1. If you use Ambush From the Plains to put into play a dupe of a unique, will the dupe return to your hand at the end of the phase?
Challenges: Put a character into play from your hand or discard pile with printed cost lower than your total initiative. At the end of the phase, if that character is still in play, return that character to its owner's hand.

No because that character card wouldn't be in play anymore. It is now a duplicate and as such doesn't meet the requirements of "that character"

Staton said:

I hadn't considered using this card for duping purposes. I see that Pg 19 of the Core rules states "you cannot put into play or take control of a unique card which you already own or control (except for duplicates, see below). In the Duplicates section, it states, "you may attach the duplicate from your hand to the unique card in play, for no gold cost, during your marshalling." However, the FAQ states that "Put into Play" is a game mechanic that bypasses all costs (including all gold penalties) and play restrictions. I could see using that rule to get around the marshalling restriction above, thus the only way to resolve 2 unique cards in play is to make one a duplicate. Is that the correct approach here?

If that's the case, I don't agree that the rest of the event wouldn't have a target to resolve against. The triggered ability does not reference the specific character card going into play, it references the character itself. So the unique character goes into play and resolves as above. That specific card becomes a dupe and loses all text, titles, traits, and crests; however, the character IS still in play. I would think the proper way to resolve this at the end of the phase would be to send the dupe to the discard pile and the character card back to your hand.

Yes that is the correct way to handle putting into play a unique you already have in play. Now whenever a card references another card, it almost always references that specific card. When it says "that character" it is referencing the character you put into play. The unique character that was in play to begin with was not just put into play with the event. The character that was put into play is now a duplicate.

I see what you are describing in the FAQ specifically for self-referential cards - the example it uses is Catelyn Stark (Core) "Response: After Catelyn Stark is declared as a defender...") - to prevent triggering from an opponent's copy of the same card. I don't see any other documented support for that same treatment in the situation here. Then again, I'm still gaining experience on matters like this, and am not well versed in previous rulings.

I'm probably just doing a bad job of explaining it. I'm sure Ktom will swoop in with a detailed explanation. Or he'll just tell me I'm wrong. That seems to happen a lot. lol

uniques can definitely get duped outside of marshalling. we know this from previous rulings on 'no use for grief'.

sabrefox said:

Otherwise, say you used Ambush from the Plains to put a copy of Street Waif into play from your discard pile. It joins 2 other copies of Street Waif already in play. If "that character" refers to any character card with the same name (instead of just the one the event put into play), wouldn't all 3 copies of Street Waif leave play at the end of the phase?

ktom said:

I'd have said no, not all three since the event card specifies a singular "character".

I get the logics of it - it just seems that the chain of events created by puting another unique character into play are being improperly taken advantage of of to interupt the resolution of the remainder of the triggered action. FAQ 3.12 for self-referential cards clarifies that you can't trigger a card based on an opponent's card of the same name, by using the words "referring to itself only". That makes complete sense with a singular copy of the card, but in the situation we are debating, I'd argue the statement is being taken out of context and applied too literally.

How does one go about submitting questions to FFG for clarification?

sabrefox said:

But I can tell you that the answer you are getting here is the answer you're going to get from them because it is the answer they have provided many times in the past.

Staton's "self-referential" explanation is really not the best explanation of this, btw. When I say the same sort of thing happens in this case, I am referring to the results, not the mechanics.

There are many examples of cards "transforming" and thus removing the specific object of an effect - leaving that effect to "fizzle" or otherwise unsuccessfully resolve. For example, when you play an event card, it enters a moribund state after it resolves and is put into the discard pile at the end of the action window. Why doesn't this happen to the Reinforcement events? Because they become characters, and therefore there is no event card for the rules to put into moribund. Or look at Khal Drogo from the Core Set. If you use his Response to put him into play, it includes the text "At the end of the phase, return Khal Drogo to his owner's hand." But if he dies or is discarded before the end of the phase, you do not get to return him to your hand from the dead or discard pile. That is because once he leaves play, the effect can no longer apply.

That's what happens with the dupe in AftP. The character that should enter play instead enters play as a dupe. There is therefore no character in play to return to your hand at the end of the phase. "Put into play" effects allow you to put copies of unique characters into play under the "except for dupes" exception in the rules for unique cards. Just like playing a dupe during Marshaling is considered to be playing a dupe, not playing the character it attaches to, putting a dupe into play does not qualify as "re-playing" the character that is already in play.

So you take all those things together and you get the ruling you have already heard here. AftP can be used to dupe a unique character that is already in play. If it does, there will be no "that character" to return to hand later. The "dupe" is not a character, so "that character" is not in play. The character it attached to was never put into play by the event, so it cannot be considered "that character" - the same way that you are applying the singular to the other copies of Street Waif in the above hypothetical.

do player must decide which char he will put into play before his opponent has chance to cancel the event?

Based on a careful reading of the timing flowchart (see the FAQ), I would say no. Since this event doesn't use the word "choose", it doesn't have a cost or a target, only an effect (and the play restriction that it must be played in the Challenges phase).

Step one would be playing the event card, verifying play restrictions (Challenges phase), paying any costs (none), and choosing targets (none).

Step two is the cancel step.

Step three is the step where the effects happen; so here is where you would select the character that is to come into play.

(I fully admit this could be wrong, but it seems right to me.)

I agree with Radiskull.

Don't play the effects of this event too quickly without giving the opponent a chance to cancel because if you do, you will be giving away information that is valuable in determining the want to cancel the effect or not.