Hello.

I sent following questions to FFG and received answer from Damon Stone.
I hope this answer won't be overrulled)

> I have several questions about control of unique card, related to each other.
>
> 1.Player A has in play Balon Greyjoy(King's Landing 30), Player B has in play Ser Preston Greenfield(King's Road 57). After copy of Ser Preston discarded from Player B deck, Player A triggers Response on Balon Greyjoy and puts that copy in the Shadow under his contol.
> The Question -- may Player A bring stolen copy of Ser Preston from Shadow, given that Player B still has in play his own Ser Preston?
>
> 2. The plot 'Breaking and Entering'(Lions of the Rock 51) are revealed. Player A has in play Myr (Beyond the Narrow Sea 76). Player B wins the intrigue challenge against player A, and player A discards copy of Myr as part of the claim.
> May Player B put this copy in play under his control for the effect of 'Breaking and Entering'?
>
> 3. Player A has in play Hugor Hill(Beyond the Narrow Sea 4) and player B has in play Willas Tyrell(Beyond the Narrow Sea 9), and also copy of Willas Tyreel in his discard pile.Player A won unopposed challenge with Hugor Hill against Player B.
> May Player A put in the play under his contol copy of Willas Tyrell?

And the answer is no to all of those.

That's a direct reversal of the previous stance, last explained by ktom (and me!) here.

at what point is this game not worth it anymore? even i am getting sick of rulings constantly changing. if the rules are so complex that even the company who made the game cannot keep rulings consistent, what hope do we as players have?

I suspect Damon simply misunderstood the questions. Clarification is due to follow nevertheless.

I suspect Damon simply misunderstood questions 2 and 3. Clarification is due to follow nevertheless.

Just to clarify, all three questions are asking the same thing. The answer to all three, prior to the ruling above, would have been "Yes".

I think sometimes Damon reads rules questions too quickly and doesn't always give complete answers due to overlooking certain parts of the questions. He may have also assumed the FAQ says something different about this as well.

Yeah, the answer to all of those is definitely "yes." Someone will overrule this, probably Damon himself.

The first time I read the questions, I though he was trying to dupe a copy owned by A with a copy owned by B. The answer to THAT is always no. It's possible Damon misread the questions (I know I certainly did), as opposed making a new ruling about what happens when putting a card into play under your control that an opponent owns. I'll check.

I sent Damon the question the OP asked, but I made sure to be very clear in my wording.

Answer from Damon:

Question:

Can I put into play an opponent's unique card if my opponent already has that card in play? They are the owner of the copy they control, and I do not have that unique card in play or in my dead pile.

Answer:

Yes.

Sorry OP, your answer was wrong. Damon must not have read your questions correctly. AND BALANCE IS RESTORED!

I checked with Damon and he confirms misreading the OPs questions. Having done the same thing at first, I can completely sympathize.

> You MAY put into play, under your control, a copy of a unique card OWNED by an opponent - assuming you don't have your own copy in play or in your dead pile - even if they control another copy in play.

> You MAY NOT dupe a unique card under your control (no matter who owns it) with a copy owned by an opponent. (That was the question as both Damon and I misread it.)

Edit: Ummmm... Look over there!!!!

I liked ktom's response to my previous question re this area

I'd sum it up as; basically there are no rules with regards to what you can do with an opponents character - all the rules, limitations, restrictions are written with regard to the owner of the card only

This extended to creating a situation where both myself and my opponent have in play copies of the same unique card (both owned by my opponent)

Re "They are the owner of the copy they control, and I do not have that unique card in play or in my dead pile"

This confused me ... does it matter whether I have my own copies of a card, which may be dead / in play?

So if I had e.g. my verison of Coldhands and I have an opportunity to take control of my oppenents Coldhands do I run into some rule restrction

Maybe that rule is as simple as any one player cannot have two copies of the same unqiue card in play - regardless of the

owner ... but that does'n deal with my dead characters ...

Re "They are the owner of the copy they control, and I do not have that unique card in play or in my dead pile"

This confused me ... does it matter whether I have my own copies of a card, which may be dead / in play?

So if I had e.g. my verison of Coldhands and I have an opportunity to take control of my oppenents Coldhands do I run into some rule restrction

Maybe that rule is as simple as any one player cannot have two copies of the same unqiue card in play - regardless of the

owner ... but that does'n deal with my dead characters ...

The "simple" rule to follow is: "You can play or put into play any unique card - no matter who OWNS it - unless there is:

1) another copy in play that you own, or

2) another copy in play that you control, or

3) another copy in your dead pile."

(And, of course, "copy" of the unique card is by title.)

The "they are the owner of the copy they control" phrase is there to eliminate the possibility that I had played a copy of the card, they had taken control of it, and now I want to put a second copy into play under my control while the first copy that I lost control of is still on the table. You can't do that.

It really was a misunderstanding. I received follow-up e-mail with:

The answer to the questions is yes. The way they were worded made it difficult to tell exactly who was the operator and owner of the various cards and effects.

There are no rules that prevent you from putting into play and under your control one of your opponent's cards if your opponent has that same card in play under his control.

Sorry for the confusion, that my wording caused.