17 hours ago, Buhallin said:

No. Just because cards you control in your play area are in play does not mean that it's the only way you can control a card, just as it doesn't mean it's the only way a card can be in play.

I'm sorry that my earlier post was not clear.

I did not meant to say that the rules imply that player cards in play outside the owner's play area are not controlled by the player.

I said only that the quote from the RR reference (which, of cards a player controls, identifies only cards in the play area as being "in play") was consistent with the possibility that, when the designers wrote the rules, they contemplated the play areas as being the only places at which a player-controlled card might be "in play."

I think that this could be because they neglected to consider attachment to locations or enemies - or it could be because such attached cards are not controlled by the players.

I also think that the fact that Matt Newman has told me that the designers are reviewing this issue suggests that it is not settled (or may be changed).

I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer and that it sounded like I was saying the the rules as written supported the possibility that I identified.

Thanks to Monday's stealth update to the FAQ we have our answer: "If an investigator attaches a player card to an encounter card, he or she retains control of the attachment (but does not gain control of the attached encounter card)."

However, contrary to usual FFG rules, when both attachment and attached card are owned by players, the attached card's controller also controls the attachment.