I suppose if someone i actually checking the emails today, now is the time to send questions in. :)

 Yep, getting an answer from FFG on a rules question is something really to be impressed on. Happened to me only once, and it was prompted by posting some rather un-gentleman like phrases on the forum.

@Penfold:

It's a bit of a moot point since it has already been answered by the rules guys, but your Events argument doesn't hold water.

The crux of the question is:

Due to templating it is (was before the self-reference ruling) impossible to distinguish between a passive ability and a playing restriction (I am using restriction loosely here, including all prescription on cost and timing (lower the cost to play this, play this only if it is night, etc...)).

Since Doppelgirl faq basically allowed passives to work before cards get played (yeah, picture me thrilled), there is (was) no actual way to discriminate between the two.

Events do not actually enter the picture as they cannot, by definition, have passive abilities thus all the lower this text had to be a playing restriction.

Penfold said:

I got two main problems with this. One being that Advisor/Worshipper do refer to itself (and others). It doesn't refer to its title which is what (I assume) they meant but thats leads me to my second problem. That defense is about as weak as my condition defense (maybe a little stronger, but not by much).

However if that is what they are gonna go with then so be it. Really I don't have problem with cards playing the way they we all thought they did. Just more square pegs and round holes though which... I can't say that I'm a fan of as it may lead to another problem down the road.

It has nothing to do with whether something is a constant passive or a triggered passive and lowering cost is not a restriction since it does not curtail anything.

Self-referential means in this context it refers to itself directly, by name, not inference of sub-type or faction, or which icons are present. The rules already require us to check on title before playing a card, the text for self-referential is saying what to do with cards with that name.

Nothing weak there. The logic is perfectly sound. IT also happens to be the way all the other LCG's work, so it is also not at all surprising.

Then again I'm not the best person to explain this to you. Ask the developers.

I said title, I meant name. Not sure why I did that.

@ Pen - Ya, we're on the same page here except for the perfectly sound part I guess which is moot for as long as nothing comes that would conflict with the ruling.

However, what makes it a square peg is that the round hole is normally a card can reference and/or affect itself by not only its name but any symbol and/or readable text. This ruling now adds the square peg, "unless its being played."

Which is mostly tributed to the Twilight Gate ruling that a card can reference and/or target anything if it specifically mentions it.

Still, it works. As much as I enjoyed the alternate reality of being able to play the advisor for 2... things are back to normal. I do believe that it is just an important enough of a clarification that it is FAQ worthy though.

Normally a card can only effect anything when it is in play. You are trying to extend the logic of such interaction outside of the games rules and as such you are going to run into logical inconsistencies. The self-referential bit is what determines that the effect is active before the card has entered play so it necessarily operates by a different rule.

Because we have the text telling us the ability affects how this card is played rather than cards like this we must treat it differently. Two separate effects that seem similar on the surface, but are in fact very different.

Penfold said:

Like I said, we're on the same page. With one exception... sort of, but not really. Until now, we had no offical way of telling the difference between name targeted and subtype targeted for cost related effects. The wording was the same and with the rules we had in place at the time demanded that we treated them the same.

Now, we have our bandaid that specifially seperates the two:

Only effects that either specificaly mention that they can apply or that targets its name can an effect be applied while the card is not in play. Otherwise it can only be applied while the effect is in play.

(wording still may not be right, but its close)

Not that this is necessarily a bad way to patch things up, but since it's so specific and conflicts with other rulings (mainly Twilight Gate, or at least how I've been interepting the Twilight Gate ruling) I believe it is FAQ worthy. Main reason being that we have nothing concrete, on paper, to back up this ruling. Player instinct got us this far, but it is a matter of time before someone gets them confused and the odds of them reading your post giving us the ruling is slim.

Though, it truely is up to them to decide to add it and I certainly don't expect anything for quite some time since we just got an update. Till then, this thread goes in my favorites list so if need be I can point to it. :)

It would be helpful if you could copy and paste the official rules question response here.  Then TO's could attached it as an addendum to the current FAQ so players do not have an avenue for arguing the ruling as anything less than official.

Magnus Arcanis said:

What Twilight Gate ruling? How does it conflict?