Multiple versions of the same unique character

[Prof_werewolf 0]

Hey everyone, quick question that came up with my group.

 

How many versions of a unique character are you allowed to have in your deck? As I have always understood it, you can have a maximum of three copies of the same card in your deck. What confused some of us was whether or not this applied to different versions of characters.

 

Thanks! 

[alpha5099 71]

Within the context of this game, "same card" is defined by the name of the card. So for the purposes of deckbuilding, the Robert Baratheon that comes in the Core Set is the same card as the Robert Baratheon from Kings of the Sea and the Robert Baratheon from King's Landing, so on and so forth. You can have three cards named "Robert Baratheon" maximum in your deck, and they can be all the same version of him or three different Robert Baratheons.

Check out the Core Set rulebook, all of this can be found on page 19, which covers "Unique Cards," "Duplicates," and "Multiple Character Versions."

By the way, I love you username.

[Prof_werewolf 0]

 Awesome, thanks for the help. I have a feeling that the guys are going to want to see this spelled out by FFG but I totally agree. It would be nuts if you could have three of every variation of a unique card. At that point there would really be no point in calling it 'unique'. 

[ktom 598]

It has been spelled out by FFG. In the FAQ on page 11:

(4.8) Card Title
A player may only include up to 3 copies of a card with the same title in his or her draw deck regardless of card type. This restriction does not include the usage of plot cards.

 

Doesn't get much more spelled out than that!

 

[Prof_werewolf 0]

 You sold me. I just needed to sell it to them. 

[BARF 0]

To further this question.....

I have three versions of one unique character in my deck. I play one. He is killed. Can I play the other versions later in the game or is the character considered dead when I get the duplicate into my hand?

Thanks! Hope you get this response or I might have to start a thread for this question that has been plauging me.
 

[Ratatoskr 34]

Allow me to direct you to to Core Set rules, page 19:

"You also may not play or take control of a unique
card if there is a copy of that card in your dead
pile, or if your opponent has taken control of
another copy of that unique card from you."

Further elaborated on in the FAQ, page 9:

"(3.27) Unique Cards and Changing Control
You may not play, put into play, or take control of a unique card already in play that you own or control (except for putting a duplicate on a card that you own and control), or that is in your dead pile."

 

[ktom 598]

In short, if copy #1 of the unique card is sent to the dead pile, copies #2 and #3 are useless cards that sit there in your hand, cluttering it up until you lose them to an intrigue challenge. Or until you figure out a way to get copy #1 out of the dead pile.

[Ratatoskr 34]

ktom said:

In short, if copy #1 of the unique card is sent to the dead pile, copies #2 and #3 are useless cards that sit there in your hand, cluttering it up until you lose them to an intrigue challenge. Or until you figure out a way to get copy #1 out of the dead pile.

Unless the unique card in question has the Shadow Crest. There's nothing stopping you from playing those copies of your dead card *into Shadows*, where they can fuel The Dragonpit, reduce the cost of KL Littlefinger, turn off the abilities of KL Knight of Flowers and KL Robert, buff your characters due to Tunnels of the Red Keep and whatnot.

But that's somewhat advanced stuff, which is probably why ktom didn't mention it.

[ktom 598]

Ratatoskr said:

But that's somewhat advanced stuff, which is probably why ktom didn't mention it.

~Hence the "in short." 

I think we need a sticky thread, warning, or something that says "all answers on this board are subject to the 'unless a card effect specifically says otherwise' qualification."

[Ratatoskr 34]

ktom said:

~Hence the "in short." 

 

I just wanted to preempt the question "But can I put them into Shadows?!?". it would've come up, and you know it.

[Mighty Jim 83 2]

 Just as a thought, are there any cards which are "the same character" but with a different name?

So, for example,a s I understand it playing "Old Red Priest" at the same time of Thoros is fine, because it's not technically him, although he seems like the obvious inspiration, but what happens if they bring out a "Ser Loras Tyrrell" card- can he be in play at the same time as "Knight of Flowers?"

[ktom 598]

Mighty Jim said:

but what happens if they bring out a "Ser Loras Tyrrell" card- can he be in play at the same time as "Knight of Flowers?"

Well, first, there is no Ser Loras Tyrell card in the game. FFG chose to call the character "The Knight of Flowers" on his in-game cards.

 

But if they did create a "Ser Loras Tyrell" card, it would not be considered the same card as "The Knight of Flowers." The rules for unique cards in this game are driven entirely by the title of the card. As far as the game rules are concerned, "Ser Loras Tyrell" and "The Knight of Flowers" are not the same person.

What FFG usually does if they feel the need to create two different cards for "personas" of the same character in the books is to put limiting language on one of the cards. For example, the Cat o' the Canals card says to discard her when you also control Arya Stark. Look also at the White/Green/Black Hatchlings vs. Viserion/Rhaegal/Drogon. But they don't always do this. (Nothing is stopping you from controlling Lady Stoneheart and Catelyn Stark at the same time.)

Think of it this way: I have never read the books. I have never seen the show. My only exposure to the world of Westeros is the card game. I come to a tournament with an absolutely brilliant Stark Brotherhood deck. In the middle of a round, my opponent - wearing a "GRRM for President" T-shirt  - looks at my board and says "you can't have Lady Stoneheart and Catelyn Stark in play at the same time. They're the same person, so you are breaking the rules for unique cards!" Having never read the books (or never read beyond book 3...), how am I supposed to know that from the cards and the published rules of game? Or even more subtle, you can't tell someone they are not allowed to play Ice on one of their characters because you already have Widow's Wail on one of yours.

In the end, you can't assume everyone has the same knowledge of the source material and start changing the rules in order to be consistent with the books.

[alpha5099 71]

There are a couple of recently released cards that spell their names differently than previously released. Ser Axell Florent (it's Axel in the Core Set) and Jalabhar Xho (he'd previously been Jhalabar). In both cases, the newer cards are the proper spelling. I sent the question into FFG, Nate responded:

 

 

Yes, these cards are considered to be the same character. I'll make a note to have them updated on the next FAQ.

Thanks,

Nate French