Konrad Klar wrote:Thorsten the Traveller wrote:So the duplicability of a non-unique card is irrelevant once it is stored? Is that the final verdict? That might require some attention, perhaps even ruling.
imo, the uniqueness can be extended to duplicability, as they cover the same issue (unique is something that cannot be duplicated).
Perhaps I did not understand, what you are actually suggesting.
I you mean:
"Stored cards are not considered to be in play, except for uniqueness and duplicability",
then my comment about Doors of Night removed from play by Aware of Their Ways is irrelevant.
I thought that you mean extending "except for uniqueness and duplicability" for all cards not in play.
This would remove "The Windlord Found Me" 's exploit.
This would also have impact on on future/undiscovered yet cards that may be stored (I do not know whether anybody cares about future cards, and whether the impact would be positive, or not).
This exploit could also be removed by errata for this particular card. This is obvious that some effects of stored cards become active just when the cards are stored, not before. So since moment when the cards should not be considered as in play according to general rules.
Otherwise Into the Smoking Cone would not affect a rings at all, for instance. Now I realize that the instance has similar problem. Last sentence of its text: "Once inverted, no other copy of this card can be inverted" does not fall into "uniqueness", nor into "duplicability".
Texts of the card and similar cards are lacking a clear distinction between effects that are active when a card is stored and rest of effect. They are specifying which effects
become active when a card is stored (proper way of overriding a general rules), but do not specify an effects that do not cease to be active when a card is stored. As though there was no place for effects that are active regardless of stored/not stored state of a card.
This is similar to lack of clear distinction between effect of using a Plantir and rest of effects of a Palantir. Formally, if such distinction does not exists, bearer of the Palantir of Osgliath that duplicates effect of Palanir of Orthanc should make two corruption checks (first as second part of effect of using of Palantir of Palanir of Orthanc, second as second part of effect of using of Palantir of Osgliath).
Bandobras Took wrote:Incidentally, cards placed off to the side are stated to be in play for purposes of uniqueness, but are not stated to not be in play otherwise, so far as I can tell. Make of that what you will.
Incidentally, or accidentally they are not stated to be in play
only for purposes of uniqueness. And they are not stated as not in play too.