OK, follow me on this one. We're starting with: "Thus, you cannot put into play or take control of a unique card which you already own or control (except for duplicates, see below)."

So, a straight reading of this says that if Player A controls a copy of a unique card in play, Player A cannot play (etc.) another copy of the same card, except as a dupe. It also says that if Player A owns a copy of a unique card that Player B controls, Player A cannot play (etc.) another copy. Owning 2 copies of the same unique card in play at the same time, even if they are not controlled by the same person, would be an illegal result, right?

Well, the Breaking and Entering situation is doing neither of those. With the Breaking and Entering situation, Player B is playing (etc.) a copy of a unique card that Player A owns while Player A owns and controls another copy. This is not, looking just at the words, in violation of the "Thus, you (in this case, Player B) cannot put into play or take control of a unique card which you (also Player B) already own or control" text. Player B neither owns nor controls a copy of the unique card that he is putting into play, so there is no violation in the resolution itself. It does, however, end up with the same illegal result (Player A owning 2 copies of the same unique card in play at the same time, even though they are not controlled by the same person) as in the forbidden sequence where Player A played the card, lost control, and then wanted to play another copy.

So, it is not Player B putting the card into play that is the violation here. The violation is the end result - namely Player A owning 2 copies in play, even though they are controlled by different people - rather than the effects that achieved it. Effectively, Breaking and Entering allows you to use legal means to "back into" an illegal result. And the ruling we just got says that said illegal result cannot stand.

So turn now to the next clause: "You also may not play or take control of a unique card if there is a copy of that card in your dead pile, or if your opponent has taken control of another copy of that unique card from you."

Again, if you have a copy of a unique card in your dead pile, you cannot play another copy. That would lead to an illegal result, right? Well, there are combinations of card effects (like the Hills) that can resolve perfectly legally, creating that same illegal result. That's the same problem, isn't it? That you can use legal means to "back into" an illegal result.

So why are we forbidden to use legal means to achieve one illegal result (Breaking and Entering), but there is no problem using legal means to achieve a different illegal result (Hills to dead pile)? Either both illegal results are forbidden, or both are allowed - and we know one of them is forbidden.

So you think that while you have a unique card you own in play and in the dead pile at the same time, that is considered an illegal state by the rules? I know that it is implied by rules that keep you from letting you play or put into play unique cards that are in the dead pile, but if it were that easy, the FAQ could have defined it as such.

"You cannot have a unique card in play at the same time a copy of it exists in your dead pile."

If this were defined in such a simple manner, then it could at least keep the legal ways to back into an illegal state not possible.

Frankly, I like the idea of Aegon's Hill or Visenya's Hill putting a character card in someone's dead pile. It makes the discard option quite similar to a kill effect on a unique card which I feel like adds to neat ways to invoke kill effects. Otherwise, if it were not allowed because a unique character is in play already, it would make those locations more limited.

ktom said:

As Bomb say, the result is legal. But playing the card is not. Let me know if I'm wrong, but I think Nate's ruling does not impact the fact that everybody is allowed to have a unique card in play and the same one in the dead pile. It only affects the rule on owning two unique characters in play.

About the detailed example of Breaking and entering resolution you have given, the fact that the result is illegal makes the whole move illegal to attempt in the first place. So we cannot speak of a legal action leading to an illegal result.

It comes down to this: what is the rule and what are merely examples of the rule? We have three statements in the "unique card" section:

1. "Each player may only have one copy of a unique card in play."
2. "Thus, you cannot put into play or take control of a unique card which you already own or control"
3. "You also may not play or take control of a unique card if there is a copy of that card in your dead pile, or if your opponent has taken control of another copy of that unique card from you."

So, which of those statements are the rules and which are illustrations or applications of the rule?

#2 has been taken largely as a restatement of #1 over the years. But since the "Breaking and Entering" situation does not violate #2, and Nate says it is illegal, #2 must not be a restatement of #1. #1 must be the complete rule and #2 is only an example of how to apply that rule in one situation - which is not representative of every possible situation. #1 takes precedence, and #2 is only an example of #1 in action.

So, now look at #3. It is worded exactly the same, in form and structure as #2. So, is it another example of #1 in action, or is it a separate rule in its own right? If it is a separate rule in its own right, we now have 2 separate rules for what are legal states with unique cards - one based only control and/or ownership, and one based only on what you do with the card. So, either #3 is a separate, inconsistently constructed, rule from #1, or - like #2 - it is an illustration of how to apply #1. If it is an illustration of how to apply #1, then "having" a copy of a unique card in your dead pile should have the same impact on the game as "having" a copy in play that you own and/or control.

But let's move out of the Core Rules and look at the FAQ. The FAQ's entry on Unique Cards and Changing Control was meant to clarify that entire entry, right? So what does it say? Well, it combines #1, #2, and #3 into a single statement!

• "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."

Now, they are all combined, so for Nate's ruling here to be consistent, making it illegal for A to own two copies of a unique card in play even if they are controlled by different players, it must also be illegal for A to own two copies of a unique card, one in play and one in his/her dead pile.

So you see, this is an "all or none" kind of thing. Either "have" refers to all unique cards you own not in your deck, no matter who controls them or where they are, or "have" refers to just the cards you "control" (or lost control of). Nate has created a ruling here whereby if a particular configuration of unique cards would be illegal if reached by one series of actions, that same result cannot be reached by any series of actions. Why would that rule apply to only one configuration of unique cards (owning two copies, though controlled by other players) and not all (like owning two copies, one in play, the other in your dead pile)?

I would like to put forth the possibility that Nate simply misunderstood the original question, thus making the answer that he gave irrelevant. I'd like to see him post in this thread after having read through and see if he is still of the same opinion. Because his answer will affect how decks are built for sure.

Don't hold your breath. FFG employees virtually never post in these forums (it's my understanding that that is FFG policy). However, I know that they read these forums and use the info we talk about to inform their decisions about what makes it into the FAQ.