I apologize if this question has already been posed and answered. I looked around and couldn't find anything about it so I figured I'd just make a new thread.

When a card has the "Prized" keyword and its control is switched to a new player then that card is killed/discarded/leaves play does the opponent(s) of the OWNER claim power for Prized? Or does the opponent of the card's then-controller claim power?

I was looking at the Conquest Agenda today a bit and in my head I immediately went to "what if I play a House then announce Stark and use Bolton's that now get Prized, let opponents take control of them then find ways to discard/kill them?" I looked at the insert in the newest Chapter Pack and only say that "the opponents claim power when the card leaves play" or something to that wording. Which makes me believe its whoever controls the Prized card not the owner's opponents who claim power.

Prized says that when your Prized card leaves play, your opponents claim power. "Your" is always interpreted in terms of control, not ownership. So if you take control of an opponent's Prized character and it dies under your control, your opponents (including the character's owner) claims the power.

Prized says that when your Prized card leaves play, your opponents claim power. "Your" is always interpreted in terms of control, not ownership. So if you take control of an opponent's Prized character and it dies under your control, your opponents (including the character's owner) claims the power.

Interesting. So my wacky Bolton deck idea could work in theory.

No, it won't. Your Conquest agenda works on the same "your means control" principle. When you lose control of your OOH Bolton characters, the agenda will stop working on them and thus they will not have Prized when they leave play under your opponent's control.

I assume the opposite works then?

e.g.

My opponent is running Conquest and nominates Stark - I am running a Start deck

I win an intrigue challenge with Reek and swap control of one on my opponents characters with Reek

I then kill Reek whilst my opponent controls him and claim a power for prized

Or I could just dump a load of Boltons onto my opponent and then Valaar

Yes, but again only if your opponent is playing Conquest to Stark (since only OOH characters matching that affiliation gained prized). So fairly limited in its application.

Prized says that when your Prized card leaves play, your opponents claim power.

I know that for the purposes of this question, it's not important, but wandering eyes need to be careful here because Prized is only claimed when the character is killed or discarded from play.

So for clarity's sake without involving all the conquest stuff. If I play a standard Bara character that has printed Prized 1 and my opponent enslaves them. They let that character die for MIL claim. I get 1 power because at the time of death, he was my opponent's character. Correct?

You are correct Sloth. It is all from the perspective of the controller in which Prized power is claimed by the opponent.

For the record, Nate has confirmed this interpretation:

"Power is claimed by each opponent of the prized card’s controller. Prized resolves passively, when a prized card leaves play. Cards leave play from their controller’s point of view, and are only placed in their owner’s dead or discard pile during step 6, well after power for prized has been claimed. You took my card. That card is killed. Who just lost a character? You did. Passives and response are geared around that reality: The controller’s prized card left play, so each of the controller’s opponents gets prized power."

- Nate French in an E-Mail to me. 04-14-14

I'm really not sure why this question persists so much. Is there a reason I am not seeing as to why people want so much to interpret Prized as the only rule that should be read from "owner's" point of view instead of "controller's"?

I'm really not sure why this question persists so much. Is there a reason I am not seeing as to why people want so much to interpret Prized as the only rule that should be read from "owner's" point of view instead of "controller's"?

I think the reason some people are getting confused is because of the somewhat ambiguous wording on the chapter pack insert for the Prized keyword. The text is:

"Prized" is a new keyword introduced in the Conquest and Defiance cycle. When a card with the prized keyword is killed or discarded from play, when a prized event card is played, and when a prized plot card is moved to its owner's used plot pile, each of that player's opponents claims X power for his or her House, where X is the value following the prized keyword on the card. This power is claimed as a passive effect."

They use the word "owner's" here but not the word "controller's".. I think that's what is confusing some people. Hopefully there will be an entry in the FAQ that further clarifies the issue for anyone who still thinks the wording is ambiguous.

But there, "owner's" is clearly being used to refer to the used plot pile, not the discard or dead pile, so I don't see how that is ambiguous in regards to taking control of a prized CHARACTER (which is how the question always presents) at all.

But there, "owner's" is clearly being used to refer to the used plot pile, not the discard or dead pile, so I don't see how that is ambiguous in regards to taking control of a prized CHARACTER (which is how the question always presents) at all.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just playing devil's advocate here. Also saying that a tiny bit more clarification on the insert for newbs wouldn't have hurt. The fact that multiple people are having this same conversation is evidence of that at least.

I really don't think it's the way the rules are written that makes this question so persistent.

Think of things like determining the printed cost of Shadow cards, trying to end the challenge immediately if all attackers are killed/removed (though defenders remain), or trying to use icon removal after an attacker has been declared in order to "negate" the attack. The rules really aren't ambiguous on these things at all, but the questions continually pop up - largely because many players have an "intuitive" sense on these topics that is, for lack of a better term, wrong. But I can at least understand where the intuitive (though incorrect) sense comes from -- seeing a printed number on a card, thinking of challenges primarily in terms of attack, and LIFO chains learned from other games, respectively.

I'm just not seeing where it is "intuitive" (though incorrect) for Prized to work in terms of ownership instead of control.

I think wishful thinking also plays a part in these "intuitive" understandings.

In this specific case the incertitude arose indeed from the suboptimal wording of the rules. Some people on cgdb were unsure, so I asked FFG and posted the answer here.