Could we consider the possibility that the passage in the rule book describing what "play" means is giving the instructions for how to "play" something, not a list of qualificaitons for something having been played?  We would still need a formal definition of what counts as "playing" something for cards that trigger from it, but when that comes it might avoid the twisting we're having to do to make the answer fit criteria we're reading into the paragraph.  Just a thought.

dbmeboy said:

That was pretty much my first argument too.  I felt like my second argument was shoehorning in the answer I wanted to be correct by carefully parsing the words in the rulebook.

When I discussed that with the playtester in messages on another forum, he said they had many discussions about those issues during playtesting and validated that indeed those seemed to be the qualifications for "played."  Honestly, I don't think there will be any potential conflict with that definition in the future so long as FFG keeps wording interrupts with cancel effects the way they did in the core set.  They always cancel the ability and not the card itself, so the cards still resolve.

Seems clunky at first glance, like unnecessary steps are added, but it does actually work.