Hello all, couple of quick questions:

1. When Dark Elves use "Grasping Darkness" or "Take Captive" to seize units do attached cards go with the unit?

I'm inclined to think they do but just wondering if there's rules precedent.

2. When you play card from the top of the deck (I think this is City Gates) as a development are you able to look at the card first?

No idea on this . . .

Cheers as always

Johan

HI!

I've discussed both questions recently with someone and for the first there's something that doesn't convince me so much...

The point is: the fact that you get the control of an oppo's Unit, from a "logical" point of view "SHOULD" grant you the control of everything attached to it...But from my personal point of view, it would make such an effect too powerful...I'd rule that YOU ARE the controller of the attachment.

If the attachment has the condition "attach to a Unit you control", once the Unit changes side, it's destroyed, cause the status is not met anymore.

If the attachment has no condition, the effect is under your control.

That's how I'd rule it in a tournament.

Second one...You can look at your devs once they hit the table. You can look at your developements at any given time.

Remember that that's not PLAYING from the top of the deck, but PUT IN TO PLAY, that's completely different.

Hope this helps.

DB_Cooper said:

Wouldn't this be similar to "Quest zone only" on Units, meaning it only prohibits initial playing of it, but has no bearing once it is in play (like you can move Quest zone only unit to another zone and it isn't destroyed)? Or would you destroy Choppa (IIRC, attach to a unit in your BZ) if said unit gets moved to say QZ?

Thanks for pointing that out...

There's a big difference: "X zone Only", I.E., is a "play condition". You have to check it in the moment it's played and then it's over.

Anyway, we know that it works like that 'cause it's written and that's it.

Here we have a different issue: change control. I've just the DOUBT (I'm not saying I'm right, pay attention) that when something grant you the control of a card, it doesn't mean that you gain the control of everything attached to it, also.

I don't know. I just gave my POV and how I'd rule it. If there's the doubt about such an important issue, it's better to give "less power" than more, if you understand what I mean.

In my opinion you are correct in saying that taking control of a unit would not give you control of any attachments on the unit. You are allowed to play attachments in an opponents zone so I would say that the attachment would go with the unit but that you would not gain control of it. So for example if you took control of a Pistolers with a Runefang attached to it the unit would still have the bonus 2 power but you (the current controler of the pistolers) would not be able to sacrifice the Runefang to play a tactic as you do not control it (though your opponent still could do so as he does control the Runefang)

This is my opinion on the matter.

In Cthulhu LCG, until the last FAQ, you had to check if the requirements of an attachment were valid at all times. Since the last FAQ, you only check it when you put the attachment into play.

In Warhammer: Invasion, there is nothing about it. We can copy the lastest rule of Cthulhu.. but it would be much better and legit to have a ruling.

There is a difference between play restrictions and "passives" (or lasting effects) or other effects.

There's something that came in my mind...

"Battlefield Only", i.e., is a "play restriction (check it when you play it).

But "attach to a Unit in your battlefield", even if it seems the same thing, can be something different...If it is a condition, if my oppo gets my Unit and moves it in a different zone, does the attachment stay there?

It's a little bit OT, but an answer would solve lots of trouble concerning control/restrictions and other stuff.

Thanks for the replies guys, muchos appreciated.

I still reckon that Attachment Cards become part of the unit they're attached to but will happily concede this is gut instinct rather than experessly rules based!

Supa said:

I think the opposite happened to AGoT, where recently, thay changed they requirement check for attachments, so it will constantly check the condition, and if not acomplished, it gets discarded.

A card that grants control of a unit only gives control of that card. There is nothing in the rules to support any other interpretation. All attachments whose effects are not player triggered however are still active and refer to the unit they are on regardless of who controls that unit, and any effect triggered or constant will refer back to the controller of the attachment... i.e. if I have an attachment that says attached unit gains +3 Power and Forced Effect: when this unit deals combat damage destroy target development, and my opponent steals the attached unit, the +3 power is still granted to the attached unit, but that forced effect is something I control so I would be free to target my opponent's developments.

Not saying wrong or right, but just making sure then your thoughts are this is legal.

I gain control of Veteran Sellswords at the end of my opponent's turn.

On my turn I attach Cloud of Flies to them.

At the end of my turn they go to my opponent's control.

At the beginning of his turn I can then use the Cloud of Flies to kill off the Veteran Sellswords and do one dmg to another unit my opponent controls.

-Bernie

Yep... kind of dastardly, yeah? Though you are more likely to get better mileage if you instead kept it on a unit that would let you hit your opponent more often.

I prefer the tactic of attacking with Veteran Sellswords, then using Offering of Blood to sacrifice them for one damage to each section of my opponent's capital, but Bernie's idea is pretty good, too.

RM

No doubt. I didn't say it was the best use of the card... ha ha ha.

I tend to think that makes the game slightly more complex and in that I suspect it won't be the case. Control of the Unit will give control of the attachments as well. I don't think that is the game state right now though, its too muddled. We'll need James to comment and an FAQ posted about such before it is truely resolved.

-B

Rhelik said:

Actually, the Cloud of Flies would trigger on your next turn rather than your opponent's next turn, since it reads "At the beginning of your turn..." Remember, you're in control of the card.

Actually it has already been ruled on, that an attachment you play is your regardless of where on the board you play it. There is no rule that says when you take control of a unit you also take control of anything else, so you can't do it. The reasoning behind it is based on the fact the card is attached, but that is not game logic that is intuitive thinking, which while useful in getting a feel for things, is always trumped by card text. IOW something "feeling right" is not a justifaction for it. I can say it feels right that when I take control of your unit I take control of whatever quest it is on, including all the resource tokens... I mean the unit is on the quest, why can't I trigger the quests ability? Because the rules don't say that I can.

Surely "ownership" of the card doesn't make any difference to the card effect?

Otherwise how does "Word of Pain" work? It belongs to the Dark Elf player but it affects the (for instance) Empire Player's Reiksguard. Just because the Empire player doesn't own it doesn't stop it from working (he wishes it did!) . . .

Aha! Johan thinks and waits to be royally disproved!

Ownership can make a difference to the card effect. For example, if you play Helblaster Volley Gun on Veteran Sellswords, since you still control the Gun regardless of who controls the Sellswords, the +X is the number of developments in your battlefield even if your opponent controls the unit.

It also makes a difference in the loyalty you have in play. If I have Word of Pain on one of your units, I have 1 more Dark Elf loyalty than I would have otherwise.