I understand that. However the argument is flawed in that it takes the letter of the rule to dispute the spirit of the rule. The rule is that you cannot have the same unique character in play more than once. In this case you do not as the card is the same card, you are not putting into play a card that is the same as one in your dead pile as you are taking that card out of the dead pile first. So when you take that card, check your dead pile, no conflict exists and put it into play.

I dont think more FAQ is what this game needs, it needs less. I find FAQs to be more a hindrance than a benefit.

You're not an official referee Toqtamish... In very competitve meta, you can't just say to some players: "This is the spirit of the rule, man !" when the rules says exactly the opposite.

We all understand the "spirit" of that rule. And if Nate says us: "Do it like this", we'll do it like he said. He's the guy ! But what we're saying is that there's a need to correct the rules because they say us to do it otherway.

I don't know if what I wrote is understandable... My english is quite poor, and it is 2 am here ^^.

I am aware sir of what I am and am not. I also believe I have the right to discuss my point as does the opposing side such as yourself.

I do not see this conflict that others are seeing and am trying to help for those that do.

Okay folks, this may be an example of not being able to hear the tone in a posting, but things seem to be getting a little intense here.

The point being made is well taken. The rules, in both the Core Rules Book and the FAQ, say that you cannot put a copy of a unique character into play if there is a copy in your dead pile. It doesn't matter where you are putting that card into play from; if there is a copy in your dead pile, you cannot do it.

Essentially, there is a modifier missing that could make the whole thing clearer. As written, it is possible to read the rules in one of 2 ways:

#1: "You cannot put a copy of a unique character into play if there is [any] copy in your dead pile."

#2: "You cannot put a copy of a unique character into play if there is [another] copy in your dead pile."

If you are reading it as #1, then when you are trying to put a copy of a unique card into play from the dead pile, the copy you are working with is the exact thing preventing you from putting it into play. If you are reading the rule as #2, then the move is legal, provided it is the only copy of that unique character in your dead pile.

The preponderance of rulings and evidence point to #2 as the official interpretation of the rule. And I could go into a long, drawn-out and not entirely convincing reasoning for why the card that you are trying to affect would not be considered when checking the restrictions of the rules for unique. But it doesn't sound like anyone is really fighting that interpretation, especially with the articles and past rulings from Nate making it pretty clear that this is the way to go.

However, the wording in the rules/FAQ does not make it immediately obvious, especially to a non-native speaker, that #1 is not the correct interpretation. It is something that we could ask FFG to clean up in a future FAQ.

Toqtamish said:

Out of this whole thread, this is the one statement that really mattered to me. Biggest hurdle I've had so far in recruiting new players to AGOT is the FAQ. Basic concepts are okay, style of game, general mechanics, etc... all entice people to give it a try. When I have to pause to show them the FAQ, explain timing structures, point out linguistic variances... they basically give up.

Boreas said:

I agree with ya, however you don't really need the FAQ or the timing structure to teach/learn the game. And while it seems quite daunting it really only comes into play on occasions. I felt the same way initially but after teaching two of my friends and my fiance how to play we have only needed the FAQ a handful of times. I have read most of it myself to be familiar with it but while teaching others I would avoid it in the start as its not needed and can as you know frighten them off like deer in headlights.

Maybe I'm just unlucky and keep finding people that come up with some odd play combos....

Funny story: I recently bought into this game at gencon this past summer. I went to play AEG's Legend of the Five rings. That game has a glossary, rules forums, FAQ, 30+ page rule books, in addition to the comprehensive rules wiki. While I intend to still play L5R, I am not ever going to try to teach it again after having a game like Game of thrones. In just a few minutes I can have an experienced game player playing, and a complete n00b playing in 30. There are very few problem cards, and those usually arise from unexpected coincidental combos (aegons hill/Rituals). All in all, the FAQ isn't needed to teach players how to play the game, so long as 1 player is familiar with it.

I played l5r for quite a while but have tried a few times to get back into it. Its much too hard. I recently traded in my entire collection to get more GoT stuff. L5R is also not doing too well. Its much too hard to get people into, plauged with delays and printing errors. Too bad as its a great setting.

But yes for GoT you do not need the FAQ. My fiance is a total noob to any card games and on Sunday I taught her Harry Potter as she wanted that one and I taught her GoT. She beat me twice in GoT using House Tully deck, I have not beat her since teaching her. I have to coach her some still but she gets the jist of it.

ktom said:

You are quoting the rules. Is the FAQ supposed to be more comprehensive?

As a matter of fact, in FAQ 1.6 the word "copy" is not written.

What is exactly written is :

"You may not play, put into play [...] a unique card [...] that is in your dead pile."

So I cannot see any #1 and #2 interpretation here. It seems to me that the wording "another copy" ktom has stated is just missing.

The word "copy" that was used is from the rules book, not the FAQ. As ktom said here the rules are unclear. Furthermore, the FAQ looks wrong if we assume we are playing following "the spirit" of the rules.

At this point the argument is moot. We know how the card is supposed to work and that some ways of interpreting the rule as ktom said, #1 or #2 interpretation, can be used to argue it to support it either way. I suggest you contact Nate mention the "conflict" and I am sure it will be clarified in the next version of the FAQ.