I tried searching for this but couldn't find anything talking about it. I was wondering if attachments are controlled by the player that played them, or if it is dependent on who controls the unit that it has on it?

Here is the issue: I have a veteran sellswords, and I lose control of it and it goes to my opponent. My opponent plays cloud of flies on it. My next turn the sellwords come back to me with cloud of flies still one them. Do I have control over cloud of flies since the attachment is on a unit I control? Or does my opponent still control cloud of flies because it is his card and it didn't explicitely say that the control of the attachment is also lost?

My friend thinks that he can still control the attachment but I'm of the opinion that since it is an attachment, whoever holds the attachment controls it. Common sense. But that might not be true at all. So who is in control of the card? There is nothing in the rulebook that talks about who controls attachments or what they count as.

Could really use some help here. Thanks

At first glance I would say your friend is right and he gains control. HOWEVER, after rereading this and many other attatchments, I believe you are correct and here is why:

The card in question reads:

"Attach to a target unit you control. At the beginning of your turn, you may deal 1 uncancellable damage to this unit and to one target unit."

Since the wording specifies "you" (indicating the owner of the card) meaning that all actions are keyed on the person that played the card. While I do believe that while you might not keep control of the unit (or even the attachment), they keyword "you" is describing the player that played the attachment from his hand. In short, you are right in that only you can activate this power.

Of course there has not been a ruling on this so you might want to send it to James.

An attachment you've played stays in your control when your opponent takes control of the thing you've attached your support to. So, every "you" on the card means you, even if the unit with the attachment is under control of your opponent.

That to me makes no logical real world sense but I see how the card says otherwise.

I think James should rule it that the player in control of the unit has control of the attachment, just because its logical and I hate fules that mkae so sense!!

Might have bearing, might not, but in Coc LCG, if you take control of an opponent's character with Shotgun, opponent remains in control of the Shotgun and only he can use it's ability. This might sneak into the next FAQ for W:I as well, assuming they'll rule it similarly here.

Actually it makes perfect sense. A card is still controlled by the person who played it until another effect says that the controller changes. The rule is perfectly logical and easy to follow.

If it is real world parallels you are looking for there is a long history of allowing units to take hills, equipment, wells, weapons etc. that have been poisoned booby-trapped, or simply considered indefensible or vastly limit mobility which later is used against them by the enemy.

I don't see why it should matter. If he is in control of the attachment he could still only use it on his beginning of turn phase not yours. So you would still be able to attack with the veteran sellswords and he could not activate cloud of flies on your turn.

Grevane said:

I don't think thats the strategy here.

What probably will happen is he will attach cloud of flies to veteran sellswords, then finish turn, let opponent go through his turn, then at the beginning of he next turn he has the option to deal 1 damage to an opponent's unit without spending any resources and only sacraficing the sellswords. Great move in early turns to limit an opponent's play options in his turn. No one wants to play Greyseer only to have him die next turn.

[Edit - Nevermind.]