Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Control of Attachments

- - - - -

Best Answer ktom , 14 August 2015 - 03:07 AM

You need two facts out of the RRG to answer the entire question.

 

- First, as Staton says, is that, "An attachment a player controls remains under his or her control even if the card or game element to which it is attached is under an opponent’s control." (RRG, p.3); so yeah, when you took control of your opponent's Jon Snow, you did not take control of the Longclaw attached to it.

 

- Second, "A player may use additional copies, by title, of any unique card ... he or she owns and controls in play as duplicates." (RRG, p. 7); meaning that in order for the copy you want to marshal and/or put into play to enter play as a dupe, you must own and control the copy that is in play. This is why you cannot dupe card under an opponent's control, or a card you took from your opponent. Essentially, you can't dupe your opponent's Longclaw, even if you did control it.

 

Since you don't own a copy of Longclaw in play, and cannot dupe the copy that is in play, on purpose or accidentally (and, I suppose, because there isn't a copy in your dead pile), you may marshal your own copy of Longclaw.

Go to the full post »


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1
Masterdinadan

Masterdinadan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 268 posts

Just had a minor disagreement about how control of attachments works.

 

Opponent marshals Longclaw and attaches to his character.

 

Later, I play Take the Black and take control of the character.

 

Next round, I would like to play Longclaw and attach it to another character. My understanding is that Longclaw is still under my opponent's control. Therefore, if I want to marshal my own copy of Longclaw, I may do so. It won't be played as a duplicate. Is that right?

 

 

Take the Black says: "Dominance Action: Choose a non-unique character with printed cost 6 or lower. Take control of that character. (Max 1 per round.)"



#2
Staton

Staton

    Advanced Member

  • Small Council
  • 1207 posts

An attachment a player controls remains under his or her control even if the card or game element to which it is attached is under an opponent’s control

 

Straight from the RRG.



#3
ktom

ktom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1463 posts
✓  Best Answer

You need two facts out of the RRG to answer the entire question.

 

- First, as Staton says, is that, "An attachment a player controls remains under his or her control even if the card or game element to which it is attached is under an opponent’s control." (RRG, p.3); so yeah, when you took control of your opponent's Jon Snow, you did not take control of the Longclaw attached to it.

 

- Second, "A player may use additional copies, by title, of any unique card ... he or she owns and controls in play as duplicates." (RRG, p. 7); meaning that in order for the copy you want to marshal and/or put into play to enter play as a dupe, you must own and control the copy that is in play. This is why you cannot dupe card under an opponent's control, or a card you took from your opponent. Essentially, you can't dupe your opponent's Longclaw, even if you did control it.

 

Since you don't own a copy of Longclaw in play, and cannot dupe the copy that is in play, on purpose or accidentally (and, I suppose, because there isn't a copy in your dead pile), you may marshal your own copy of Longclaw.



#4
Cephalopodd

Cephalopodd

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
But the rules also say you can have "a maximum of one instance of each unique card, by title, in play." Surely that would prevent you from marshalling your own copy while you control mine.

#5
Masterdinadan

Masterdinadan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 268 posts
But it isn't my Longclaw and I don't control it. My opponent does.

It doesn't matter if it's attached to my character or his. Similarly my opponent controls his own milk of the poppy even if it is played on my character.

I suppose this is also important if I took control of a character with Ice, Heartsbane, or similar. I would not be allowed to trigger the Action/Reaction on such a card, but my opponent could if he wished. I would still benefit from the passive STR increase on Ice since there is no way to turn it off even if you own/control the card.

#6
ktom

ktom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1463 posts

But the rules also say you can have "a maximum of one instance of each unique card, by title, in play." Surely that would prevent you from marshalling your own copy while you control mine.

 

Correct. I cannot marshal my own copy of a unique card while I control yours. But that's the important part of this thread: when I take control of the character, I do not take control of the attachment.

 

So, let's say we're playing a NW-NW mirror match. You have your Jon Snow with Longclaw attached in play. I have neither in play. I use Take the Black to take control of your Jon Snow (I'm just saying: I haven't double-checked the text, so I'm not actually sure if the restrictions on Take the Black would allow this. If not, just run with it as an example of taking control of a unique character with a unique attachment.)

 

I now control your Jon Snow.I do not, however, control your Longclaw.

 

So, if I now draw my Jon Snow, I could do nothing with the card because I already control an instance of him in play (so I can't play my copy), but I do not own it (so I can't dupe the copy I control).

 

But if I now draw my Longclaw, I could play it because I neither own nor control the copy that is already in play, even though it is attached to a character I control.


  • sylvaink likes this

#7
hanotsri

hanotsri

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 132 posts
So if Longclaw remains under your opponent's control...does the attachment cross the board with the character and then just sits there? Does the character you control derive any of the benefits of the attachment if there are any inherent benefits ( and not requiring an action like kneeling the attachment)?
  • hanotsri likes this

#8
Staton

Staton

    Advanced Member

  • Small Council
  • 1207 posts

So if Longclaw remains under your opponent's control...does the attachment cross the board with the character and then just sits there? Does the character you control derive any of the benefits of the attachment if there are any inherent benefits ( and not requiring an action like kneeling the attachment)?

Yes.



#9
Masterdinadan

Masterdinadan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 268 posts
Passive/Ongoing effects will remain in effect even if the attachment and the character are controlled by different characters (in fact, this scenario is almost always the case with Milk of the Poppy)

Triggered abilities can only be triggered by the controller of the attachment.

If I took control of a character with a Heartsbane, I'd basically get no benefit from the Heartsbane. My opponent could still activate it to boost the character's strong, but he probably won't want to (except in melee sometimes, or in rare cases where he wants to lose a challenge in order to use a reaction)

If I took control of a character with Widow's Wail, I still have the STR boost because it's "always on" and there is no decision by the controller to trigger or activate it.

#10
darkbladecb

darkbladecb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 186 posts

[Point already made.]


  • Staton likes this

#11
Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1051 posts

@Ktom: Take the Black only targets non-uniques (the target description is "a non-unique character with printed cost 6 or lower"). There is currently no card effect that can make a unique card in play change controllers.



#12
FallenOn3

FallenOn3

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 146 posts

Its the same thing as when u play ur longclaw on opponents NW character (some weakiling). Logically that should not stop ur opponent to play hes copy on character he wants to have it.

another example:

lets say there is a unique attachment with negative effect that u can play on any character. u play it on your weak char preventing the opponent to play the same attachment on your strong guy. that sound too stupid? :P

thats why when u take control of character u dont take control of the attachment, it simply looks like your opponent played that attachment on your character :P



#13
Grimwalker

Grimwalker

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 582 posts

Neither example works like you want it to.

 

As far as the Longclaw example goes, the first Longclaw would still be under your ownership and control. The NW player is going to say "gee, thanks," and take the benefit of Longclaw on his not-so-weak-anymore character because Longclaw's ability just does what it does regardless of control. Then he's still free to marshal his own copy of Longclaw.

The hypothetical Unique attachment won't work either. You'll still have your copy under your ownership and control, and your opponent is free to play his copy under his ownership and control on one of your other characters.



#14
ktom

ktom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1463 posts

I think that by saying "that sound too stupid?" he's saying it doesn't work the way he just said. Both examples seem to be saying control of the character is - and should be - completely separate from control of the attachments on it. Which, of course, is true.



#15
Grimwalker

Grimwalker

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 582 posts

actually I think you're right. Misread it.



#16
Masterdinadan

Masterdinadan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 268 posts

More fun with Take the Black.

 

Play it on a character that has Ice attached. The original owner of Ice still controls it.

Ice says "Reaction: After you win a [MIL] challenge in which the attached character participates, sacrifice Ice to choose and kill a character controlled by the losing opponent."

 

In this case, "you" refers to the owner of Ice, even though he doesn't control the attached character. What it means is that later on, if you win a challenge while the "enemy" Icebearer is participating, you can spend Ice to kill one of the other player's characters... even the one that is holding Ice!



#17
Masterdinadan

Masterdinadan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 268 posts

Technically you could attach Ice to an enemy Stark character in the first place and do the same thing, I suppose.



#18
ktom

ktom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1463 posts

- Player S(tark): Has a character with Ice attached.

- Player N(ight's Watch): Takes control of that character with Take the Black.

(As established, Player N controls the character, Payer S controls Ice).

- Player N attacks Player S for a MIL challenge, including the "recruited" character with Ice.

- Player S wins on defense.

(All the play restrictions for Ice - winning a MIL challenge in which the attached character participates - are met from Player S's point of view.)

- Player S triggers Ice.

 

Completely legit.


  • Grimwalker likes this