Hello everyone!

Note: I know this has been discussed before, but I'd like to hear about what you think should be done in an official tournament rather than the rules intricacies that compose the discussion. I really hope this topic isn't obsolete. If it is, I'm ask for your forgiveness in advance.

I think this may be more of an opinion call, than any other thing, but maybe FFG has some kind of clarified position on this. This has to do with the cards To be a Dragon and Many Powers Long Asleep (the new plot card from Rituals of R'hllor) and the ruling from the FAQ that states something like "You can't put into play a unique card If there is a unique card with the same name in your dead pile.". For reference, here is the text on both cards:

Many Powers Long Asleep : When revealed, put a [ holy crest ] character in play from your dead pile.

To be a Dragon : House Targaryen only. Play only if you have at least 1 Power Struggle plot card in your used pile. Challenges : Stand a Targaryen character you control to put a Targaryen character with a printed cost of 3 or lower into play from your dead pile.

So, as I understand the situation, the text in the FAQ prevents a unique character from being put into play by either of these cards. The problem is that the designer stated that the cards (well, the plot, at least) was supposed to bring Melisandre (for example) from the dead pile into play. So, clearly the designer's intent was for the text in the card to overrule the FAQ. As it is, and judging by ktom's previous posts on the matter, there are 2 possible interpretations, but the simplest (at least IMO) is to go by what strictly says in the card and in the FAQ.

Now, imagine you're in an official tournament, and this situation arises. What should the head judge decide? If the FAQ has the same text, and the cards haven't been errata'ed, I would go with "You can't place unique characters into play from your dead pile.". However, I could see a case being made for the opposite ruling. But the problem is that this is an official tournament and the official rules documents released by FFG clearly state the rules. What is your opinion?

In the end, what the judge at the tournament says is the final word for that tournament. If you come back to the rules forum or even appeal to FFG, they may give you a different answer, but it's not going to change what happened at the event. In a situation like this, the TO's decision is all that matters.

That said, I don't see putting the only copy of a unique character into play as breaking the rules for unique, or even all that inconsistent with the wording. The wording and overall context of the entire rule ("... already in play...or that is in your dead pile.") is pretty clearly talking about alternate copies. Said another way, all the other restrictions on playing, putting into play and taking control obviously deal with more than one copy, so the interpretation of the dead pile restriction, within context, is an "alternate copy" one, too. More to the point, the copy of the unique card you are trying to put into play (or take control of) does not count when seeing if you "already" have it under your ownership/control in any other situation, so it is hard to interpret the dead pile as an exception to that.

Usually, you do need to stick to the exact wording in the rules/FAQ so as to reduce overall confusion. But in a situation like this, where the wording is a little ambiguous (two valid interpretations), you tend to go with the interpretation that matches both the exact wording and the intuitive resolution of the particular situation - again, so as to reduce overall confusion.

ktom said:

Yes, I understand that. The problem is that I only have played this game for a short period of time - started mid July, I think - and don't yet understand what's natural or intuitive in a given rules-decision situation. In this particular case, for example, I would be led to believe, if it were not for you telling me otherwise, that the FAQ + To be a Dragon instructed me I could bring non-unique characters from the dead pile but not unique ones. You see, me being a "new" player doesn't only mean a weak grasp of the rules on my part; it also means I'm prone to jump to the most obvious conclusion from what I read, and if the most obvious conclusion drawn directly from what's written in the FAQ/ Rulebook/ Comprehensive Rules is that one, probably the official document needs a new version or the involved cards need an errata. If this were Dungeons and Dragons, where there are thousands of pages filled with rules, I'd understand the need to base a ruling on the interpretation that suits not only the game's designers but also everyone involved in playing. But in competitive play things tend to work differently, and although everyone wants to have a load of fun playing, be it AGoT, Magic, Dungeons & Dragons or Monopoly, the rules really need to be crystal clear, or you're bound to have problems.

Please understand that I have (as I think I've demonstrated so far - if I haven't, please realize that English is not my native language and sometimes I have difficulty to make myself clearly understood) the utmost respect for you and, albeit unofficial, your rulings, and that I accept them almost to the point where I don't cast a critical thought over them (~almost ). However, and probably I didn't make myself clear in the original post, what I was trying to accomplish was to understand what most judges would rule on a situation like this: if they would opt for a ruling based only on the relevant text on the FAQ and the cards involved, or if, as you say, they would tend to go with the interpretation that matches both the exact wording and the intuitive resolution of the particular situation .

In my personal opinion, we (myself included) are suffering from the influence of the statement about the designer's intent, and may be a little biased in double-searching for both intent and context in the rules (something - again, in my opinion - that we shouldn't be required, and should even be disencouraged to do in any given set of rules).

All of this being said, I really appreciated the time you took to answer the OP. Thanks again ktom!

tovra.pt said:

This is an interesting debate. When I think about it, I don't have any problem "intuiting" that if there is one copy of a unique character in the dead pile that it can be "brought back to life" so to speak from the effect of a card. It doesn't seem that the copy of the card should count as in the dead pile once selected by the card effect. That clearly seems to be the intent of the card. I would have a harder time with this intuition if somehow there were multiple copies of a unique card in the dead pile.

danach81 said:

I think everyone is in agreement that if you have multiple copies of unique cards in your dead pile, dead-pile recursion effects like these are of no use in bringing them back. It is only when you have a single copy in your dead pile that the difference between written rules and "intuition" are not clear.

These particular rules were written long before these kinds of situations existed. There is a good chance that when the rules for unique were written, bringing a unique character back from the dead pile - let alone when there might be 2 copies of the unique card in there - had never even been imagined. It isn't often that rules text is updated for every single possibility. And it usually doesn't need to be. The call for greater clarity for this one condition (dead pile recursion directly to play of a single-copy unique card) is certainly a reasonable request.

i'm sure i'm missing something here, but how would you have multiple copies of a unique character in your dead pile?

Mighty Jim said:

There are a handful of effects that can move cards directly from your hand or discard pile to your dead pile. If you use one of those to move a copy of a unique card that you already have in play to the dead pile, the copy in play isn't killed or discarded or anything, but could subsequently die - putting a second copy of the unique card in your dead pile.

The Targaryen hills are good examples of cards that can put cards into dead piles. One of them kills someone straight out of your hand, then other moves people from the discard pile to the dead pile, and as ktom stated, if the character is already in play, and they are "killing a copy," it could leave you with the possibility of versions in play and in dead pile.

Once that character in play dies, boom, multiple in dead pile.

ktom said:

I think that it's not only a reasonable request, but a necessary modification to the FAQ. I explained earlier why I think this is a necessity: the expanded rules should be tight and shouldn't allow for different interpretations according to the person who reads them. This creates a grey area in the rules that really can't be there. I'm not discussing which interpretation is valid (not since ktom's clear explanation), only that the area shouldn't be there.

I appreciate that this specific set of rules was written long before this problem existed. As it does now, I think an urgent update is needed. This is especially important when you have an international sanctioned Tournament in the next few weeks (Stahleck's European Championship). Who's to say that this kind of situation doesn't come up there? And who can really blame someone that, like me, initially interpreted the cards to function one way by reading the FAQ, but never had the opportunity to read ktom's explanations, demanded a different ruling from the head judge (assuming he went with the explanation ktom provided)?

Of course, ultimately it's all up to the head judge, but I would hate to see any opponent of mine refusing me the ability to put into play Daenerys with To be a Dragon and quoting the rule from the FAQ, and the judge coming up to our table and ruling otherwise. This kind of things creates a poor environment between players, and I always liked being a good sport.

So, please, FFG, can you do something about this? (just kidding, I still don't know if any developer reads this boards)

I think about it rather linearly.

If you have two copies of Mel in your dead pile, when you take one out and go to put it into play with Many Powers Long Asleep, there will be a copy in your dead pile already, and she wouldn't be a legal choice.

If you have one copy of Mel in your dead pile, when you take it out and go to put it into play with Many Powers Long Asleep, there will not be any copies of Mel in your dead pile, and she would be a legal choice, and would be put in play.

This is obviously assuming there are no copies of Mel in any other player's dead piles. Thats the way I look at it anyway.

Mathias Fricot said:

Lets say we are both playing Baratheon, and our hands/discard piles are being abused by the Targ hills.

If you have Mel in your dead pile, and I have her in my dead pile, I cant use Many Powers Long Asleep on her because when I go to put her in play, there is a copy of her in a dead pile (yours), so its not a legal choice for the plot's ability. Its the equivalent of having two in my dead pile, for the purpose of this plot's application. This is using my reasoning in my earlier post.

A card being in opponents dead pile does not affect you.

Mathias Fricot said:

Look at it this way, if we can both play our own copy of Mel when there are none in the dead pile, why would I be prevented, later in the game, from playing my copy just because yours had already died?

Really? I was always under the impression it was any dead pile. Thematically it makes more sense to not be able to play her if she is in someone else's dead pile. She is unique, there is one of her, and she was played, and was killed, and is now dead. Its not a matter of logic and intuition, I just misread the rules.

page 19, Unique Cards has the rules. Rules say yours. It may not be thematic but otherwise mirror matches would be a race to get out the key characters first, not much fun.