I had this situation couple of times already. I am not sute how it resolves.

Let's say my opponent plays Tyrell and he had Discarded Margery's duplicate to save her. Yoren enters play.

Can I choose and put in play Margery under my control? Does it not violate uniqe cards rules?

I am not sure after reading RR Uniqe cards section. It is not prohibited there, so is it allowed? If yes this is very non-Nedly.

If yes this is very non-Nedly.

Sure it is. The Lannisters put Arya into play with the Boltons after she was discarded back in King's Landing. All depends on how you look at it.

The rules for unique cards are that YOU cannot marshal or put into play a unique card if YOU already have another copy of that card in play (that you own or control) or in your dead pile. You marshaling a unique card that your OPPONENT already has another copy of in play doesn't break this rule - even if the opponent owns the copy you are trying to put into play.

Ok, I had a situation from another side.

Yoren took Unique char. This char was on board for couple of turns. Then opponents wants to marshall anther copy of that card (char is still on board under my control). Can he do it?

I have my understanding of this but, better keep it to myself in order not to influence others.

Reference:

Short answer: no. He owns one that is already in play. He can only marshal/put into play additional copies as duplicates, and that he can only do if he both owns *and* controls the card. While you control his unique, the other versions are dead cards in his hand.

I guess the disconnect for me is it all banks on the meaning of "have" because Rules-as-written it does not say you can only OWN one copy, it says you can only HAVE one copy in play, so does HAVE always mean OWN or does it mean CONTROL or both? Each is a possible interpretation with English language unless I'm missing an in-game definition of HAVE that's elsewhere.

"Each player may only have a maximum of one instance of each unique card, by title, in play."
My gut feeling based on a life of english was just if someone steals my discarded Sansa, they have one Sansa in play, I have zero Sansa in play. I might be the owner of the Sansa card but my opponent Has it in play.

The only restriction that mentions OWNING is on the "take control of" clause
"A player cannot take control of a unique card if he or she already controls or owns an in-play copy of that card."

Take-control-of means card-steal rather than Marshalling though, doesn't it? Or does take-control-of effects happen every time you marshal any card?

This doesn't answer the question for me because it doesn't use the word HAS an in-play copy, the separate paragraph on take-control-of says controls a copy or owns a copy. (The only place with OWNS)

I think it's probably just ambiguously written rules text making life difficult, but without word from FFG, it's an argument about definitions of a plain english word 'HAS' which could be controls or it could mean owns or controls-and-owns.

Maybe it's ambiguous enough I should email Nate for confirmation since it can determine whole games won or lost by stealing cards.

The way I look at this always is (1.0 and 2.0 this rule is the same): If the card is in my sleeves I own the card. If it is at my end of the table I own and control it (except negative Attachments). Nothing more nothing less.

I really find explaining the rules in such a complicated way meaningless... I think it is apparent to everyone who has played a little bit, what rulings like 'Unique' are for. You are not meant to have two separate unique cards in play and you are not meant to play unique cards if they are dead. If it was so important, the part for the owning and control about cards that ''steal'' other cards, should be referenced properly.

Let's spice it up a little. 3rd dot of Unique section (A player cannot bring into play or take control of a unique card if a copy of that card is in his or her dead pile) suggests that we can actually steal a character that has been killed but there is a copy of this char in opponent's discard pile?

Correct?

@Vanzig. Have you mailed FFG yet? I would like to have it straighten up.

BTW, my opinion was and still is same as istaril.

I mean the rule was clarified in an FAQ for first Ed and I imagine it hasn't changed going into second. As far as your wording concern, I believe that the word HAVE in this case refers to a card that you either own OR control. Basically if you have a unique character on your side of the board or if one that you brought to the game is in play, or is in your dead pile, you can't play another copy of it. I mean from a Nedly perspective, if Yoren recruited your discarded Tyrion for the Night's Watch, it would be pretty silly if you just said "But wait! I have an exact clone of Tyrion back in King's Landing still!"

Yes, the word "have" in the rules means "that you own OR control." That might not be immediately clear, though, so folks are justified in asking if it needs a future FAQ entry in order to be clear.

From a Nedly perspective, (spoilers ahead...), say that Jeyne Poole dies and Arya Stark shows up in the Seven Kingdoms. The Boltons would have to insist that the real one is the impostor because they have so much invested in the dead girl being the real Arya Stark.

 

x A player cannot take control of a unique card if he or she already controls or owns an in-play copy of that card.

Wait a minute? So if someone takes control of one of my unique characters that means I cannot take that character back? Is that really the intention of the rules? Has that always been the case? I can't remember of it ever came up when I played CCG.

Edit: Oh wait. Perhaps the word copy is the key here. Does "copy" in this rules refer to "another copy"?

Yes. A card is not a copy of itself. I got caught by this too, but thankfully ktom spotted it. Detailed explanation here: http://www.cardgamed...ards-into-play/

Ya, it sort of goes against the common way the word copy is sometimes used in everyday language. I noticed that the rules use the word "instance" instead rather than writing "you can only have one copy..." which is what you often hear when people paraphrase to explain the rule.

We need to summarize.

Yoren can successfully use his ability on unique character in opponent discard pile:

- even when opponent has that character on board under his control,

- even if opponent has copy of  that character card in his dead pile

Opponent cannot marshal(nor put in play) unique character that has been stolen by Yoren and is still unders Yorens owner control (in play).

Correct?

We need to summarize.

Yoren can successfully use his ability on unique character in opponent discard pile:

- even when opponent has that character on board under his control,

- even if opponent has copy of  that character card in his dead pile

Opponent cannot marshal(nor put in play) unique character that has been stolen by Yoren and is still unders Yorens owner control (in play).

 

Correct?

Yes.

Yoren is officially my new best friend.

I'm playing a Night's Watch mirror match where this has just come up - can my Yoren take an opponent's Yoren from their discard pile and play it as a dupe?

No. 

In order to marshal or put a dupe into play, you have to both own and control the dupe and the copy in play. So Yoren can never dupe, even in a mirror match, because you do not own the copy you are trying to put into play.

Note that this works "in reverse," too. If you use Yoren to put a copy of a unique card into play from your opponent's discard pile, then draw your own copy of that card. you cannot use the copy from your deck to dupe the copy you took from the opponent's discard pile because you do not own at least one of those cards.

Of course not. Yoren said put in play a character and you cannot control the same character two time. I dont know where you got the idea of transforming that character into a dupe.

I dont know where you got the idea of transforming that character into a dupe.

The "idea" comes from the rules:

First bullet point under "Unique Cards" (RRG, p. 22)

"- A player may marshal (or put into play by a card ability) additional copies of each unique card he or she owns and controls, placed as a duplicate on that card, for no cost."

This means that if you use a card ability to put a second (i.e., "additional") copy of a unique card into play, that card will enter play as a dupe when the "put into play" ability resolves.

You dont own the character Yoren "steal" since he come from your opponent discard pile, you just control it. So I see it was just a misinterpretation of the rules.

That's what ktom said replying to ChannelDelibird. Then you decided to chime in, and ktom tried to explain to you where the "idea" came from, but I guess it's of no interest to you.

That's what ktom said replying to ChannelDelibird. Then you decided to chime in, and ktom tried to explain to you where the "idea" came from, but I guess it's of no interest to you.

To be fair, I think there's a little language barrier here.  Channeldelibird asked about using Yoren to pay opponents characters as dupes.  Which ktom answered.  

Vilainn6 was confused about how the idea of using an opponents character as a dupe came about, when Yoren clearly says put into play under your control (not attach as a duplicate).

Ktom answered this, which vilainn6 commented to say he understood and gave his reasons for that.  At that point he realised that the idea of attaching your opponents copy of that character as a dupe came from a misunderstanding of the rules by Channeldelibird.

That's all that was.

Yoren can successfully use his ability on unique character in opponent discard pile:

- even when opponent has that character on board under his control,

Is that true? Isn't it 2nd instance of unique character in play?

Taking into consideration that FAQ altered how Yoren ability may be used this thread should be reviewed, Believe it or not, there are still people refering to CGDB for clarification of the cards abilities.