Jump to content



Photo

Breaking and Entering vs Widow's Wail


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Cloudy57

Cloudy57

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:07 PM

Raise hand to ask a question for the first time~

In the situation that the plot "breaking and entering" is revealed and a "widow's wail" (owned and controlled by the opponent) has already been in play, can I control another "widows wail" which discarded from the opponent's hands as the claim of an Intrigue challenge by the plot effect?

Breaking and Entering

"Intrigue Gambit    Any attachment or location card that would be discarded from any player's hand as part of the claim of an int. challenge may be put into play by the winner of the challenge, under his or her control. "



#2 Underworld40k

Underworld40k

    Member

  • Members
  • 347 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:19 PM

Cloudy57 said:

Raise hand to ask a question for the first time~

In the situation that the plot "breaking and entering" is revealed and a "widow's wail" (owned and controlled by the opponent) has already been in play, can I control another "widows wail" which discarded from the opponent's hands as the claim of an Intrigue challenge by the plot effect?

Breaking and Entering

"Intrigue Gambit    Any attachment or location card that would be discarded from any player's hand as part of the claim of an int. challenge may be put into play by the winner of the challenge, under his or her control. "



Pretty sure you can, the rules for unique cards mean that you can not play or take control of any card in your dead pile or already under your control (aside from duplicates obviously). As it is the opponent who has the copy of the unique card in play you break none of those restrictions. I think Joff should probably keep a better eye on his valuable weapons. 



#3 Whizzwang

Whizzwang

    Member

  • Members
  • 78 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:36 AM

 I'm on the thinking side of no you can't.

While you control it, it is a copy of a unique card your opponent owns in play.

If you attack with Reek and steal a Red Viper. If your opponent draws another Red Viper he cannot play it because one of his copies is already in play.



#4 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,717 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:56 AM

Whizzwang said:

If you attack with Reek and steal a Red Viper. If your opponent draws another Red Viper he cannot play it because one of his copies is already in play.
But that's not the same thing at all.

As Underworld points out, the rules do not say "there cannot be two copies of a unique card owned by the same person in play at the same time." They say "you cannot play or put into play a unique card if there is another copy that you own or control already in play." It matters a lot that the rule talks about what players can do, instead of talking about an "illegal game state" as a result of some action.

So, in the original example, when you pull Widow's Wail you say "I am trying to put into play a copy of a unique attachment; do I own or control a copy of this attachment already? No? Is there a copy of it in my dead pile? No? Then there is nothing preventing me from putting the card into play." What your opponent owns, controls, or has in his dead pile never comes into it.

This is similar to the reasoning that if you have a copy of a unique character in play, then someone puts a copy of that same unique into your dead pile (say with Aegon's Hill), nothing happens to the copy that is already in play. It's not having a unique character in play and in your dead pile at the same time that is illegal; it is the action of playing/putting the unique character into play while a copy is in your dead pile that is illegal.



#5 Grimwalker

Grimwalker

    Member

  • Members
  • 687 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 02:28 AM

Don't have the rulebook in front of me to check the exact wording, but I expect it will come up sooner or later given the success of Bruno's deck choices…

I have Aeron Damphair (KotS) in play. I tend not to dupe him since the whole point is to dare my opponent to kill him. I have another copy in hand I'm saving for after he goes to the bottom of my deck.

My opponent plucks him from my hand with Aegon's Hill. (One of the few ways to actually get him in the dead pile without blanking I'd wager.)

Next draw phase, I draw my 3rd copy of him. Knowing that I won't get to replay him if he gets killed now, I'm inclined to attach the dupe. Can I do so; is the attaching of a dupe a "play or put into play" effect?



#6 Underworld40k

Underworld40k

    Member

  • Members
  • 347 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 02:36 AM

 Im almost certain you are able to play the dupe, the exact wording is that duplicates 'have no text, titles, or traits', so from the mechanical point of view no card called aeron damphair is played, so it does not check the dead pile condition.



#7 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,717 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 02:38 AM

Playing the dupe is putting something into play, but it is putting a dupe - a card without text, title, trait, or crest - into play. No rules conflict in your situation. 



#8 Cloudy57

Cloudy57

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 04:41 PM

Thank you Underworld.



#9 Cloudy57

Cloudy57

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 04:44 PM

Much thanks to Ktom.

I really love the expansion of rules discussion~~~~~~O(∩_∩)O



#10 Uncle Joker

Uncle Joker

    Member

  • Members
  • 140 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 06:16 PM

ktom said:

Whizzwang said:

If you attack with Reek and steal a Red Viper. If your opponent draws another Red Viper he cannot play it because one of his copies is already in play.

But that's not the same thing at all.

 

As Underworld points out, the rules do not say "there cannot be two copies of a unique card owned by the same person in play at the same time." They say "you cannot play or put into play a unique card if there is another copy that you own or control already in play." It matters a lot that the rule talks about what players can do, instead of talking about an "illegal game state" as a result of some action.

So, in the original example, when you pull Widow's Wail you say "I am trying to put into play a copy of a unique attachment; do I own or control a copy of this attachment already? No? Is there a copy of it in my dead pile? No? Then there is nothing preventing me from putting the card into play." What your opponent owns, controls, or has in his dead pile never comes into it.

This is similar to the reasoning that if you have a copy of a unique character in play, then someone puts a copy of that same unique into your dead pile (say with Aegon's Hill), nothing happens to the copy that is already in play. It's not having a unique character in play and in your dead pile at the same time that is illegal; it is the action of playing/putting the unique character into play while a copy is in your dead pile that is illegal.

 

Core set Rule book, P19.

Unique Cards

"Each player may only have one copy of a unique card in play."

Here, we have a word "HAVE", i treat it as "own" instead of "control", so I think you can not control a opponent's Widow if the opponent already have his own in play. Otherwise, the opponent will "HAVE" two copy of a unique card in play, which is not allowed.



#11 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,717 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 07:07 PM

Uncle Joker said:

Here, we have a word "HAVE", i treat it as "own" instead of "control", so I think you can not control a opponent's Widow if the opponent already have his own in play. Otherwise, the opponent will "HAVE" two copy of a unique card in play, which is not allowed.
When referring to a player's cards in play, "have" always means "control" in this game, unless otherwise specified. The opponent does not "have" 2 copies in play.

Let's say that I'm playing a Stark Bolton deck. I lose control of my Flayed Men to you. Then I initiate a military challenge. You defend with the "captured" Flayed Men. I win the challenge. Can I play Die By the Sword ("Response: After you win a  MIL challenge in which you have at least 1 participating WAR character, choose and kill 1 character controlled by the losing opponent. Limit 1 per challenge."), even though none of the attackers I declared had the WAR crest because I own the defender you declared (that does have the WAR crest)?



#12 Uncle Joker

Uncle Joker

    Member

  • Members
  • 140 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:53 PM

ktom said:

Uncle Joker said:

Here, we have a word "HAVE", i treat it as "own" instead of "control", so I think you can not control a opponent's Widow if the opponent already have his own in play. Otherwise, the opponent will "HAVE" two copy of a unique card in play, which is not allowed.

When referring to a player's cards in play, "have" always means "control" in this game, unless otherwise specified. The opponent does not "have" 2 copies in play.

 

Let's say that I'm playing a Stark Bolton deck. I lose control of my Flayed Men to you. Then I initiate a military challenge. You defend with the "captured" Flayed Men. I win the challenge. Can I play Die By the Sword ("Response: After you win a  MIL challenge in which you have at least 1 participating WAR character, choose and kill 1 character controlled by the losing opponent. Limit 1 per challenge."), even though none of the attackers I declared had the WAR crest because I own the defender you declared (that does have the WAR crest)?

 

If "HAVE" is treated as "Control", it makes sense.

Thank you.



#13 MrFixit

MrFixit

    Member

  • Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 01:28 AM

To be deleted - double post



#14 MrFixit

MrFixit

    Member

  • Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 01:31 AM

ktom said:

Playing the dupe is putting something into play, but it is putting a dupe - a card without text, title, trait, or crest - into play. No rules conflict in your situation. 

 

Can you elaborate on that?

 

I think that there are several threads about Red Viper in combination with No use for grief.

 

If putting dupes into play is not the same as putting a character into play then it is not possible to put lets say all sand and snaked with dupes into play which was several times mentioned as possible.



#15 Underworld40k

Underworld40k

    Member

  • Members
  • 347 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:21 AM

No use for gief lets you search your deck for any sand sankes and put them into play, the faq and rules tell us that when a unique character is put into play by an effect ,and there is an existing copy in play, it becomes a duplicate. My usual example is catelyn stark from LoW, i can put her into play with her ability and then should some unforseen deadly effect pop in like 'your writ small' i can play another copy with her ability which then attaches as a dupe letting me save cat from the kill effect.

Because no use for giref reads 'Kneel 3 influence to search for any number of Sand Snake characters and put them into play instead if The Red Viper was just killed' you can search for any number of sandsnakes, including dupes, and then put them into play as one effect, which means they enter with dupes and all.



#16 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,778 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:24 AM

MrFixit said:

ktom said:

 

Playing the dupe is putting something into play, but it is putting a dupe - a card without text, title, trait, or crest - into play. No rules conflict in your situation. 

 

 

 

Can you elaborate on that?

 

I think that there are several threads about Red Viper in combination with No use for grief.

 

If putting dupes into play is not the same as putting a character into play then it is not possible to put lets say all sand and snaked with dupes into play which was several times mentioned as possible.

The duplicates of Sand Snakes meet the criteria of the search effect before they enter play.  Cards are not considered duplicates in your hand, deck, shadows area, etc.  They become duplicates when they enter play, but before hand they contain all the original properties of their character card.



#17 Underworld40k

Underworld40k

    Member

  • Members
  • 347 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:48 AM

Much better then the drivil that was my attempt at an explanation Bomb!



#18 MrFixit

MrFixit

    Member

  • Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:56 PM

I see, so as long as the card is not in play it has all its traits etc, and can therefor be found as a sand snake in the deck, the moment it is about to enter the play it looses its traits (etc)  as it becomes a dupe..

 



#19 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,717 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 01:52 AM

It is more accurate to say "it enters play as a dupe with no traits, etc." than to say "it becomes a dupe when it is about the enter play."

The transition from "Sand Snake character" to "dupe" happens as part of the transition from "out of play" to "in play." It's not something that happens before or when the card is "about" to enter play.

 






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS