Really short question: what happens if I take control of Peter Clover/Prof. Morgan and he gets discarded due to damage/horror as one of my ally?

The card must be placed into the encounter discard pile, but, if I abandon the scenario, do I still control that card for the purpose of the resolution condition?

Thanks

You do not control cards in the encounter discard file. So, for the purpose of the resolution, the gang will still have a bone to pick with you.

I think this could do with a little more explanation. You 'control' all cards in your discard pile as well as your deck, deployed assets and hand, however the important bit here is 'ownership'. Any card being discarded goes into the discard pile of its owner, which is the deck that contained that card at the beginning of the scenario. As Clover or Morgan are 'owned' by the scenario when you start the game, if you have to discard them at any point, they go into the scenario's equivalent discard pile (probably on its own, as a discard pile of 1 as it's not an encounter card), you therefore no longer control them.

Hope that helps explain the logic behind it! Obviously, if you earn Morgan and he comes with you into the next game, you are that cards owner, and he is yours whatever happens unless the scenario tells you otherwise.

But... it seems pretty clear to me

Cards with player backs that would return to the encounter deck are removed from the game instead.

Regardless, "winning" the scenario requires you to resign with the story asset under your control. You do control things in your deck and discard, but cards can never inyeract with them unless they explicitly say so, such as "if x is under your control, in your deck, or in your discard."

So the act card would check for the story asset, not find it in play, and not give you credit for it.

But again, it's academic. If Morgan or Clover are discarded in HAW after they enter play, they're removed from the game.

But the act card mention that the cart must be "under his/her control", not in his/her play area. So, when the act card checks the victory condition, it checks all the areas which are controlled by the player, out-of-play areas included.

If those cards are removed from the game, they phisically enter in an out-of-play area (look "In Play and Out of Play" in the rule reference), BUT they are considered to be entered in the former controller's out-of-play area (cit. from previous post). As any investigator control each of his/her out-of-play area, he/she also controls Clover/Morgan if they are discarded while being in his/her play area.

Where I am wrong?

4 hours ago, BD Flory said:

Cards with player backs that would return to the encounter deck are removed from the game instead.

Could you give the source for this? It's not in the Learn to Play, Reference or FAQ.

Also, Peter Clover has an encounter card back, not a player card back, so such a rule wouldn't apply to him.

@Sparviero Out-of-play cards are controlled by their owner, regardless of who controlled them when they they were in play.

3 minutes ago, Khudzlin said:

@Sparviero Out-of-play cards are controlled by their owner, regardless of who controlled them when they they were in play.

Please look at the citation from the Rule Reference few posts ago

@Sparviero Please look at the whole Ownership and Control section. The card has entered your discard pile (so you can use a reaction ability whose trigger is a card entering your discard pile), but it is in the encounter discard pile (or out of the game), so it is controlled by the scenario (possibly no one if it is out of the game).

Quote

Ownership and Control
A card’s owner is the player whose deck (or game area) held the card at the start of the game.
A player controls the cards located in his or her out-of‑play game areas (such as the hand, deck, discard pile).
The scenario controls the cards in its out-of-play game areas (such as the encounter, act, and agenda decks, and the encounter discard pile).
• Cards by default enter play under their owner’s control. Some abilities may cause cards to change control during a game.
• If a card would enter an out-of-play area that does not belong to the card’s owner, the card is physically placed in its owner’s equivalent out-of-play area instead. The card is considered to have entered its controller’s out-of-play area,
and only the physical placement of the card is adjusted.

Sure, that is the general rule, but, the specific case cited below is still clear. It seems that such cards are controlled both by the owner and the former controller.

However "The card is considered to have entered its controller’s out-of-play area, and only the physical placement of the card is adjusted.", so if the cards cannot be controlled by both the Scenario and Investigators, the specific case has the priority above the general rule, thus they are considered as controlled by the former controller.

Wrong?

Also note that a scenario resolution will specifically tell you when you have earned a story asset and whether you can place it in your deck moving forward in the campaign. There is no resolution where you get to add Clover to a player deck.

5 minutes ago, mwmcintyre said:

Also note that a scenario resolution will specifically tell you when you have earned a story asset and whether you can place it in your deck moving forward in the campaign. There is no resolution where you get to add Clover to a player deck.

That's not the point. Noone says that Peter Clover should be moved in the investigator deck during/after the scenario. But, when you get him (or Prof Morgan) during the scenario, you are controlling him and that's important for the resolution of the scenario itself!

Okay, I see what you're talking about now. But if they get discarded during play you no longer control them if they were brought into play originally through the scenario. You have to end with them in your play area. This is the only way you control them as once they leave play they go to the owners out of play area and the scenario is the owner.

1 minute ago, mwmcintyre said:

Okay, I see what you're talking about now. But if they get discarded during play you no longer control them if they were brought into play originally through the scenario. You have to end with them in your play area. This is the only way you control them as once they leave play they go to the owners out of play area and the scenario is the owner.

Again "If a card would enter an out-of-play area that does not belong to the card’s owner, the card is physically placed in its owner’s equivalent out-of-play area instead. The card is considered to have entered its controller’s out-of-play area, and only the physical placement of the card is adjusted."

The act card says "under his/her control" not "having in his/her play area"

So confusing

I actually think it's a misprint or poorly worded in the rules reference listing. First it says "placed in it's owner's equivalent out of play area instead." I believe this is correct and the following sentence should not be implying what you think, but I understand your confusion.

The fact is that the "following sentence" could imply what I think. Probably I am wrong, as all of you disagree with me, but any chance to summon any designer?

I definitely agree that it is confusing because of the use the word "only" in "The card is considered to have entered its controller’s out-of-play area, and only the physical placement of the card is adjusted." Given the context I think it means that in all other respects besides location it is treated as entering the controller's discard pile for the purposes of game effects, rather than the physical placement of the card is adjusted and nothing else (e.g. ownership, control, etc.).

If that is the case then I would say that after the discard is complete then control reverts back to the scenario because "The scenario controls the cards in its out-of-play game areas (such as the encounter, act, and agenda decks, and the encounter discard pile)."

However, my interpretation may well be coloured by my assumption that the design intent was that you have to get out of the Clover Club with the ally alive to achieve the more favourable resolution!

5 minutes ago, Sparviero said:

The fact is that the "following sentence" could imply what I think. Probably I am wrong, as all of you disagree with me, but any chance to summon any designer?

I don't believe the designers frequent this forum, but sometimes people post correspondence with Matthew Newman here (I don't know how they get in touch with him). There is a Rules Questions part to FFG's Customer Service page, maybe it is worth asking there?

2 minutes ago, Assussanni said:

If that is the case then I would say that after the discard is complete then control reverts back to the scenario because "The scenario controls the cards in its out-of-play game areas (such as the encounter, act, and agenda decks, and the encounter discard pile)."

Very NICE point, that's probably the intent of that sentence which I was missing

12 hours ago, Sparviero said:

But the act card mention that the cart must be "under his/her control", not in his/her play area. wrong?

The Act card is a card, so its text is an ability. The second bullet under "Ability" in the RRG (p. 2) says card abilitied only interact with other cards in play, barring explicit exceptions. If Clover/Morgan isn't in play, the Act ability can't interact with it, so you don't get credit if it's in any out-of-play area, regardless of whether you control it.

12 hours ago, Khudzlin said:

Could you give the source for this? It's not in the Learn to Play, Reference or FAQ.

It was a ruling on Lita leaving play during the Gathering, during which the scenario owns her (the players own her during MM and Devourer, so she would go to discard in those scenarios).

I don't have the text of the ruling in my archive, but I believe it was copied to one of the discord channels, so you can probably find it with search. Not sure off hand whether it's in the rules or encounters channel, though.

13 hours ago, Khudzlin said:

Also, Peter Clover has an encounter card back, not a player card back, so such a rule wouldn't apply to him.

Fair point. I forgot Clover was encounter backed, so he would go to encounter discard as normal (per a ruling for Blood on the Altar re another encounter-backed story asset). Good catch!

Thanks to you all, lots of good point!!

Remember if you're truly at a loss, there is a place on this website to ask rules questions directly to FFG.

8 hours ago, BD Flory said:

It was a ruling on Lita leaving play during the Gathering, during which the scenario owns her (the players own her during MM and Devourer, so she would go to discard in those scenarios).

I don't have the text of the ruling in my archive, but I believe it was copied to one of the discord channels, so you can probably find it with search. Not sure off hand whether it's in the rules or encounters channel, though.

Thanks, I'll try to find it when I can.

On 12/5/2017 at 9:48 AM, mwmcintyre said:

Remember if you're truly at a loss, there is a place on this website to ask rules questions directly to FFG.

Could you link that place, please?

Thanks!

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/more/customer-service/