If my opponent used Kraznys mo Nakloz's abliity (Pay the printed gold cost to take control of an attachment), can he used it to steal an event that turns into an attachment after played for 0 cost, or can it just not be stolen? My instinct tells me it cant be stolen but I need some backup here.

It can be stolen for 0 cost... Kraznys is a monster !! My opinion is that CbtR was a joke compared to him...

I've some questions too about him. Martial law says: "attach to a location controlled by an opponent. Kneel that location". If you move Martial law, do you kneel the location just attached ?

And how to understand "an opponent's attachement" ? Is it an attachement "controlled by the opponent" or an attachement "owned by an opponent" ? My intuition says me it's the second part because quite all the effects says "controlled by an opponent" and Kraznys is quite the only effect that use the "'s" wording. What about this ?

phoenixember said:

Yes, when a card does not have a particular quantity (like printed strength or printed gold cost) the rules act as though that card had 0 for that quantity. By similar reasoning, you can for example kill a Reinforcements character with Venomous Blade.

Arthur Lannister said:

Those words on Martial Law instructing you to perform some action are applied when the card is *played* only. So you would not kneel a location if you moved Martial Law with Kraznys. This is slightly confusing because attachment restrictions like "attach to a location controlled by an opponent" are applied both when the card is *played* and while it is *in play*. For all the gritty details see this thread.

An "opponent's attachment" means an attachment controlled by an opponent. Ownership should always be spelled out explicitly on the cards.

By the way you might find this thread about Kraznys and 0-cost attachments interesting.

So "a card controlled by an opponent" = "an opponent's card" ?

It seems that a bit more homogeneity in the wording could be needed... the "controlled by" version seems to be the generic wording, there's no reason not to use it in this case. The same for Tarle and the "3 or more". The same for the mammoth raiders ("to your hand" instead of "to its owner's hand"). The wording seems to become lighter nowadays... Why are the generics wordings forsaken for some more simples but much more ambigous wordings ?

schrecklich said:

Wow, I figured that Kraznys ability would work against an event-turned attachment, but I did not even think about using Venemous Blade against an event turned character (the reinforcements). So on those Reinforcement events, it says that you are to treat it like a character with 3 STR, just not printed 3 STR. Very cool.

Arthur Lannister said:

Yes, to your question, and you won't get any argument from me. I wish card templating was more consistent as well.