If someone plays No Use for Grief, can that person put into play duplicates on unique characters?

If the answer is yes, please also explain how the timing works, so that I can understand why an opponent can put more than one copy of a unique character into play.

Thank you!

Twn2dn said:

I don't know how to explain the timing, but every sand snake character, unique or not, is still a sand snake character while its out of play. So even duplicates copies don't become actual duplicates until they are put into play.

Similar reasons you can trigger Khal Drogo Core Set's response of a copy of him that is in your hand while another copy of him is in play. He will just attach as a duplicate on the copy that is already in play.

Same with Catelyn Stark Lords of Winter's Any Phase ability.

Or any unique copy of a character that is ambushed.

EDIT: I forgot to mention the answer is Yes. :-)

Twn2dn said:

• The rules for unique say you cannot play, put into play, or take control of a unique card you already have in play , or in your dead pile. So if you don't have a particular unique Sand Snake in play, or in your dead pile, grabbing 3 copies of it when you trigger NUfG isn't violating any rule when you attempt to simultaneously put into play 3 copies of the same unique card - that is not already in play or in your dead pile.
• The rules for unique also create an exception to the "cannot play, put into play, or take control of" rule - you are allowed to dupe. FFG's consistent rulings - going all the way back to the first CCG set - is that a "put into play" effect used on a unique card that you already have in play results in that card becoming a dupe on the copy already in play.

So it really has nothing to do with the timing of the event. All Sand Snakes are searched out of your deck and put into play simultaneously, so you aren't trying to put into play a copy of a unique card already in play when you search all 3 copies out of your deck. When you put all 3 into play simultaneously, the resolution of that "put into play" effect automatically makes 2 of the 3 dupes on the first - as per FFG's "put into play" ruling related to unique cards. One copy enters play as a character, the others enter play as dupes - no violation.

Note, as I'm sure you have, NUfG doesn't let you even search for copies of unique Sand Snakes your have in your dead pile. That's the only place you would violate the rule for unique.

That's probably not as clear as I'd like it to be, but the moral of the story is that the timing is "simultaneous" and the rules for unique cards dictate the "1 character, 2 dupes" outcome.

These one-off exceptions and contradictions of the rules and FAQ drive me insane...

The Duplicates section of the rulebook explicitly states that a Duplicate can only be played during the marshalling phase and only from your hand. Cards that break this rule (e.g. Jory Cassel) specifically refer to attaching the card as a Duplicate.

Section 3.27 in no way indicates that Duplicates work any other way than outlined in the rulebook. It only clarifies it.

Section 4.2 in no way indicates that Duplicates work any other way than outlined in the rulebook. It only clarifies it.

Section 4.4 states "'Put into Play' is a game mechanic that bypasses all costs (including all gold penalties) and play restrictions." This would create a situation in which the correct response to cards like No Use for Grief, Catelyn Stark, and Gates of Winterfell would be to IGNORE the restriction of not being able to play uniques and be able to play with two/three copies of the Sand Snakes, Catelyn, or any card forced into play by Gates. This makes more sense than duping to me as it doesn't add any new rules.

In addition there IS a timing element. If all cards come into play at the same time then no card is in play to be duplicated. Therefore either all the cards enter play per 4.4 and no duplicate question arises or no cards enter play as it would create an illegal game state (IMO 4.4 allowing all cards to enter play makes more sense). The card also makes no reference to allowing attachment of excess cards as duplicates, unlike Jory Cassel.

The Player Action in the FAQ for the Marshalling phase explicitly states "Character, Location, Duplicate, and Attachment cards can only be played during this player action segment." All cards breaking this rule explicitly reference breaking it, which No Use for Grief does not.

There is no question to this in the actual Frequently Asked Questions section.

These are all the references to Uniques, Duplicates, and Put Into Play that I could find in the rulebook and FAQ.

For reference, the game in question had the player with no characters on the board putting all his Sand Snakes into play and duping them simultaneously.

This is my first post as I rarely have anything to say, but apparent one-off rulings like this with no tie back to any written rule continue to drive me insane. Another example is the fact that Pyat Pree can kill Cat O' the Canals (I play stark, so that's why all the Stark references. I understand it replaces claim and it's the replaced claim that kills Cat, but really? Pyat Pree can generate a claim effect that doesn't count as an opponent's effect? Does that make any sense at all intuitively? The effect killing Cat was generated from an opponent controlled effect). Unintuitive rulings like this, especially when it would literally require you to be there, KTom (or a clone of you... someone who would make the exact same ruling), make the game significantly more prone to incorrect play and inconsistency in ruling from game to game and tournament to tournament.

That being said I love the game and I do appreciate your attempts at making the rules make sense. Just on this one, the rules as written do not agree in any way.

Guess who, Twn2dn. LoL. He's asking this question for me. I get loud when rules don't make sense, as he can attest to. >.>

And my apologies to you, KTom, if this is incorrectly directed at you. I just hope someone at FFG is reading things like this and realizing that they have a great game that can be, at times, impossible to decipher.

___

On a side note... The card that gives all Sand Snakes Renown, does that generate a passive effect that lasts until the end of the phase or does that immediately give all Sand Snakes +1 Renown Keyword immediately at the resolution of the event?

We were wondering if any new Sand Snakes entering play would also get Renown.

mdc273 said:

I use "The Dragon Strikes" to give my Green Hatchling Stealth, Renown, and Deadly until the end of the phase. I use that Hatchling's new Stealth to bypass Edmure's Host (which is immune to events). Does that make intuitive sense? I.e., it makes sense why the the character can use something an event gave it against another character that normally ignores events? If so, why is it any less intuitive that the game mechanic can use something it got from an opponent's card effect against Cat, who normally ignores opponent's card effects?

Or look at it another way: You lose a military challenge to me (which, of course, is rare for a Stark player). You can choose Cat to die for claim if you want, right? Well, all Pyat is doing in a military challenge is saying I pick who dies instead of you. To a certain point, I would find that unintuitive if it didn't work.

Just sayin', there's a difference between "learning curve" and "makes no intuitive sense to anyone, even after it has been explained." I know I'm kinda biased in making that statement (since the nuances of the rules are far more of my "bread-and-butter," so to speak, than for a lot of other players), but I truly believe anyone could do what I do when it comes to the rules of this game.

mdc273 said:

Well, it's an event Response, not a passive effect. I'm guessing what you really want to know is whether the Response acts directly on particular characters when it is played, or whether it creates a global lasting effect that works on your entire field?

The text is: "Response: After a (Martell) character is killed, unique Sand Snake characters you control gain renown until the end of the phase."

I'm reading that as doing something to the unique Sand Snake characters you have when the event is played - that lasts until the end of the phase. I'm looking at the wording of the effect as being more of a "for these characters, X happens until the end of the phase," instead of "until the end of the phase, X happens to this kind of character." Compare the wording on "Nest of Vipers" to the wording on LoW-Robb Stark (who we know creates a lasting global effect) to get an idea of the difference I'm (poorly) describing here.

mdc273 said:

This is because NUFG puts cards into play; it does not play them. I don't think this will satisfy you, but consider this: When you play NUFG, assume you have no Sand Snakes in play. Then searching for any one of them and putting it into play wouldn't cause any problems, right?

So you go get all of them, since individually, all are legal choices. Then you put them into play, except, whoops (according to you), you can't play some of them. So what the heck are you supposed to do with all the copies of Sand Snakes you fished out of your deck?

(and by play, I of course mean "put into play")

radiskull said:

Oh man, can of worms... Ok, so KTOM, your example is a less egregious, but just as odd example of an event indirectly affecting an immune to event card. It's a good example, though. My concern hangs on the interpretation of "instead" and the meaning of replacement. There are two ways to read Pyat Pree (and all replacement effects). Let's start with Pyat Pree.

Original) If you win a challenge in which Pyat Pree attacked alone, instead of the normal claim effects, choose and kill 1 character controlled by the losing opponent.

Interpretation 1) If you win a challenge in which Pyat Pree attacked alone, cancel the normal claim effects, choose and kill 1 character controlled by the losing opponent. -- In this case, Pyat Pree would appear to be generating the kill effect.

Interpretation 2) If you win a challenge in which Pyat Pree attacked alone, replace the normal claim framework action for the challenge with the effect , choose and kill 1 character controlled by the losing opponent. -- The Framework Action of Claim is the target in this case. The Framework Action is modified to Pyat Pree's kill effect, then the Framework Action kill effect kills Cat.

Based on my understanding of prior rulings, the second is what is the intended effect. Still, using the word "instead" leaves some ambiguity rather than just saying "replace claim with". By the written rules, there is no way to determine what should happen except through third-party arbitration.

The giving a character stealth is more clear cut. Character gains the Stealth Keyword. The Stealth Keyword stealths by Cat. There's no ambiguity in the rules on that. Cat is never potentially targetted by the event.

The fact that Keywords are not considered abilities of the card they are on is a whole 'nother can of worms... Why could some card be immune to Robb Stark's kill effect, but die to him if he had deadly. I understand the whole Keyword part, but just another example of breaking the intuitive feel of the game. Robb can kill you only if he doesn't do it by.... choosing to kill you? There are obivous explanations, but it's just weird.

Ok back to the original topic and Radiskull. From the rulebook, "Each player may only have one copy of a unique card in play." All cards come into play at once from No Use for Grief and ignore the unique restriction rule per 4.4 (which they actually don't even break as no uniques are in play in my example). The core rulebook says the above, but the FAQ does not present resolution actions for this illegal game state. Therefore the illegal game state can not be resolved per the rules (Yes! It's NOT ACTUALLY IN THE RULES!!!!!!! The illegal game state is unresolvable. Wtf happens now? Third party arbitration... required... too... often....). I assume this is where the duplicate from put into play effects would be assumed to kick in, but how does it resolve?

If I have a Catelyn Stark hard played with attachments and force another Catelyn Stark into play, the intuitive answer is the forced in Catelyn gets attached as a dupe, but the rule framework would more likely go that the First Player chooses a Catelyn to be attached as a dupe to the other.

This may seem poinltess since I play Stark, but if I can force Uniques into play as dupes with Gates of Wintefell and Catelyn, it might change the way I play my deck. I actually don't run multiple copies of any unique character specifically because of this issue. If I can put Catelyn into play even if she's already in play by an accidental Gates (or better/more game-breaking, DEAD), that would be amazing. The rules actually also lean towards that interpretation, though it doesn't appear to be in the spirit of the game to me.

And for the Renown to Sand Snakes card, that's what the Martell player and I had thought, but the wording is too ambiguous. "Response: After a HM character is killed, unique Sand Snake characters you control gain renown until the end of the phase."

Me and Martell player interpret that as "Choose any number of Unique Sand Snake characters you control and give them Renown" (Seems to match your interpretation. Haha! I'm not totally crazy!)

The wording could be interpreted as "Death of character creates passive effect that lasts until end of phase that gives Sand Snakes Renown" (But what kind of person would think this? Crazy people... That's who. I'm going to have to give some cool coins back now.............)

Sorry... Ambiguity drives me insane... And the clarity of card text in this game is TERRIBLE in these kinds of cases.

I usually try to be more level-headed than this... Though who knows if I succeed, haha.

mdc273 said:

Thing is, there is another side to this coin - one that I think we all forget from time to time. The ambiguity and lack of clarity is crazy sometimes and can lead to all sorts of "what's going on here?" cases. But if every card interaction were spelled out specifically, there would be far less room for new and unexpected interactions in the game. The ambiguity these kinds of cases is the price we pay for what is essentially a wide-open game architecture. If everything in this game were predictable - to the point where reading the card once pretty well defines how it is used for everyone - it would be much less fun.

So I think there is a balance between ambiguity and open interaction. The game skews a bit to open interaction, for sure, and some of the ambiguity could undoubtedly be tightened up without sacrificing much in the way of the interactions. And, of course, the desire for open architecture is no excuse for sloppy design and/or templating.

But keep in mind that the developers are trying to maintain that balance between understanding how the cards are supposed to interact - and not having to design every single interaction into every single card.

So can you force dead characters into play with "Put into Play" effects?

Do you mean putting a character into play from the dead pile? Sure, there are tons of those effects.

Or do you mean putting into play a unique character from your hand, say, that has a copy in your dead pile? You can't do that.

I'm refering to Put Into Play effects, not playing from the hand. 4.4 says they ignore all restrictions. For example:

Challenges: Put Catelyn Stark into play from your hand, knelt as a defender during an I or P challenge initiated against you. At the end of the phase, if Catelyn Stark is still in play, return her to your hand.

Example 1: Catelyn Stark is in my dead pile. According to rule 4.4 I should be able to put Catelyn into play and ignore the fact that she is dead (the restriction). But this creates the illegal game state of having a character in play that is dead.

Marshalling: Kneel Gates of Winterfell to reveal the top card of your deck. If that card is a HS character, put it into play knelt. Otherwise, discard it.

Example 2: Eddard Stark is in my dead pile (stupid Milk of the Poppy...). I activate Gates of Winterfell and reveal Eddard Stark. Eddard Stark goes into play knelt. This creates the aforementioned illegal game state WITH A TWIST!!! Eddard Stark has Stalwart... he IS in play... does he go back on top of my deck if I have to discard him to resolve the illegal game state?

Thesea aren't just stupid questions I swear! I really want to run dupes of Eddard and Catelyn and see how that works out. My deck is weird... >.>

mdc273 said:

Take a gander at section 3.27 in the FAQ:

" (3.27) Unique Cards and Changing Control
You may not play, put into play, or take control
of a unique card already in play that you own
or control (except for putting a duplicate on
a card that you own and control), or that is in
your dead pile.
Thus you cannot take control of a unique
character that you already have in play. You
cannot play a unique card if your opponent has
taken control of another copy of that unique
card that you own.
Duplicates can only be played or put into play
on cards you own and control."

Edit: Also, it is not an illegal play state to have a character in play that is also in your dead pile. It is possible to have a copy of that character card placed there while the unique character is currently in play with locations like Aegon's Hill and Visenya's Hill. What you cannot do is play or put into play a copy of that unique character if a copy of it exists in the dead pile.

The rules for unique cards specifically say that you cannot play or put into play copies of unique cards that are already in your dead pile.

So yeah, "play" and "put into play" are different things entirely, but the rules for unique cards cover (and prohibit) both when a unique card is killed. (And Rat's answer stands - "no.")

It may be worth noting, by the way, that the FAQ's entry on "Unique Cards Entering Play from the Dead Pile" talks about two copies of the same unique card entering play at the same time - coming full circle to the original "why can NUfG end up duping" question.

But where is the duping framework for all those characters entering? I believe you. I just don't see it.

I love being wrong. Someone else comes out and tells me how wrong I am and then I learn something, LoL.

Ok, so back to Gates. I flip Eddard, he's already dead. Do I discard the copy I just revealed or does the discard effect fizzle?

mdc273 said:

If you really need to see text from FFG saying a "put into play" effect can dupe a unique character, look in the Legacy FAQ under the entry for the plot card "Reinforcements" (Westeros Edition). That's how much of a given FFG considers it: they refer to it in individual card clarifications without ever spelling it out as a ruling. (Kind of like they never feel the need to define "draw" as taking the top card off of your deck and putting it into your hand - and yes, people have asked.)

mdc273 said:

ktom said:

Just out of curiosity, what else could "draw" mean?

alpha5099 said:

(It's those kind of questions that really make you pity tech. support reps.)

Like that urban legend about the guy calling tech support when his power was out? LoL.

The duping thing is an inference there, too. Is it in the old rulebook or do they really just take for granted that everyone is going to assume that's how it plays out?

It's not spelled out in the rules that "put into play" effects can dupe a character. The references to it in other FAQ entries is about all you get - but those references do mean it is in black-and-white somewhere....

ktom said:

IIRC it is spelled out in the Shadows rules that bringing a second copy of a unique card out of shadows will lead to that copy being attached to the in-play first copy as a duplicate. It's not a huge leap to infer from there that other put-into-play effects will work analogously.