breaking and entering

[Khudzlin 734]

The situation: player A owns and controls a unique location; Breaking and Entering is revealed; player B wins an INT challenge against player A; a copy of that same unique location ends up as part of the claim. What happens next?

1. Player B puts it into play
2. It is discarded

Card text:

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.

 

[dcdennis 39]

 I'm confused.....Where is the potential conflict? Why wouldn't the location just go into play under the control of player B? Even if player B had that unique location out as well i imagine that the new one would just become a dupe.

[Bomb 66]

Because of this FAQ entry:

"(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.
Thus you cannot take control of a unique
character that you already have in play. You
cannot play a unique card if your opponent has
taken control of another copy of that unique
card that you own."

 

Based on this, I would think that if you yourself already have a copy of that unique card out and you grabbed it out of the opponents hand for INT claim, it would just get discarded.  Otherwise even if the opponent already had a copy out, I believe you would be able to use it since there is no restriction I can see that states otherwise.  This would certainly be annoying for the opponent if you discarded their in play copy while you had control of his because that would keep him from playing a new copy.

[dcdennis 39]

Bomb said:

Because of this FAQ entry:

"(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.
Thus you cannot take control of a unique
character that you already have in play. You
cannot play a unique card if your opponent has
taken control of another copy of that unique
card that you own."

 

Based on this, I would think that if you yourself already have a copy of that unique card out and you grabbed it out of the opponents hand for INT claim, it would just get discarded.  Otherwise even if the opponent already had a copy out, I believe you would be able to use it since there is no restriction I can see that states otherwise.  This would certainly be annoying for the opponent if you discarded their in play copy while you had control of his because that would keep him from playing a new copy.

 

Nothing in the OP goes against what is in that FAQ entry so I still don't see where the confusion is.

[Khudzlin 734]

I'm asking here because on the French forum, some players argue that having 2 copies of a unique card owned by the same player is an illegal game state, quoting the coreset rules (page 19):

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

They argue that "have" can be interpreted as "own" and that makes a single player owning 2 copies of a unique card in play an illegal game state. Personally, I agree with you, dh, for the reason you quoted. Since that plot is a reprint, there might have been a clarification back then. If not, I'd still like an expert or official view on the matter.

[ktom 598]

Bomb's analysis is completely correct.

dh098017 said:

Nothing in the OP goes against what is in that FAQ entry so I still don't see where the confusion is.

I can see several possible points of confusion for a new player:

1. Not having read the FAQ. (Heck, a lot of folks who are NOT new players fall victim to that. A lot.)

2. If you are not paying attention to the full implications of the "under your control" part of the effect, it is totally possible to get thrown by the fact that you do not OWN the copy on the unique card you are trying to put into play. If you don't see that your control trumps their ownership, it's easy to think the fact that they have a copy of it in play would matter. (Of course, it doesn't - as the FAQ entry points out.)

3. Timing confusion. It may not be plain to someone that the location enters play under their control. They may think it enters play under its owners control, and they you take control of it. (That situation would put it in play as a dupe - which you would then take control of...?)

4. The opposite situation works out completely differently. As Bomb points out, if I have a unique location in play, then get a copy of the same card when winning an INT off of you, I CAN'T put it in play as a dupe on mine (because I must own and control the dupe). Many players want things to look the same, no matter which side of the table it happens on.

[Khudzlin 734]

Thanks for the confirmation, Ktom.

[ktom 598]

Khudzlin said:

I'm asking here because on the French forum, some players argue that having 2 copies of a unique card owned by the same player is an illegal game state, quoting the coreset rules (page 19):

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

They argue that "have" can be interpreted as "own" and that makes a single player owning 2 copies of a unique card in play an illegal game state. Personally, I agree with you, dh, for the reason you quoted. Since that plot is a reprint, there might have been a clarification back then. If not, I'd still like an expert or official view on the matter.

In absolutely every situation imaginable in the game, words like "have" and "your" refer to control, not ownership. "Own" is always spelled out. "Control" is the default during a game.

Read all of the rule book entry there.

"Each player may only have one copy of a unique card in play. Thus, you cannot put into play or take control of a unique card which you already own or control."

That second sentence clarifies the first. It makes "control" operative in the "have one copy" definition, telling you what needs to happen in order to follow that "each player may only have..." rule. If I put a unique card into play that you own, but I now control, even when you already have a copy in play, what part of that "thus" statement am I violating? None, right? So we have not entered an illegal game state - any more than putting my copy of the unique Grey Wind attachment onto your Robb Stark, who already has your copy of the Grey Wind attachment on him, would.

[Bolzano2 0]

Control is the default - I'm not quite sure:

"The Red Viper
The Red Viper Unique Gold (5) STR (3) Military Intrigue Power Noble
[Martell Character]
Lord.

Renown. Immune to events and character abilities.
The Red Viper does not kneel to attack an opponent who controls more characters than you."

It does not say "an opponent who have more characters than you."

Same here :

"Holding the Trident
Holding the Trident Gold Inc (3) Initiative (4) Claim (1)
[Neutral Plot]

While you control fewer characters than any opponent, each character you control gets +2 STR."
 

Though I'm not native English speaker, I usually use the word "have" meaning "own".

Concerning the whole rule entry, I'd say the "Thus..." part is just a clarification/consequence of the previous sentence and in no way equivalent.

In addition, even we assumed "had" meant "control" here, the "Thus..." part would add additional information instead of being just a consequence, which is a logic non sense. In all likelyhood "have" should just be understood as "own or control", I guess.

In addition, it is more consistent that a player can never own two copies of an unique card (though this is not a valid point).

It would be interesting to bring up some examples were have means control.
 

[ktom 598]

All of your examples use the word "control." Your argument thus being that since they do not use the word "have" instead, "have" must mean own instead of control. Choosing one word over another doesn't really prove that the other word could NOT have been used.

Bolzano said:

Though I'm not native English speaker, I usually use the word "have" meaning "own".

I have your car. The cards I have belong to Bolanzo. You have your mother's eyes. "If you have more than one opponent..."

In English, "have" goes a lot deeper than a synonym for "own."

Bolzano said:

It would be interesting to bring up some examples were have means control.

Dawn: "Challenges:If attached chatacter os participating in a challenge in which an opponent has more participating characters than you, kneel Dawn to choose and kill a participating character."  - Are you counting participating characters the players own or control? According to you, "own."

Tunnels of the Red Keep: "Your characters get +1 STR for each card you have in Shadows." - The card I take control of from your discard pile and put into Shadows under my control with Balon Greyjoy doesn't count, I take it?

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.  - So, if I win a challenge, attacking with just the copy of The Flayed Men I got from you, I can't play the event because I don't own the WAR character?

Seems pretty clear in all of those, we should be looking at characters and cards that you control, rather than simply own.

 

Now you give some examples where the word "have" means "own" and not "control."

[Bolzano2 0]

In all of those, what is pretty clear is that both own or control could fit.

Some cards are more precise and say clearly "control", and some other cards says "own".

I'm starting to get your point about "have". But when you say you have my car.. well don't I also have this car?

So if I'm forbidden to have it, isn't it illegal?

So, I wonder if you think it's very clear from the English wording or if it would deserve a clarification?

[Bomb 66]

I view "have" being more of being in possession.

If someone is controlling my character because of Seductive Promise, they don't own the character, but they certainly have it and I don't.  But I still own the character.

[Khudzlin 734]

And on a side note: are cards out of play controlled by anyone? "Each card you have in shadows" could be interpreted as "each card in your shadows area" if it isn't the case.

[ktom 598]

Bolzano said:

In all of those, what is pretty clear is that both own or control could fit.

Yes, but before I quoted them in this thread, did you ever look at them and think "own" was the proper way to play them in a game? Did you ever think a character you controlled but did not own was one you did not "have"? Do you know anyone to ever argue you had to own, instead of just control, the WAR character needed for Die By The Sword? Probably not, because whenever there is ambiguity between "own" and "control" in this game, or something that could refer to either, we as players naturally spin toward "control."

That's what I mean by "control is the default interpretation" in this game. If there is ambiguity as to whether an effect refers to control or ownership, it is resolved in favor of control. We even know we're supposed to do so when something refers to "your character."

So if ambiguity between "own" and "control" is resolved in favor of "control" in every other situation, why would we settle it in favor of "own" when faced with "Each player may only have one copy of a unique card in play"?

Bolzano said:

Some cards are more precise and say clearly "control", and some other cards says "own".

True, but beside the point in this discussion because we are looking at what to do about something that is "not" precise and could be interpreted either way.

Bolzano said:

But when you say you have my car.. well don't I also have this car?

So if I'm forbidden to have it, isn't it illegal?

Depends on the overall context. Bomb's is the more precise usage in English, with "have" tending toward "possession" rather than ownership. If you are only allowed to "have" one car in the parking lot, say you park one car and I park one car. You happen to own the tcar that I parked, as well as the one you parked. Are you in violation of the "one car" rule? Am I? If so, who has to move the car they're driving, you or me?

Bolzano said:

So, I wonder if you think it's very clear from the English wording or if it would deserve a clarification?

Considering that no one brought this up the first 2 years the plot was in the card pool - let alone in relation to unique card rules since the inception of the game - I think it is probably sufficiently clear from the English wording. I keep coming back to "has anyone ever thought they couldn't play Die By The Sword if they didn't own the WAR character they used in the military challenge"?

[Bolzano2 0]

Clear enough.

So the use of "have" being not obvious we refer to intuition and the fact that "your character" means "character you control", I can buy that

Thanks for the discussion

[ktom 598]

Bolzano said:

So the use of "have" being not obvious we refer to intuition and the fact that "your character" means "character you control", I can buy that

Well, I'd say "context" instead of "intuition," but yeah, that's the way it works out.

Always good to be reminded that most of the people playing this game world-wide did not grow up with English as their first language.

[Bolzano2 0]

Clarification from Nate:

"unique rules regarding playing or taking control of a card (that you already have in play, or have in your dead pile) do check for both control and ownership. Since breaking and entering reads, "may be put into play," the player won the intrigue challenge should discard the card for claim, instead."

Should be clarified in next FAQ.

[Ratatoskr 34]

Bolzano said:

Clarification from Nate:

"unique rules regarding playing or taking control of a card (that you already have in play, or have in your dead pile) do check for both control and ownership. Since breaking and entering reads, "may be put into play," the player won the intrigue challenge should discard the card for claim, instead."

Should be clarified in next FAQ.

I don't get this. Could you please post the exact question you asked Nate?

[Bolzano2 0]

Sure, here is the submitted question:

"2- Can I own two copies of the same unique card in play?
The rules book only says I cannot "have" two copies, which is commonly understood as "control". But the plot Breaking and entering makes it possible to have one player own two unique cards but control only one (my opponent put into play Kings'Landing from my hand while I already own and control it)."

[Bomb 66]

Bolzano said:

Sure, here is the submitted question:

"2- Can I own two copies of the same unique card in play?
The rules book only says I cannot "have" two copies, which is commonly understood as "control". But the plot Breaking and entering makes it possible to have one player own two unique cards but control only one (my opponent put into play Kings'Landing from my hand while I already own and control it)."

So - you can only have one copy of a unique card that you own in play.  So it is automatically discarded when it is picked for INT claim with this plot out if you happen to have another unique copy in play.  Just trying to make heads and tails with the response because there is no direct yes or no in the answer.

[dcdennis 39]

 shenanigans i say.

[ktom 598]

Essentially, we are taking the example/application of the rulebook that says "Thus, you cannot put into play or take control of a unique card which you already own or control (except for duplicates, see below)" and applying that ownership to all players. If I try to put into play, under my control, a copy of a unique card that you own and have in play, I am breaking the rules for unique. So the "Breaking and Entering" ruling here will also apply to Shadows Balon. If I use his ability to take control of a unique card out of your discard pile, putting into Shadows under my control, I cannot bring it out of Shadows while you have another copy in play.

Here's the next question, though. Does this ruling also apply to the other example/application of the rules for unique from the rulebook? That is, since "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" reads exactly the same, applying the "Breaking and Entering" ruling has a couple of implications that we have always taken to come up the other way. To whit, if a player cannot own two copies of a unique card in play at the same time, they should not be able to own two copies of a unique card, one in the dead pile and one in play, at the same time, either. 

So does that mean Aegon's or Visenya's Hill cannot move a copy of a unique card from hand/discard pile to the player's dead pile while a copy is in play, or does that mean the copy in play will be automatically discarded if you do?

 

[StarDuster 0]

ktom said:

 

..."Thus, you cannot put into play or take control of a unique card which you already own or control (except for duplicates, see below)"...

 

 

 

I've not been a AGoT player for very long, but in that short amount of time I've many times used your great knowledge of the rules to help me out many times ktom. So, far be it for me to try and work out any ruling logic with you. However, I might (just maybe...) be able to give some brain food for you to think about and come up with your own answer.

The rules (to my limited knowledge) only mention putting into play or taking control of. If you already control a card on the field, but a game mechanic puts a copy (from your hand, deck, discard pile, etc. [other than in-play cards]), is the card on the field then instantly discarded because a same-name card (out of play) got put into your dead pile?

Personally, I wouldn't think this would affect the character you already have in play, at least not yet. Now if an effect changes the game-state of that card (for instance your opponent takes control of him but he later returns to your control) then I would say at that time he would be discarded. Simply because you are "taking control of" him once again and thus need to make sure there isn't a same-named card in your dead pile.

As I said my AGoT exposure is limited. I don't propose the above to be anywhere near correct. I could be entirely wrong. I could be entirely out of my league here, and probably am. I'm just trying to spark the mind of ktom.

[Bolzano2 0]

ktom said:

To whit, if a player cannot own two copies of a unique card in play at the same time, they should not be able to own two copies of a unique card, one in the dead pile and one in play, at the same time, either. 

So does that mean Aegon's or Visenya's Hill cannot move a copy of a unique card from hand/discard pile to the player's dead pile while a copy is in play, or does that mean the copy in play will be automatically discarded if you do?

I cannot find why you think Aegon's Hill should work other than how we usually play it. It does not play nor pout into play anything, so they way I see it Nate ruling does not apply to this card.

 

@Starduster : If you have a Unique in your Dead Pile and another one in play under your opponent control, you just cannot take it back. He won't be discarded. Also, you cannot attempt to take it back by targetting him with triggered effects. Other passives effects will be unsuccessfull to give the control back to you.

[StarDuster 0]

Bolzano said:

@Starduster : If you have a Unique in your Dead Pile and another one in play under your opponent control, you just cannot take it back. He won't be discarded. Also, you cannot attempt to take it back by targetting him with triggered effects. Other passives effects will be unsuccessfull to give the control back to you.

 

I was referring to (possible fictitious) scenario where an effect takes control of a card for a temporary time (until the end of the round for example) before the effect ends and returns it to the original owner.

Are you suggesting that if an opponent has taken control of one of your unique cards, and a copy of that card is now in your dead pile, that if the effect granting your opponent control of your unique card (such as an event) ends then instead of coming back to your control (and instantly being discarded) that your opponent keeps control of said unique?