Someone much smarter than me pointed out a few weeks ago that this card will fall off the attached character at the end of combat, given current attachment rules,
Someone else got word from Nate(?) that they would have this situation cleared up shortly either through errata or a change in the rule book.
Has that happened yet? I ask because it's been a while and I wanted to make sure it wasn't forgotten and I didn't miss it.
Thanks!
Why should it fall of ?
It has not happened yet, but word is it will be soon.
As soon as the character is no longer attacking, they are no longer a legal target. Attachment restrictions are constantly checked, and an attachment is discarded as soon as it is no longer legally attached.
You only need a legal target to play it not to stay in play
10 minutes ago, Gomeso said:You only need a legal target to play it not to stay in play
No, attachment restrictions are a constant check as per the RRD, Page 3:
"If a situation arises in which an attachment is not legally attached, discard the attachment."
The intent obviously is for the card to stay in play, of course. But as written, it does not. I think we had confirmation that it'd need errata, but don't recall specifically.
Conditions where met at time to play if an item could not be legal attached it gets discarded yes you are right but if you play this item it would leave play before regroup phase so he would rdy so it stays in game normal condition is met if he is attacking after that it is still attached and not discarded. Otherwise this card makes no sense
If I play court mask on a blackmailed char and he change control end of turn court mask is discarded cause of character you control but on pit trap it may be written wrong but the intention is play while attacking and stays in play.
taking control of an item which is worded with a char you control you still control the item after the Aktion eg calling in favors
Let’s hope nate posts something soon
Edited by GomesoI'm confused...... it says "Attach to an attacking character" That only restricts when it can be attached, nothing else?
It stays as long as the character does, in my opinion.
5 minutes ago, Fu Leng said:I'm confused...... it says "Attach to an attacking character" That only restricts when it can be attached, nothing else?
It stays as long as the character does, in my opinion.
The issue comes from the fact that the devs previously ruled that attachments perform a constant check on any attachment restrictions, and if at any time they do not meet the restriction, it is considered illegally attached and therefore discarded.
For a similar example, say you have an Agasha Swordsmith with Way of the Dragon attached. Your opponent plays Blackmail and takes control of your Agasha Swordsmith. Since way of the Dragon says "Attach to a character you control", by devs ruling Way of the Dragon's constant check determines it is no longer attached to a character you control (you keep control of the attachment(s) when your opponent takes control of your character). Way of the Dragon is therefore now illegally attached and discarded.
13 minutes ago, Fu Leng said:I'm confused...... it says "Attach to an attacking character" That only restricts when it can be attached, nothing else?
It stays as long as the character does, in my opinion.
You're wrong. "Attach to ..." restrictions are checked continuously.
Well lets hope "Nate" makes a ruling and gets it posted asap.
Unfortunately unless it' an official ruling it has a chance to not count
I'm surprised there isn't more of an uproar about this one, because unless and until the erratum is official, this card isn't worth the cardboard it's printed on.
Speaking of errata... where is official errata to be found? Because this doesn't strike me as a rules reference update type of thing.
@twinstarbmc The kind of errata this card needs is found in an FAQ (in other games, rules errata were in the same document).
2 hours ago, twinstarbmc said:Speaking of errata... where is official errata to be found? Because this doesn't strike me as a rules reference update type of thing.
Nate said they were gonna reword the RRD to prevent this specific case.
I guess they’re trying to avoid an errata document as long as they can.
4 minutes ago, Tabris2k said:Nate said they were gonna reword the RRD to prevent this specific case.
I guess they’re trying to avoid an errata document as long as they can.
Hey, if they can do it without mucking up other attachments, then I'm all for it. They just gotta be careful.
Well, we'll see. It sure looks like not everyone was on the same page though regarding the constant check for attachment restriction, at least not with a card like this being printed.
Out of curiosity, are there currently any cards that would have odd interactions or unwanted consequences if attachments only check for legality when the attachment enters play, switches what it is attached to, or what it is attached to changes control?
1 hour ago, GM81 Protocol Droid said:Out of curiosity, are there currently any cards that would have odd interactions or unwanted consequences if attachments only check for legality when the attachment enters play, switches what it is attached to, or what it is attached to changes control?
Any of the cards that say "attach to a character you control".
Grasp of Earth is required to be attached to a Shugenja character. So if the character lost it's Shugenja trait, the attachment would be discarded.
"attach to" is a constant restriction
"play on", "play only if", or any version of "play" is a one-time play restriction (Embrace the Void).
17 hours ago, GM81 Protocol Droid said:Out of curiosity, are there currently any cards that would have odd interactions or unwanted consequences if attachments only check for legality when the attachment enters play, switches what it is attached to, or what it is attached to changes control?
Currently, any attachment that says "Attach to a character you control" will fall off if you ever stop controlling that character, like with Blackmail. Now, that has it's ups and downs - your Scorpion-card-playing opponent won't gain the benefit of that attachment, but once they character goes back to you, you don't either. If the rule is changed such that it's no longer a constant check, then Blackmailed characters will hang on to their "attach to a character you control" attachments while they're stabbing you in the back.
2 hours ago, twinstarbmc said:Currently, any attachment that says "Attach to a character you control" will fall off if you ever stop controlling that character, like with Blackmail. Now, that has it's ups and downs - your Scorpion-card-playing opponent won't gain the benefit of that attachment, but once they character goes back to you, you don't either. If the rule is changed such that it's no longer a constant check, then Blackmailed characters will hang on to their "attach to a character you control" attachments while they're stabbing you in the back.
And if it’s Way of the Dragon, you (the dragon player) will be able to trigger attached character’s ability even if it is under your opponent’s control.
2 hours ago, twinstarbmc said:Currently, any attachment that says "Attach to a character you control" will fall off if you ever stop controlling that character, like with Blackmail. Now, that has it's ups and downs - your Scorpion-card-playing opponent won't gain the benefit of that attachment, but once they character goes back to you, you don't either. If the rule is changed such that it's no longer a constant check, then Blackmailed characters will hang on to their "attach to a character you control" attachments while they're stabbing you in the back.
Don' forget if the attachment was to stay it would still be the sco3pion who loses honour every time they played a card as blackmail doesn't switch control of attachments.