10 hours 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.

Except the effect is ongoing, albeit with a finite but extended duration. I have accepted the idea that a Play: effect like this could lock in which player and which house is affected despite a control change, but it is not yet in the rules. Perhaps the expected rulebook update coming soon will clarify.

If Collar of Subordination is played on Sneklifter, who controls the artifact stolen by Sneklifter?

This isn't that much different than that scenario.

13 hours ago, CaptainIxidor said:

If Collar of Subordination is played on Sneklifter, who controls the artifact stolen by Sneklifter?

This isn't that much different than that scenario.

Nothing changes by using Collar on Sneklifter. You are not triggering the Play ability by using Collar.

8 hours ago, Krashwire said:

Nothing changes by using Collar on Sneklifter. You are not triggering the Play ability by using Collar.

Likewise for Restringutus.

On 1/13/2019 at 10:06 PM, 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...

So FFG releases a slew of rules updates and errata with no mention of Restriguntus + Collar.

No response here.

No response to my form submission.

Come on FFG, lives are at stake here!

OK, maybe not lives, but my Restriguntus is having serious anxiety issues, I'm really worried about the poor guy.

I've been thinking about this for some time, and while I understand where the majority of people are coming from, something kept gnawing at the back of my head. I've just figured out how to explain it.

King of the Crag has a constant ability: "Each enemy Brobnar creature gets -2 power." Now, if that were hit by a Collar of Subordination, would you argue that its effect now switches sides? Probably, because it's a constant ability.

Now, suppose we wanted the same effect, that works the same way, but instead the owner gets to choose the house upon it entering play. How would such an effect be worded?

4 hours ago, Rabbitball said:

I've been thinking about this for some time, and while I understand where the majority of people are coming from, something kept gnawing at the back of my head. I've just figured out how to explain it.

King of the Crag has a constant ability: "Each enemy Brobnar creature gets -2 power." Now, if that were hit by a Collar of Subordination, would you argue that its effect now switches sides? Probably, because it's a constant ability.

Now, suppose we wanted the same effect, that works the same way, but instead the owner gets to choose the house upon it entering play. How would such an effect be worded?

In the few examples we have of a constant ability and a Play: ability on the same card, the constant ability has come first and doesn't refer to the Play: ability. I believe that is intentional.

So, for King of the Crag, if it was a Play: ability where you chose the house, I believe it would be worded in the same way that Restringutus is.

"Play: Choose a house. Each enemy creature of that house gets -2 power until King of the Crag leaves play."

Now here things look a little weird. Does "enemy" change when this version of KOTC changes controllers?

14 hours ago, CaptainIxidor said:

In the few examples we have of a constant ability and a Play: ability on the same card, the constant ability has come first and doesn't refer to the Play: ability. I believe that is intentional.

So, for King of the Crag, if it was a Play: ability where you chose the house, I believe it would be worded in the same way that Restringutus is.

"Play: Choose a house. Each enemy creature of that house gets -2 power until King of the Crag leaves play."

Now here things look a little weird. Does "enemy" change when this version of KOTC changes controllers?

No, same thing as Restringuntus, play ability is resolved upon play. It’s not being played again when coming under opponents control. Doesn’t stop until he leaves play. Which might be immediately if he has damage on him since his play ability is now giving HIM -2 power (edit: provided you chose Brobnar upon play, I missed for a second that you changed it to any house) 😉

8 hours ago, Palpster said:

No, same thing as Restringuntus, play ability is resolved upon play. It’s not being played again when coming under opponents control. Doesn’t stop until he leaves play. Which might be immediately if he has damage on him since his play ability is now giving HIM -2 power (edit: provided you chose Brobnar upon play, I missed for a second that you changed it to any house) 😉

So what you are saying is that it is impossible for a card to be written in such a way that it works exactly like King of the Crag except that you get to name the house when it becomes played? This would make the proposed wording a near miss, because we expect King of the Crag to flip who his ire is directed against in its current form, but wording it so that the house changes necessarily also means that it can't switch focus under the Collar. Is the proposed wording wrong (in which case, what would the correct wording be) or is it actually impossible to thread this needle?

3 hours ago, Rabbitball said:

So what you are saying is that it is impossible for a card to be written in such a way that it works exactly like King of the Crag except that you get to name the house when it becomes played? This would make the proposed wording a near miss, because we expect King of the Crag to flip who his ire is directed against in its current form, but wording it so that the house changes necessarily also means that it can't switch focus under the Collar. Is the proposed wording wrong (in which case, what would the correct wording be) or is it actually impossible to thread this needle?

“Play: Choose a House.

Each enemy creature of the chosen House gets -2 power.”

That does what you’re describing, if I understand correctly what you’re looking for? It’s a combination of play and constant abilities, where the play ability locks the house, but which are the enemy creatures can switch. A play ability that doesn’t “do” anything isn’t the most elegant solution, but it is A solution (again, if I’m understanding what you’re looking for correctly.)

I am wondering if there's a reason why constant abilities always come first on the cards that have them alongside Play: abilities. Since none of the constant abilities reference the Play: abilities, it's a little hard to judge. I think that distinction is directly related to Restringutus (as has been stated elsewhere) but I'm trying to figure out why it couldn't have been split as per Palpster's example with King of the Crag (and I think some earlier examples as well.

Perhaps they didn't want separate abilities to reference each other in this set for some reason. That seems like design space that's still open but why they would bring that in later and not have just had a few cards (Sneklifter, Restringutus) that already used it in the first set? It's not very confusing and would have required just a line or two in the rulebook to explain, "Sometimes abilities reference other abilities on the same card."

15 hours ago, Palpster said:

“Play: Choose a House.

Each enemy creature of the chosen House gets -2 power.”

That does what you’re describing, if I understand correctly what you’re looking for? It’s a combination of play and constant abilities, where the play ability locks the house, but which are the enemy creatures can switch. A play ability that doesn’t “do” anything isn’t the most elegant solution, but it is A solution (again, if I’m understanding what you’re looking for correctly.)

So the difference between the two is a line break. Now you have to define line breaks as separating abilities. Magic does this, just for this reason, so you are suggesting the Keyforge rules need it as well.

16 hours ago, Rabbitball said:

So the difference between the two is a line break. Now you have to define line breaks as separating abilities. Magic does this, just for this reason, so you are suggesting the Keyforge rules need it as well.

That’s fair criticism. My answer indeed came from a presumed difference from playing other games (not necessarily MtG as my knowledge of Magic is limited to playing it up until the Mirage set and playing casual exclusively at that). Without it though I don’t see how you could word what you were asking for in a play ability (i.e. choose a house at play, but have the view of opponent or enemy creature switch upon gaining control). I’m not saying Keyforge needs this rule per se, but if you wanted to create a card like that it probably should.

On 1/20/2019 at 6:04 PM, Rabbitball said:

So the difference between the two is a line break. Now you have to define line breaks as separating abilities. Magic does this, just for this reason, so you are suggesting the Keyforge rules need it as well.

You think it's not defined but it is.

Constant abilities are defined as abilities that do not have a boldfaced precursor.

Abilities with boldfaced precursors are defined in the document as well, separate from those without a boldfaced precursor.

9 hours ago, CaptainIxidor said:

You think it's not defined but it is.

Constant abilities are defined as abilities that do not have a boldfaced precursor.

Abilities with boldfaced precursors are defined in the document as well, separate from those without a boldfaced precursor.

But that's your interpretation of what that line break means. How do we know it's not a printing error or an aesthetically pleasing way of printing a single Play: ability with two clauses like Restringuntus? It gets even more wonky if the "first" ability goes all the way to the end of the line, making the argument that it's all one ability even more plausible. Overdefinition in cases like this beats underdefinition.

Hey everyone, I finally received an official ruling from FFG on this:

In this situation, you would still be allowed to play Shadows cards. Restringuntus has a play ability that creates a lasting effect on the opponent. Changing control of Restringuntus after that play ability resolves does not change which player the ability applies to.

11 hours ago, noxeor said:

Hey everyone, I finally received an official ruling from FFG on this:

In this situation, you would still be allowed to play Shadows cards. Restringuntus has a play ability that creates a lasting effect on the opponent. Changing control of Restringuntus after that play ability resolves does not change which player the ability applies to.

Great! Now we have to define "lasting effect" in the rules... 😫

On 1/14/2019 at 10:43 AM, 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.

This is why templating on card wording is so important in these games - even though I know FFG seems to loathe it. Though the record holder for worst has to be Shadowrift. (ironically, created by a programmer)

On 1/15/2019 at 10:05 PM, CaptainJaguarShark said:

If Collar of Subordination is played on Sneklifter, who controls the artifact stolen by Sneklifter?

This isn't that much different than that scenario.

Just a note but the key difference there is that Sneklifter has no "end" clause in it - even after it leaves play you still keep the artifact. If Restringuntus had "your opponent cannot choose that house for the rest of the game" there would have been no rules debate. The end clause on the card is the key rules issue.

Since we've established that the text on the card is not a continuous effect but a lasting one there becomes of the question of how the escape text works at all then. Why would "in play" be continuously checked by the ability but not "your opponent"? etc Thus Rabbitball's relevant point that "lasting effect" needs to be defined now.

I mean, say there was an effect that said "remove all gametext (except traits) from a creature." (and you know there is going to be one of those someday if not in the next set) would that "switch off" the effect or not? (same with the mindlock guy) We're apparently at some kind of Schrodinger's gametext here where the effect is half tied to the creature's state and half independent of it.

On 1/22/2019 at 8:59 PM, Rabbitball said:

But that's your interpretation of what that line break means. How do we know it's not a printing error or an aesthetically pleasing way of printing a single Play: ability with two clauses like Restringuntus? It gets even more wonky if the "first" ability goes all the way to the end of the line, making the argument that it's all one ability even more plausible. Overdefinition in cases like this beats underdefinition.

Relevant given that Biomatrix Backup had a printing error screwing its function up.