Because of FAQ 3.42, the "moribund:return to play" card ends up losing all attachments, power, and lasting effects on it as part of being "returned to play" in Step 6 of the action window (when moribund cards are moved to their "destinations").

Why would the character lose its lasting effect? I agree about attachment and power tokens because the FAQ specifically says so, but nothing is specified for lasting effect.

Sinnce the card does not physically leaves play, she should still be affected by lasting and constant effects.

Because the card is considered to have left play. Yeah, I know that it technically never does leave play, but the FAQ entry says that it should be treated that way.

Or, if you prefer logic to a "because the FAQ says so" statement, remember that all lasting effects are terminated when the affected card leaves play, whether the duration is over or not. This happens whether the player wants it to or not. That means lasting effects are scrubbed passively (i.e., without player choice) as a result of the card leaving play. Therefore, scrubbing lasting effects falls under the FAQ's statement that the card is considered to have left play "for the purpose of responses and passive effects." Now, those lasting effects are still applied while the card is moribund, but the moment the moribund card leaves the moribund state, those effects are GONE. There's no reason to think this would be different for a card leaving the "moribund:return to play" state for its final destination (which just happens to be where it started from).

So there is an explanation; it just might be easier to explain that when the FAQ says "considered to have left play for the purposes of passive effect." that includes lasting effect duration.

Ok, but I cannot find in the rules anything saying that all lasting effects are terminated when the affected cards leaves play.

It says so only for attachments.

I bet you play that all lasting effects are terminated when the affected cards leave play, whether you realize it or not. Otherwise, Narrow Escape wouldn't be very effective against burn (for example).

It's an extension of the fact that, "In general, card effects ... are not considered to be actionable unless the card specifically states that it can be triggered while in its out-of-play state." (FAQ 3.14). Card effects that are meant to work on cards that are in-play do not work on cards that leave play, which then have "no memory" that they were once affected, or what their game state/condition was when they left play.

We agree that the card does not technically leaves play. The FAQ entry says it should be treated this way for the purpose of responses and passives effect.

For all other purposes, the card is Moribund and should be treated as if "In play".

If I get your reasonning, you are saying that effects wear off passively. So from the point of view of these lasting effects the card should be treated as "out-of-play" and according to FAQ (3.14) the effect should NOT apply. Why would you think these effects still apply until Step 6)? Effects do not have Moribund states, they are applicable or they aren't.

For instance, Maegi Crone effect can be triggered on a character with 0 STR in Moribund state:dead pile because the character still has 0 STR : if the burn effect had wore off passively the moment the character become Moribund, Maegri Crone could not be triggered because the character would have his STR back to original value.

Assuming effects can wear off passively hence leads to wierd situations. The rules does not say that if an effect wears off passively he should continue applying until Step 6). Additionaly, the rules do not say that effects wear off passively. They just wear off when the card physically leaves play.

So, in my opinion, effects do not wear off as a passive. So, we cannot apply the FAQ entry considering the card has left play for the purpose of passive effects.

Instead, we should apply the entry saying that the card is "In play" for all other purposes. Since it is in play and stays in play at Step 6), there is at no point a possibility for the lasting effects affecting the card to wear off.

Oh boy... I knew that Three Eyed Crow would come back to haunt us. Terribly templated card and FAQ entry. They totally botched it.

For reference:

"(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." - FAQ pg. 12

I 100% agree with what you're saying. They totally botched the rules here. That being said, Ktom's interpretation is likely the interpretation you will get from the majority of TOs for tournaments that you play in.

On a side note, Narrow Escape cards actually leave play. This means that the card being returned to play is a different instance than the card that left play and is justification for why any Lasting Effects would no longer apply. (Although this too is playing convention and probably not supported by the FAQ either)

Without citing rules and providing a huge analysis, "Moribund Cards Returning to Play" to me means it left play.

"... put that character into play knelt under your control." to me also means it had left play.

When a card leaves play, lasting effects that were applying directly to that card are lifted from it. This should also include character ability limits that the character may have had triggered previously(Robb Stark - Lords of Winter for example).

Perhaps this is just me trying not to over think this effect and the FAQ entry. It is just way too exhausting and I don't feel like pretending to be a magic robot today. Usually I pretend to be a magic robot on Fridays, so maybe I'll have more to say by then. NOT.

This also means the character would be removed from the current challenge if it was participating in it, right?

This also means the character would be removed from the current challenge if it was participating in it, right?

This is a really good thing to point out.

To make the effect clear, the character should be treated like a brand new character that comes into play. Almost like you just marshalled it with Flea Bottom.

Assuming effects can wear off passively hence leads to wierd situations. The rules does not say that if an effect wears off passively he should continue applying until Step 6). Additionaly, the rules do not say that effects wear off passively. They just wear off when the card physically leaves play.

I will admit that my discussion of "wear off passively" was confusing. I was trying to tie my thinking into the wording of the FAQ, and obviously did not do a very good job.

The key difference in our reasoning is in your statement "They wear off when the card physically leaves play." I would phrase it as "They wear off when the card is removed from the moribund state." Up until CotTEC, those two statements meant exactly the same thing, but, as mcd273 points out, the design of CotTEC creates some difference between the two.

Remember, "moribund" is supposed to be a transition between "in-play" and "out-of-play." As such, CotTEC kind of "misuses" moribund by ultimately creating a transition between "in-play" and "in-play."

A (normal) moribund card isn't fully in or out of play, but is actually a little of both. Think of it this way: when you play Dissension on my Ally, is it discarded in Step 3 (when the event resolves), or is it discarded in Step 6 (when it physically leaves the table). The answer is "both," depending on what you want to know for. Said another way, you argue that the lasting effect just wears off when the card physically leaves play (Step 6). But if I have a card that says "after a lasting effect on one of your characters ends before it's set duration...", isn't the appropriate time to play that in Step 4 or 5, depending on the type of effect (even though the effect hasn't worn off yet)?

Anyway, because "moribund" is a transitional state - and the card is considered to have been killed (in the case of CotTEC) while in that state - the sole emphasis on the physical removal from play is probably inappropriate. Or at least it has become inappropriate now that we have, for the first time ever, the possibility that a card will NOT be physically removed from play at the same time it is removed from the moribund state.

So, my position is that it is more consistent now that "moribund" does not necessarily mean "about to be physically removed from the table" to say that if there is a lasting effect on a moribund card, the lasting effect terminates when the card is removed from the moribund state, wherever it's final destination happens to be.

Ultimately, I think this is more consistent with the fact that CotTEC is not a save, and the kill is considered to have actually happened.

Thankfully none of the games where I've had 3EC in my deck have encountered edge cases where scrupulous analysis beyond "RTFC" have been required. If it comes up, I'm more than willing to consider 3.42 to be a complete Errata for that card and just play it as the FAQ states, on the basis of "they printed a broken card and they had to fix it."

Can we go back to the "dies during challenge" thing? If Lasting Effects end, then I assume the character is also removed from the challenge after 3EC?

I think you are right mdc273.

The FAQ specifies that the character loses attachment and tokens : it does not specify that he is removed from the challenge.

You may say : why bother specifying that lasting effects wear off / that he would be removed from challenge, since it is like this as per the rules (refer to ktom detailed explanation)?

But the FAQ did specify that tokens are discarded. That is, because it is not granted by the rules, just as lasting effects and participation to challenge.

Of course ktom may also be right that moribund might also means something else that being about to be removed physically from the table. IMO we should ask FFG Nate guidance.

Can we go back to the "dies during challenge" thing? If Lasting Effects end, then I assume the character is also removed from the challenge after 3EC?

Yes.

What it comes down to is that the character that CotTEC "returns" to play dies. It is returned to play pretty much immediately, but the kill must be successful before CotTEC can be played.

The fact that the card enters a moribund state means that it has been successfully removed from play and is on its way out. Although it is redirected from the dead pile to "in play," that doesn't change the fact the character was killed. In my opinion, it should be treated the same as any other card that is killed and returned to play (meaning that it is treated as a "brand new" character), even though it has technically never been completely removed from play. To me, this interpretation would be consistent with the "moribund" rules as they stand for all other moribund states, rather than having to carve out exceptions that make "moribund:remain in play" work differently from every other "moribund:(whatever)" state.

So yeah, I see CotTEC as working like an "immediate" Narrow Escape for a single character. Lasting effects and challenge participation end (making it effective against burn, btw...), but ability limits "reset."

I agree with Bolzano, though, that the only way you're going to know for sure whether a card going through the "moribund:remains in play" transition suffers the same consequences as a card going through any other "moribund" transition is to double-check with FFG.

Cool. I can get behind that.

Answer from Nate:

Yes, lasting effects and game state (such as participating in a challenge) should wash/ reset during step 6, when the moribund state expires.

Heh. Cool. Did everyone notice that Nate's answer also confirms that if the character is kneeling (a game state) when it dies, CotTEC "returns" it to play standing (the default/reset of that game state)?

You really do treat the character as if it hit the dead pile and returned to play.

Doesn't CotTEC say to return it to play kneeling?

I think that ktom meant the character would return to play standing IF CotTEC did not specify that he is knelt.

That's what I get for reading the ruling but not the card.

I stand corrected.

That's what I get for reading the ruling but not the card.

I stand corrected.

You're right in a generic sense. It's the card that returns it to play knelt, so if there was another card that did Moribund:Return to Play that did not specify the knelt condition it would return standing.

#FFGOfficialResponseCallOfTheThree-EyedCrow

People who ask for card errata should probably do something like this from now on.

#FFGOfficialResponseCallOfTheThree-EyedCrow

People who ask for card errata should probably do something like this from now on.

Why? Would it help?

#FFGOfficialResponseCallOfTheThree-EyedCrow

People who ask for card errata should probably do something like this from now on.

Why? Would it help?

I think it'd make it easier to search for them. Like if we knew #FFGOfficialResponse linked to all threads with an official response, you could just search that and pull up all the threads and posts quickly. #FFGOfficialResponseCardName would let you search for official responses involving specific cards.

So I think it would help? I don't use the search feature that much and not since the update to the site, but it was sometimes hard to find specific posts.

Edit: Just tried it. Looks like the search function is very specific. It was only finding exact matches and not partial matches (#FFGOfficialResponse only returned this post while #FFGOfficialResponseCallOfTheThree-EyedCrow found all three posts)

So maybe #FFGOfficialResponse #CallOfTheThree-EyedCrow

Edit 2: Actually CallOfTheThree-EyedCrow found all of them... Interesting. Still would have to separate the #FFGOfficialResponse portion, though.

http://xkcd.com/927/

http://xkcd.com/927/

Dude, you forget to mention that this is a relevant XKCD. Also, I don't think it's that relevant... >.>

What standard do we have? I know of zero. That one thread that tried to do it degenerated into random discussions about rulings that just clouded the actual posts regarding the official responses.