Is the check determining if there is a valid target for the effect made as if the card is transformed into that new type, or as the old type.

Examples include: Bannermen, the event ones use a "then" clause which implies "if able" so the "valid target check" is moot for the attach part.

But that is the question, so far it seems that the flavor of ruling right now is if the effect transforms a character or event into an attachment, then treat immunities when determining targets as if the card is an attachment. Not only that but the attach clause of a triggered effect is not considered part of the triggered effect.

Also, did something change with the immunity keyword? Last I remember if something was immune to triggered effects it meant triggered effects regardless if it chose the character or not. (Jorah, Westeros Bleeds)... however a octgn game came up where apparantly rusted sword can use it's challenges ability and attach itself (as per triggered effect) to a character immune to triggered effects. And if so... does this also mean the events that become attachments... can they attach themselves to a character immune to events (as part of the then clause).

Also is it still the case that targeting uses "choose", meaning Eddard cannot cancel something if it does not have the word "choose" in the text of the effect.

(This is also less clear because cards that do infact allow choosing such as kill a participating character, or kneel an opponent's character imply choose but do not say choose).

bloodycelt said:

Very little of what you have written makes any sense to me. What question are you actually asking here?

The best I can tell is that your question is "when I trigger Banner for the Storm's attach effect, am I triggering a character ability or an attachment ability?" None of this is remotely related to the "then" clause because the type of effect is determined when you initiate it. "Then" only relates to resolving the effect. The banner is a "character ability" if you trigger it from play. It is a "character effect" if you trigger it from your hand (since "ability" is defined as the effects of cards trigger from play; your hand is not in play).

bloodycelt said:

Nothing changed with immunity. But Rusted Sword can use it's "attach from hand" triggered effect to attach to a character that is immune to triggered effects. In fact, I answered this question for you on Monday in your Loyal Guard/Bannerman/Viper thread. But let's go through it again.

Let's say you have a card that says "Any Phase: Discard an attachment from an attacking character." Can you use this if the attacking character is immune t triggered effects? Yes. You can. But why?

Well, it is because the card that is actually being acted upon by the triggered effect is the discarded attachment, not the (immune) attacking character. Immunity only protects the card itself from effects whose effects would be applied to it. Sure, when the attachment is gone, the immune character will be changed by losing the attachment, but the actual effect of the "discard an attachment" effect is on the attachment - which changes the environment in which the immune character must operate. Immunity doesn't cover that; it only covers effects that would resolve on the character card itself.

So that's clear, right? The triggered effect resolves on the attachment, not the character, taking it off the character.

Now, why can't that happen in reverse? Why can't an effect resolve on an attachment, not the character, by putting it on a character instead of taking it off? That is exactly what Rusted Sword, the Banners, and most events-turned-attachment do. Their resolution is on the card that is attached - putting it into play or changing it from one card type to another - not on the character that ends up with an extra attachment. It's the exact some thing as the "discard an attachment" example, just in the other direction.

It simply comes down to this: since a character's immunity to triggered effects does not extend to the attachments being taken off of it, it doesn't extend to the attachments being put on it, either. Unless there is some real violation of immunity (such as "choosing" the attached character), there is nothing preventing an effect from putting an attachment card on an immune character any more than there is anything preventing an effect from taking an attachment card off.

bloodycelt said:

Why is this less clear because of the "implied" choice. The FAQ, for over 4 years, has not allowed for an "implied" choice when it comes to defining targets.

" Target
The target identifies what card or cards the
character ability's effect is applied to. The
word choose is always used to denote a target.
If a character ability does not have the
word "choose," then it does not have a target. "

This is no more unclear than the difference between "STR" and "printed STR."