The Silver Twilight Collector card says:

Silver Twilight Collector gains © for each success token on it.
Forced Response: After a Monster or Creature character is destroyed, place a success token on Silver Twilight Collector.

-----------------------------------------

Now what happens to those success tokens when Silver Twilight Collector goes insane? Do they get discarded or do they stay on? My guess is they get discarded like attachments, but as far as I know there is no ruling on tokens yet.

-----------------------------------------

EDIT:

After some of the comments below I wrote to the customer service and got an official reply by Damon Stone,
Associate LCG Designer Fantasy Flight Games.

"When a character goes insane it loses any tokens placed on it."

There is no rules to say they are discarded. So, for me, they don't have to be discarded. But it's a legimitate question faor the new faq.

Excellent question!

The treatment of similar mechanics (wound tokens, attachments) indicate they might be lost, but there's no telling without a rules update.

(Yay! Another reason for me to hate this new mechanism!)

Technically, you don't loose your wounds tokens but the toughness keyword when the character goes insane. The consequence of that is that the insane character is destroyed and goes to the discard pile (because you have wound tokens but no toughness anymore). The wound token is only iscarded when the character goes to the discard pile and not by the fact that the character goes insane.

B_P said:

Of course in this situation the reason is that cards don't have a memory. Basically, when you play the character again, it's an entirely new card.

I now wrote to the customer service and got an official reply by Damon Stone,
Associate LCG Designer Fantasy Flight Games.

"When a character goes insane it loses any tokens placed on it."

Nico Deluxe said:

Oh dear... that is just... bad:

RULEBOOK page 2: Wound tokens are placed on character cards to track wounds dealt to that character.

RULEBOOK page 8: Each time a character is wounded, its controller indicates this by placing a token on that character.

RULEBOOK page 14: If a wounded character, regardless of its Toughness, goes insane, it is immediately destroyed. Likewise, if an insane character is wounded, it is immediately destroyed.

All that is fine. However, with the ruling supplied there, you *COULD* argue that the wound tokens go away with all other tokens, the character is no longer wounded, and is just insane. Sure, there are issues: such as when is "immediately destroyed"? before disrupts/forced responses/passive effects?. Does the "immediately" of being destroyed happen before the tokens are removed? Does the token removal happen at a second "immediately" before anything else can happen? etc?

Of course, this is all just being intentionally nit-picky. I think we all understand that the page 14 ruling just supercedes the token removal and wounded people just die when they're insane. But as written....

KallistiBRC said:

Remember, that this is just a response to a rule questions. For these I prefer getting an answer fast, even if it isn't immediately taking account of everything else in the game. If in doubt you can always ask for clarification after getting a response to your rules question.

for me, i's the opposite. I'm not interested in a quick answer if I have to rewrite 15 minutes later to ask for an another obvious problem created by the quick answer, like it happened to me several times.

The wound token/insane situation isn't that problematic. The rules say:

Insanity

When a character goes insane, it is flipped facedown and all cards attached to it are destroyed. If a wounded character, regardless of
its Toughness, goes insane, it is immediately destroyed . Likewise, if an insane character is wounded, it is immediately destroyed.

So, two things happen when a character goes insane, simultaniously: Any tokens are removed and if the character has the wounded state, it is destroyed.

Both effects happen before the 'going insane' procedure is complete. The rules say 'regardless of toughness' and insane characters don't have toughness...

Marius said:

First, let me just say I agree. I think it's obvious that's what *really* happens, it's the way we've always played it, etc.

With that in mind, let me continue to be a wanker with the rules manipulation. A case could be made that the part you highlighted doesn't apply. You could argue that since the wound tokens have been removed as part of going insane, then the character is no longer wounded during the part of going insane where you check if he should be destroyed.

Had the ruling instead said "When a character goes insane it loses any non-wound tokens placed on it." there would be absolutely zero ambiguity.

(And again, I really don't think there is any ambiguity in the first place)

EDIT: Test.

KallistiBRC said:

Well, it's good you don't think there is any ambiguity. Both the destroy action and the remove token action happen at the same time. The rules don't state that it's not happening in a particular order, so you do all the things simultaniously, to the best of your ability, both removing any tokens and destroying the character.

The clever editing that was has messed up the "new" flag. I'm guessing that the edited post has the newest date, but it is not the last post, so it is persistently "new."

I'm hoping that by simply making this post I will reset the thread to normal new/read status.

I think the clarification in no way interacts with the existing rule. The card was wounded. It is going to die if it is made insane. The discarding of tokens when the card goes insane does not get around the destruction of the card because it was wounded when it was driven insane. The wording could have been more explicit about the timing but I suspect the answer was provided in a fashion that answered the question asked. If you want a more thorough answer which takes into account other variables you need to ask a more general question.

"When a card goes insane and it has success or wound tokens on it what happens?"

I suspect that would get you an answer that dealt with the timing issue and the interaction between the two rules.