Are Force Orb/Force Sword affected by things like Defense Ring?

[exid]

the card sais: no condition, including incapacitate, restrained and daze.
but incapacitated and restraiend are no conditions
and a lot of people would think other effects than conditions doesn't affect it (for exemple the ring)
or should we read "autonomous"

... we definitively need an official ruling and/or errata!

[Super Sorcerer]

ב"ה

Force Sword/Orb undoubtedly would have been Autonomous if it had existed then. As it is, they are similar, but not the same as Autonomous, which gives rise to some peculiarities such as this.

I hope to see an official ruling that agree with you. It will make more sense to me.

[Mystery]

ב"ה

Force Sword/Orb undoubtedly would have been Autonomous if it had existed then. As it is, they are similar, but not the same as Autonomous, which gives rise to some peculiarities such as this.

I hope to see an official ruling that agree with you. It will make more sense to me.

just don't interpret such things, it is not autonomous and therefore it works with the ring. There is nothing strange about it.

Any condition doesnt alter it, anything else that does give incapacitated or restrained doesnt alter it either. A grappler that has force orb can still apply.

Long story short the defense can always be used even if restrained (no - effect or incapactitaed)

and there is no reason it gets no bonus from the ring.



The card doesnt say condition MARKER, but condition, so everything that will give the creature the condition of incapacitated, restrained and likewise will not alter the defense

[ringkichard]

The card doesnt say condition MARKER, but condition, so everything that will give the creature the condition of incapacitated, restrained and likewise will not alter the defense

Why do you think Restrained is a condition? It's a trait, like Flying.

[exid]

The card doesnt say condition MARKER, but condition

from the rules: "conditions [...] are indicate with markers"

[Mystery]

The card doesnt say condition MARKER, but condition, so everything that will give the creature the condition of incapacitated, restrained and likewise will not alter the defense

Why do you think Restrained is a condition? It's a trait, like Flying.

is it so unclear how the card is ment?

Of course it isnt worded right cause there is no condtion named restrained or incapactitated there are condtions that grant those traits, like stun, slam, and so on.

Defense ring works on orb and sword and orb and sword are uneffected by incap or restrain or daze -2s.

[exid]

is it so unclear how the card is ment?

What AW have ment doesn't help me, I play with what they have written!

I don't play these cards because I'm affraid of all the situations where we wouldn't know how to play it... It would be cool to have an official statment to translate the meanig in a rule.

[Zuberi]

is it so unclear how the card is ment?

What AW have ment doesn't help me, I play with what they have written!

I don't play these cards because I'm affraid of all the situations where we wouldn't know how to play it... It would be cool to have an official statment to translate the meanig in a rule.

Then play them how they are written. They aren't affected by restrained, incapacitated, or conditions. Don't add stuff to the card that isn't there. Yes, it's poorly worded in a way that makes incapacitated and restrained sound like conditions when they're not, but that doesn't give you a free pass to imagine the card however you want.

On a side note, if they were autonomous, defense ring would still work for them. It only doesn't work for autonomous equipment and these are not equipment.

[jacksmack]

So let me get this right...

If the creature is stunned force orb works just fine....

But if the creature is entangled then Force Orb subtracts 2?


Edit: entangled = tanglevined (sry)

[Mystery]

why?

So let me get this right...

If the creature is stunned force orb works just fine....

But if the creature is entangled then Force Orb subtracts 2?

it is restrained from a tanglevine and restrained doesnt effect it

[exid]

They aren't affected by restrained, incapacitated, or conditions.

would be perfect for me... but if my oponent thinks the text means "autonomous", how to decide?

[Zuberi]

Entangled? If you mean restrained, then no it does not subtract 2 because the card specifically mentions not being affected by restrained. Basically this entire controversy seems to revolve around some poor wording, and I agree it is somewhat poor wording, but let's take it at face value and apply the magic rule where card text overrides normal rules. In that case, this card is counting restrained and incapacitated as conditions, despite them not being such in the normal rules, for the purposes of the cards defense being immune to it. But otherwise, it's only immune to conditions and does not redefine that term any further. So, it ignores restrained, incapacitated, and conditions, and nothing else per the card text.

They aren't affected by restrained, incapacitated, or conditions.

would be perfect for me... but if my oponent thinks the text means "autonomous", how to decide?

Look to see if autonomous is printed on the card anywhere. It's not. Thus it's not autonomous.

[exid]

A bad wording problem can't be solved by presenting arguments... only by the writer correcting it.

[Zuberi]

Don't confuse agreeing with the fact the card could have been worded better with agreeing there is a problem. You said yourself that you play by how things are written. If you play this card by how it's written, then there is no problem.

[Kelanen]

They aren't affected by restrained, incapacitated, or conditions.

would be perfect for me... but if my oponent thinks the text means "autonomous", how to decide?

It's only Autonomous if it says it is, which is clearly isn't.

Lots of Academy cards have text that is the same as <foo> Trait in Arena, but they don't have <foo> for anything that cares, they just have a text with identical ability. This is a long way from a unique situation.

As was posted above, if you read the (latest card version) wording exactly as it is, without interpreting or assuming anything else, then you will be right 99% of the time. There are exceptions (like Purify and Stranglevine that have been ruled, but need to make it into an official document), but 99% of the time you are golden, and this is such an example.