Another question early in this quest.

I'm playing with traps, and the only enemy has Entangling Net on it. A treachery card (Taken Prisoner) says the first player attaches an ally he controls to an unattached enemy.

Does "unattached enemy" mean not guarding an ally as an objective? Or any type of attachment? So does my Entangling Net mean he doesn't take an ally? (Makes thematic sense). But what if the enemy had Mordor Warg attached as a mount -- could he also not take an ally as an objective? (Doesn't make thematic sense.)

Various aspects of this quest are proving frustrating right away as I simply want to play the quest. And play it right.

I'm learning toward saying "unattached enemy" means it has no type of attachment at. Otherwise, you could get a lot of stacked cards, which is kind of a hassle -- an enemy, with a mount attachment, with a trap attachment, and also an ally-objective attachment.

Thoughts?

I'd play it that any type of attachment--player attachment, Mordor Warg, or an Objective Ally--counts as an attachment for the purposes of determining whether or not the Enemy is "unattached".

The rules of this game can't seem to decide whether guarded objectives are attached to encounter cards or encounter cards are attached to guarded objectives. The most coherent way to play this quest is to say that the guarding encounters are attached to the prisoners, and read effects like "attach an ally he controls to an unattached enemy" as "attach an unattached enemy to an ally he controls".

41 minutes ago, NathanH said:

The rules of this game can't seem to decide whether guarded objectives are attached to encounter cards or encounter cards are attached to guarded objectives. The most coherent way to play this quest is to say that the guarding encounters are attached to the prisoners, and read effects like "attach an ally he controls to an unattached enemy" as "attach an unattached enemy to an ally he controls".

I disagree. To me it always make sens to me about who is attached to who. Guarded objectives are always the things attached, and the encounter is the things who have something attached. Here allies are attached to the enemy, not the opposite.

But then you get into silliness above where enemies with non-prisoner attachments don't end up capturing things, or the Uruk Chieftain can't capture anyone because he can't have player card attachments...