When you control a creature, you control the equipment.
When you take control of an equipped creature, you control the equipment attached to the creature. It is simply illogical to say that if I take control of a creature, and the equipment is still attached to the creature, that the other player can still control the equipment. That's just stupid, no explanation of game logic would suffice here. If I take control of your equipped creature and attack you with it, the equipment still damages the player being attacked, right? This needs to be a ruling, because if that is ACTUALLY the rule, that's just stupid and makes no sense.
Big Willy#96233
shared this idea
-
Cornelius Elegans#57428
commented
1. It is definitely not the rules that gaining control of a creature also means gaining control of any attached equipment.
2. The rules are likely written that way to avoid making temporary control spells OP. Consider the following undesirable play pattern:
(a) You put in some effort to play and attach The Spear of Bashenga to an Ornithopter. (Total mana spent by you: 7.)
(b) I cast Claim the Firstborn, gaining control of both Ornithopter and the Spear for one mana.
(c) Because I control the Spear, I can now activate its Equip ability, so I equip it to my Llanowar Elves.
(d) At end of turn, you regain control of the Ornithopter. But I get to keep the Spear, because it's equipping my creature. (Total mana spent by me: 3.)
A similar (but worse) situation would occur with, e.g., any card with Living Weapon or with Elbrus, the Binding Blade. -
Rezzahan#77802
commented
It's also illogical to put shoes on a snake, or load up a bird with sowrds. Point to a rule, that gives you control of the equipment when you take control of the creature (hint: you won't find one). Otherwise, the rules for who controls a permanent apply, regardless of who controls what it is attached to.