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!
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!
Seafarer's Bow
Submitted
Darksbane
, Aug 17 2010 05:52 PM | Last updated Mar 01 2011 07:29 PM
![]() Seafarer's BowType: Attachment House: Neutral Cost:2 Game Text: Weapon. Challenges: Kneel attached character to choose a participating character. Until the end of the phase, that character gets +2 STR. (Limit once per phase.) Challenges: Kneel Seafarer's Bow to choose a participating character. Until the end of the phase, that character gets +2 STR. (Limit once per phase.) Number: 40 Set: KotS Quantity: 3 Illustrator: A. M. Sartor |
|
Recent Decks: |
House Lannister- the Power Behind the Throne (Melee) Baratheon Knights, Slow and Cumbersome Joffrey's Kingsguard 1st Greyjoy Deck - Unopposed Mellee Martell Sandsnakes + Weapon att |
12 Comments
Soooo, is there a reason why I couldn't attach this to my opponent's character? Although I cannot see a reason why not, I feel as if there must be, because kneeling an opponent's character to give one of my own +4 STR for only 2 gold seems too good to be legal.
Actually I think you can attach it to an opponents character, but this would do you nothing good, because then you just have a potential +2 boost instead of the +4.
Kneeling the attached character is still a cost and you can only use cards you control to pay costs. so I think it is better to attach it you a character you control
I see. Thank you for your answer.
If this attachment was attached to the character, under my opponent's control, can my opponent trigger the response "kneel attached character..."?
Do you mean 1) if you put it on an opponent's character or 2) if you put it on your character and your opponent takes control of this character?
Any case, the answer is the same.
In 1), I honestly don't see why you would put that on your opponent's character since as explained three posts above, you won't be able to kneel your opponent's character (kneeling is a cost and you only pay costs with cards you control). Anyway, if you do that, you are still in control of the attachment and as such, you and only you can activate the response (and in this case, you can only activate the second one since you can't pay for the first).
In 2), the FAQ stipulates that "Any time control of a card switches via a card effect during a game, the new controlling player gains control of said card and all duplicates. A Game of Thrones LCG Rules Clarification and Enhancement Page 12 Unless specified in game text, the new controlling player does not gain control of any attachments on said character." Long story short, you end up in the case as in 1), being able to trigger the second response but not the first.
No, only the controller of the card can trigger its ability(ies).
Short answer: The same person has to control both the attachment and the attached character in order to use the abilities on this card. You can only trigger abilities on cards you control (so you have to control the attachment), and you can only kneel characters you control to pay costs (so you have to control the attached character).
@ktom: unless I'm mistaken, you don't have to control both the character and the attachment to use the second ability ("Challenges: Kneel Seafarer's Bow to choose a participating character. Until the end of the phase, that character gets +2 STR."). Having control of the attachment is enough.
Sorry. Should have read the card more carefully, been more precise and not phrased my answer as applying to both abilities on the attachment.