-- Agency --
Dynamite
--------
Type : Support
Cost : 2
Subtype : Attachment. Item. Weapon.
Game Text: Attach to an [Agency] character. Action: Discard Dynamite from play to wound all characters committed to the same story as attached character.

The question is if the controller of dynamite can use the action when the attached character is not actually at a story.

It seems silly to want to do so, but there are actually some valid cases where it would make sense. For example:

-- Agency --
Ammunitions Expert
------------------
Type : Character
Cost : 2
Skill : 2
Icons : C
Subtype : Government.
Game Text: Response: After a Monster character enters play, take a Weapon card from your discard pile and attach it to a character you control.

Thanks to the rule reversal on attachments, you can use the ammunitions expert to attach dynamite from your discard pile to any character. So one thing to do is play it on an agency character, blow it up right away when they're not at a story, then play a monster card to put it on a non agency character (such as one with invulnerability)

KallistiBRC said:

I don't think that would work, because dynamite says "action: discard dynamite from play to wound all characters committed to same story as attached character ." So, your agency character would have to commit to a story, then blow himself up. So Ammunition expert would have to wait a round till you play a monster.

Of course, they may be a card that you could play, that uses term "play a monster". Im just brainstorming here...If you committed an agency character and a monster character to different stories, you could resolve the story with agency character first (KABOOM) then use a card to "play a monster", trigger Ammunition Expert to get Dynamite, place it on your other monster character already committed to 2nd story (with invuln) then blow dynamite....lotta ifs there.

Great, now I have to go research the wording of a bunch of cards. Thanks alot!

At first I thought you were trying to put dynamite on an opponents monster and I thought, naww cant do it cause Ammunition Expert says you have to control monster. But that would actually be sweet too. Playing a card to gain control of an opponent's monster, play dynamite on it, then blow it up when it goes into story. Even if the monster reverts back, the ownership of the attachment doesn't change, according to FAQ /Errata ver 1.1

Well, actually the scenario you outlined with resolving a story, triggering dynamite, using the ability and resolving again won't work in the same story phase as neither the dynamite nor Amunition Expert's ability are disrupts.

I tend to agree with the interpretation that you can't use dynamite unless the attached character is actually at a story. But that does have an implication for, say, Y'Golonac.

Action: Pay 1 to choose and ready a character. That character must commit to the same story as Y’Golonac, if able.

The way we've been playing this, is that during the operation phase, we'd use Y'Golonac's ability to ready an opponent's character, then during the story phase, commit Y'Golonac and the targeted character would have to come along. It seems that if this is the right ruling for Dynamite (which I believe it is), then if Y's ability were used during the operation phase just to ready a character, then the second part of the action wouldn't have to be followed. So we'll have to commit him to a story first, and *then* use the ability to drag an opponent along.

(Note: you can use Y's ability at any point since the first part of it activates independent of the second part)

Thanks folks

KallistiBRC said:

I think you may be mistaken.

The ability of dynamite is an action. So, you can still perform an action prior to the story struggles starting (or after the struggles before characters leave story).

Ammunition Expert is a response. So, after a monster enters play, you can play this card in response to that.

Disrupts dont have anything to do with it. You wouldn't be disrupting anything.

For example: You commit characters to story, your opponent commits characters to story. You do dynamites action and kill characters prior to the Icon struggle phase starting. If you had a card that would allow you to "play a monster" as an action, you could do this now, play Amunition Expert as a response to that card, get your dynamite back from discard pile, and place it on a monster in a second story. All prior to the Icon struggle resolving in first story. It would work, you would just need cards to fall into place right, and you need to do research to find a card with wording "play a monster" to trigger Ammunition Expert.

Sorry, my mistake. I had misunderstood what you meant by "you could resolve the story with agency character first (KABOOM) then use a card to "play a monster". I thought you meant resolve the story itself, not the dynamite affect at that story. Thats why I thought the disrupt timing was needed.

Just a question which might be silly, but where have you seen an agency MONSTER character ??

The ammunition expert do not allow you to bypass the part of the dynamite text's that said "attach to a AGENCY character", nope ??

Second thing being the possibility to "play a character card" out of the operation phase ... It does not seems possible to me, as those character would enter play with the "put into play" mecanism, isn't it ?? Which seems the card would'nt be played but Putted into play, which is different ..

PRODIGEE said:

yes you can with the new silly attachment rule, because the weapon card is not play with the Ammunition expert but "put into play" from the discard pile so you can bypass all normal cost. "Attach to..." is an additional requirement to Play the card. And the attachment remain even if the condition is no more meat. See all other problematic's combo we have seen on the Cenacle. For me, the best for the moment is to play with the old rule for attachment, the new one is not working.

You already know my points, but let's discuss it with everybody :

The "Attach to an AGENCY character" is not a part of the cost !!

Refering to the FAQ the cost is :

(v1.0) Paid, Overpaid, and Cost
The printed cost of a card is the cost that is printed on that card. The actual cost of a card or effect is the printed cost after any cost modifiers have been applied. The actual cost of a card is also the amount that is paid to play the card from a player’s hand, or to trigger an effect.

this has nothing to do with the REQUIREMENTS annonced on the card.

If you do refers to the rule of attachments, which has been modified by the late rules :

"(v1.1) Attachments

Cards with the Attachment subtype are followed by the term in the card text box “Attach to X.” (For example, attach to a character you control).

This term is not a card effect, but rather an additional requirement to play the card. This means that attachment cards are played on the card that they attach to (instead of entering play, and then attaching to the card)
An attachment only checks the requirements for attaching it when the card is played. For example, if an attachment had the requirement “Attach to a Servitor character,” and if the Servitor character it was attached to later on loses the Servitor subtype, the attachment would still remain."

There you're right saying it only concern the "play" mecanisms and not the "put into play mecanism.

Fine.

My problem is I'm not sure The new rules specially took into acocunt the "put into play" mecanism.

Here's the point which I'm totally unaware of !!

If you look closely to the text of Ammunition Expert

Agency
Ammunitions Expert

Type : Character
Cost : 2
Skill : 2
Icons : C
Subtype : Government.
Game Text: Response: After a Monster character enters play, take a Weapon card from your discard pile and attach it to a character you control.
Flavor text: He had a simple calculus: the bigger the monster, the bigger the gun. Against those foes who defied earthly weapons, his math broke down.
Illustrator: Mike Williams
Collector's Info: AAH F2

... it does not refer to the Put into play mecanism, despite it clearly is one occurence if this. This might be an "Enters play" mecanism too...

Regarding to the particular situation Ephraim proposed, I just said that the monster character would "enters play" and thus match the Ammunition Expert requirement. But not the attachment one !

"enter play" doesn't work too the faq says "blabla...( instead of entering play , and then attaching to the card)". They remove the notion of entering in play for the attachment and write a rule only for attachments which are played ! And we have "An attachment only checks the requirements for attaching it when the card is played " It means when the card is not play you have not to check the requirements. It's true the expert doesn't say "put into play" but the weapon card from the discard is not play, so you don't check requirements.

Possible solution :

"attach card" should be a way to enter cards in play (like you can "play" cards, "put into play" cards) something specific like : "to attach a card, by playing it or putting it into play, the attachment requirement ("attach to X") must be respected".

A better writing for the rule could be :

(v1.2) Attachments

Cards with the Attachment subtype are followed by the term in the card text box “Attach to X.” (For example, attach to a character you control).

This term is not a card effect, but rather an attachment requirement . To attach a card, by playing it or putting it into play, this attachment requirement must be re respected.

An attachment only checks the requirements for attaching it when the card enters in play . For example, if an attachment had the requirement “Attach to a Servitor character,” and if the Servitor character it was attached to later on loses the Servitor subtype, the attachment would still remain."

I guess its good to know our games aren't the only games that end with someone punching someone in the nose.

Sorry If I opened up a huge can of who knows what when I answered KallistiBRC. I was simply answering hypothetically without trying to match actual in game cards to explain dynamite being in/out of a story. Cause you never know what future cards will be released. So, no I don't believe there are any Agency monsters . I was thinking more in line with a 2 faction deck, Agency and another using monster characters. but i DID say a lot of cards would have to fall into play for my example to work.

I assume you guys ran into a problem with whether dynamite could come back into play and attach to a non agency character? because of the "Attach to x" requirement? They mention in the FAQ (v1.1) that the term is an additional required when you play an attachment. Weapons Expert specifically doesn't use the term play in its wording. it says "Response: After a monster character enters play, take a weapon card from your discard pile and attach it to a character you control." It specifically uses attach not play.

So, I always assume theres a reason for wording a card the way its worded. Thats why we play using Weapons Expert as a sneaky way to get weapon cards back into play without the restrictions.

Ephraim said:

Yes, you are right. But all attachments cards have been designed and worded with the old rule of attachments (see faq 1.0) ie: the attachment condition is a permanent one and when the condition is no more met you must discard the attachment. If the rule change (and for the moment nobody have given good reason for this change), you will have some problems with some attachments or effects. For the moment the problem of this new attachment rule is its bad wording.

I agree w/ Dadjef's interpretation of the attachment stuff.

I also agree that the latest FAQ, while addressing some really important things, totally messed some other things up. (Attachments, Ancient Ones on Domains + Twilight, story resolution w/o committal making a bunch of cards worthless, etc).

I'm definitely glad they made the FAQ to address our questions though, and I whole-heartedly encourage them to do so again. I do think, however, that making large scale changes to the rules (like the attachment thing) is very dangerous. I'd like to see more of the addressing of specific issues instead.

Dadajef said:

Can you direct me to where your referring to Dadajef? Do you mean the section of the FAQ/Errata Version 1.1 Card Effect Section -(v1.1) Attachments?

yes this one.

Until the last faq (and it was the way to play attachments in ccg and lcg until this faq 1.1) the rule was :

(v1.0) Attached Cards
When a card becomes attached to
another card due to card effects, that
card is now considered a support card
(regardless of its normal type) with the
Attachment subtype. The card loses all
of its characteristics (such as skill value,
icons, and type) except for any text that
applies to its attached state. The card
retains its faction identity and printed
cost.

Any time an attachment has a
requirement that is not met, it is
immediately discarded from play.
For example, if an attachment had
the requirement “Attach to Servitor
only,” and if the card to which it was
attached loses the Servitor subtype, the
attachment would be discarded.
When a card changes type (character,
support, event, or story), any cards
that are attached to it are immediately
discarded from play.

With this rule you had no problem, The requirement must be met to keep the card attached. It means if you attach a card by playing it or putting it into play, you must check the condition. The same each time an effect change something on the card.

Take an example a card like Infernal Obsession was designed to not be attached to an ancient one. If you blanked an Ancient One text box with a card like Richard Upton Pickman, you could attach the Infernal Obsession but at the end of the phase you should discard the IO (because the Ancient one retrieved is subtype and the attachment requirement was no more met). Now you can take control definitively from an Ancient One. The same with a card like Strange Delusions, in combo you can now permanently attach The prize Pistol, dynamite, etc... to any characters, not just Agency. So, the idea of the cards are not respected but why not, you can find some funny combo and people can be happy with such rule. The real problem is what to do with attachments cards which are not played from your hand.

•Infernal Obsession
[Hastur] The Antediluvian Dreams F51 / Illustrator: Linda Tso
[support] - Madness. Attachment.
Cost : 3
Game Text: Attach to a non-Ancient One character. While attached, you gain control of attached character. (If control changes again, discard Infernal Obsession from play.)

•Richard Upton Pickman, Genius Painter
[syndicate] Core Set F63 / Illustrator: Nick Percival
[Character] - Cultist.
Cost : 4 / Skill : 3 / Icons: CCI
Game Text: Action: Pay 2 to choose a character. Until the end of the phase, Richard Upton Pickman gains that character's keywords and triggered abilities. Then, treat that character as though its printed text box were blank until the end of the phase.

Strange Delusions
[Neutral] The Path to Y'ha-nthlei F118 / Illustrator: Katherine Dinger
[support] - Attachment.
Cost : 1
Game Text: Attach to a character or support card. Action: Exhaust Strange Delusions to give attached card a faction affiliation of your choice until the end of the phase.

Ok now I understand. Your saying cards have been worded a specific way because of the attachment ruling in FAQ v1.0 and now that FAQ v1.1 is out they don't match as well.

The attachment change (reversal?) was pretty big, but we have to remember that we're playing a card game that keeps growing and expanding with each new set, and something must have been occurring with attachments that the designers didnt like. So, they changed it. These things are gonna happen in games like this.

Hopefully someone submitted this question regarding how Weapons Expert is intended to be played. Until something official comes out, I have to keep playing it the way I am because of the "attach" wording of the card.

Ephraim said:

I have a feeling that some of the designers of these cards weren't very familiar with some of the rules, so they decided to change the rules to match their expectations when designing the cards.

Well, we argue on this for a long (since the new FAQ is out) on the cenacle, but Ephraim is totally right saying developpers knew what they did when they did the change.

The problem is the new rules was created without taking into account the distinction between "put into play" , "enters play", "play" ... And as long as it won't evolve, the servitor will rules like Dadajeff said during tournaments, but I keep on saying that there is no explicit solution to the problem and it might still be a problem during a game.

But I feel like unconfortable for the reasons I developped in the previous posts !