Well, it’s certainly more ethical than Mind Control.

Because “seduce” was too blunt.

@LuminoZero  
I won’t deny that that kind of rules lawyering can be obnoxious in casual play, but I’d argue that it plays a vital role in a CCG’s development. Some rules may seem obvious–of course you can only draw from your deck or play cards from your hand–but in a game with hundreds or even thousands of cards, you can easily end up with some very non-obvious interactions, and that’s a Bad Thing for a game of strategy. Players have to know the consequences of their actions if they’re to make smart decisions, and that requires clear and unambiguous text in the rulebook and on the cards. By finding and exploiting loopholes, those weaselly munchkins you hate expose weaknesses in the game that can be corrected in future editions. (Look at how tightly written Magic: the Gathering cards are nowadays, as compared to those from early sets.)

@LuminoZero  
How I see the entire rules discussion - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8OgqtW9MDA

@Liggliluff
 
And that is the kind of mentality that makes ‘professional’ CCG atmosphere so damn caustic.
 
We all know how the game is supposed to function. Sure, some cards can be nebulous, but the concept of “You can play from your discard pile by default because the game doesn’t SAY you can’t.” is such utter bull.
 
No player actually believes that is the intent behind the rules, or that it is the correct way to play the game. You are twisting the wording of the rules to give yourself an advantage.
 
Therefore, you care more about WINNING the game than PLAYING the game.
 
You may claim it is the fault of the game, but that’s a crap excuse. It’s like blaming a faulty traffic light for you T-Boning someone.
 
-Lumino

@dynamicv  
I would assume MTG rules work - the control “stacks” so you’d gain control of the the card again, but with these two resources on it. If your opponent has a way of nullifying the resource, it would drop back to their control.

@LuminoZero  
Well, all I can find in the rules are that “play” is when a card goes into the Play Zone. From where isn’t a limit.
 
But rules are to be read as written, not interpret.

@Background Human  
That… it’s never explicitly stated anywhere. I think in this case we’d need to go with the Exception that Proves the Rule, in this case Foggy Fleece’s text describing her as being able to be played from the discard zone.

According to the devs, the rules will be updated so that a card can only have one controller.  
This means that the owner of “that Friend” will lose control of the card.
 
Now, if both players played Pony Charm on the same friend, what would happen?
 
What I think would happen:  
The two cards would say that each players has control, but the rules say that only one player can have control: a contradiction. The rules say card text has precedence in the event of a contradiction, so both players would have control.
 
An alternative:  
The devs will add another rule about control so that the most recently played Pony Charm takes precedence.

@Background Human
 
I hate that letter of the rules supersedes spirit of the rules. If I was playing against someone who tried to play a card from their discard pile because the game never explicitly said that they couldn’t, I’d get up and walk away.
 
CCG players need to stop being such rules lawyers more obsessed with WINNING than playing a game.
 
-Lumino

@Background Pony #6268  
As long as you’re looking at the Comprehensive Rules, do you see anything that says cards can only be played from their owner’s hand? ‘Cause I’m not finding it, and it seems like a massive loophole if it’s not there.

@LuminoZero  
I believe they’re referring to the distinction between controller and owner being made.
 
 
@Liggliluff  
I doubt that’s the intention, although that is certainly how it could be interpreted. There’s no actual rule that says a card can only have one controller as far as I can find. I imagine it is something that will be added with the next edition of the comprehensive rules.

@Liggliluff
 
The card says nothing about phase.
 
-Lumino

 
Just sayin’…

“(512.3) Cards with the timing phrase “[x] Phase” can be played or have their  
corresponding ability activated only to open a priority window during the  
specified Phase of their owner or controller’s turn”
 
Wouldn’t this mean that the original owner can still use their card normally?

So wait, which one of them is being controlled?

Wow, don’t think they could have worded that worse, or picked a better pony for that bad wording.