Quote

Attachments on a card that changes control do not themselves change control.

Grasp of Earth
Guidance of the Ancestors
Honored Blade
Watch Commander
Togashi Kazue

All of these have actions of their own. Other attachments give the attached card actions, but those would still be attributed to the character.

So does this rule mean that, if some sneaky Scorpion takes control of my Shugenja with Grasp of the Earth attached, they can't take its action, but I still can? Even though I don't control the Shugenja any more? If so, this is a weird rule. An interesting one, but still. Strange.

1 hour ago, twinstarbmc said:

Grasp of Earth
Guidance of the Ancestors
Honored Blade
Watch Commander
Togashi Kazue

All of these have actions of their own. Other attachments give the attached card actions, but those would still be attributed to the character.

So does this rule mean that, if some sneaky Scorpion takes control of my Shugenja with Grasp of the Earth attached, they can't take its action, but I still can? Even though I don't control the Shugenja any more? If so, this is a weird rule. An interesting one, but still. Strange.

Without seeing a broader context, I think you're right. This makes my head hurt though.

8 hours ago, twinstarbmc said:

So does this rule mean that, if some sneaky Scorpion takes control of my Shugenja with Grasp of the Earth attached, they can't take its action, but I still can? Even though I don't control the Shugenja any more? If so, this is a weird rule. An interesting one, but still. Strange.

Yes, that's correct.

Oh no... see, in my games I've been enjoying the relatively refined and streamlined experience and I've been appreciating what appeared to be a lack of minute complexity and weird rulings. Rulings like this. Do not approve. Even if it's barely going to affect anything in the slightest. Save this sort of crap for Overrated The Gathering.

Wait a minute, so if an attachment doesn't change control what does happen to it? When I nick a loaded Niten Master, if his attachments don't change control are they just removed? Are they dropped on the original side of the field ready to be picked back up again when he returns to his right mind?

7 minutes ago, Daigotsu Steve said:

Oh no... see, in my games I've been enjoying the relatively refined and streamlined experience and I've been appreciating what appeared to be a lack of minute complexity and weird rulings. Rulings like this. Do not approve. Even if it's barely going to affect anything in the slightest. Save this sort of crap for Overrated The Gathering.

Magic's got it's best design team in decades working on it -- its main problem is the fact that it's stuck with fundamental mechanics which are 20 years old. But it's hardly overrated.

6 minutes ago, Daigotsu Steve said:

Wait a minute, so if an attachment doesn't change control what does happen to it? When I nick a loaded Niten Master, if his attachments don't change control are they just removed? Are they dropped on the original side of the field ready to be picked back up again when he returns to his right mind?

Attachments stay attached to their attached card until a game effect removes them from play.

When you take control of a Niten Master, all his attachments stay on him, only your opponent still controls using any actions that the attachments might have. Since you now control the Niten Master, however, any attachments that say "attach only to a character you control" (such as Way of the Dragon) would be discarded, though, as the owner of the Niten Master is no longer controlling the Master.

The same thing would happen if you take control of an opponent's Shugenja with Grasp of Earth attached; the Grasp would be discarded (and the Shugenja would lose the +1/+1 bonus from the attachment).

3 minutes ago, Gaffa said:

When you take control of a Niten Master, all his attachments stay on him, only your opponent still controls using any actions that the attachments might have. Since you now control the Niten Master, however, any attachments that say "attach only to a character you control" (such as Way of the Dragon) would be discarded, though, as the owner of the Niten Master is no longer controlling the Master.

What is this 'ruling' being based on?
Another FFG game, or your own assumptions?

Just now, Bayushi Shunsuke said:

What is this 'ruling' being based on?
Another FFG game, or your own assumptions?

The Rules Reference is out and available, you know. I recommend everyone read it a few times before playing.

But in this case, look under Attachment Cards, pp 2-3, in particular bullet point 5:

"If a situation arises in which an attachment is not legally attached, discard the attachment."

Once your opponent takes control of your character which has any attachments with the limitation "attach only to a character you control," you are no longer controlling them, so those attachments are discarded.

Nevermind.

Found this under Attachmetns in the Rules Reference.

If a situation arises in which an attachment is not legally attached, discard the attachment.

My interpretation would be that it checks for control at the time of attaching, and is not a continuous check.

"Attach to a character you control" is different to "Can only be attached to a character you control."

Has there been similar wording, and ruling, in another FFG game?

And even thinking on that...

"Can only be attached to a character you control" could still read as only checking at the time of attaching.

Nothing I've read would persuade me to rule that an attachment with text like Way of the Dragon would leave play if the character changes control.

30 minutes ago, Gaffa said:

Magic's got it's best design team in decades working on it -- its main problem is the fact that it's stuck with fundamental mechanics which are 20 years old. But it's hardly overrated.

That would be where we disagree sir, personally I think that at this point the biggest element of magics success is magics success. It's widely supported and massively played to almost monopoly levels so someone looking to get into a card game is probably gonna jam with the one they can actually play the most. But I did my time as a magic player. Regret every second and every pound spent lol.

But yeah, F that game.

This ruling still seems really counterintuitive but it seems placed with the intent to limit the pain one might feel on having someone loaded to the gills and then have you get madly punished for it. But yeah, I agree with your advice to read the rule book a couple of times!

There is no requirement that attachments must be to a character you control. See, for example, cloud the mind, which ordinarily you will attach to an opponent's character. Pacifism is another example. When control of a character changes, the attachments remain attached to them and under the control of their original controller. It isn't all that complicated.

5 hours ago, Daigotsu Steve said:

This ruling still seems really counterintuitive but it seems placed with the intent to limit the pain one might feel on having someone loaded to the gills and then have you get madly punished for it. But yeah, I agree with your advice to read the rule book a couple of times!

I'm positive this is exactly the reasoning behind it. Can you just imagine the horror for a Dragon player who just Voltron'd up his character, only to have his Scorp opponent play a control card and steal not just the character, but all the attachments, too?

7 hours ago, Bayushi Shunsuke said:

My interpretation would be that it checks for control at the time of attaching, and is not a continuous check.

"Attach to a character you control" is different to "Can only be attached to a character you control."

Has there been similar wording, and ruling, in another FFG game?

Yes. Attachments in LCGs only stay attached so long as their attached card is legal for them to do so.

7 hours ago, Bayushi Shunsuke said:

And even thinking on that...

"Can only be attached to a character you control" could still read as only checking at the time of attaching.

Nothing I've read would persuade me to rule that an attachment with text like Way of the Dragon would leave play if the character changes control.

That's how the wording works in the Rules Reference, however. "Can only be attached to a character you control" is a constant check -- it literally can only be attached to a character you control. Once you no longer control that character, it can no longer be attached to it. The "be attached" is not just the game action of putting the attachment on the character -- that's covered under playing the card. It's a constant check on the attachment's status that it's on a legal card for it to be.

3 minutes ago, Gaffa said:

That's how the wording works in the Rules Reference, however. "Can only be attached to a character you control" is a constant check -- it literally can only be attached to a character you control. Once you no longer control that character, it can no longer be attached to it.

While I would definitely agree with this point, do we have an example of an attachment that specifies it "can only be attached to a character you control"? I just can't think of one offhand, I suppose I could search through the list...

8 hours ago, Daigotsu Steve said:

Wait a minute, so if an attachment doesn't change control what does happen to it? When I nick a loaded Niten Master, if his attachments don't change control are they just removed? Are they dropped on the original side of the field ready to be picked back up again when he returns to his right mind?

Attachments which simply contribute to the character such as Ornate Fan still function to contribute to the character. Cards like Duelist Training which state "This character gains the ability Action:..." still give that ability. These cannot be "turned off" so regardless of who controls them, they are still functioning.

It does create some interesting play patterns... and I won't say myself whether I think it is better this way than to change control... because there is a lot of room for debate there and I'd rather simply accept the rules as printed than buck this one - mostly since it is rarely important who controls an attachment, especially in this game where it may only exist this turn and then go to the discard.

The first thing to understand is whether an attachment gives something to the character or not. Any stat bonuses like Ornate Fan will still contribute, but abilities on attachments like Togashi Kazue can only be invoked by the controlling player. If you blackmail Doomed Shugenja with Kazue attached you cannot invoke her ability to steal a fate from your opponent. I think Duelist training is the only card that gives an activated ability to the character right now, but if you ever see the words "The attached character gains Action" then it gives control of the action to the controller of the character.

Where this becomes complicated is when you look at item removal. Let Go doesn't care who's attachment it is, but sometimes there are removals worded "discard an opponent's attachment" and those cannot remove an attachment you control even if it is on a character an opponent controls.

I think Gaffa is right in that attachment is NOT only checked when a card is played, but rather is continuously checked - so Way of the Dragon would be discarded if you took control of the character it was attached to. I'm not 100% sure, but until we see some clarification that there is wording that restricts "when something is attached" compared to a continuous check I'd rather err on the side of continuous check given the rules doc.

3 minutes ago, shosuko said:

I think Gaffa is right in that attachment is NOT only checked when a card is played, but rather is continuously checked - so Way of the Dragon would be discarded if you took control of the character it was attached to. I'm not 100% sure, but until we see some clarification that there is wording that restricts "when something is attached" compared to a continuous check I'd rather err on the side of continuous check given the rules doc.

Went back and read the posts, and I see this is where the question of "can only attach to a character you control" vs. "Attach to a character you control" came from. That's the tricky thing about semantics, and I feel like this is relatively important question for the #L5RLive on 8/16, as having a definite answer before the Gen Con events would probably give some participants peace of mind. It may not apply in many cases, but if someone takes control of my character and it means the difference of keeping my attachments when I get control back (assuming the character hasn't run out of fate) or discarding attachments that are potentially buffing the controlled character but are technically no longer legally attached, I'd sure like to know.

Gaffa is definitely right about attachment legality being a continuous check. That's how things work in every other FFG game. By the way, it's joint control I find needlessly convoluted: independent control means attachments just follow the same rule as every other card ("barring card effects, a card is controlled by the player who owns it"), instead of following a special rule. And effects that give you control of a card do just that; they don't give you control of extra cards.

10 minutes ago, Khudzlin said:

Gaffa is definitely right about attachment legality being a continuous check. That's how things work in every other FFG game. By the way, it's joint control I find needlessly convoluted: independent control means attachments just follow the same rule as every other card ("barring card effects, a card is controlled by the player who owns it"), instead of following a special rule. And effects that give you control of a card do just that; they don't give you control of extra cards.

It's also the same approach as how text-blanking effects (such as Cloud the Mind) work on a character with attachments. Cloud the Mind just blanks the text on the base character. Abilities on attachments that character has still work, as do other effects granted to that character from other cards -- if the Clouded character has been chosen by the Adept of the Waves, for instance, the character will still gain covert during Water conflicts.

28 minutes ago, Zesu Shadaban said:

While I would definitely agree with this point, do we have an example of an attachment that specifies it "can only be attached to a character you control"? I just can't think of one offhand, I suppose I could search through the list...

While we don't have the full card list yet, both Way of the Dragon and Grasp of Earth both have that requirement.

Thanks, I think it was because I was reading those as checking at the time the card is attached, so if that's intended to be a continuous check after the card is attached, that would kind of suck. But I can understand if that's how they want to to function, probably still better for me than to let my opponent control those on top of grabbing my character anyhow.

9 hours ago, Gaffa said:

The Rules Reference is out and available, you know. I recommend everyone read it a few times before playing.

But in this case, look under Attachment Cards, pp 2-3, in particular bullet point 5:

"If a situation arises in which an attachment is not legally attached, discard the attachment."

Once your opponent takes control of your character which has any attachments with the limitation "attach only to a character you control," you are no longer controlling them, so those attachments are discarded.

Which page is this on? I have not found this rule.