Hi!

I have Jory Cassel on table and Fear of winter is revealed. Does Jory's ability count against the one card limit on FoW? I guess the answer is 'no' because Jory's ability tells you to attach a character as a duplicate and does not use the word play nor put into play, but I want to be sure.

Thanks in advance!

Yes, it does. Basically, any card that comes out of your hand to play (or shadows) counts and cards that come out of somewhere else (deck, shadows, discard or dead pile, agenda) don't count.

Khudzlin said:

This came up on the weekend, and I'm not sure I agree with Khudzlin's answer there. I don't see how Jory can count against Fear of Winter.

Fear of Winter refers to cards played or put into play from hand:

"Each player cannot play or put into play more than 1 card from his or her hand until you reveal a new plot card."

Since Jory doesn't use the "put into play" wording, I don't see how we can rule that it's a "put into play" effect with regards to Fear of Winter:

"Marshalling: You may attach any House Stark character from your hand to Jory Cassel as a duplicate if he has no other duplicates attached."

Ktom, I'd be interested in how you would rule that. Thanks!

I agree with rat.

Let me ask you this: if a card said "Response: after a card comes into play from your opponent's hand, do (whatever)." Could you trigger that if an opponent used Jory's ability?

The card starts in your hand. It ends up in play (because dupes are considered "in play," are they not?). So a card has clearly entered play from your hand. It was not "played" in the sense that you did not use the defined "play" method for dupes to get it into play, so by definition, the card was "put into play."

By current rules understanding and interpretations, the only way to "enter play" is to be "played" or to be "put into play." Your argument on Jory and Fear of Winter assumes that the duping card has entered play without being either "played" or "put into play." How did it do that? What is that called?

So until there is an explaination or definition for a mechanic, other than and in addition to "put into play," which allows a card to enter play without being "played," Jory's effect falls under the definition of "put into play" (even without using the words - which are never used when the word "attached" is involved) and counts against FoW's limitation.

I totally understand what you're saying, and I can get behind it, but I don't think it's self-evident.

ktom said:

Totally. The way I understood it, "comes into play" and "enters play" are umbrella terms that encompass any and all ways and means for a card to, well, enter play. OTOH, I interpretated "put into play" as a specific term along the lines of "play" or "choose/target". An effect only has a "target" when the word "choose" is used. A card is only "played" when it enters play by one of the means defined by the FAQ. A card is only "put into play" when the "put into play" wording is present. FAQ §4.4 does certainly not offer any strong indications either way, but it seems to imply that (at least I prefer to read it that way ).

ktom said:

If that's correct, then Prosperity and Plenty would be a "put into play" effect. Or bringing a card out of Shadows would be a "put into play" effect. I'm aware that neither has any bearing on FoW, but both are ways for a card to "enter play" that I would not have considered "put into play" effects.

ktom said:

It's a matter of definition of technical terms. The duplicate entered play or came into play without being "put into play" in the same way the character affected by A Gentle Prison is selected among an array of possible characters without being "chosen", and without being the "target" of the effect.

In the end, I guess you're right, but there's a last bit of doubt in my mind. I might send this one in. Any other currently unresolved stuff I should inquire about while I'm at it?

Ratatoskr said:

The definition in the FAQ is:

"'Put into Play' is a game mechanic that bypasses all costs (including gold penalties) and play restrictions."

While you are reading it as a literal term, it has always been treated as a general definition. So long as a card goes from "out of play" to "in play" bypassing all (usual) costs and play restrictions, that card is "put into play".

The comparison to "selecting" a card that an effect acts upon and "choosing" a card as a target is not really a direct one. That's because there is no equivalency between a card "selected" as the recipient of an effect and a card "chosen" as a target. It would only be a direct comparison if the "selected" card and the "chosen" card were both considered targets, or if an effect had to have a target.

Are there any cards that originate from the hand and enter play that do not apply toward Fear of Winter? If yes, then maybe this would be a good template to follow. If not, then we should apply the "originating from hand" as there being only 1 card per round(while this is revealed).

That's the point of the discussion here.

If "put into play" is taken as a general term, then anything that goes from hand directly to play will count against FoW.

If "put into play" is taken as a specific term, then anything that goes from hand directly to play but isn't Marshaled or doesn't use the words "put into play" would not count against FoW.

At the present time, the only existing things that would go from hand to play without being Marshaled or using the words "put into play" would be something like Jory or the various "Banner for the…"s that use an "attach from your hand" wording.

This one is technically impossible to logic out based on the fact that "put into play" could be generic or specific. I fall on the side of Jory counting against the limit from Fear of Winter. It's hard for me to not take Fear of Winter as using the generic version of "put into play". It seems the whole spirit of Fear of Winter is to deny you the ability to play cards from your hand.

ktom said:

If that's the case, I'll defer to you. Thank you!

mdc273 said:

~Or put into play

Another thing - is it just me or are these new smileys butt-ugly? Blerch!

I never smite. I can't tell. D:

Ratatoskr said:

The main reason why bringing something into play (even though it's still "put into play" effect) from shadows, discard, dead, or deck doesn't count against FoW is because it specifically says "from their hand." If the card is already in shadows when the plot is flipped, you can play or put into play something from your hand *and* bring a card out of shadows in the same round. Otherwise, one card from your hand, and that's it.

I'm thinking that's why he said "I'm aware neither has any bearing on FoW"….

ktom said:

You can read me like a book…or at least, you can read my writings like forum posts…