What exactly does

Each player may only have a maximum of one instance of each unique card, by title, in play.

on p22 of the Reference Rules, under Unique Cards, mean?

For example: if I use Yoren to put my opponent's Margery Tyrell into play, is that me having her in play (since I control her) or my opponent having her in play (since he owns her)?

In particular, if my opponent has Margery in play, does that stop me using Yoren to put another copy of her into play from my discard pile? Similarly, if my Yoren has put my opponent's Margery into play, does that stop my opponent putting another copy of Margery into play under his control?

Alex

It means that you cannot act in such a way as to put a second Unique you own, OR a second unique you control, into play (Except as a duplicate, if you own and control both the first instance and the duplicatating copy).

So Yoren can take pretty much anything that isn't in your play area or dead pile (if unique). If he takes a unique your opponent doesn't have in play, your opponent won't be able to marshal/put into play another copy. Same goes for Euron.

This is answered, as it comes up regularly, in the unofficial community FAQ on cardgamedb.

Ultimately, it means "own or control."

- If there is a copy in play that you own , you cannot marshal or put into play another copy, no matter who controls it.

- If there is a copy in play that you control , you cannot marshal or put into play another copy, no matter who owns it.

What you have to realize, though, is that since these limitations are player-based, there are situations that may arise which a player could not make happen on his own. What you own or control that is already in play prevents you from marshaling or putting another copy into play. It doesn't affect what your opponent does at all. As a result, it is possible - though not particularly common - for "you" to own 2 copies in play. For example, and in answer to your specific questions:

if I use Yoren to put my opponent's Margery Tyrell into play, is that me having her in play (since I control her) or my opponent having her in play (since he owns her)?

Both. You control a copy in play, so you would not be able to marshal or put into play another copy, no matter who owned or controlled it. Similarly, your opponent owns a copy in play, so she would not be able to marshal or put into play another copy, no matter who owned or controlled it, either.

In particular, if my opponent has Margery in play, does that stop me using Yoren to put another copy of her into play from my discard pile?

Well, Yoren's text stops you from putting another copy into play from your discard pile since he can only take characters out of an opponent's discard pile. (His text is, " Reaction : After you marshal Yoren, choose a character with printed cost 3 or lower in an opponent’s discard pile, and put it into play under your control.")

The trick, though, is that if your opponent has one copy of Margaery in play that she owns and controls, and another copy in her discard pile (say, because she discarded a duplicate), you can use Yoren to get the copy in the discard pile and put it into play under your control. The thing to recognize is that you have not broken any rules by taking control and putting into play a copy of Margaery - even one owned by your opponent - because you do not own or control another copy already in play (or in your dead pile).

It doesn't matter that this ends up with your opponent owning two copies in play because the rules for "unique" in this game (unlike the rules for "unique," "legends" or "personality" in other games) is determine what actions a player can take - not what games states are legal or illegal. So there is no "automatic correction" in the game state when your opponent ends up owning two copies of Margaery that are in play (and controlled by different players) because no rules were broken in arriving at that game state. It's no different than, say, Heads on Spikes putting a copy of a unique character that is already in play into the dead pile; it doesn't affect the game state of the character that was already legally in play.

Similarly, if my Yoren has put my opponent's Margery into play, does that stop my opponent putting another copy of Margery into play under his control?

Yes. If you use Yoren to take a copy of Margaery out of your opponent's discard pile and put it into play under your control, your opponent would be prevented from marshaling or putting another copy into play because she already owns a copy in play - even though it is not currently under her control.

How can my Yoren put into play a copy of a Unique that my opponent has in play? My opponent will then "have" two copies of the Unique card in play, which is forbidden by the sentence I quoted above.

Edit: ktom's post went up while I was composing that question, and clears things up a lot. I'll just add that if the intent of the sentence I quoted is to "determine what actions a player can take", it would be useful if it were phrased as such, rather than as the continuing check implied by the use of the present participle, "have".

Alex

It doesn't matter that this ends up with your opponent owning two copies in play because the rules for "unique" in this game (unlike the rules for "unique," "legends" or "personality" in other games) is determine what actions a player can take - not what games states are legal or illegal. So there is no "automatic correction" in the game state when your opponent ends up owning two copies of Margaery that are in play (and controlled by different players) because no rules were broken in arriving at that game state. It's no different than, say, Heads on Spikes putting a copy of a unique character that is already in play into the dead pile; it doesn't affect the game state of the character that was already legally in play.

Ultimately, it means "own or control."

- If there is a copy in play that you own , you cannot marshal or put into play another copy, no matter who controls it.

- If there is a copy in play that you control , you cannot marshal or put into play another copy, no matter who owns it.

What you have to realize, though, is that since these limitations are player-based, there are situations that may arise which a player could not make happen on his own. What you own or control that is already in play prevents you from marshaling or putting another copy into play. It doesn't affect what your opponent does at all. As a result, it is possible - though not particularly common - for "you" to own 2 copies in play. For example, and in answer to your specific questions:

if I use Yoren to put my opponent's Margery Tyrell into play, is that me having her in play (since I control her) or my opponent having her in play (since he owns her)?

Both. You control a copy in play, so you would not be able to marshal or put into play another copy, no matter who owned or controlled it. Similarly, your opponent owns a copy in play, so she would not be able to marshal or put into play another copy, no matter who owned or controlled it, either.

In particular, if my opponent has Margery in play, does that stop me using Yoren to put another copy of her into play from my discard pile?

Well, Yoren's text stops you from putting another copy into play from your discard pile since he can only take characters out of an opponent's discard pile. (His text is, " Reaction : After you marshal Yoren, choose a character with printed cost 3 or lower in an opponent’s discard pile, and put it into play under your control.")

The trick, though, is that if your opponent has one copy of Margaery in play that she owns and controls, and another copy in her discard pile (say, because she discarded a duplicate), you can use Yoren to get the copy in the discard pile and put it into play under your control. The thing to recognize is that you have not broken any rules by taking control and putting into play a copy of Margaery - even one owned by your opponent - because you do not own or control another copy already in play (or in your dead pile).

It doesn't matter that this ends up with your opponent owning two copies in play because the rules for "unique" in this game (unlike the rules for "unique," "legends" or "personality" in other games) is determine what actions a player can take - not what games states are legal or illegal. So there is no "automatic correction" in the game state when your opponent ends up owning two copies of Margaery that are in play (and controlled by different players) because no rules were broken in arriving at that game state. It's no different than, say, Heads on Spikes putting a copy of a unique character that is already in play into the dead pile; it doesn't affect the game state of the character that was already legally in play.

Similarly, if my Yoren has put my opponent's Margery into play, does that stop my opponent putting another copy of Margery into play under his control?

Yes. If you use Yoren to take a copy of Margaery out of your opponent's discard pile and put it into play under your control, your opponent would be prevented from marshaling or putting another copy into play because she already owns a copy in play - even though it is not currently under her control.

Ultimately, it means "own or control."

- If there is a copy in play that you own , you cannot marshal or put into play another copy, no matter who controls it.

- If there is a copy in play that you control , you cannot marshal or put into play another copy, no matter who owns it.

What you have to realize, though, is that since these limitations are player-based, there are situations that may arise which a player could not make happen on his own. What you own or control that is already in play prevents you from marshaling or putting another copy into play. It doesn't affect what your opponent does at all. As a result, it is possible - though not particularly common - for "you" to own 2 copies in play. For example, and in answer to your specific questions:

if I use Yoren to put my opponent's Margery Tyrell into play, is that me having her in play (since I control her) or my opponent having her in play (since he owns her)?

Both. You control a copy in play, so you would not be able to marshal or put into play another copy, no matter who owned or controlled it. Similarly, your opponent owns a copy in play, so she would not be able to marshal or put into play another copy, no matter who owned or controlled it, either.

In particular, if my opponent has Margery in play, does that stop me using Yoren to put another copy of her into play from my discard pile?

Well, Yoren's text stops you from putting another copy into play from your discard pile since he can only take characters out of an opponent's discard pile. (His text is, " Reaction : After you marshal Yoren, choose a character with printed cost 3 or lower in an opponent’s discard pile, and put it into play under your control.")

The trick, though, is that if your opponent has one copy of Margaery in play that she owns and controls, and another copy in her discard pile (say, because she discarded a duplicate), you can use Yoren to get the copy in the discard pile and put it into play under your control. The thing to recognize is that you have not broken any rules by taking control and putting into play a copy of Margaery - even one owned by your opponent - because you do not own or control another copy already in play (or in your dead pile).

It doesn't matter that this ends up with your opponent owning two copies in play because the rules for "unique" in this game (unlike the rules for "unique," "legends" or "personality" in other games) is determine what actions a player can take - not what games states are legal or illegal. So there is no "automatic correction" in the game state when your opponent ends up owning two copies of Margaery that are in play (and controlled by different players) because no rules were broken in arriving at that game state. It's no different than, say, Heads on Spikes putting a copy of a unique character that is already in play into the dead pile; it doesn't affect the game state of the character that was already legally in play.

Similarly, if my Yoren has put my opponent's Margery into play, does that stop my opponent putting another copy of Margery into play under his control?

Yes. If you use Yoren to take a copy of Margaery out of your opponent's discard pile and put it into play under your control, your opponent would be prevented from marshaling or putting another copy into play because she already owns a copy in play - even though it is not currently under her control.

This never makes sense to me. I know the current rule permits this action, but I cannot see the benefit of this rule. It's anti-intuitive, anti-thematic and it cannot provide any good intereactions.

Considering all other rules are polished in the second edition, why do they make such a strange rule?

I really hope someone explain the idea behind it to me. I emailed ffg before but it seemed they were not interested in replying such a question.

I think it comes down to this:

If you and I are both playing Tyrell, we can both put our own copies of Margaery Tyrell into play, right? It's not like you getting your copy in play first stops me from marshaling her, or vice versa. So, since we can both put copies into play under our control, why does it matter who owns them when they were not in play?

It is no more "anti-intuitive" take a copy of a unique you have in play out of your discard pile and put it into play under my control than it is to take a copy of a unique you have in play out of my hand and put it into play under my control.

And I don't think it is anti-thematic. (SPOILERS) Look at it this way: In the books, the Starks have an Arya in play - at the House of Black and White. Meanwhile, the Lannisters took a copy of "Arya" out of the Stark's discard pile and put her into play under their control. It doesn't matter that they can't both be Arya Stark; different factions would insist that the one they control is "real."

If there is a "strange rule," it is that each player can control unique cards with the same name. But that's a design choice.

I don't agree with you.

Just assume you are correct. How do you use your intuition and thematic reasons to explain why I cannot marshal a copy of unique card after my opponent controls a copy from my side? I can use your Arya example to argue that I can. And why I cannot marshal a copy of unique card if I take control of my opponent's same card. The Arya example can also apply here.

Because when you take control of your opponent's copy of Arya, you are agreeing she is the real one. Therefore, you cannot put another "Arya" into play because you already have the "real Arya," taken from your opponent.

Similarly, if your opponent takes control of your Arya, the "real one" was stolen from you. Therefore, you cannot put another "Arya" into play because you have already said the "real Arya" was captured from you.

It only works if you and your opponent both put "competing candidates" for which is the "real Arya" into play. As soon as one of you captures the other, you are both saying the captured one is the "real Arya."

But you're getting caught up in the potential thematic justifications - which are just that. Ultimately, the mechanics of the game allow both players to put their own copies of the same unique character into play under their control - otherwise, mirror matches would be all but impossible. Since the focus is on each player being able to put copies of the same unique character into play under their control, it doesn't matter who owned the copy when it was not in play. Not all of the rules or elements of the game need to be justifiable from a thematic perspective (Old Bear Mormont himself is stronger than an entire Ranging Party large enough to be considered an "Army"?).

What if we just change the rule to be

Each player CANNOT have MORE THAN one instance of each unique card, by title, in play. Anyone cannot do an action which makes others violate this rule.

I don't see it would ruin the mirror match, but can fix the issue I mentioned.

How is that different?

The whole point of this is that if you never controlled it while it was in play, it is not YOUR "instance" of the card - no matter who owns the cardboard. Applying that to your wording doesn't stop Yoren from putting a copy of a unique into play from your discard pile, even if you already have a copy in play.

That's the decision FFG has made: it's not an instance of a card you have in play if you never controlled it while it was in play. The original question was whether or not FFG might have some justification, mechanically or thematically for it. But if what you really want to talk about what the rule SHOULD be instead, there doesn't seem to be a lot of benefit since no one on the boards has the power to change the rule.

I am not good at wordings and rules so the way I proposed may not be the best way. However I believe we can figure out a way to make things work in my way.

The point is

1. I think this rule can be easily fixed.

2. I think this rule is anti intuitive and anti thematic and I don't accept your Arya explanation. We can discuss it later if you like.

3. I don't see any game values of this rule.

Based on these three points, I think this is just a flawed rule and should be faqed. But it seems that ffg are protecting it. I want to know why. This is the aim of my first post.

Some additional reason when taking about theme:

1. Yoren is the one who recruit newbies from those who are abandoned (in discard pile). He never means to create a fake one to take to the Wall. If someone is still in play, he or she is not abandoned and there is no way for Yoren to recruit.

2. Euron can take control a location after the location is destroyed. If I still hold the Wall, how can Euron create a new Wall to take control?

3. I believe a card can do what is printed on it. If a card is called Arya not "fake Arya", it is Arya. Plus you can use all her abilities. That's why I don't accept your "fake Arya" explanation. If someone want to make a fake Arya and use the fake identity to do something, he should use cards which tell him he can do exactly this.

If you don't like the rules the way they are, either change them when you play with your friends, or play a different game. You will not succeed in getting FFG to change the official rules. And ktom is one of the experts on the game -- disagree with him all you want, but he is correct.

So if he is always correct, why do ffg published so many faqs in the first edition and then give us the second edition which polish the rule from the first edition? "Polish" means they think the original rule is not good enough.

I would play it in the current rule no matter how it looks wired. But I just want to argue that the rule is not right.

But I just want to argue that the rule is not right.

And this, more than anything else, is what I was referring to when I said, "there doesn't seem to be a lot of benefit since no one on the boards has the power to change the rule." Since you "just want to argue that the rule is not right," no one is going to be able to defend or explain it to you, one way or the other -- particularly since no one on the boards has any real power when it comes to making or changing the rules. I can conjecture why the rules are the way they are and what FFG might have been thinking, but when it comes right down to it, FFG doesn't agree with you that this rule is broken and needs to be fixed. And it's their opinion that matters - not mine and not yours. If they provided you with their reasoning directly, you'd probably disagree with that, too, so there's not a lot of incentive to engage in the argument that the rule is not right.

As you say yourself, this is the rule as it is, and so is the rule we need to follow. Maybe it isn't the best or most elegant rule, but it is the rule. If you think the rule needs to be changed, that's really more of an article or an essay, not an argument for the boards since your opposition will always have the fall-back position of "that's the rule as it is, and so is the rule we need to follow."

You make your points well, but it was kind of disingenuous to ask for opinions and/or possible explanations for why FFG ruled the way they did when all you really wanted to do was argue that FFG was wrong, even though they didn't engage with you.

And ktom is one of the experts on the game -- disagree with him all you want, but he is correct.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Of course, it should never be taken on faith that I am correct. I am NOT always right, and I am the first to admit it.

That said, I have a pretty good track record of predicting FFG's responses to complicated rules and card interactions. Not at all perfect, but pretty good. The existence of lengthy FAQs doesn't really speak to any individual's ability to correctly answer rules questions, though. It simply speaks to the complexity of card interactions and the need to keep a record of how those interactions turn out.

You make your points well, but it was kind of disingenuous to ask for opinions and/or possible explanations for why FFG ruled the way they did when all you really wanted to do was argue that FFG was wrong, even though they didn't engage with you.

Since I would stick to the rule, I just want to know they do it on purpose, and the purpose they do it.

I know you have some connections since you and istrail have some explanations from Nate for some other problems in cgdb. They don't reply my E-mail. So I just ask this question on the internet and hope those who can answer my questions answer it, or transfer my question to e.g. Nate to get some words from the designers.

I know I am now annoying asking some nonsenses questions. Thank you for your patience.

Double post.