Hugor Hill

Stealth. Discard Hugor Hill from play if you control Tyrion Lannister. If you win a challenge in chich Hugor Hill attacked alone, instead of the normal claim effects, choose a character in the losing opponent's discard pile with a cost of X or lower. Put that character into play under your control. X is the amount by which you won the challenge.

1 can I put a unique char into play from the discard pile that my opponent has control in play?

2 if I put The kindly man into play from Hugor Hill's ability and he dies , it will be my only agenda?

I'm going to take a stab at answering this. Since Hugor's ability puts you in control of the character, it would be no different than if you were playing the same house and had the same unique characters in play as your oppenent. So, yes.

As for the Kindly Man, his effect would only work if you did not already have an agenda, but as his controller at the time of his death, I don't see why you wouldn't have control over all his response effects. so, yes again.

Slothgodfather said:

Slothgodfather said:

Ah thanks for the correction ktom. I wasn't thinking about it being out of play.

We do have an example of card effect that takes a card to a non-owing player's out-of-play area, though. And Balon Greyjoy (King's Landing) even puts the card into shadows, which is a lot more problematic than an agenda, since it is a private area. Who is the "you" in the charagendas? Is it the controller (since the cards are written to work from play) or the owner (since they are meant to go out of play)?

Khudzlin said:

Slothgodfather said:

it means the kindly man always be the house stark player's agenda when he dies, right?

Unless the Stark player is playing an agenda of their own - which may not be likely if they have Kindly Man in their deck to begin with. (Although I'd pay 2 for a 1-STR Deadly tricon, even without the extra text.)

ktom said:

Having a card owned by a player in another player's private out-of-play area is a problem in itself, in my opinion. Especially since cards in shadows are supposed to be undistinguishable. Having another get the Kindly Man as an agenda wouldn't be a problem, as it stays revealed to all.

ktom said:

But I take it that in the case of the Kindly Man we ignore the "you" as controller of the card since it is going out-of-play and it goes back to the owner?

Khudzlin said:

Slothgodfather said:

So assuming both players don't have an agenda, Kindly Man is not being controlled by his owner, and Kindly Man has been killed this phase:

We check the condition that "you" the controller doesn't have an agenda. Then Kindly Man is removed from play, but as an out-of-play card is then transferred to his owner's house card. Correct?

I see how this would work, but it still doesn't seem right to me. I decided to look up the a few rules pertaining to this subject:

(3.29) Changing Control and Leaving Play: When a card leaves play for any reason, it always returns to its owner's discard pile, dead pile, hand, deck, or shadows area (depending on the specific circumstances).

(4.11) Agenda Cards: Agenda cards are not considered to be in play. Further, the effects of an Agenda card cannot be canceled.

FAQ Question: "If one of my characters turns into an Agenda, is that character considered to have left play? Can I then play another copy of that character as a character card? Agendas are not considered "in play."

FAQ Answer: When you play a character and it changes into an Agenda card, it is considered to have left play. You can then play additional copies or other versions of that character as a character card.

(4.5) Leaving Play: A card "leaves play" when it moves from an in play state to an out of play state. Out of play states are the dead pile, the discard pile, a player’s hand, and a player’s deck.

I think they need to update 3.29 & 4.5 to include "agendas" to the list of "out of play states." As is, Agendas are only not considered "in play." Rigidly speaking, I think once the card left play and could not attach to the controller's house card, it would be placed in the owner's "out of play" area: their dead pile.

Slothgodfather said:

You could always explain it another way, though. When a card not owned by its controller leaves play - let's say "killed" - it should enter the "moribund:dead pile" state. But since it can't go to the controller's dead pile, the rule for going to the owner's out-of-play area, and the moribund state it enters is actually "moribund: owner's dead pile." In fact, it is arguable, because of the rule, that every card that leaves play enters a "moribund: owner's out-of-play" location state. (It just isn't recognizable most of the time because the owner and controller are the same person.) So, if the controller doesn't have an agenda, but the owner does, you'd find (based on the controller's situation) that the character should enter the "moribund: owner's agenda" state, but since it cannot, it would instead revert back to the "default" for the type of effect making the card moribund (ie. "moribund:owner's dead pile" for a killing effect).

Which interpretation, which should have a different outcome, depends on when you apply the "owner's" restriction - when the card enters moribund or when it is physically removed from play.

That does make sense to add the "out of play" owners rule into the moribund state. So basically it's not possible for another player to gain these characters as an agenda, but if they are already running an agenda of their own, and the character is killed under their control, it goes directly to the owner's deadpile (moribund: owner's dead-pile) without a chance to turn into an agenda for them.

Slothgodfather said:

1. I take control of your Kindly Man. I do not have an agenda. You do not have an agenda. When Kindly Man dies, the fact that I don't have an agenda means it tries to turn into "owner's agenda." Since you do not have an agenda, it succeeds and becomes your agenda.
2. I take control of your Kindly Man. I do not have an agenda. You have an agenda. When Kindly Man dies, the fact that I don't have an agenda means it tries to turn into "owner's agenda." Since you do have an agenda, it fails and just dies ("owner's dead pile").
3. I take control of your Kindly Man. I have an agenda. You do not have an agenda. When Kindly Man dies, the fact that I have an agenda means it does not try to turn into "owner's agenda" at all, and goes "owner's dead pile." The fact that you do not have an agenda doesn't enter into it at all.
4. I take control of your Kindly Man. I have an agenda. You have an agenda. When Kindly Man dies, the fact that I have an agenda means it does not try to turn into "owner's agenda" at all, and goes "owner's dead pile." The fact that you have an agenda doesn't enter into it at all.

So, in situations 2, 3, and 4, it will not become the owner's agenda when it is killed under someone else's control. But if neither player has an agenda when Kindly Man dies (#1), it will become an agenda on the owner's House card.

My scenario is essentially your #3 & #4. If the controller (still assuming this isn't the owner) of the Kindly Man has an agenda and the Kindly Man dies then it doesn't matter if the owner has an agenda or not. The Kindly Man will go into the owner's deadpile.

It still seems odd that you wouldn't get the agenda as the controller (not owner), but I understand the rules involved so it does make sense that it's not possible.

Slothgodfather said:

I don't know if you are technically "controlling" an agenda. I think you would only be considered "owning" it. Control can be changed in this game, but ownership is never changed.

I think my above comment will open up some doors with room for interpretation.

how about Red Vengeance and Hugor Hill?

db123456 said:

RV: Response: After you lose a challenge as the defender, kneel 2 influence to cancel the claim effect of that challenge. Then, choose an opponent to satisfy the claim of that challenge as if he or she had lost the challenge as the defender.

Hugor's effect is claim replacement. So one of two things would happen: (1) Nothing or (2) Hugor's controller takes a card from his own discard pile. I would presume it's 2.

Either way, not the best use of RV unless there's something really good in RV's controller's discard pile.

The point is that since Red Vengeance tells the chosen player to resolve the claim effects for "that" challenge, Hugor Hill's effect will still be applied to the person who resolves the claim effects when Red Vengeance resolves.

Hold on…

For all we know, "you" or "your" always refers to the card controller.

So, the wording "choose a character under your control" is equivalent to "choose one of your characters"

Similarly, Balon's wording "to put that card into Shadows under your control." is pretty much the same as "to put that card into your Shadows area."And unsimilarly, the card Kingswood trail wording is "put Kingswood Trail into Shadows to choose and kneel a character". It is s not written "into your Shadows area" nor "into the Shadows under your control". So it goes back into the owner's Shadows area.

Now for the Kindly Man text "instead attach him to your House card as your only agenda", it is the same as "instead attach him to your House card as an agenda under your control"

So I agree with Khudzlin, we have the same situation as Balon because of the word "your" that contradicts the rules that card return to their owner's out-of-play area. The golden rules applies.

Bolzano said:

Without specifying a change in control, there isn't one. And since the rules specify a change in control (to the owner) when a card leaves play, you'd need Kindly Man to specifically say "under your control" to counter the rule.

But ultimately, you are coming to this discussion 3-4 months late. The way I described the death of character agendas you do not own back in May has been confirmed by Nate and Damon. Feel free to send it in if you need official word.

Thanks, if you say it's been confirmed, there's no reason to ask again

ktom said:

You've given two interpretations here for the same situation (the discard one being the one I seem to recall seeing in the cardgamedb article on chargendas). I just want to double-check which is the correct interpretation.

The difference in the interpretations was explained earlier, but just to recap:

There are 2 ways to look at the situation where A controls B's character-agenda, A does not have an an agenda, but B does, and the character agenda dies:

1. The character agenda enters the "moribund:agenda" state because of its replacement effect and based on the fact that its controller does not have an agenda; when it is physically removed from the table, it reverts to its owner, only to find that the owner already has an agenda, making it an illegal card. Illegal cards are discarded.
2. Because of its replacement effect and based on the fact that its controller does not have an agenda, the character agenda tries to enter the "moribund: owner's agenda" state, which would be an illegal state; the illegal state invalidates the replacement effect and it instead enters the "normal" moribund state of "moribund: owner's dead pile."

In short, the difference is whether owner's agenda stops the character agenda from becoming an agenda at the time it is killed or at the time it leaves the table. FFG's confirmation of the earlier explanation included the confirmation that the owner's agenda stops the character agenda from becoming an agenda at the time it is killed (the same as it would if the owner controlled the character). So the character goes to the dead pile in the "controller has not agenda, owner does" scenario.