So, after 1 Zann free pack (In memory of Day) I was thinking I would be lacking my healthy dose of vitamin Z. But Nate French (or mr. Hata) came to the rescue with John Henry Price (neé Zann).

From the spoiler, here's JHP(Z) text: "Reduce the cost to play Attachment support card on -this- by 1".

Which basically cannot trigger, as, by the rules, you never play an attachment on a char, you play it, and, once it hits play, its passive text "attach to whatever" triggers -and if the attachment finds no atacheble cards, it gets discarded-. But by then, you cannot reduce its cost.

Way to go!

another one that was just spoiled.

The Book of Black Stones

"Exhasut the Book of Black stones" shouldnt the and stones be capitalized???

and i find it hard to believe we made it through a whole pack with out a zann....im going through those cards later.

In Memory of Day has Daybreak! with the Day as a keyword and not subtype. We still don't know what's intended.

"The" is never capitialized. If it is capitalized as the beginning of a card, it is still refered to in a sentence lowercase. For example. I like the Seventy Steps.

****, I am envious, I would have loved to catch the uncapitalized stones of doom.

Carioz said:

Carioz said:

No, I'm pretty sure that attachments enter play attached to whatever they should be attached to. So, you can't even play them without a legal target. So, John Henry works like a charm.

In fact, if they didn't enter play attached they would immediatly be destroyed thanks to the state-based effect.

See also the rule about gaining control of an attachment. If you don't control a legal target, the control can't even change...

Marius said:

Do you have any rule reference? Because, as far as the rulings go, Attachment s are not played differently than other cards support cards. I reiterate: is there any ruling that directly states: Attachment s enter play fulfilling their attach to condition? And if there is, how are "attach to"-less Attachment cards treated?

More in depth:

> No, I'm pretty sure that attachments enter play attached to whatever they should be attached to. So, you can't even play them without a legal target.

There is no reference in the rules that attachments target when played and not when in play like any other support card. In order to be able to play a support card and directly attach it to anything, the correct wording would be "play this attached to..." instead of "Attach to" (which is obviously a passive ability and not a playing restriction / qualification).

> In fact, if they didn't enter play attached they would immediatly be destroyed thanks to the state-based effect.

Which means that Attachment Cards entry on LCG faq 1.0 was written without taking into consideration the game rules, on a whim and going for the usual "well, people will understand what we mean" instead of trying to structure the whole thing... how unusual.

The fact that one clarification creates a flaw invalidates that clarification, not the general ruling.

> See also the rule about gaining control of an attachment. If you don't control a legal target, the control can't even change...

I thought that playing and taking control were different mechanics. Why should restrictions to one of them apply to another?

More in general: I understand what John Henry Zann card tries to do. It's its wording which invalidates the attempt to.

Carioz said:

I don't have a rules reference, but there are also no rules stating that attachments don't target as they are played. There is every indication that they do target as they are played though. There is no real window where they aren't attached.

In fact, the first line is "attach to a [card]" which is how you play it: attached. It doesn't say: "Forced response: after you play [cardname] attach it to a [card]."

Also, John Henry gives a strong indication that attachment cards are played on whatever they attach.

> I don't have a rules reference, but there are also no rules stating that attachments don't target as they are played.

There are also no rules stating that games played at 15:00 do not end in a draw. Should I suppose each game played at 15:00 is a tie?

> There is every indication that they do target as they are played though.

Which do not make a ruling. Why should I suppose they do play different than support cards?

> There is no real window where they aren't attached.

Hmmm, yes, there is.

> In fact, the first line is "attach to a [card]" which is how you play it: attached.

No, until a developer fiats it, it is what happens after you play them: all other cards with playing restrictions or qualifications are worded: "Play during / play only".

> It doesn't say: "Forced response: after you play [cardname] attach it to a [card]

Since when all efects need to be triggered?

> Also, John Henry gives a strong indication that attachment cards are played on whatever they attach.

As I told you before, it is quite easy to see what the person which developed this card was thinking. But the wording is not right.

Carioz said:

Where did you get that window? It's nowhere in the rules.

Attachments read "Attach to a [thing]" which means you attach them as you play them. There is no window or rule that says they enter play unattached.

I'm sorry, I don't think you have a case here...

Ok we will have to do this step by step, like for Brazier of Nodens (FAQ'ed), Dreams of a Sunken City (FAQ'ed) or all the other cases.

1) Is there any difference between: "Play attached to" and "attach to"?

Carioz said:

Neither are FAQed at the moment. As for your question; It depends on the context. There are no cards that read "play attached to" though. So, in that sense, it's not the same because one doesn't exist. There are cards that 'attach to' as part of a triggered ability. As per FAQ, this will automatically change them into an attachment support card, unless stated otherwise.

Please tell me where the spoilers are, I'm feeling stupid because I can't find 'em.

Chick

chicklewis said:

We're talking about this . Which shows this card:

That was fast, Marius ! Thanks.

I found 'em by searching for "key" in the ffg news archive.

REALLY like the effect of the Silver Key.

Chick

chicklewis said:

Yeah, the key is very nice with Twila Katherine Price and Obsessive Insomniac. Especially the latter: Exhaust to draw, commit, Exchaust to draw, win arcane, Exhaust to draw. It's quite the engine, if timed well.

johnny shoes said:

well it never stopped ffg before.... if youre right than in memory of day has plenty of zanned cards, the captain, the seven steps, and the seventy steps. all those cards cap the when referring to the card in the text box.

An argument can easily be made to capitalize in this in-game instance. Again, "the" is not capitalized ever, except to start a sentence or title. Reference to that same title does not capitalize "the." In this game, a card title might be in bold or italicized. I think "The" looks better capitalized in that situation. And in general, reference to a card title in-game is different than official grammar. Just want the decision to be intentional.

That is not an instance of Zanning, says he who coined the term. Still wondering about the status of Day and Night. I think that deserves an official response.

And so can we attach the Dream Dagger to John Henry Price with the benefit of the cost reduction? (OK, John henry Price is not a Dreamer, except if we transform him using the Dream Diaries (is it this one or another card, I cannot recall now?)

Actually, there is no sentence at the beginning of the text box saying "Attach to a character (you control)", even though we all know that's the way this card should be played. And it will not prevent me from playing it that way.

So please, all of you, rule guru's, stop arguing and keep playing...

These eight attachments do not include the words "Attach to a."

FC U141 Graveyard Clay Hex
FC U142 Mason's Cliff Hex
FC U143 Red Nail Hex
FC U145 Windy Gallows Hex
ADD F17 •Whateley's Diary, Cryptic Text
ADD F18 Pocket Telescope
ATS F98 Parallel Universe
ADN F58 Dream Dagger

And even without the sentence "Attach to..." at the beginning of the text box, all of us know how to play them "intuitively"...

So for John Henry Price, let's play it "intuitively...