Attachment Eligibility/Restriction

[FATMOUSE 0]

1) Do attachment restrictions prevent (i.e. Lord only) you from playing an attachment on a card that doesn't meet those restrictions?  For example, can I play Bodyguard on a Refugee and then have it immediately discarded.

2) Can I play an attachment on a card with with the "No Attachments" keyword?  That is, can you play it and then have the attachment immediately discarded, or does the keyword prevent me from even trying?

 

[Rogue30 60]

Thinking about new agenda? There is nothing in the rules, except "valid targets" in setup description and "immediately discarded any time a restriction is not met including during setup" - which seems to contradict a little. Anyway I would say you can't play/attach in both cases.

[ktom 598]

Attachment restrictions must always be met - which prevents you from playing illegal attachments in the first place.

The placement of "Setup" attachments from your hand during setup without also placing a legal character for them to attach to when the setup cards are revealed (the situation Rogue30 mentions) is a loophole that we have asked FFG to close.

[FATMOUSE 0]

 I was going to bring the Setup issue next, but you've realized the loophole as well.

If attachment restrictions must always be met then if I control Kraznys Mo Nakloz, can I really take control of an attachment and attach it to a card of my choice?  Wouldn't the card have to comply with the attachment restrictions, or is there something about the attachment not being played here that I'm missing?  

[ktom 598]

FATMOUSE said:

I was going to bring the Setup issue next, but you've realized the loophole as well.

If attachment restrictions must always be met then if I control Kraznys Mo Nakloz, can I really take control of an attachment and attach it to a card of my choice?  Wouldn't the card have to comply with the attachment restrictions, or is there something about the attachment not being played here that I'm missing? 

Since Kraznys doesn't specifically contradict attachment restrictions, you cannot disregard them. They must be met in order to move the attachment. If there is no other eligible character, you could take control of the attachment, but not move it (because of the "and" in the ability; you would be allowed to do as much of the ability as possible and have the rest "fizzle").

Sometimes, that is good enough. For example, if Lightbringer is on the only Bara character in play, you could use Kraznys to take control of it, but not move it because there is no other character in play meeting the attachment restriction. However, the owner of the attachment could no longer use the "save" Response.

[Rogue30 60]

ktom said:

because of the "and" in the ability; you would be allowed to do as much of the ability as possible and have the rest "fizzle".

If there is no other eligible character, then attaching part fizzles - this is not considered (re)attaching to the same character, correct?

[FATMOUSE 0]

Rogue30 said:

 

ktom said:

because of the "and" in the ability; you would be allowed to do as much of the ability as possible and have the rest "fizzle".

 

If there is no other eligible character, then attaching part fizzles - this is not considered (re)attaching to the same character, correct?

 

 

I don't see why the attachment part would fizzle.  Wouldn't you have to attach the attachment to the same card, if there was no other eligible card?

Also, what would be a way to specifically contradict attachment restrictions?

[ktom 598]

FATMOUSE said:

I don't see why the attachment part would fizzle.  Wouldn't you have to attach the attachment to the same card, if there was no other eligible card?

It never comes off of the original card, so I'm not sure how you can call it "reattaching" or "attaching to the same card." The card starts in state A and ends in state A without going through state B. In every other situation (like kneeling a card that is already kneeling), that is considered a failed, or "fizzled," effect.

But call it whatever you like. The point is that the attachment doesn't move.

[ktom 598]

FATMOUSE said:

Also, what would be a way to specifically contradict attachment restrictions?

"Attach to a location" is one of them.

"Ignore attachment restrictions" would be another. Or "treat Asshai characters as if they had the Maester trait."

Of course, unless you somehow make this a lasting or constant effect, you'd end up discarding the attachment almost immediately because the natural restrictions would reassert themselves. But without being able to ignore them in the first place, you aren't even allowed to try to attach to the new (ineligible) card.

[FATMOUSE 0]

ktom said:

 

FATMOUSE said:

I don't see why the attachment part would fizzle.  Wouldn't you have to attach the attachment to the same card, if there was no other eligible card?

It never comes off of the original card, so I'm not sure how you can call it "reattaching" or "attaching to the same card." The card starts in state A and ends in state A without going through state B. In every other situation (like kneeling a card that is already kneeling), that is considered a failed, or "fizzled," effect.

 

But call it whatever you like. The point is that the attachment doesn't move.

 

 

If my opponent has two Stark characters and one of them has Ice, then can I not take control of Ice and attach it to the same character because if it doesn't move it doesn't get attached?  Would I be forced to attach it to the other Stark character instead?  

ktom said:

FATMOUSE said:

 

Also, what would be a way to specifically contradict attachment restrictions?
"Attach to a location" is one of them.
"Ignore attachment restrictions" would be another. Or "treat Asshai characters as if they had the Maester trait."

Of course, unless you somehow make this a lasting or constant effect, you'd end up discarding the attachment almost immediately because the natural restrictions would reassert themselves. But without being able to ignore them in the first place, you aren't even allowed to try to attach to the new (ineligible) card.

 

 

Hmmm, I'm not sure I see how "card of you choice" doesn't meet this description. I agree that the attachment would fall off, but it seems to me at least that "attach to a card of your choice" and "attach to a location" are the same in that they let you contradict attachment restrictions when attaching the card. Now, if it said "attach an eligible card of your choice" then I agree attachment restrictions cannot be contradicted.  Or does "choice" fall under the realm of "choose" and that's why restrictions must be met?  (Even though "choice" is specifically not equivalent to "choose")

[ktom 598]

FATMOUSE said:

If my opponent has two Stark characters and one of them has Ice, then can I not take control of Ice and attach it to the same character because if it doesn't move it doesn't get attached?  Would I be forced to attach it to the other Stark character instead?

Yes. As I read it, you have to move it to the other Stark character. Because you cannot attach "something" to a card if it is already attached to that same card. 

FATMOUSE said:

Hmmm, I'm not sure I see how "card of you choice" doesn't meet this description. I agree that the attachment would fall off, but it seems to me at least that "attach to a card of your choice" and "attach to a location" are the same in that they let you contradict attachment restrictions when attaching the card. Now, if it said "attach an eligible card of your choice" then I agree attachment restrictions cannot be contradicted.  Or does "choice" fall under the realm of "choose" and that's why restrictions must be met?  (Even though "choice" is specifically not equivalent to "choose")

Restrictions are always first checked during the initiation of the effect (see p. 15-16 of the FAQ). This means that checking the eligibility of the attachments is part of initiating any effect that would move or attach a card. Therefore, whether or not the attachment is legal on the card you want to move it to happens in Step 1 of triggering Kraznys' ability. His ability (attach to a character that you choose) does not directly contradict the rule that "attachment restrictions are constant effects," meaning that any any natural restriction on the attachment would be in full force at the same time you are deciding which card to move it to. You have to apply both restrictions at the same time - which can only be done by limiting the "card of your choice" to eligible cards. The mechanics of initiating the effect make the "eligible" you suggest unnecessary - or at least redundant.

It comes down to this: other than the word "cannot," there is no hierarchy of card text allowing Kraznys' "card of your choice" to be applied over something like "Lord or Lady character only" on Bodyguard. They are both of equivalent weight, so they must both be applied if possible. They can both be applied if "card of your choice" is limited to otherwise eligible cards.

Send the question in if you prefer, but the mechanics of constant effects and initiating abilities combines in such a way that Kraznys' ability does not let you discard attachments by moving them to ineligible cards.

[Penfold3 0]

That loop-hole regarding setup seems to have been closed...

 

(3.20) Attachment Restrictions
Any attachment that has a restriction (such as
"Lord or Lady only" or "attach to an opponent's
character") is immediately discarded
from play at any time that restriction is not
met, regardless of immunity. Such restrictions
are constant effects, and the attachment should
be immediately discarded any time a restriction
is not met including during setup.

[ktom 598]

Penfold said:

That loop-hole regarding setup seems to have been closed...

 (3.20) Attachment Restrictions
Any attachment that has a restriction (such as
"Lord or Lady only" or "attach to an opponent's
character") is immediately discarded
from play at any time that restriction is not
met, regardless of immunity. Such restrictions
are constant effects, and the attachment should
be immediately discarded any time a restriction
is not met including during setup.

The close in the loophole is actually addressed in the Core rules:

"6. Place setup cards
...
You may not place attachments during this step unless
they include the “Setup” keyword in their
game text; your setup must also include valid
targets for such attachments.
...

Having overlooked that line in the past, it seemed like I could place "Setup" attachments without an appropriate card to attach to, just to get further into the deck. There was never any question that the attachment would be discarded when the setup cards were revealed - the supposed loophole was that you could essentially throw out Setup attachments during setup just to get them out of your hand.

[Penfold3 0]

Oh. My bad.

 

 

 

 

[ktom 598]

Penfold said:

Oh. My bad.

Not remotely. We never defined what we were talking about in the thread, so how could you have known?

[danach81 0]

ktom said:

Penfold said:

That loop-hole regarding setup seems to have been closed...

 

 (3.20) Attachment Restrictions
Any attachment that has a restriction (such as
"Lord or Lady only" or "attach to an opponent's
character") is immediately discarded
from play at any time that restriction is not
met, regardless of immunity. Such restrictions
are constant effects, and the attachment should
be immediately discarded any time a restriction
is not met including during setup.

The close in the loophole is actually addressed in the Core rules:

 

"6. Place setup cards
...
You may not place attachments during this step unless
they include the “Setup” keyword in their
game text; your setup must also include valid
targets for such attachments.
...

Having overlooked that line in the past, it seemed like I could place "Setup" attachments without an appropriate card to attach to, just to get further into the deck. There was never any question that the attachment would be discarded when the setup cards were revealed - the supposed loophole was that you could essentially throw out Setup attachments during setup just to get them out of your hand.

Is this in reference to the new agenda? Since the the Maester agenda is out of play, wouldn't any attachments on it also be out of play, and therefore you would only need to do the check for eligible characters when attempting to move the attachment from the agenda "into play"?

If this is in general, what would happen if you attempt to place 6 gold worth of characters or locations during the set-up phase (accidentally or intentionally)? In a tournament would this be an auto-loss? No one thinks about intentionally breaking the 5-gold limit rule, but I'm sure there must be a precedent for it in tournament play for breaking the set-up rule, right? Otherwise players may play their entire hand and discard illegal set-up cards. As another rule for set-up, I would think that it must be followed or you would forfeit either the game or lose the entire set-up phase.

[ktom 598]

danach81 said:

ktom said:

 

"6. Place setup cards

...
You may not place attachments during this step unless
they include the “Setup” keyword in their
game text; your setup must also include valid
targets for such attachments.
...

 

 

Is this in reference to the new agenda? Since the the Maester agenda is out of play, wouldn't any attachments on it also be out of play, and therefore you would only need to do the check for eligible characters when attempting to move the attachment from the agenda "into play"?

The information from the Core Set rules only applies to placing cards during Setup. It does not apply to the Agenda because a) you are not placing them as setup cards when you put the chain attachments on the Agenda and b) the text on the Agenda gives you instructions specifically to the contrary.

danach81 said:

If this is in general, what would happen if you attempt to place 6 gold worth of characters or locations during the set-up phase (accidentally or intentionally)? In a tournament would this be an auto-loss? No one thinks about intentionally breaking the 5-gold limit rule, but I'm sure there must be a precedent for it in tournament play for breaking the set-up rule, right? Otherwise players may play their entire hand and discard illegal set-up cards. As another rule for set-up, I would think that it must be followed or you would forfeit either the game or lose the entire set-up phase.

Most people take the "honest mistake" approach. You pick up one of the placed cards and apologize. If you have already drawn up, you and your opponent can decide what to do (put a card on top of the deck, randomly choose and shuffle back in, etc.).

[danach81 0]

ktom said:

ktom said:

 

The information from the Core Set rules only applies to placing cards during Setup. It does not apply to the Agenda because a) you are not placing them as setup cards when you put the chain attachments on the Agenda and b) the text on the Agenda gives you instructions specifically to the contrary.

Right, I get that. At first it sounded like people were saying that your flop would have to include a "chain-eligible" character (read: maester) because of the chains on the agenda card, but that doesn't make sense, and looking back at the posts, I don't know how I may have interpreted it that way.

 

ktom said:

Most people take the "honest mistake" approach. You pick up one of the placed cards and apologize. If you have already drawn up, you and your opponent can decide what to do (put a card on top of the deck, randomly choose and shuffle back in, etc.).

 

Thanks, ktom. So if that's convention (and I wouldn't expect anything less from this community of gamers ), setup attachments without a legal character to attach it to should probably be treated in the same way, then - as an "honest mistake" - and players should decide together how to proceed (to take them back to hand, shuffle in, etc.), and that those cards should not be able to be discarded. I doubt anyone would advocate discarding them as convention, especially since that is clearly an attempt to increase deck efficiency, and is clearly against the rules. Is the intent to ask FFG to create a definite rule about what to do in such cases when illegal set-ups occur? Or are there players that are saying that they should be able to discard setup attachments on the flop? Is there a thread about this that I missed?

[ktom 598]

danach81 said:

I doubt anyone would advocate discarding them as convention, especially since that is clearly an attempt to increase deck efficiency, and is clearly against the rules. Is the intent to ask FFG to create a definite rule about what to do in such cases when illegal set-ups occur? Or are there players that are saying that they should be able to discard setup attachments on the flop? Is there a thread about this that I missed?

The previous thread was that back when Black Amethyst first came out ("Setup. Asshai character only."), the question was asked "what happens if I place it during Setup without an Asshai?" It was more of an academic question, and the academic discussion that followed concluded that since the cards aren't revealed during the flop, the attachment would not "look for" the Asshai requirement until the cards are actually revealed. That would lead to a discarded Black Amethyst card and a "loophole" was though to exist related to attachment restrictions on Setup cards potentially allowing you to thin your deck, or at least a bad Setup hand.

Since that discussion, someone checked the Core Set rules and realized that there is no loophole because the basic rules make it illegal to place Black Amethyst in your Setup flop without also placing an Asshai character. (As happens frequently around here, we pour over the FAQ for rules information and forget to look in the basic rules document....)

So the "loophole" referred to in this thread does not, and never actually did, exist. No one has ever actuall said they should be able to "discard" Setup attachments as part of their starting 5 gold, nor has there been any sort of general call for FFG to make a rule about illegal Setup hands (which can happen by placing more than 5 gold, more than 1 Limited card, placing a Setup attachment without a character, etc.). The handling of illegal Setup flops has always been treated as a sportsmanship thing with local TOs making the ruling - assuming that the players called over a TO instead of just handling it themselves.

I would agree that accidentally placing a "restricted" Setup attachment should be handled the same as placing 6 gold, an OOH card without remembering the gold penalty, etc.

[danach81 0]

 Awesome. That clears things up for me. Thanks!

[thorin1981 0]

I would like to "resurrect" this old topic to ask a question...

 

What about this situation?

 

I place, during my setup, a non-maester character (the only character of my setup), an apprentice collar (perfectly legal thanks to the setup keyword), a steel link and a bronze link.

 

What will happen to bronze and steel links? Is apprentice collar sufficient to get those chains attached to my only non-maester setup character, or I can't place them during setup because the text of apprentice collar is still "inactive" (so my character is not a maester at all during "setup-placing-cards-moment"?

[Ratatoskr 34]

You can't setup steel link and bronze link, because they have no valid target. The constant ability on the apprentice collar is not active during setup, so your character doesn't have the Maester trait, and you cannot place the two links in the first place.

[thorin1981 0]

Thank you so much!