Can I "cancel a triggered effect that chooses a HS character as the only target" in case of "Response: After Dragon Skull comes out of Shadows, attach it to an opponent's character "?

I think no, because Dragon Skull doesn't say "choose", but I'm not sure.

Rogue30 said:

That would be correct. Without the word "choose," the effect has no formal target. Without a formal target, Vyman's play restrictions are not met and you therefore cannot initiate his effect.

ktom said:

Is it possible to cancel it with to be a kraken?

Seznal said:

The answer is "yes, but...."

To Be a Kraken will cancel the Response and stop it from attaching to a character. That much is straightforward.

However, there is some chance that the whole "after it comes out of Shadows" Response is redundant in the first play because the Shadows rules specifically say

"Attachment cards attach to another card when they
come out of Shadows – if there are no eligible cards to attach to, the
attachment card is discarded."

To Be a Kraken can't cancel that rule because it is not a triggered effect.

So here's the question we probably want specific guidance from FFG on: When the Response is canceled, does the general rule take over and the card is attached anyway? Easier to play it as "no, the card's Response text overshadows the rule and canceling it means the attachment is discarded without ever being attached to anything," but someone could argue it.

Can I attach Dragon Skull to a character with the "immune to triggered effects" keyword?

thorin_81 said:

Before I answer that, let me ask you this: If a card said "Response: after this card comes out of Shadows, discard an attachment from play" (kind of like Shadow of the East) could THAT discard an attachment from a character that is immune to triggered effects? In that case, it is pretty easy to see that yes, you can because the effect works directly on the attachment (discarding it) and only indirectly on the character (because it loses an attachment as a result). So the character's immunity does not protect the attachments.

Dragon Skull is the same thing in reverse. It acts directly on itself (attaching it) and only indirectly on the character it becomes attached to (because it gains an attachment as a result). So the character's immunity does not protect it from having attachments added, any more that it protects it from having attachments removed.

Note that if Dragon Skull said "Response: choose an opponent's character. Attach Dragon Skull to that character or discard Dragon Skull," then immunity would protect the character because the triggered Response could not "choose" the character as a target. But, of course, that's not how Dragon Skull is actually written.

ok, thanks. I presumed that, but I wanted to be sure