does losing a characters printed icons also remove any additional icons gained by attachments

[chainsaw_ash 0]

if i have sword of y'ha-tallo on a character and so the character gains a combat and terror icon and my opponent plays a binding, which states,  until end of phase a character loses all printed icons, does this remove the additional terror and combat icons imbued by the sword?

thx

[jhaelen 98]

Nope. They're not printed icons.

[AUCodeMonkey 0]

Concur with jhaelen. The Sword adds icons, yes, but they're not printed on the card.

[Penfold3 0]

 Printed literally refers to the ink on the card in question. Since those icons are not printed on that card they would never be effected by something that uses that phrase.

[Dark Initiate 0]

What about the little printed(!) icons that some cards have in their text boxes (e.g., Norman Blackwood, Jr., and Elite Hit Squad)? 

[TheProfessor 4]

 Only the icons physically printed on the left side of the card, in the area reserved for icons per the rule book are considered "Printed Icons" for the purpose of this game.

[Dark Initiate 0]

TheProfessor said:

 Only the icons physically printed on the left side of the card, in the area reserved for icons per the rule book are considered "Printed Icons" for the purpose of this game.

 

That sounds right.  Is there a passage in the rules or FAQs that unequivocally backs that up?

[Penfold3 0]

 Well only in so far as they a the only thing in the game defined as an icon in the rulebook, yes. The typographic symbols do not count as icons, they refer to icons and story struggles, as a form of shorthand. If anyone argues with you then you can pull open the rulebook and turn to the card anatomy page and point out where the icons are named with pictures, and then ask them to point out anything that contradicts or adds to that. Always fun to rules lawyer a rules lawyer. Stick it to them, in a nice if slightly smug good sportsmanship sort of way.

[TheProfessor 4]

Dark Initiate said:

That sounds right.  Is there a passage in the rules or FAQs that unequivocally backs that up?

Well, we have in the FAQ:

Any reference made to “printed” be it icons, skill, cost, title, subtype etc, only refers to the referenced item physically printed on the card itself. . When a card is in play all references to printed refer only to what is printed on the face up side of the card.

And in the Rule Book, on page 5, we know where the icons are (on the left), item (5) in the figure.

So I think between those two it is pretty clear.

[Dark Initiate 0]

To TheProfessor,

Well the icons that I am asking about (they are clearly icons, right?) are "physically printed on the card itself", so the cited FAQ isn't probative.  Am I right?  As for item (5) in the figure on page 5: Well, yea, those are (some) icons.  But are they the only icons?  No (I'd say) since there is the clear example of icons that don't count as among the character's printed icons.  Right?  Ok, then: Are they the only printed icons?  The figure doesn't unequivocally answer that question, as far as I see it.

[TheProfessor 4]

 I understand your position, but i would argue that the marks you reference in the card text not not "Icons", but rather references to an icon - "pointers to Icons" to improperly paraphrase formal programming language.

For an official ruling, send an email to Damon using the Rules Question link way at the bottom of this page.  he is very good about providing official answers to questions in a short time.

 

[jhaelen 98]

Dear Dark Initiate, no offense meant, but judging by your posts you're exactly the kind of player who sucks the whole fun out of playing a game. Silly rules lawyering and swinging the RAW bat will get you nowhere except into a situation where nobody will ever want to play with you ever again.

Use some friggin' common sense! (yeah, I know it's a rare commodity these days). If people like you had more influence on the game the FAQ wouldn't have 15 pages, it would have 1500 pages. Sheesh!

[Dark Initiate 0]

jhaelen, I don’t think the ad hominem attack is warranted here.  I appreciate your suggestion that there would be problems (e.g., the need for overly extensive FAQs), if players tended too strongly to a Rules As Written approach to the game.  But you are not well positioned to make judgments about the kind of player or person I am (e.g., whether I am a senseless rule lawyering fun sucker).

I am trying to have a nice time discussing the rules, while learning how other enthusiastic players tend to approach the rules and apply them.  This game is interesting, and different from others that I have played, since the introduction of new cards results in constant changes in the very rules of the game.  This results in the opening of unanticipated gaps in the rules and other issues, such as the recently resolved one concerning the Dreamland Messenger.
 

[Surreal 0]

 I don't believe that rules lawyers exists. I believe only poorly written rules. 

[Dark Initiate 0]

Upon reflection, TheProfessor's explanation makes sense: Those little marks may be icons in the colloquial sense, but they aren't, for game purposes, icons (in the right sense).

The idea of icons that aren't printed (or images in any sense) was a bit confusing (for me), and an artifact of the techinical way in which the game use the term "icon".