Here are the new FAQ elements that I have comments on:

(v4.1) Braided Screamers F75
The Response effect should have the text: "limit once per round."

Note that this errata does not include the "printed" that Damon indicated in his e-mailed response. Are we then going to go back to the paid cost and not the printed cost?

(3.42) Moribund Cards Returning to Play
Any effect that attempts to return a moribund card to play from its moribund destination should be treated as a replacement effect that changes the card's moribund state to "remaining in play." The card is still considered to have left play for the purpose of responses and passive effects. All attachments and tokens on it are discarded. During step 6 of the action window, when all moribund cards are moved to their final destinations, the card is removed from the moribund state but remains in play.

What cards do this? Is this just pre-emptive rules? (I think the fact that it's considered to have left play leaves this bizarre gaping hole for "does that mean the character enters play again?")

(4.21) Losing/Gaining "all" Traits or
Keywords
If a card gains or loses "all traits," it gains or loses 1 instance of each trait in the game. If a card gains or loses "all keywords," it gains or loses 1 instance of each keyword in the game. If a card loses "all instances" of a trait or keyword, it loses that trait or keyword an infinite number of times. A card cannot gain "all instances" of a trait or keyword.

Does this address the whole "does losing Stealth mean all instances" (Core Set Arya) question? What the heck does Balon's Host do as that's the main issue card I've seen? Balon's host isn't "all keywords". It's a sub-set of keywords that coincidentally uses the word "all".

Remember that if two conflicting passive abilities would resolve at the same time, their order of resolution is determined by the first player.

What's the definition of "conflicting passives"? Is this saying there's a FIFO stack? Is Family, Duty, Honor a "conflicting passive" to Rule by Decree? My current understanding of "conflicting passive" is that Flame-Kissed and Threat from the North are conflicting passives. Not much else falls under the term.

3.42 is probly 4 3EC.

1. No. Still no reason to assuming cost as anything other than printed, and there's no precedent. There *are* precedents for distinguishing between what was paid for a character and its cost (eg. Hungry Mob).

2. As Dennis said, Call of the Three-eyed Crow.

3. The implication would be that the only situation in which you lose multiple instances of a keyword are if a card uses the wording "all instances" (or if hit with multiple copies of "loses stealth" or "loses all keywords" etc). No card currently uses the wording "all instances".

4. This has been done by convention for a long time as being any case in which the resolution of one passive would affect the resolution of another. I believe the FAQ change is from "does conflict" to "would conflict", to encompass that scenario (as obviously passives cannot actually conflict, since the first player will determine which is applied first). I understand your gripe about a poorly defined "Conflict", but it shouldn't cause any *additional* rules confusion over the existing wording.

1. I'd assume it's an oversight. "Printed cost" is one of the most consistent errata/clarifications we get on cards.

2. The "moribund:return to play" is undoubtedly for Call of the Three-Eyed Crow. It's worth noting, however, that it also works preemptively for Coldhands choosing himself.

3. It's definitely saying that it is never appropriate to lose (or gain) "all instances" unless that's what it specifically says. Unless otherwise instructed, "lose all keywords" or "lose all traits" means "one of each." This includes Balon's Host - which will remove one instance of each keyword that does not include the word "immune." It can be overcome.

The important thing is that all past explanations about "subsets" of keywords and such that tried to explain why various effects should be handled one way or the other should be disregarded. The FAQ trumps all the past explanations on this issue.

4. See Istaril's explanation and other threads. The "First Player only gets to choose the order of conflicting passives" is effectively how people have always played. My guess is that the FAQ update was to formalize the practice in answer to one specific combo that was floating around a few months ago.

How does "one of each" interact with qualified keywords (namely, Immunity and No attachments)? I note 4.21 doesn't say whether to treat them as a single keyword or multiple ones (this would be relevant for gained keywords - Deceit comes to mind).

@mdc: Family, Duty, Honor does conflict with Rule by Decree, since the order of resolution could change the outcome (and most probably will).

That question is dealt with in detail in a couple of other threads, so I won't rehash all of it here.

The short answer is that the whole "can't qualify a keyword" thing only applies when you are naming/gaining a keyword from nothing (like Jaqen). When you are naming/gaining/losing a keyword based on a referenced card (like Deceit), the qualified keyword is fair game.

I actually want to elaborate on the fourth question as I think there actually is some precedent and reason to use a FIFO stack in this game. Going back to another thread, there was an instance of a passives trigger condition being met AFTER the passive stack was created.

So it was something like this:

Card 1: After a character dies, draw a card.

Card 2: After a character dies, discard a card.

Card 3: After a character dies, kneel a card.

Card 4: After a card is drawn, draw another card.

Cards 1, 2, and 3 are in conflict timing wise due to all having identical trigger conditions. First player resolves these and chooses the order 1, 3, 2.

1 causes 4 to trigger, but is NOT a conflicting passive as its trigger condition was not met until after all conflicting passives were assigned a timing. First player can not, therefore, choose to have 4 trigger before 3 or 2. 3 then 2 must be triggered before 4.

So in effect, I actually think this ruling establishes the precedent for the FIFO stack. Conflicting passives are passives that have conflicting points of initiation (i. e. Flame-Kissed and Threat from the North).

So that new plot which reveals a plot card as part of it's effect would actually have the newly revealed plot added to the end of the FIFO stack. It does not conflict with the original passives and therefore can not take priority over it.

Adding more to this, passives to winning/losing a challenge must fully resolve before passives to claim, same for passives to claim before passives to renown. They are non-conflicting (their trigger conditions are not in conflict) and as such, must be resolved in the order in which they were triggered.

Agree with 1, 2, and 3 except that "Cost = Printed Cost" unless otherwise noted needs to be printed somewhere.

Also, the cards from Coldhands actually leave play don't they? Then they are returned from an out of play state to an in play state at the end of the phase, right?

That question is dealt with in detail in a couple of other threads, so I won't rehash all of it here.

The short answer is that the whole "can't qualify a keyword" thing only applies when you are naming/gaining a keyword from nothing (like Jaqen). When you are naming/gaining/losing a keyword based on a referenced card (like Deceit), the qualified keyword is fair game.

Which threads so that I can go check them out? From reading the FAQ and Core Rules from the last podcast, I'm not certain where a gain from nothing and gain from something effect is separated in those docs, so I'd like to follow along.

*edit* NM. Found it.

So it was something like this:

Card 1: After a character dies, draw a card.

Card 2: After a character dies, discard a card.

Card 3: After a character dies, kneel a card.

Card 4: After a card is drawn, draw another card.

Cards 1, 2, and 3 are in conflict timing wise due to all having identical trigger conditions. First player resolves these and chooses the order 1, 3, 2.

This technically isn't true. Just because it is activated by the same occurrence does not mean that it conflicts. It only conflicts if the resolution would cause something that is activated at the same time to resolve differently than if it had not been activated. So #3 does NOT conflict with 1 or 2 because kneeling a card does not change how either the discard or the draw resolves. So it would not conflict (the way that 1 and 2 clearly conflict; draw before discard or discard before draw makes a difference) and would be considered to take place simultaneously with the stack you are creating (effectively, that character will be knelt for any determination of what happens as a result of drawing or discarding from 1 or 2).

1 causes 4 to trigger, but is NOT a conflicting passive as its trigger condition was not met until after all conflicting passives were assigned a timing. First player can not, therefore, choose to have 4 trigger before 3 or 2. 3 then 2 must be triggered before 4.

I think you are looking at "conflicting" from the wrong end. "Conflicting" is based on the effects, not the play restrictions. #4 conflicts with #2, the same as #1. So, if the FP chose for #1 to be resolved first, meeting the play restriction for #4, he could then choose for #4 to resolve before or after #2.

So in effect, I actually think this ruling establishes the precedent for the FIFO stack. Conflicting passives are passives that have conflicting points of initiation (i. e. Flame-Kissed and Threat from the North).

I think we've covered this already. Whether or not passives conflict depends on their effects, not their play restrictions/points of initiation. Flame-Kissed and Threat from the North conflict because one kills and one discards (and you can't do both), not because they both "activate" when the character reaches 0 STR.

So that new plot which reveals a plot card as part of it's effect would actually have the newly revealed plot added to the end of the FIFO stack. It does not conflict with the original passives and therefore can not take priority over it.

Not true. Because the FAQ/rules tell us that the FP gets to choose the order of all "when revealed" plot effects (generally, the potential for conflict is so complex with these plots that they are all assumed to conflict, so the FAQ specifically saves everyone the trouble of figuring out which ones conflict by saying that the FP always chooses the order) and you are adding a new "when revealed" plot, the FP would get to revise his order after the new plot resolves - just like being able to revise his order in your hypothetical 4 effects above if he chooses #1 to resolve before #2, thus activating #4, which conflicts with the as-yet-unresolved #2.

Adding more to this, passives to winning/losing a challenge must fully resolve before passives to claim, same for passives to claim before passives to renown. They are non-conflicting (their trigger conditions are not in conflict) and as such, must be resolved in the order in which they were triggered.

This is also decidedly not true. Just like you do not have to trigger responses in a particular order based on when their "triggers" were created, the FP does not have to set an order of passive resolution based on when the order the play restrictions were met. If nothing else, and this were true, does the winner win the challenge before or after the loser loses the challenge? Those are two different "activators" for passives, aren't they?

Also, the cards from Coldhands actually leave play don't they? Then they are returned from an out of play state to an in play state at the end of the phase, right?

Not sure what you're getting at here. Under "normal" circumstances, they are removed from the game, then return to play when Coldhands leaves play. But if Coldhands is one of the characters chosen for his own ability, all the chosen characters (including Coldhads) would enter the "moribund:remove from game" state (and lose all attachments, tokens, etc., the way that moribund cards do). They would be considered to have left play for passives, responses, etc. Of course, one of those passives, responses, etc. is Coldhands' own "return them to play if Coldhands leaves play" effect. So, in line with the new FAQ entry, all of the "moribund:remove from game" states are immediately replaced by the "moribund:remain in play" state. When the action window closes, all the attachments, tokens, etc. are still discarded, but the characters themselves leave the moribund state by remaining in play.

Of course, you could kneel a "The Laughing Storm" thanks to 3, which would then conflict with 2. While I understand the ruling and precedent for conflicting means conflicting effects rather than conflicting initiation, I can also see how it can be quite difficult for a player to judge whether two passive can conflict in any way when the interactions could be quite deep.

In practice, resolving all passives in Step 4 in the order determined by the first player is usually just a safer (if slower) bet.

Is this forum going to consist of Ktom informing Mdc he's wrong all the time?

Its going to take up all Ktoms time

That question is dealt with in detail in a couple of other threads, so I won't rehash all of it here.

The short answer is that the whole "can't qualify a keyword" thing only applies when you are naming/gaining a keyword from nothing (like Jaqen). When you are naming/gaining/losing a keyword based on a referenced card (like Deceit), the qualified keyword is fair game.

Were you responding to me? If so, I fail to see the connection. I'll give an example of a card with 2 different Immunity keywords: Damon Dance-for-me (Immune to events) with Crown of Winter attached (Immune to opponents' events and character abilities). What keywords does he lose should he be the target of Pentoshi Manor?

Is this forum going to consist of Ktom informing Mdc he's wrong all the time?

Its going to take up all Ktoms time

Yep, that's basically how it works

Let's be fair - any of us that are probably considered the "Rules lawyers" of our local metas tend to waste a fair bit of Ktom's time when we're wrong (see the next thread on this page , where it's my fault). It comes mostly from a desire to make things absolutely clear so we don't confuse the issue ever again...

If the rules forums were just answering the usual frequently asked questions, there'd be no need for Ktom (but we'd still love him).

I'll give an example of a card with 2 different Immunity keywords: Damon Dance-for-me (Immune to events) with Crown of Winter attached (Immune to opponents' events and character abilities). What keywords does he lose should he be the target of Pentoshi Manor?

Each "qualification" on immunity is considered to be a different keyword when it comes to gaining/losing keywords.

That is the confusion that seems to have been bred by the Jaqen entry. In the rulebook, the keyword is described as "immunity," but the keyword that appears on cards is, more or less, "immune to X." Each different "X" is effectively a different keyword. So in your situation, when Damon Dance-For-Me loses "all" keywords, he is going to lose one instance of "immune to X1" and one instance of "immune to X2," not one instance of "immunity" - which, on a card, means nothing without the "qualification."

Well I just learned that "When Revealed" plot effects ARE NOT passives:

""When revealed" plot effects are essentially self-referential passive effects that initiate in response to the revealing of the plot card with the "when revealed" effect." - From 2.2

Note the word essentially. So they shouldn't even be discussed with the whole conflicting passives thing.

@Ktom - Or you could've just said the first player determines the order of all passives awaiting resolution when necessary and your stack concept does not apply. LoL. Theories are theories.

On Coldhands, I don't think you're right. Is Coldhands ability a replacement effect? If it's not a replacement, it can't force Moribund:Play on them while they're Moribund:Out-of-Game. Heck, I doubt it even gives Moribund:Play and instead they are not out of play and therefore the effect will fizzle because you can not return a card from out of play to in play if it is not out of play. Someone will have to find me the card text as CGDB is fried again.

On Coldhands, I don't think you're right. Is Coldhands ability a replacement effect? If it's not a replacement, it can't force Moribund:Play on them while they're Moribund:Out-of-Game. Heck, I doubt it even gives Moribund:Play and instead they are not out of play and therefore the effect will fizzle because you can not return a card from out of play to in play if it is not out of play. Someone will have to find me the card text as CGDB is fried again.

You may want to read the "Moribund Cards Returning to Play" entry again - particularly the part that says "Any effect that attempts to return a moribund card to play from its moribund destination should be treated as a replacement effect that changes the card's moribund state...".