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

[Zuberi]

I really don't mean to be rude or mean and hope I'm not offending. I agree that the card could have been written better so that it didn't refer to restrained and incapacitated as conditions. I also agree that it is the precursor to autonomous. But it is not autonomous. You can submit the suggestion to errata it, and I think that's just fine, but where we disagree is that it's not clear as written. Perhaps this is a case of me being too familiar with the rules to see the problem, but it seems to me to be an issue of people trying too hard to read between the lines and put things in that aren't there. Just do what the card says.

[exid]

Hey! no problem! I like the discussions here!

It's just I think that a card shoudn't present restrained and incapacitated as conditions, it's confusing. MW is complex enough, let's make simple what is.
I just wanted Laddinfance to tell us what they meant, and if it is "neither conditions nor restrained nor incapacitated", that would be a necessary wording errata for me.

[exid]

The word "including" is the problem here... and perhaps it's linked to my poor english...

in french, "incuding" means that what follows is part of what came first (here restraiend would be a condition).

I found another card that uses "including" in the same strange way for me: mana prism.
a loss of mana caused by a spell, "including upkeep costs"... but the spell would cause the upkeep cost, not the loss!

[Zuberi]

You are correct that such things are not normally categorized in such a way. However, you seem to be forgetting the Magic Rule where the card can override the normal rules of the game. Including isn't a problem, because the card takes precedence. Meaning that if it says they're included then they are included.

So, basically what's happening here is the card is redefining the term Condition to include Restrained and Incapacitated for the express purposes of ignoring them when using its Defense. People are then wondering what all this new non-standard definition of Condition might include in addition to these, completely missing the fact that it has already been 100% defined for you. It adds Restrained and Incapacitated to the normal list of conditions, for the purposes of ignoring them when using its Defense. That's all the card says, and so that's all it does. This may not be the way you or I would have chosen to write the card, but it does function just fine. There's no room for interpretation or confusion anywhere other than people trying to imagine that it says stuff that it doesn't.

Since it works just fine, I disagree that any errata is necessary. Errata might make you and I happier about the word choice, but AW doesn't tend to put out unnecessary errata just to satisfy aesthetic requests. As you point out, these aren't the only spells to be written like this either.

[Kelanen]

You are correct that such things are not normally categorized in such a way. However, you seem to be forgetting the Magic Rule where the card can override the normal rules of the game. Including isn't a problem, because the card takes precedence. Meaning that if it says they're included then they are included.

With respect, that is smoke and mirrors - the magic rule is about a card rule breaking a general rule, not malformed sentence construction.

"General case, including specific example" requires the 'specific example(s)' be a subset of the 'general case'. It's not a case of abnormal usage, it's syntactically incorrect. There's nothing wrong with Exid's comprehension of English, just that of whoever templated that card, as well as all those proofreading and editing it. Clearly no professional editors involved...

I don't think it needs errata, because whilst the sentences in question can't possibly mean what they say, there is also little doubt as to what they are trying to say (as long as AW don't create conditions sharing these names!). Both examples warrant a clarification entry in the FAQ document though.