Each of these cards have: Attach to .... location. Kneel that location.

Based on syntax, Kneel that location is it's own sentence seperate from everything else on the card, hence it should be parsed seperately.

The way we've been currently playing it is treating it more like "Attach to... location, kneel that location". The comma rather than the period indicates it as part of the first part. As in the location kneels when the card is attached, but otherwise it does not stay knelt.

But noticing the period, I wonder if it is seperate and a passive effect that continues to kneel the location. Any thoughts?

I can´t see why any of the named cards should continously kneel the location they are attached to. Compare this card to Vat of wildfire (5KE): Attach to a location. Kneel that location after Vat of Wildfire is attached.
Attached location cannot stand during the standing phase.

The last sentence would be senseless if the interpretation you are suggesting should be correct.

... but then why wouldn't they simply put Attach to ... location. Kneel that location. The after also adds specification.

bloodycelt said:

~ And we all know that FFG is never inconsistent when it comes to templating cards to do exactly the same thing.

I gotta tell you, my first reaction to this is "oh, fer cryin' out loud!" But the confusion may be legitimate. Unfortunately, I'm too lazy to go into a full explanation about why "kneel a location" doesn't meet the definition of a passive effect on its own, nor is it a constant effect since the verb is in the wrong grammatical voice. Rather, I will simply point out one fact and one counter example:

Fact: If you treat the (parsed out) sentence "kneel that location" as a separate and individual effect, it has no meaning because the word "that" isn't defined. If you had an attachment that said "kneel that location," which location would you be talking about? So while it is true that separate sentences on a card are resolved as separate effects, they are almost never initiated as separate effects because, as is the case here, they need other sentences in the effect to define the play restrictions for when they resolve and on what card. So the parsing into two sentences does make the two parts into separate effects, but it does not make them into individual effects.

Counter Example: Think of the (Core Set) card "The Lion's Will." That card says " Challenges: Pay 2 gold to choose a character. Kneel that character." So, with the difference of being triggered, exactly the same templating and parsing, right? Why do you think playing the attachment, which depends on the "attach to X location" bit to define "that" and initiate the kneel, creates a lasting effect that constantly re-initiates and kneels "that" location, but the event, which depends on the "choose a character" bit to define "that" and initiate the kneel, does not? Before you answer, remember that there is no set duration on The Lion's Will.

It comes down to this: there is nothing in the phrase "kneel that location" to stop the application of any effect from standing the location - including the framework event in the Standing phase. So in order to keep the location knelt, the effect "kneel that location" would need to initiate each time the location stands. But there are no play restrictions or triggers in the phrase "kneel that location" defining that initiation, so there is nothing in it to counter a newly applied standing effect.

Make sense?

Yes.

Thank you.