Poltergeist:

Quote

Play: Use an artifact controlled by any player as if it were yours. Destroy that artifact.

Mobius Scroll:

Quote

Action: Archive Mobius Scroll and up to 2 cards from your hand.

Player A has Mobius Scroll in play. Player B plays Poltergeist and uses A's Mobius Scroll. B archives up to two cards from his hand. Where does Mobius Scroll go?

1. To A's discard pile, because it gets destroyed.
2. To B's archive, because this the effect of using Mobius Scroll. In the archive, the card is out of play and can't be destroyed. (When it leaves B's archive later, where does it go then?)
3. To A's archive, because it has changed control (did it?), and leaves play by going to B's archive. By the Control rule, it goes to the Owner's appropriate out-of-play zone instead, which is A's archive. There, it can't be destroyed.

I've heard it clarified as 3.

3 hours ago, Canopus said:

Poltergeist:

Mobius Scroll:

Player A has Mobius Scroll in play. Player B plays Poltergeist and uses A's Mobius Scroll. B archives up to two cards from his hand. Where does Mobius Scroll go?

1. To A's discard pile, because it gets destroyed.
2. To B's archive, because this the effect of using Mobius Scroll. In the archive, the card is out of play and can't be destroyed. (When it leaves B's archive later, where does it go then?)
3. To A's archive, because it has changed control (did it?), and leaves play by going to B's archive. By the Control rule, it goes to the Owner's appropriate out-of-play zone instead, which is A's archive. There, it can't be destroyed.

Poltergeist triggers first, it has two effects one that happens before the other (using, then destroying). Using the artifact means using that artifacts trigger ability. So the Morbius scroll archives itself and 2 cards from the active players hand into the active players archive since they are technically the controller ("use as if it where your own"). Now destruction would occur however cards can only effect other cards in play unless they explicitly play otherwise and since Morbius scroll is now in the active players archive it is not destroyed.

So we have two conflicting interpretations?

6 hours ago, TwitchyBait said:

Poltergeist triggers first, it has two effects one that happens before the other (using, then destroying). Using the artifact means using that artifacts trigger ability. So the Morbius scroll archives itself and 2 cards from the active players hand into the active players archive since they are technically the controller ("use as if it where your own").

That's what I thought first. But: if the active player (B) is actually controlling the artefact, wouldn't this rule set in:

Quote

If a card that has changed control leaves play for any reason, it moves to
its owner’s appropriate out-of-play zone.

The active player B would have to transfer the card to the appropriate out-of-play zone of his opponent A, the owner of the card.

42 minutes ago, Canopus said:

So we have two conflicting interpretations?

That's what I thought first. But: if the active player (B) is actually controlling the artefact, wouldn't this rule set in:

The active player B would have to transfer the card to the appropriate out-of-play zone of his opponent A, the owner of the card.

Interesting perhaps so. That would still mean the active player got to archieve two of their own cards and the artifact would go to its owners archive.

2 hours ago, Canopus said:

The active player B would have to transfer the card to the appropriate out-of-play zone of his opponent A, the owner of the card.

I suspect this is the correct interpretation.

Does that mean that Mobius would go to your own Archives while the opponent will be able to Archive 2 of his own cards?

Yeah I agree with interpretation 3 as well.

14 hours ago, Talamare said:

Does that mean that Mobius would go to your own Archives while the opponent will be able to Archive 2 of his own cards?

Mobius scroll goes to its owners archives, the player who played poltergeist gets to archive 2 of their cards.

You didn't take control of mobius scroll - but during the process of using it as if it is yours, it has still changed control, if briefly. Otherwise you could not "use it as if it were yours" at all. You would be "using it as if it were your opponents". "2 cards from your hand" is referring to the controller's hand. If it didn't change control, you would be archiving 2 cards from your opponents hand - how do you look at cards to make the choice of what to put into their archive? 1) you are not allowed to look at your opponents hand and 2) your opponent is not allowed to make decisions during the active player's turn.

The simplest way to reconcile this is if mobius scroll is temporarily considered under control of the player who use activating poltergeist. Poltergeist player archives 2 cards from their hand, and mobius scroll would be put into their archive, but is instead returned to its owner's archive because it is leaving play.

How about Bad Penny / Stealer of Souls as case law?

Per Andres, Bad Penny is not purged if killed by SoS instead she goes to owner's hand. So in this case Mobius goes to A's archive?

3 hours ago, Poposhka said:

How about Bad Penny / Stealer of Souls as case law?

Per Andres, Bad Penny is not purged if killed by SoS instead she goes to owner's hand. So in this case Mobius goes to A's archive?

Slightly different scenario, here it’s more if the card leaves play into its owners archives for “leaving play” when under another players controll that isn’t its owners because there are cards that archive your opponents cards into your own archive but they usually explicitly state so making me agree it’s more of a golden rule situation there.

In bad Penny’s case the decision that she won’t be purged (if her ability resolves first) is because effects can’t target out of play cards unless they specify that they do. So that’s more order of effects and legal targeting.

7 hours ago, Poposhka said:

How about Bad Penny / Stealer of Souls as case law?

Per Andres, Bad Penny is not purged if killed by SoS instead she goes to owner's hand. So in this case Mobius goes to A's archive?

Can you include the link for "per Andres"? I just want to clarify where that comes from and was having trouble finding the reference.

2 hours ago, Dantastic24 said:

Can you include the link for "per Andres"? I just want to clarify where that comes from and was having trouble finding the reference.

15 hours ago, TwitchyBait said:

Slightly different scenario, here it’s more if the card leaves play into its owners archives for “leaving play” when under another players controll that isn’t its owners because there are cards that archive your opponents cards into your own archive but they usually explicitly state so making me agree it’s more of a golden rule situation there.

In bad Penny’s case the decision that she won’t be purged (if her ability resolves first) is because effects can’t target out of play cards unless they specify that they do. So that’s more order of effects and legal targeting.

But if the scroll is archived, poltergeist has to destroy it from the archives, and as you said poltergeist shouldn't be able to destroy something that's out of play unless it specifically says so?

edit: i can't handle Brad Andres tweet about Bad Penny. it's the kind of reply you'd get from a software developer who has no idea what they are doing, lol.

37 minutes ago, Poposhka said:

But if the scroll is archived, poltergeist has to destroy it from the archives, and as you said poltergeist shouldn't be able to destroy something that's out of play unless it specifically says so?

edit: i can't handle Brad Andres tweet about Bad Penny. it's the kind of reply you'd get from a software developer who has no idea what they are doing, lol.

True I was more referencing which archives it goes to, somehow I forgot about the destruction part haha.

9 hours ago, saluk64007 said:

Well this is a troubling development. What the heck is an "object"?

OP:

All of the text refers to the player using the artifact, and I'm not aware of many (or any) effects that allow you to archive cards to your opponent's archives, so I'd lean towards scenario #2. Mars has a couple of mechanics that revolve around moving your opponent's cards into and out of your archives, so I'd treat it like that.

10 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Well this is a troubling development. What the heck is an "object"?

i get the inkling he's talking as a programmer, referring to "things in the game" such as cards, tokens, hands, decks, as "objects" which is common vernacular. why it's bothering me is because a) they might be developing an in-app game for Kf and he's been in deep discussions with their development team or he's actually part of it. b) he's bringing programming lingo and concepts which has inherent rules and limitations and extremely specific definitions into the ruleset of a card game - if a card game is developed the rules should come from a human perspective and be adapted to computer play, not use limitations of the programming environment as the arbiter of rules already developed.

edit: to make an example: Warhammer AOS Champions was clearly developed from the get-go to be an app game, the mechanics and all the cards feel like they were distinctly designed to fit well into that model. Contrast that with Keyforge, as it stands, it would take an enormous amount of special cases to design a Kf cardgame for an app (ask the crucible online guys) function without bugs or missed special cases. One could argue that Warhammer became a much more "stale" or "sterile" game because of this strict development, and Kf feels much more "fun" as it were, because of this chaotic and flexible nature.

6 minutes ago, Poposhka said:

i get the inkling he's talking as a programmer, referring to "things in the game" such as cards, tokens, hands, decks, as "objects" which is common vernacular. why it's bothering me is because a) they might be developing an in-app game for Kf and he's been in deep discussions with their development team or he's actually part of it. b) he's bringing programming lingo and concepts which has inherent rules and limitations and extremely specific definitions into the ruleset of a card game - if a card game is developed the rules should come from a human perspective and be adapted to computer play, not use limitations of the programming environment as the arbiter of rules already developed.

He's not, if that's any reassurance. "Object" is actually a very specific Magic concept that means an instance of a card played. It's usually used to refer to a permanent that is flickered in and out of play (exiled, then returned to the battlefield); for all intents and purposes this is a brand new card, not the same one that was already in play, so any effects it might have applied or had applied to it are re-set. The same goes for objects moved to other zones, such as the hand, library, or graveyard.

It's troublesome because they clearly have this framework of how the rules could or should be in their heads, but not actually spelled out on paper, and trying to reverse engineer rulings based off of that is bad juju for those of us trying to piece together these unspoken rules out of nebulous card interactions.

1 minute ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

"Object" is actually a very specific Magic concept that means an instance of a card played.

Very interesting, yeah that's somewhat mitigating my fears but also, as you say, raises new ones.

On 12/4/2018 at 11:56 AM, WonderWAAAGH said:

It's troublesome because they clearly have this framework of how the rules could or should be in their heads, but not actually spelled out on paper, and trying to reverse engineer rulings based off of that is bad juju for those of us trying to piece together these unspoken rules out of nebulous card interactions.

I agree. With what clarifications we do have OFFICIALLY I agree with this opinion. There is a framework in their head and it's not on the paper. We have no timing structure - no idea of IF there even is a "stack" (which seems to happen with examples like this nesting).