Hi,

If I have in play this card and it is summer:

and I want to take control of DAWN:

Can I choose dawn and attach it to a non dayne char to make it discarded?

Same thing with

and card like Bodyguard? If There is only one Lord in play (and it is mine) can my opponent lanni player take control of bodyguard and attach it to his non lord lanni discarding it???

thx in advance

No. Attachment restrictions are always active. You cannot put an attachment on a character that doesn't meet the restrictions.

If the attachment cannot be attached to a character that doesn't meet the restrictions, it never actually moves when you use cards like these. If it never moves, it never leaves the original character. If it never leaves the original character, there is no reason to discard it as an illegal attachment.

Thx Ktom, this point were "critical" in our group cause some of us used the char and the event to discard opponent attach moving them into a "not valid char".

thx again

Yould get rid of cards like this by moving it to a character with the qualifying trait but who is no attachments, like the House Dayne Skirmisher or House Dayne Reserves... assuming either were in play.

dormouse said:

No you couldn't.

"No attachments" on the "destination" character acts the same as a character that does not meet the qualifying trait. You can never put attachments on a character with "No attachments," so the attachment never moves, meaning it never leaves the original character, meaning there is no reason to discard it as an illegal attachment.

Hrm... really? I could have sworn there was something about a combo similar to this... I may be thinking of something totally different... but for my own edification where does this come from? Can you help me with Prosperity and Plenty the? " Any Phase: Pay 1 gold to take an attachment from your discard pile and attach it to a character you control. If the attachment cannot be legally attached, it is discarded." By your reasoning then there is no point in the second sentence since the attachment could never leave the discard pile if there were no target that could legally receive the attachment. My scenario with the House Dayne SKirmisher would meet the restrictions of the attachment you pointed out. What am I missing here, and where can I find it (if not the FAQ or rulebook specifically, an existing precedent will suffice)?

There is no real point to the second sentence on Prosperity and Plenty, other than to preemptively answer the inevitable question "can I use Prosperity and Plenty to put any attachment on any character?" And believe me, when the card was first printed, people tried to do things like that.

What you're missing comes right out of the Core Set Rulebook:

" No Attachments
A card with the text 'No Attachments' may not
have any attachments on it at any time . Note that
duplicates, however, may be played on unique
cards with the text 'No Attachments,' since duplicates
are not considered to be attachments."

If you try to move an attachment to a character with "No Attachments" and then discard it, you are violating this rule because you are requiring the attachment to actually be on the "No Attachments" character first. According to the phrase "at any time" this definition of "No Attachments," the character can never have an attachment on it, so the attachment never "arrives" on the character - and an attachment cannot be discarded an illegal attachment if it is never on a character to begin with.

So, if you are trying to say "I can move the is a 'No attachments' character that otherwise meets all of the attachment restrictions," you are ignoring the biggest attachment restriction of all. It's no different than trying to move Dawn to a non-House Dayne character: the attachment can never be on that character. If it can never be on the character, it is never discarded from that character as an illegal attachment.

The other thing you may be missing is the way a "move" effect works. In a move effect, there are only two possible states for the attachment: on the original character or on the destination character. Said another way, the effect doesn't say "unattach an attachment from the first character and reattach it to the second character," right? So there is only one thing happening here and there is no point during the resolution where the attachment is not attached to anything. It is either on the original or on the destination. Thus, if the effect cannot resolve to attach the card to the new character, it doesn't resolve to take it off of the old character, either. So you cannot say that the "move" effect creates a situation where the attachment is attached to nothing (and therefore discarded), either. That's just the way the game works; you don't assume transitional states that are not defined in the rules or in card text.

Thanks, that was what I was looking for.