Play
When a card leaves play for any reason, it
always returns to its owner's discard pile, dead
pile, hand, deck , or shadows area (depending
on the specific circumstances).

Maybe he thinks that your is trying to overwrite the general rule.

Well, just in case, the FAQ trumps card text to a certain extent in that it dictates how you are supposed to interpret the cards. "Your" on the card doesn't over-ride the FAQ's direction that all cards go to the appropriate out-of-play area of their owners .

~ Anyway, we technically don't have the golden rule anymore.

ktom said:

Weird. I wonder why the Shadows area is specified. All the others make sense. I'd never want my cards ending up in my opponent's discard pile, dead pile, hand or deck, but the game allows for cards to be put into Shadows under the control of a player other than the owner so I'm surprised the rules don't just allow the controller of the card at the time when it goes into Shadows to be the one who controls it in Shadows (barring some effect that changes ownership while simultaneously putting the card into Shadows).

schrecklich said:

Consistency. It goes back to another FAQ entry:

(3.26) Duration of Control Change
Unless otherwise stated (for example, with a
specified duration), the change of control is
permanent until the card that switched sides
leaves play or control of the card switches
again via a card effect.

So it's like this: a) when a card leaves play, all "take control" effects are over and the card reverts to its owner's control; b) when a card goes into Shadows from play, it leaves play (because "in-Shadows" is an out-of-play state); c) therefore, it should be back in its owner's Shadows area because that's who controls it. Essentially, the FAQ always creates the condition you mention when you say "barring some effect that changes ownership while simultaneously putting the card into Shadows."

If going into Shadows was an exception to this "it left play, so you don't control it anymore" rule, you start wondering why you don't still control the character you took that was killed, even if it is in its owner's discard/dead pile.

There are specific card effects that let you take control of an opponent's card and put it directly into Shadows, but note that these are specifically card driven instead of using provisions within the formal Shadows rule document. And that once the card is brought out of Shadows, all the other rules apply. For example, if I use ToT-Balon to take your Syrio Forel, bring him out of Shadows (ie, put him into play), then use his Response to put him back into Shadows (ie, remove him from play), I lose control of him, essentially giving him back to you.

Thanks, ktom. That makes sense. Shadows is a tricky zone for me. It's not in play, but it doesn't totally feel out of play to me. I understand the rules for Shadows. I'm just describing my in game intuition. The justification in terms of changing zones should help me adjust my intuition though, I think.

schrecklich said:

Yeah, because the cards are sitting there in front of them on the table (and they had to pay to get them into Shadows), people tend to think of cards in Shadows as being like characters - that cannot be touched by military claim.

I've found the best way to adjust the intuition is to remind yourself that cards in Shadows are actually more like cards in your hand - that cannot be touched by intrigue claim. When you think of the Shadows area as an "auxiliary hand," a lot of the in-game intuition falls into place.