2 hours ago, PickleTheHutt said:

Mostly contradictory destroyed type issues (card goes to hand when destroyed vs. is purged when destroyed). It's not clear if you resolve both with active player choosing the order (meaning which effect will ultimately occur), or if one takes precedence, or if one effect occuring may prevent the second effect as it wouldn't be in play even though destroyed effects should still occur. There are several threads on this and as far as I can tell there's no obvious answer as yet.

The active player decides on the order that things get resolved.

Check Turn Order and Active Player: pages 4 and 9.

Yes, everyone understands the active player chooses order. That doesn't settle the issues here.

5 hours ago, PickleTheHutt said:

Yes, everyone understands the active player chooses order. That doesn't settle the issues here.

Settles the purged issue though, purging a card removes it from the game, where the card is when removed is rather irrelevant as it’s never specified it needs to be in play or in a hand etc. In other words if one effect moves a card to your hand, your archive, your deck, your discard pile etc and is also purged by a trigger at a same time then it’s still purged because why wouldn’t it be?

3 hours ago, TwitchyBait said:

Settles the purged issue though, purging a card removes it from the game, where the card is when removed is rather irrelevant as it’s never specified it needs to be in play or in a hand etc. In other words if one effect moves a card to your hand, your archive, your deck, your discard pile etc and is also purged by a trigger at a same time then it’s still purged because why wouldn’t it be?

But if it is purged first, then why wouldn't it move to your hand afterward using the exact same logic. The rules for purge only talk about the purged card's abilities, and does not address abilities from other cards, or even abilities that have already been triggered and are waiting to resolve.

15 hours ago, Revert said:

But if it is purged first, then why wouldn't it move to your hand afterward using the exact same logic. The rules for purge only talk about the purged card's abilities, and does not address abilities from other cards, or even abilities that have already been triggered and are waiting to resolve.

Well let’s look at the rules for purge:

page 11: Purge

”When a card is purged it is removed from the game and placed facedown beneath the owners identity card. Purged cards no longer interact with the game state in any manner”

That second line is what is the most important, it outright says once you’ve resolved purging a card the card can not be effected by anything else. At that point the card is no longer part of the game you’re engaged in anymore than a card in another deck that wasn’t used sitting nearby.

Let’s use bad Penny as an example with a card that purges a card when it’s destroyed. This means we have two effects triggered at the same time so the active player gets to choose the order of their resolution.

A) The active player decides to resolve Bad penny’s effect first and returns her to her owners hand then they resolve purge and remove Bad Penny from the game.

B) The active player decides to resolve purge first and removes bad penny from the game. Since she’s purged she no longer interacts with the game state in any manner and her destroyed effect can not resolve.

But if in play cards couldn't affect purged cards, then Spangler box couldn't work.

On 11/16/2018 at 3:59 PM, JorduSpeaks said:

I'll keep that info in my back pocket for big events, but there's no way I'm holding my opponents to that ruling at store-level.

You would be doing your players a disservice if you do that because they will not be ready for major tournaments, if that is their intent. I know I'd be unhappy to find out I had been playing under "house" rules and never true tournament rules.

13 minutes ago, Revert said:

But if in play cards couldn't affect purged cards, then Spangler box couldn't work.

Given that purge explicitly says cards purged no longer interact with the game state it would see Sprangler box falls under the golden rule.

4 hours ago, TwitchyBait said:

A) The active player decides to resolve Bad penny’s effect first and returns her to her owners hand then they resolve purge and remove Bad Penny from the game.

I may have misunderstood, but Bad Penny stays in the players hand.

ABILITY, CARD ABILITY (p9):
An ability is the special game text a card contributes to the game. Unless an ability explicitly references an out-of-play area (such as a hand, deck, archives, or discard pile), that ability can only interact with cards that are in play.

1 minute ago, Amanal said:

I may have misunderstood, but Bad Penny stays in the players hand.

ABILITY, CARD ABILITY (p9):
An ability is the special game text a card contributes to the game. Unless an ability explicitly references an out-of-play area (such as a hand, deck, archives, or discard pile), that ability can only interact with cards that are in play.

I stand corrected

37 minutes ago, sabrjay said:

You would be doing your players a disservice if you do that because they will not be ready for major tournaments, if that is their intent. I know I'd be unhappy to find out I had been playing under "house" rules and never true tournament rules.

Mostly it's because I expect this ruling to get reversed before the first big tournament.

49 minutes ago, JorduSpeaks said:

Mostly it's because I expect this ruling to get reversed before the first big tournament.

Don't hold your breath. Besides, if it does, then just change your play again. You should always play as ruled, not how you wish it was.

25 minutes ago, twinstarbmc said:

Don't hold your breath. Besides, if it does, then just change your play again. You should always play as ruled, not how you wish it was.

What I wish is that it wasn't ruled in such a counterintuitive way that it causes players to quit in frustration. The card clearly states "YOU may archive". To whom does the word "you" refer? The logical assumption is that it refers to the player who controls the effect, but the ruling suggests that it's the active player. So, are all the cards directing their instructions to the active player? If you kill an opponent's Dust Imp on your turn, do you get to gain 2 aember? Do players lose aember from their own grenade snib because "your opponent" refers to the active player's opponent? If not, then the ruling is inconsistent.

On ‎11‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 9:40 AM, Brokugan said:

Is there a printer friendly version of this document somewhere?

I'm wondering the same thing. Anyone?

21 minutes ago, JorduSpeaks said:

If not, then the ruling is inconsistent.

With what?

The main trouble with Biomatrix and hence the FAQ is that it say "you may" so when your opponent is active player he can choose to not have it go into effect.

40 minutes ago, JorduSpeaks said:

"YOU may archive". To whom does the word "you" refer?

It can, and is, referring to the active player. It doesn't say "owner of the card may". The logic isn't obvious, but it's there.

47 minutes ago, sabrjay said:

It can, and is, referring to the active player. It doesn't say "owner of the card may". The logic isn't obvious, but it's there.

So does Grenade Snib refer to the active player's opponent?

29 minutes ago, JorduSpeaks said:

So does Grenade Snib refer to the active player's opponent?

And this is why the Biomatrix Backup ruling is the wrong one.

1 hour ago, JorduSpeaks said:

So does Grenade Snib refer to the active player's opponent?

CARD ABILITIES (P8):
When resolving a card ability, resolve as much of the ability as can be resolved, and ignore the rest. Unless otherwise specified by the ability, the active player makes all decisions while resolving an ability.
Players can only use cards they control, unless a card ability specifically states otherwise.

Is the order of resolving the death effects of the two cards shown important if the active player has no amber?

What if you were the active player and shot your own Grenade Snub and your opponent only had 2 amber?

Looking over the section for “may” on page 11, it says:

” May: If the ability contains the word “may” then the text that follows is optional. If a player resolves a “may” ability that player must resolve as much of the ability as they are able.”

Going off that and the FAQ question it seems you does still refer to the controller of the card for targeting purposes but since order is directly effected by whether or not a “may” ability occurs the active player merely determines that with the “you” part still referring to its owner. Badly worded and a bit silly of a ruling I agree but this is how I think it works, if not other abilities like the cards recently posted just get silly in how they work.

2 hours ago, TwitchyBait said:

Looking over the section for “may” on page 11, it says:

” May: If the ability contains the word “may” then the text that follows is optional. If a player resolves a “may” ability that player must resolve as much of the ability as they are able.” 

Why do they even bother writing "if a player" when it may be only the active player? The rules should read "If the active player resolves a "may" ability [...]" to make it less confusing. This wording suggests that the non-active player also gets to make decisions.

On 11/16/2018 at 4:58 PM, PickleTheHutt said:

While I'm happy that they've updated the rules somewhat, there are still numerous open questions that I had hoped would be covered.

As for rules changes, I hope they consider a way to avoid total lockout (even just Restringus combined with a hand of all the same house could cause this on turn 1). Maybe allowing players to discard their entire hand if they skip their entire turn (including key forging).

Richard Garfield likes the lockout as a possibility. He is a fan of things that subtly alter the win condition. If you can engineer a lockout, good for you.

What I don't like about it is that you can also accidentally get the lockout. If there is a possibility to lockout, it should only be possible through clever play. Putting down a pitlord and getting Restringuntus is fine. You took a risk. An early turn restringuntus guess that the opponent can't answer with their allowed houses is gross.

Come on FFG... Why do you make such a BAD ruling on biomatrix backup ????

This card is very far from overpowered so why nerf it SO much one day after the launch ????

Each time I open it in a deck, I think this is pure garbage... Please change your mind and make a real ruling (errata on the card, remove the word "may"...) !

We buy lots of decks and our pleasure is wasted because of such a bad ruling... Apart of this point, this game is so much fun that we want it to be perfect. It would be so easy to errata the card correctly so we can use it the way Richard Garfield designed it.

Thanks in advance for doing something clever :) !

I think the 'may' got through because the mars use archive strangely. With Uxlxyx zookeeper some people have been feeding it the cards they do not want to thin their deck.

I wonder if it would be possible to move the timing of 'destroyed' effects to the start of the owners turn? That way the active player changes before the choice is made.

Are there any destroyed effects that need to be applied immediately? Or could they all be applied before the forge key step of your turn.

7 hours ago, saluk64007 said:

Richard Garfield likes the lockout as a possibility. He is a fan of things that subtly alter the win condition. If you can engineer a lockout, good for you.

What I don't like about it is that you can also accidentally get the lockout. If there is a possibility to lockout, it should only be possible through clever play. Putting down a pitlord and getting Restringuntus is fine. You took a risk. An early turn restringuntus guess that the opponent can't answer with their allowed houses is gross.

You're allowed to view your opponent's list before a match, and you're allowed to mulligan. If your opponent has Restringitus in her or his deck and you draw six cards from the same house, then you should absolutely mulligan.