8 minutes ago, Mace Windu said:

Cards never changer Owner, only control, the person who's deck the card started in Is always the owner, regardless of who controls the card

Tomato tomato, the word your in the text applies to whomsoever controls the card.

4 minutes ago, Derrault said:

Tomato tomato, the word your in the text applies to whomsoever controls the card.

it still means that the opponent remains the same regardless of who the controller is, so no the new controller does not get to pick a new house for Retro

6 hours ago, Mace Windu said:

it still means that the opponent remains the same regardless of who the controller is, so no the new controller does not get to pick a new house for Retro

I didn’t say they get to pick a new house, quite the opposite.

I said the effect still applies to the opponent, just who that is has now changed.

From the rulebook:

"CONSTANT ABILITIES If a card has an ability that does not have a boldfaced precursor, the ability is a constant ability that is active so long as the card remains in play and meets all conditions specified by the ability"

Restringuntus's "Play:" ability is bold-faced. Unlike, for example, Mother which simply says "During your draw cards step, refill your hand to 1 additional card." This ability clearly transfers to the new controller if control is transferred; It does not have a bold-faced precursor. Restringuntus's Play ability has a bold-faced precursor!

EVERY other Creature's Play ability would not change the game state at all if control were to be switched to opponent. See Bumpsy, Earthshaker, Ganager Chieftan, Hebe The Huge, Lomir Flamefist, Smaaash, Wardrummer, Charette, Drumble, Shooler, The Terror, Dr. Escotera, Dysania, Harland Mindlock, Skippy timehog, Timetraveller, Yxili Maurader, Horseman of *, Lady Maxena, Numquid the Fair, Raiding Knight, Sergeant Zakiel, Gatekeeper, Veemos Lightbringer, Magda, Old Bruno, Sneklifter, Urchin, Chota, Flaxia, Fuxxy Gruen, Lupo the Scarred, Mighty Tiger.

The Play ability only happens once. When restriguntus is Played, it sets "your opponent" to be the universal constant of the "your opponent" at the time you played the card. That constant does not change just because ownership of the creature changes; The play ability does not trigger again, so nothing changes.

Imagine "Your opponent" is a placeholder for your opponent's actual name... say it's Bob. I play Restringuntus: "Play: Choose a house. Bob cannot choose that house as their active house until Restringuntus leaves play." That is set and done. Bob takes control of Resty, the effect in play still says "Bob cannot choose that as their active house" because nothing triggered a change (Play ability is done)

On 12/3/2018 at 8:27 AM, xbeaker said:

This came up in a game at PAX this weekend. We even threw the TO for a loop! I was playing Dis, Brobnar, Shadow. My Opponent Dis, Brobnar, Sanctum.

I played Restringuntus (CotA 094) " PLAY: Choose a House, your opponent cannot call that as their active house until Restringuntus leave play." I choose Brobnar (important because we were both playing decks with house Bobnar.) My opponent used Collar of Subordination (CotA 105) Upgrade - "You control this creature" on Restringuntus. The question was:

A. Does my opponent get to reassign the house and use it against me? (this was quickly determined to be a definite no)
B. Does the effect of Restringuntus apply to me, now that I am the opponent of of the controller of Restringuntus?

This interaction is unclear because the rules don't define one word: you . Magic defines it as "this card's controller" but we aren't bound to that just because both games were designed by Richard Garfield. It could just as easily mean "this card's owner", which is no longer the same as the Magic definition once the Collar of Subordination hits it.

Both of these are functions that continuously calculate. In the first case, the value would switch, but not the second. This is a good one to get an official clarification on, so that we get more insight into how to interpret other cards.

2 hours ago, Rabbitball said:

This interaction is unclear because the rules don't define one word: you . Magic defines it as "this card's controller" but we aren't bound to that just because both games were designed by Richard Garfield. It could just as easily mean "this card's owner", which is no longer the same as the Magic definition once the Collar of Subordination hits it.

Both of these are functions that continuously calculate. In the first case, the value would switch, but not the second. This is a good one to get an official clarification on, so that we get more insight into how to interpret other cards.

We have to define basic English now? Standard procedure for FFG games is that you/your refers to either the player or the unit.

There’s no reason to stray from that norm now. To act otherwise is silly.

21 minutes ago, Derrault said:

We have to define basic English now? Standard procedure for FFG games is that you/your refers to either the player or the unit.

There’s no reason to stray from that norm now. To act otherwise is silly.

But which player? The player who owns the card, or the player who now controls it?

2 hours ago, Rabbitball said:

But which player? The player who owns the card, or the player who now controls it?

The player who played it, because that was the only time this was relevant since it is a play effect. Whatever happens after does not affect that play ability other than the condition it stated when it was played: until Restringuntus leaves play.

Yeah, I think a lot of people aren't getting that the Play: effects are one and done. You NEVER go back and re-resolve any part of them. The rules never tell you to do that. Changing a creature's controller doesn't change the results of its Play: effect earlier in the game.

9 hours ago, Rabbitball said:

But which player? The player who owns the card, or the player who now controls it?

As with everything else, the player who controls it. Sorry, I thought I clearly stated that?

On 1/12/2019 at 2:07 AM, Palpster said:

The player who played it, because that was the only time this was relevant since it is a play effect. Whatever happens after does not affect that play ability other than the condition it stated when it was played: until Restringuntus leaves play.

On 1/12/2019 at 9:06 AM, Derrault said:

As with everything else, the player who controls it. Sorry, I thought I clearly stated that?

That is a contradiction. The effect says "Your opponent", but who "you" refers to changed between then and now.

On 1/12/2019 at 8:12 AM, KrisWall said:

Yeah, I think a lot of people aren't getting that the Play: effects are one and done. You NEVER go back and re-resolve any part of them. The rules never tell you to do that. Changing a creature's controller doesn't change the results of its Play: effect earlier in the game.

While that is a valid interpretation, it would be far more helpful to state that in the rules.

Page 5 of the rulebook says that play abilities resolve after the card enters play. So it is already resolved, who has control over the creature doesn’t change anything about an already resolved effect. The only thing that affects it is stated in the ability itself: until Restringuntus leaves play.

5 hours ago, Rabbitball said:

That is a contradiction. The effect says "Your opponent", but who "you" refers to changed between then and now.

While that is a valid interpretation, it would be far more helpful to state that in the rules.

It’s not a contradiction, the term opponent always refers to the other player. So if any given card changes hands who constitutes the opponent also changes.

49 minutes ago, Derrault said:

It’s not a contradiction, the term opponent always refers to the other player. So if any given card changes hands who constitutes the opponent also changes.

But it is a Play ability which means the result of the ability is evaluated ONCE on play. It makes your opponent unable to call house X until Resty leaves play. When control is switched, that condition is not reevaluated. It still affects whomever it affected on play.

I agree. The ability is resolved upon play. Changing ownership of the card does nothing to change that the ability has already resolved.

There’s always the rules submission form or you can go wherever people go to get a Brad answer if you really want it clarified, not sure arguing it here further is going to help.

6 minutes ago, TheSpitfired said:

I agree. The ability is resolved upon play. Changing ownership of the card does nothing to change that the ability has already resolved.

There’s always the rules submission form or you can go wherever people go to get a Brad answer if you really want it clarified, not sure arguing it here further is going to help.

Do you have a link to this?

59 minutes ago, noxeor said:

But it is a Play ability which means the result of the ability is evaluated ONCE on play. It makes your opponent unable to call house X until Resty leaves play. When control is switched, that condition is not reevaluated. It still affects whomever it affected on play.

Yes, the condition of choosing a house is set, the fact it applies to your opponent (which definitionally alters when control changes) isn’t.

32 minutes ago, TheSpitfired said:

I agree. The ability is resolved upon play. Changing ownership of the card does nothing to change that the ability has already resolved.

There’s always the rules submission form or you can go wherever people go to get a Brad answer if you really want it clarified, not sure arguing it here further is going to help.

I submitted through the rules submission form but have yet to hear back. I'll report any response I might get.

I have heard that Brad regularly replies to rules questions on Facebook but I dont use it so...

1 hour ago, Rabbitball said:

Do you have a link to this?

I can link to the Rules Submission Form but as for the other part, I presume Brad answers questions on Facebook but I'm not 100% on that (I certainly couldn't find it), and I've also heard he has called for patience because he gets hundreds of questions every day. So best of luck if you go that route.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

Yes, the condition of choosing a house is set, the fact it applies to your opponent (which definitionally alters when control changes) isn’t.

That's not a fact though, the belief that the card's effect changes who it applies to when control of the card changes is your interpretation. You are pretty dug in and that's fine, it seems we are too. That's why I suggested the rules form as I don't think there's any more ground to gain in the discussion.

On 12/12/2018 at 6:40 AM, itPet said:

Very interesting discussion! 😃

I come from a programming perspective and this is the way I see it. All " Play:" effects triggers at the point when the card is being played and the text (" Play: Choose a house. Your opponent cannot choose the house as their active house until Restringuntus leves play." ) has to be evaluated at that time. So I look at the words "house" and "your opponent" as variables that can contain different values. In this case the word "house" would be a new variable. And it would also be empty until a house is chosen. After the decision is made the variable has gotten a value assigned to it and the word "house" now contains (in this case) Brobnar.

The last part of the text "Your opponent cannot choose that house as their active house until Restringuntus leves play" has an on-going effect. So in other words it's a "while loop" (again in programming terms ). While it is true that Restringuntus is in play the effect keeps running.

And now comes the real question (at least for me). Are the words "your opponent" a new and empty variable when the card is played, just like the word "house" ? Or are that variable already assigned (in other parts of the code/rules)? I would argue that "your opponent" already has a value when the card is played and that the card does not assign any value to them. The card is simply pointing to "global" variables. So as long as the "while loop" keeps running the card is pointing, like an arrow, to "your opponent". So if another part of the code/rules changes the value of "your opponent" (in this case Collar of Subordination). I would not se it like the " Play: " effect gets re-evaluated or triggered again. It is simply continuing to pointing to the global variables that now have changed. So therefor the effect of the card now applies to the new opponent.

Hehe hope that this makes sense to someone

Your interpretation is incorrect. The card reads as:

Play: Choose a house. Your opponent cannot choose that house as their active house until Restringuntus leaves play.

For your interpretation to be true it would need to be written as:

Play: Choose a house.

Your opponent cannot choose that house as their active house until Restringuntus leaves play.

Note the line break and separation of the Play effect and the constant effect in the second example. That is not how Restringuntus was written.

dupe

dupe

12 hours ago, Krashwire said:

Your interpretation is incorrect. The card reads as:

Play: Choose a house. Your opponent cannot choose that house as their active house until Restringuntus leaves play.

For your interpretation to be true it would need to be written as:

Play: Choose a house.

Your opponent cannot choose that house as their active house until Restringuntus leaves play.

Note the line break and separation of the Play effect and the constant effect in the second example. That is not how Restringuntus was written.

My rulebook-fu is a bit lacking right now. Where does it say that line breaks mean anything?

9 hours ago, Rabbitball said:

My rulebook-fu is a bit lacking right now. Where does it say that line breaks mean anything?

It doesn't, but I think his point was that there is no line break. The entire thing is part of the play effect. You can't have the first sentence be part of the play effect and then have the second line be an ongoing effect. IF there was a line break, you'd be able to make an argument that there was a play effect followed by an ongoing effect. There is no line break, so you can't make that argument.

23 hours ago, Krashwire said:

Your interpretation is incorrect. The card reads as:

Play: Choose a house. Your opponent cannot choose that house as their active house until Restringuntus leaves play.

For your interpretation to be true it would need to be written as:

Play: Choose a house.

Your opponent cannot choose that house as their active house until Restringuntus leaves play.

Note the line break and separation of the Play effect and the constant effect in the second example. That is not how Restringuntus was written.

1 hour ago, KrisWall said:

It doesn't, but I think his point was that there is no line break. The entire thing is part of the play effect. You can't have the first sentence be part of the play effect and then have the second line be an ongoing effect. IF there was a line break, you'd be able to make an argument that there was a play effect followed by an ongoing effect. There is no line break, so you can't make that argument.

Having played other FFG games (both card games and otherwise), I have to agree that a line break matters in their games (and is true for many other card games as well, including MTG).

And the difference between them is defined, just not in the way that some might like. There is a section about "Constant Abilities" which says "If a card has an ability that does not have a boldfaced precursor, the ability is a constant ability that is active so long as the card remains in play and meets all conditions specified in the ability." What's on this card is a Play: ability, "Such abilities resolve after the card's aember bonus is collected, if it has any, and immediately after the card enters play." A Play: ability is no longer active once it's resolved. It's effects are put into play as chosen and remain that way either until they no longer matter (majority of Play: effects, like "Capture 1 aember" or "your opponent may not use any cards next turn") or until some sort of trigger occurs (such as this one, or Sneklifter's- if you no longer control the artifact, it does not retain the Shadows house).

There are cards that have both a constant ability and a Play: ability are Yxili Marauder, Experimental Therapy, and Yo Mama Mastery, so we know this is possible through the templating that already exists in the game. If FFG wished for this ability to function where the "opponent" declared in the Play: ability would change when the owner of the creature changes, then they could have separated the abilities as Krashwire suggests, and have both a constant ability and a Play: ability. They did not do this, so it's set when the Play: ability is triggered and cannot change.