Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sajuhl1987

Taking Control of Chars with Attatchments

Recommended Posts

I thought I read this in the Faq or on the Forums or somewhere but I can't find it again and I can't remember what I read, if a player takes control of another players char, does the player also take control of attatchments and duplicates attatched to that character?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. so what happen with the attachments? are they discarded?

if no

do they still apply there effects?    maybe what if i take control of a char who has Aegons Blade attached. does it give the bonusses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attachments do not get discarded and the character would get any Passive bonuses from it (e.g. all from Aegons Blade). But if the attachment had some Any phase: or Response: effects you would not be able to use them since you are not controling them. So taking control of character with Northern steal gives you just the benefits of the character. Also notice that if the character had an Icy Catapult attached the controler (owner) could still use its effect when the character dies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one additional consideration here:

If the control change makes an attachment violate a play restriction, it will be discarded. For example, Motley says "attach to an opponent's character." If I attach it to one of your characters, and then later take control of that character, the attachment is no longer attached to an opponent's character. That means it no longer meets it's restriction, is an illegal attachment and is discarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's a restriction you have to take into consideration when attaching Motley, not later. If you take control of an opponent's character with Motley you are not attaching Motley again, you're just getting the Motley'ed character. Same happens with Banners: they have to be attached to a specific house character but then they can be stolen with the Banner attachment.

That's the difference between Bodyguard and Motley. If the character stops being a Lord or a Lady, Bodyguard will be discarded (Lord or Lady character only) but if the character doesn't belong to your opponent anymore Motley will not be discarded because you met the restriction when you attached it(attach to an opponent's character).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eloooooooi said:

But that's a restriction you have to take into consideration when attaching Motley, not later. If you take control of an opponent's character with Motley you are not attaching Motley again, you're just getting the Motley'ed character. Same happens with Banners: they have to be attached to a specific house character but then they can be stolen with the Banner attachment.

It's not the same thing. With the Banner, the "attach to a House X character is part of a triggered effect," so it becomes a play restriction on triggering that effect, not on the card as an attachment itself. Anyway, taking control of, say, a Baratheon character with the Baratheon Banner attachment does not change the House affiliation of the character, so the situation does not really match up.

On Motley, "attach to an opponent's character" is a constant attachment restriction that is always active. It must always be true, not just when playing the card from your hand. So "attach to an opponent's character" on Motley does indeed function exactly the same as "Lord or Lady character only" on Bodyguard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not see how you can interpret that to be a constant effect. In the case of Bodyguard or let's say Dawn, the restriction is pretty clear.

If Motley read "Opponent's character only", then it would be a clear restriction. But in this case it seems to me that the restriction is only checked when you initially attach Motley to a character. The keyword there i think is Attach which should be checked only when you attach the card to a character.

Why would you consider that to be a constant restriction? Same with "Flogged and Chained" for example. It says "Attach to a non-Army character". Does that mean that if the character "Flogged and Chain" is attached to gets the Army trait, it will be automatically discarded?

If I'm interpreting this wrong please let me know lengua.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ktom said:

It must always be true, not just when playing the card from your hand.

Hmm... I remember talking here about Motley and my first thought was "discard, cause no longer meets restrictions".

But:

First there is distinction between "... only" and "attach to ...".

Second, with text like "Attach to an opponent's location. Kneel that location." that part about kneeling works only at the moment of playing the attachment, right?

And third, Taxed Dry "Attach to an opponent's income providing card." and "If it is Winter, attached card does not provide an income bonus." So if it is winter that attachment is automatically discarded if ktom's right. And that would be a little strange.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ktom: 

I don't think so. You only attach Motley to a character once. The restriction is only valid at that moment, when you play it from your hand and attach it to an opponent's character. Whatever happens after that doesn't matter.

On the other hand, Bodyguard states that the attached character must be a Lord or a Lady in order to keep the atachment. If not, Bodyguard is discarded. Definitely not the same as Motley, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, specific examples:

1. Yes, if the character that "Flogged and Chained" is attached to gains the Army trait, the attachment becomes illegal and is discarded.

2. I'll get to the difference between "attach" and "kneel" on Tyrion's Chain in a minute.

3. On Taxed Dry, the Winter text of "attached card does not provide an income bonus" is a change in status for how that card contributes to the income count. It does not change the status as an "income providing" card just because its contribution is blocked. It is still included in the income count, but as 0 because of the additional restriction. So it is providing 0 income. The ATM down the street doesn't stop being a cash dispensing machine just because you don't have any money in your account. There is a huge difference between "does not provide income under these circumstances" and "is not an income providing location." 

Now, in general, what you are missing is that there are two ways to read the word "attach." The first is as an active verb which initiates when two cards are separate and resolves by joining them together. This is how you are all reading and interpreting the word "attach" on these cards. However, the word "attach" can also be read in a less active voice in which one thing becomes included - and continues to be included - as a characteristic or quality of another.

This second interpretation is the proper way to read the word "attach" when it appears on an attachment card. The active verb is inherent in the card type itself. Playing the card form your hand is the initiation of the joining and the card coming into play is the resolution. If the "attach to an opponent's character" text was what was allowing you to initiate the joining, or only modified the active process, then shouldn't every single attachment card since the game began say "attach to a character" since that active process would thus require a modifier? Otherwise, how do you know what to attach it to? (And before you say "but they essentially do because the FAQ says that unless otherwise specified, attachments have to go on characters," understand the history - that entry was added because people were trying to move attachments to locations where they would have no effect, not because they were trying to play them on other card types.) Essentially, there is no "natural state" for attachment cards (that is why they are automatically discarded when the character they are modifying leaves play; they cannot exist in play on their own), so the card must constantly attach itself, becoming an extension of what it is attaching to.

Compare this to the verb "kneel," which only has an active voice. There is only the transition from one state to another, not a concept of continually kneeling in order to maintain the knelt state. So when Tyrion's Chain says "kneel that location," that effect needs a point of initiation - which is when the card is played. If the card stands through another effect, that "kneel this location" needs another initiation point, which is not provided in its text. So the difference is that "attach" is a constant process (the active initiation of which is provided by the rules for playing the card type) whereas "kneel" one time, active process.

So "attach to an opponent's character" is not a separate instruction for how to play the card or a modifier for the rules of how to play the card. It is a state that must be maintained in order for the card to continue being attached to whatever it was played on. It is therefore a constant, passive effect restriction on keeping the attachment in play.

Turn this around. Tyrion's Chain says "attach to a location." You play it on one of my locations. Can I use Kraznys mo Nakloz to move Tyrion's Chain to one of my characters, where it would have no effect? By your reasoning of "the attach restriction only applies when the card is played, not constantly," I sure can. By my "constant requirement to maintain the passive conjunction of the cards," no you can't. Or how about this: Let's say I'm playing King Viserys (from KotS) in my Baratheon deck. I have 14 power and there are no other Kings in play. Can I play Prosperity and Plenty to take the Martial Law (attach to an opponent's location) out of my discard pile, attach it to Viserys, and win the game? I'm not playing the attachment from my hand, so it's "attach to an opponent's location" text would not apply to what is essentially a "put into play" effect while the card text is non-active in the discard pile.

So you see, there is a lot more practical support for the "attach to X" text being read and interpreted from the non-active, continuous requirement point of view than from the active "initiate, resolve, forget" point of view. History and experience bear it out, too. But if you don't like my explanation for why it works this way, feel free to send the question in directly to Nate at FFG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ktom said:

So you see, there is a lot more practical support for the "attach to X" text being read and interpreted from the non-active, continuous requirement point of view than from the active "initiate, resolve, forget" point of view.

Agree. But designers must be aware that it's source of confusion?

"Attach Black Raven to your House card and discard all other Raven attachments from play."

So, if it is constant effect, then if I play White Raven, the first player should tell which attachment is discarded.

Also "Attach to an opponent's character, then draw a card." reads a little weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ktom said:

Duplicates, yes.

Attachments, no.

You mean, If I have Eddard Stark(S5) with Ice(S1) attachment. and my opponent take control my Eddard. 

Later, in the challenge, if Eddard participating, I still can trigger Ice effer is right? even kill eddard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rex Tan said:

 

You mean, If I have Eddard Stark(S5) with Ice(S1) attachment. and my opponent take control my Eddard. 

Later, in the challenge, if Eddard participating, I still can trigger Ice effer is right? even kill eddard?

You can still trigger Ice's effect, yes.  You would have to choose someone other than Eddard though because Ice specifies "another character."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rogue30 said:

Agree. But designers must be aware that it's source of confusion?

Probably, but that just means they haven't come up with a better way, yet. Designers and editors are not perfect, either, and will sometimes let something through that, while proper English, is not particularly good game language.

Rogue30 said:

"Attach Black Raven to your House card and discard all other Raven attachments from play."

So, if it is constant effect, then if I play White Raven, the first player should tell which attachment is discarded.

No. Remember the discussion about how "kneel" only has an active voice? Same thing here. "Attach Black Raven to your House card and discard all other Raven attachments from play" is no different than "Attach Black Raven to your House card. Discard all other Raven attachments from play." Only the "Attach Black Raven to your House card" is a continuous effect. The "discard" part, like the "kneel" part on Tyrion's Chain, needs a point of initiation that is not provided by card text, and is thus provided by the card coming into play. Playing a White Raven leaves no conflict for the First Player to resolve because there is only one discarding effect initiating when it is played.

Rogue30 said:

Also "Attach to an opponent's character, then draw a card." reads a little weird.

Perhaps, but it is again the exact same thing as the "kneel" and "discard" phrasing. It might read weird, but it is a consistent template.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I agree with that interpretation of attach as a permanent effect.

To me it seems that attach refers to whenever you attach the card - that's the only time you check for the restriction.

I understand what you are saying there ktom... however, you're just interpreting the word attach the way you want to interpret it. If the rules do not specify how to interpret attach i think one interpretation can be as good as the next.

Whenever Kraznys takes control of an attachment, it says, attach it to a card of your choice. Shouldn't you check for the restriction once you attach let's say Tyrion's Chain again to another card?

ktom said:

This second interpretation is the proper way to read the word "attach" when it appears on an attachment card. The active verb is inherent in the card type itself. Playing the card form your hand is the initiation of the joining and the card coming into play is the resolution. If the "attach to an opponent's character" text was what was allowing you to initiate the joining, or only modified the active process, then shouldn't every single attachment card since the game began say "attach to a character" since that active process would thus require a modifier?

Why would they need an attach to card text? Cards like Flogged and Chained place a restriction on where you can attach the attachment basically. And that is you can't attach it to an army card, that is all. The attach instructions are there to tell you what restrictions you have on attaching this attachment; what you can do by default is already given in the rules.

ktom said:

Turn this around. Tyrion's Chain says "attach to a location." You play it on one of my locations. Can I use Kraznys mo Nakloz to move Tyrion's Chain to one of my characters, where it would have no effect?

Since you are re-attaching the chain, wouldn't you have to meet the "attach" restrictions once again?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zsa said:

I understand what you are saying there ktom... however, you're just interpreting the word attach the way you want to interpret it. If the rules do not specify how to interpret attach i think one interpretation can be as good as the next.

 

Whenever Kraznys takes control of an attachment, it says, attach it to a card of your choice. Shouldn't you check for the restriction once you attach let's say Tyrion's Chain again to another card?

 

First, you are assuming that the "attach" from the card effect and the "attach" when you play the card from your hand are the same type of action. The difference between "play" and "put into play" calls this into question. But let's run with it and say the assumption is true.

And look instead at "Compelled by the Rock," which says "move an attachment from one character to another." Now, we aren't technically "attaching" the card to the new character, are we? How does the "attach instructions text still applies" jive with move effects?

 

I'm sorry to have to say it this way, but if we're going to take the "all interpretations are just as valid" stance, I'm going to have to mention that the history of the game and my rather considerable experience with the game support my interpretation. I'm not saying this to be conceited or arrogant; I'm saying it to underscore the fact that my interpretation is not coming from an arbitrary or personal preference.

As I said before; if you don't like my interpretation and would like something official, send the question into FFG and ask Nate to address it directly. I have no doubt what he will tell you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Every ruling and clarification about attachments and control that has come down so far supports ktom's interpretation. He may not always be 100% correct, but if you disagree and can't find something in the rules to directly contradict something he is saying, your best bet is to ask Nate, because ktom's reasoning is usually thorough and takes the entire history of the game into account, including the precedent of past rulings.

In this particular case the logic behind his statements is very sound. I probably would have said that it has no triggering text so it is both a play requirement and passive effect and as such continually checks the status of the card it is attached to. ktom's explanation is far more thorough and well reasoned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"He calls it thinking": Response: Cancel the effects of a response without an influence cost. Then, attach He Calls It Thinking to a HM character (counts as a Boon attachment with the text "Attached character gets +2 STR.").

"Compelled by the rock" works with it, right? That response part requirement isn't working any more, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rogue30 said:

"Compelled by the rock" works with it, right? That response part requirement isn't working any more, correct?

Correct. I think we touched on that way back in the discussion somewhere. The "attach to a Martell character" part of He Calls It Thinking is part of the resolution of the triggered effect. It is not part of the characteristics of the event once it becomes an attachment. The characteristics of the event-as-attachment are spelled out as "counts as a Boon attachment with the text 'attached character gets +2 STR'". So you can move it to a non-Martell character. Similarly, you can move the Banner character-as-attachments to characters with other House affiliations, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...