Compelled by the Rock says "move that attachment to another card you control"

I take it that I can move a character attachment to a location - and then the attachment is illegally attached and gets discarded?

Prepare for War says "any number of influence producing cards with a combined cost of 3"

Do all the cards have to have costs - e.g. could I stand someone's house card if they are running Hollow Hill agenda

Pyat Pree says "instead of the normal claim affect"

If Pyat Pree attacks alone, meeting the conditions and the defender plays Red Vengeance, I assume the Pyat Pree still gets to kill one of the defendant's characters (as the card text specifically say kill one of the defenders characters, not the person who plays the claim)

in 3.1 of the FAQ there are details re X (cost or strength) - it states:

"any card without a cost of the specified type is assumed to have a cost of 0 for purposes of determining how that card interacts with triggered effects that need to count its cost"

So does the above apply to house cards and therefore is a legit target for Prepare for War?

(I have no idea re "without a cost of the specified type " is meant to mean)

1. Compelled by the Rock: Whatever you attempt to move the attachment to must meet the restrictions on that attachment, or else the move is unsuccessful and the attachment never moves. It stays on the original card. This is the same reason you cannot play Frozen Solid on Sansa, have it immediately "fall off" as an illegal attachment, but still allow you to trigger her effect to draw a card.

2. Prepare for War: Re-read the card. It actually says to "choose any number of influence providing cards with a combined printed cost of 3 or lower." So the card you want to kneel must have a cost actually printed on the card. (The House card clearly does not.) If there is no printed cost (ie, gold coin icon in the upper corner), the card cannot be chosen as a legal target of the event.

3. Pyat Pree: Re-read Red Vengeance. It specifies that the chosen opponent is treated as the defender of the challenge for purposes of resolving claim. So that person is treated as "the losing opponent" for purposes of settling claim - even as replaced by Pyat. So if you use Pyat and I counter with Red Vengeance, you have to choose and kill one of your OWN characters when resolving claim.

Thanks Ktom - we guessed incorrectly re Pyat Pree

For Compelled by the Rock, I don't agree that the Frozen Solid example is the same ... my reason for this is that if you play an attachment, you options are based on the card text ... e.g. attach to a location, attach to a opponents character ....

Compelled by the Rock specifically says "move to another card" - surely moving to another card is the only restriction (assuming the card it is being moved to does not say "no attachments")

Thanks Ktom - we guessed incorrectly re Pyat Pree

For Compelled by the Rock, I don't agree that the Frozen Solid example is the same ... my reason for this is that if you play an attachment, you options are based on the card text ... e.g. attach to a location, attach to a opponents character ....

Compelled by the Rock specifically says "move to another card" - surely moving to another card is the only restriction (assuming the card it is being moved to does not say "no attachments")

If a card cannot be attached to by an attachment, you cannot attach it to that card. Moving an attachment is still considered attaching it.

You cannot play it on that card.

You cannot put it into play on that card.

You cannot move it to that card.

So, what's the difference between "no attachments" on the card you are moving to and "Stark only" or "attach to an opponents character" on the card that is being moved.

There is nothing on Compelled that says to ignore attachment restrictions on either the character or the attachment. Without text specifically allowing you to ignore restrictions, they apply.

Well the perceived difference is that "no attachments" is related to the target - the choice of cards that I could move the attachment to, whereas the attachment was considered to be just a bit paper being moved around

If the attachment is controlled by my opponent and is reads "attach to an opponents character", I can still move it?

Presumably we are saying the attachment restrictions, from the controller's point of view, have to be met ... as opposed to the pov of the person moving the attachment

Correct. Always from the point of view of the controller. If you want to move one of your opponent's attachments that says "attach to an opponent's character," you have to move it to another one you control.

As for the rest of it, when you attach A to B, you cannot separate "moving around" the piece of paper from the choice of card that piece of paper can go on. When you move attachments, it's still a "fit tab A into slot B" kind of proposition. The characteristics/restrictions of both must be considered and accounted for.