Stygian Eye

If my opponent’s Stygian Eye (Ancient Relics
F96) leaves play and I have a Snow Graves
(Forgotten Lore F15) attached to his discard
pile does this prevent Stygian Eye from being
shuffled back into his deck?
Yes it does. Stygian Eye reads, “After
Stygian Eye leaves play, shuffle it into its
owner’s deck.” Since the passive effect
does not initiate until after it has left
play it must be placed in the discard pile.
Snow Graves reads, “Cards cannot be
moved out of attached discard pile for
any reason.” This prevents Stygian Eye’s
passive from being able to resolve.

FAQ (1.9) [summary]
- !!! attachments do not change control
if char had Prize Pistol (IMoD) he can still shoot you and commit suicide :>
- move card to your side
- you're controller, but you're not owner
[after card leaves play (goes to discard/hand/etc) it goes to owners discard/etc]
- you cant take control if it violates Heroic vs Villainous rule
- with uniqueness as well, if you have one * character with given name u cant play/take next
- state of card (insane/exhausted) doesn't change
- if committed to story character changes side but remains committed
(needs some combo to use this one during story phase)
- if you take control of the card attached to a story you can reattach it
(not important here, but ill post it anyway for completeness of take control summary)

Lifted from the forums, by mischraum.de "according to Damon":

http://www.fantasyfl...=4&efidt=637379

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.

Bottom line, control lasts only so long as the attachment is in play. Also, not that characters immune to insane will be in control indefinitely, barring other circumstances. This will likely be clarified in an upcoming revision of the FAQ.

I think this cards wording needs errata to match infernal obsessions wording, especially as now literal meaning is that if Eye is destroyed the control doesn't go back... and after reading the thread it seems it was not intentional, rather assumed that "Attach to opponents character" condition would have this effect but i dont think it does... or passive take control is not permanent, and i find this idea stupid exception making... I really think it is very bad of FFG to try to explain sloppy wording with hard to grasp exceptions in rules... its not good for the game, some effects are hard enough to grasp already and writing what card does on the cards is so much better the making an exception in the rules that a few cards use...

just a question. since im building this MU Hastur Lunaticdeck... can you atteach this card to an own character? For example I have the Arkham Asylum and a Student Archaelogist in play, atteach this to the student and ready the student.
Now she goes insane. You pay one for the Asylum to restore and ready her.
What comes to my mind is, since she is restore and THEN readied her effect should take place first. But since its just a response while the eye has an forced responce (which triggers when the character is readied so kind of thereafter) Im not sure about this.
Becouse if you can instant restore trigger effect ready drive her insane you could basicly for every domain you have undrained let the opponent discard one card.
But it all is only possible if the timing is right so I would like to have this clarified befor trying to build a deck around a non-existing combo.

If character goes insane any attachemts it had are destroyed. (Its quite important with this card)
So your idea needs a fix (or I've missed something)

You can try wierd things by placing it on Charles Dexter Ward (KD) as you can attach it to your character. With disrupt and forced responce timing you can drive opponents character insane by winning A struggle
[ actually quite a nice combo for my MU/Hastur, another one i already have in my deck but it didn't come to my mind when i put the deck (first one was Marcus Jamburg (WoP) + Dimensional Rift (SoA)) maybe there is something more there]

Keep in mind you can have only one unique in play, if you play on your own guy you wont be able to steal character with another copy while this one is in play.

Seems like I overread those three lines of FAQ... and since i dont know of another card which make my own one go insane without too much trouble... yeah my combo is non-existant.

But the one with Charles Dexter Ward (KD) really is a nice one.

FAQ/Errata 3.0

Restricted.

If I attach Stygian Eye to an opponent's Unique Character and take control of it; my opponent then plays another copy of the Unique Character ; and the Stygian Eye attached to my copy of the character is then destroyed, do I retain control of (my copy of) the character because the Opponent cannot take control of another copy of a Unique character he already controls? Or does one copy have to leave play and if so which?

You ask a fine question. I pondered on likely resolutions for a while without firm answer before I resorted to some research and found this tangetially intended comment in the FAQ: "The limit on unique cards still applies. You cannot gain control of or play a unique card if you already control or own a copy of that card in play."

 

So, it turns out your opponent wasn't allowed to play his copy to begin with.

 

This is consistent with, but not trivially inferred from the original rules: "If a player has a copy of a unique card in play, he cannot play, take control of, or put into play another copy of that card."

 

In hingsight this was no surprise, I recall irritation at the Archmage Attache at it allow my opponent to play my unique, thus preventing me from doing so.

 

Sadly for you, the limited rules on the topic suggest we can't maintain the illegal state (boh copies in play) and they don't encourage unwinding except when it is reasonably easy.  My guess is that a typical tournament director would note the illegality of the second owned unique and require it be removed from play thus allowing the first copy to return to the owner's control. The only question is what would happen to the original. If it had entered play recently I would return it to the owner's hand - deeming knowledge loss a sufficient penalty but if it had been around long enough to be useful I may well consign it to the graveyard, subject ot the non-owner's preference.

Thanks. Not playing the second copy makes sense.

Stygian Eye is itself ubique so this means  if my opponet steals one of mine (eg with Burglar Tools) , I can't play another Eye.

I don;t like Archmage Attache. The absence of resource requirements make it too powerful in my view