Quite a few of the conspiracy cards in this cycle use the phase "Your characters committed gain <whatever> icon". I can't find anywhere that clarifies whether just the player who played the conspiracy card gains this advantage, or all characters of both players gain this.

Has anyone seen a ruling on this?

I have not seen a clarification either. But since this is not a story card, but rather something an individual player controls, I think "your" refers to the controller of the card.

Would you gain the icon only while attempting or only after you solve it?

You would only gain the icons while your characters are committed. Also, I agree that it is only the controller of the card's characters.

I think I would actually disagree a bit with it being only the owner's characters getting the benefit.

However, I think that may of been the intent.

Story cards and conspiracy cards of the past always affected both sides of the field equally. So the only way to really benefit is by having more guys there than your opponent does.

This does need a clarifcation though, but I still think (based on past cards) that it would grant both players combat icons.

EDIT: Perhaps I am wrong here. Just did a little digging and the cards that I thought were going to prove my points did not have the wording I thought they did. So, I retract the above post unless I find one that does support it.

Hmm, I retract my retraction.

I was looking in the wrong place. Not past, but current cards can help point towards the 'both players get it' side of the discussion.

"Unothodox Tactics
Resolve the skill comparison at this conspiracy before any of its struggles occur. If you win this conspiracy before any struggles occur, you may choosewhich of its struggles resolve."

Now, if "Your characters" means only its owner/controller (which story cards usually do not have a controller) then 'you' in this case means that only the owner can choose to resolve the struggles even if his opponent wins the story.

That, I believe, was not their intent.

So ya, I'm hoping back over to the "Your characters" does not mean only the owner's characters side.

Magnus Arcanis said:

The rulebook really just glances at these cards, and they a definitely are not the same as story cards. Thats something we all agree on. The one conspiracy card that makes me think its both players is the one from the core set, that "blanks character text" as its ability. I mean, yeah you could build a freaky deck around blanking text on your own cards and winning conspiracy cards that way, but I think this card was build to simply level the playing field. If you think about it, the newer conspiracy cards kinda do that too, level the playing field. Everyone going into a conspiracy card story gets the icon, so whoever piles more in, gets more.

I actually like that interpretation better. The problem is, how do you teach someone the game when there is nothing written about something like this? Didn't conspiracy cards come up at Gencon? How were they ruled on there?

Unlike story cards that form a general pool for all players in the game, conspiracy cards are "owned" by the player who placed them in his deck. Just like how any character, support or event card included in a player's deck that says "your" is speaking to the player that played (or now controls) that card, conspiracy cards act the same way I believe. If a card you played or control says 'your" it means you, the person who plays or controls it. Just because conspiracy cards look like story cards doesn't mean they are. This makes the most sense and is how I play it.

Ephraim said:

Actually, the Bootleg Whiskey Coverup says Treat all characters committed to this story as if their text boxes were blank. So no issue about "your" or "you." (And a respite from Ravaging Deep One.)

It is unclear, but I'm voting for "you" refers to the controller of the card. After all, the controller went to the trouble of including it in their deck and spending the card to bring it into play. That should have some benefit to the controller.

Since it is not a story, I don't see the problem in an unbalanced outcome.

Oh, and regarding the GenCon Conspiracy event, I would think that because those conspiracies were introduced as Stories, we can't make an extrapolation from that event to the rules in normal play.

From page 5 of the online rule book:

Conspiracy Cards

Conspiracy cards are built into a player's deck and played from the hand, but when they are in play the function as additional story cards to which players can commit characters and struggle for success. If a player wins a conspiracy card, it counts towards that player's total of three story cards necessary tow in the game.

Now... I know it might arguably out of context, but this leads me to be that conspiracy cards are story cards except for when they are not in play of course. Under that assumption, since story cards do not have controllers, "your" should not be resrticted to only owner. Which fixes back into my Unorthodox Tactics example.

Also from page 11:

4) Each player may have one conspiracy card in play at a time. A player may play a conspiracy card even if an opponent already has a conspiracy card with that same title in play.

This is a rahter confusing entry. On one hand, if a conspiracy card is controlled (as suggested by the 'same title' part) it becomes similar to the unique rule. But for whatever reason conspiracys don't abide by the unique rule so what happens if control of a conspiracy switches, and then is returned after a copy has entered? With no answer to this I'm leads me to one of two outcomes, one being that since conspiracy cards cannot switch controllers (yet? perhaps never on purpose?) that perhaps my current assumption is correct in that conspiracy cards, after they enter play, are not under anyone's control. Second being that you would sub in the unique rule and proceed.

May all be a moot question right now, but does make me curious. To me, it makes more sense to have them be just like story cards while in play and thus have no controller, only owners. Would make things so much simpler. Otherwise, might as well just make all conspiracy cards unique and save us the trouble.

Then again, on page 14:

When an effect refers to “your” card(s) or an “opponent’s” cards,
it is always making reference to the current controller of the card,
unless a reference to the owner of the card is specifically made.

Which to me suggests one of two things. Unorthodox Tactics is not a fair card (and at gencon was more usless than previously assumed), or two the word "Your" is a mistake.

Till resolved... I'd rule conspiracys do have a controllers, adopt the unique rule, and suggest that Hata be very careful on how he words future story cards.

This is something that really needs to be addressed. Especially now that this cycle has conspiracy cards with several of the same struggle.

The rules explain stories and how they work, but simply glaze over conspiracy cards, and don't even mention how the text should be treated.

Magnus Arcanis said:

Actually, if you just take a second and read both the page 11 and page 14 things with the idea that you do in fact control conspiracy cards that you play (and nothing out there says you don't specifically control conspiracy cards that you play, so they should be like any other card you play), then these make total sense.

Page 11 means.... you control the conspiracy you put in play, and can only have one in play at a time. It doesn't become "unique" but is more akin to not being able to have heroic + villianous characters in play at the same time. When you have heroics in play, the rule of not being able to have villainous doesn't make the heroics unique. It's just an additional rule about what can be played side by side. Conspiracies are like that. You play one, you control it, and you can't play another until that one leaves play. What happens when the control switches? Same thing that happens when control possibly switches with heroics +villainous. You'd have to discard one of your choice. If you look at it assuming you control them, all the other stuff that you're having to make contention for goes away.

Page 14. "Your" definitely adds even more weight to the fact that you control conspiracy cards. Just because of a potential error with Unorthodox Tactics, doesn't mean you should now make a different ruling for all other conspiracy cards. Also.... if you want to get really techinichal, UT says "you" and not "your". There aren't any rules for "you" out there, so you could argue that it just points to the winner of the struggle, not the controller of the card. (And it's just as reasonable, perhaps even more reasonable, to make that ruling on "you" vs "your" than it is to base all consipiracy ownership off of UT.)

If nothing else, just take a look at what provisions you have to make if the "your" doesn't imply ownership of conspiracy cards. Then take a look at the same if it does imply ownership. It's *FAR* simpler to consider conspiracy cards as owned by the player. And then the "your" is straightforward as well.

My interpretation is still that you control the, and "your" in these cases does mean controller's stuff.

KallistiBRC said:

I don't know about others, but so far all of the attempts to integrate conspiracy cards into my decks can only be described as failures. They've just not been worth it. There have always been better options. This may finally change with the current AP.