I agree that's very probably the design intent.

However, "Take control" could very easily be interpreted as a "one-time" action as well. Damon's clarification doesn't support this view but my point is : from a language standpoint, it's far from being always clear what's a continuous effect and what's a one-time effect. Rules doesn't state anything either. There is a need for additional errata/rules.

Really? I haven't seen anyone play any of these incorrectly yet. Have you?

Maybe it is just that my group is made out of people with experience in the other LCG's as well as other CCG's and we intuitively parse the difference between an effect that is on an attachment/support and constantly active and when something is initiated once each time the condition stated in the effect is triggered.

So, if my oppents plays a character (for example 'Protector of Secrets' which triggers that my characters can't commit to stories as a response

and I kill that character right away, the effect also discontinues?

Is that right?

Nope... It is not a passive, it is a triggered response that creates a lasting effect until the end of the turn.

Penfold said:

At least once, with this very support and the wording "Take a character". Imo, "control this character" would be probably less ambiguous and would have been more often correctly interpreted as a continuous effect than "take control".

That's the only occurrence I'm aware of, perhaps also because of the experience of our group. Regardless of that, it wouldn't cost much to clarify it in the rules. Or, to be frank, to address the duration of passive effect at all.

Well, I think the "of attached character" is the important part here. No attached character, no granting of control. Control this character is also horrible grammar.

You are correct though that some mention in the FAQ couldn't hurt.

If the controled character has willpower or a terror icon, would it still go insane a-la "things in the ground"► Because if it did not I don''t see when you would ever reliquish control without the owner of the card destroying the eye.

djtool said:

No, the controlled character won''t go insane - characters with willpower or terror icons can''t be made to go insane. Therefore, they make perfect targets for the Stygian Eye.

Things in the Ground works differently. Characters brought into play via Things in the Ground enter the game in an insane state, before willpower or terror can prevent them from going insane (FAQ v2.1 page 12).

And control is relinquished when the eye goes away. It has a built in mechanic for that, essentially letting you commit the character ones normally and then control going back to its owner, but when the character cannot be made insane then you must remove the eye in some fashion. There are plenty of ways of doing that.

thanks, sounds pretty good. I even hear it promises power. Kind of like throwing some steak-knives on top of all that good stuff you already get.

Here are some words from Damon on the matter control change via Repo Man and Stygian Eye:

Both Repo Man and Stygian eye have a condition which while met create an effect. For Repo Man it is "If you win a Combat struggle at a story that Repo Man is committed…" and Stygian Eye is "Attach to a non-Ancient One character…" While both of those conditions are true the following part of the card is in effect.

Since you cannot lose the combat struggle already won, control of that card cannot "end" it can only have a new take control effect exerted on it or leave play in which case it reverts back to its owner's out of play area. Stygian Eye however can be unattached from the attached card which would end its following effect, giving you control of the card.

Well that was freaking simple way of explaining it. My way was all convoluted about distinction of effects etc.

Penfold said:

You sound a lot like me now!

mischraum.de said:

And what would happen if a character you took control of with Stygian Eye, was then targetted with Infernal Obsession by your opponent (the owner of the character is question)? There is a stipulation for Infernal Obsession, but none for Stygian Eye, and so, albeit for a brief amount of time, there would be two conflicting passives. So in normal circumstance the owner of the character would be the active player and would decide the order, right? (This is hypothetical because I think we could all agree a character with a Stygian Eye would be a bad target for Infernal Obsession.)

Yes, active player resolves conflicting passives.

I just want to verify something so I'm clear on this rule:

Repo Man's support card stealing effect is permanent because you can't "un-win" a combat struggle, even if Repo Man leaves play later on. Correct?

Correct.

In still have question for the very likely appearance of 'Master of Myths' in any tournament deck:

If my opponent plays 'Master of Myths' as an action for one phase, and his text got blanked (so bye-bye Willpower and Toughness) because I use 'The Night' or 'Called by Azatoth' or whatever and Master goes insane, what does happen to him?

Ok, he goes insane, but does he still return to the owners hand? If he gets killed he goes straight to the discard pile. Easy.

But if he goes insane?

In my understanding of games from (pen&paper) roleplaying games till modern computer games (early 1970s until today) a disadvantage should never be an advantage. So no 'free' character (even if insane) for my opponent.

My ruling would be, that Master returns to hand as soon as he recovers.

Same applies for the the 'Master of Blades'.

Master of Myths returns to your opponent's hand at the end of that very phase he was put into play by the action. Not because the game cares if it was an unfair advantage to your opponent but because the action that put him into play dictates that Master of Myths has to return to your opponent's hand at the end of the phase. Yes, you can blank his textbox but even then and even when he is insane the card keeps its name. And the action that put the master into play must resolve completely once it is triggered and is not being canceled.

Master of Blades is a different thing however. The text that sends him back to the hand is not part of an action that was triggered. It is a passive effect on the card. When the text box is blanked he does not return to hand. When he is insane his textbox is temporarily blanked and he stays in play. As soon as the text box is active again he will return to hand at the end of that turn.

mischraum.de said:

So by this reasoning, what happens if Master of Myths goes to the discard pile?

Dark Initiate said:

The card reads: "If Master of the Myths is still in play at the end of the phase, return it to your hand." Therefore, if he goes to the discard pile then he's no longer in play and isn't returned to your hand. At least that's my take on it.

OK. Stupid question. Thanks for pointing that out.