Really good question from the original poster, very clever. As it turns out, the KO'd pile bit actually is part of the targeting phrase, though, so unfortunately your (Master) Plan won't work.

If you do a search for the phrase "from your KO'd pile" in the CRD, you get to a section on targets, where it's used as an example of a more complex targeting requirement. I can't remember if I've ever actually cited that list of examples before, but it's good to have them there. :)

(Points for originality, sorry to ruin it.)

All praise be to HC!

can you recruit the character from your opponents ko'd pile though?

I really hope so, as I assumed that was the point of this card!

I cannot follow that.

The FAQs are official explanations - to question them you need a very good reason that you didn't conjur. The FAQs say you "can target the card only if it stays in the KO'd pile. So, not only the narrow conjunction to the KO'd pile but also "stay where it was before" should nail the fact to target a KO'd character card. There is absolutely no reason to question this - as long as you don't just want to argue.
Also, I did answer his question. It was "can I target a character in play?" - I gave the answer "no." in my former post along with the FAQs. Sorry Minivan - better luck next time.

I don't believe the FAQ really does answer it in the manner you say it does, however, as HeroComplex posted, the Comprehensive Rules Document answers this about as clearly as possible. :)

As I'm sensing a touch of hositilty from your response I'd just like to say I wasn't trying to be a dick with my response. Sorry if it came out that way. I'm assuming the issue stems from when I said you didn't answer the question, it did not seem at the time that you were fully explaining why the character card could only be targeted if it were in a KOed pile as you didn't elaborate but rather continued to describe the rest of the effect after a target had been chosen. Again my bad if that seemed harsh, I misinterpreted.

Anyways, what I was trying to convey however was that the FAQ could potentially only be clarifying a particular case of card interaction, which they often do, rather than explain every particular usage of the card.

As I said in my earlier response it did not explicitly state that you could only target a character card in the KOed pile. This was implied but was not really the hard evidence I was looking for as they were describing the standard (and now as HeroComplex has confirmed it is the only) interaction between the cards.

Wait, so the official ruling is the card you recruit MUST be in a KO'd pile before you originally discard your card to recruit the card in the KO'd pile?

Actually.... I didn't see it like this - but you're right all along. I should've get that "stayed"-argument earlier, and also, HeroComplex followed his reputation and helped us out.

So - dry your mouth and let's go on (German saying for "next topic") :p

Jedimario: Yes. Always, you first target if the card wants you to target. ONLY then you pay all other costs. That's why you cannot target your discarded card - when you target, it's not in the KO'd pile yet.

EDIT: Hmmmm, seems I clicked on the wrong button - sry for double post

This is more for HC but has the distinction between "character card" and "character" been changed? Back in the day, a "character" was an object on your in-play zone and in all other zones was referenced as a "character card".

So when effects targetted a "character", it could only refer to in-play objects, whereas when effects targetted a "character card", it could only be those objects in the other zones (hand, KO'd pile, etc).

Although you've already clarified that "from a KO'd pile" is part of the targetting requirement, if it had not been, you still would not be able to target an in-play character... correct?

While the distinction is still very much alive, I actually don't think it's ever stopped a character card in play from being recognized as one. I know I've seen players assume that, going back a ways, but that's the only memory I've got along those lines. A character exists only in play, which is extremely important for all sorts of reasons, but a character should always also be a character card.

As a practical example, take the definition of Crossover:The MXM FAQ had a list of what one of your Crossovers would apply to, and included a line for "character cards you own that are controlled by an opponent." If the opponent managed to steal one of your characters, it would still be a character card you own, and so would still be affected by any Crossovers you had running.

Characters in play don't often need to be referenced as character cards, so the fact that they can be rarely comes up. But I'm pretty sure it's always been the case.

It seems that this is the case now but way before in VS Year 1 (pre-HC)... there was a big deal about characters vs. character cards. Characters in play were no longer considered character cards if I remember correctly.

Cards like Pathetic Attempt have furthered blurred this distinction because instead of:
I would have probably preferred:

Negate target effect targeting you or an object in play you control.

Quite theoratical, but I think this would have done more harm as you have to know what an object is. Forum readers do (maybe) know, but what does the average "outsider" do? Is a face-down resource an object? Is an equipment on a character? It's one of these one-card-problem that the inventors have bypassed for lack of best wording.

I understand how using CRD terms on cards may be confusing but considering "objects" are referenced constantly in the CRD, it would remove ambiguity.

And to answer your question... yes... all of those are objects: