The other day I played Frozen Solid on Cersei's Chambers, which was attached to my opponent's House card. My opponent argued that the Chambers would fall off as it was no longer an attachment (Frozen Solid blanked it) and became a location. Since a location can't be attached to a House card (unless noted otherwise), Chambers would presumably fall off; thus, allowing my opponent to play another.

I argued that the decision to make the card an attachment was made when it was played; as it says, "You may choose to play Queen Cersei's Chambers as an attachment to your House card." Blanking it's text box doesn't make a difference as a lasting (or constant?) effect (the card is now an attachment) was imposed on the game when played from hand.

Which interpretation is right? Is there a way Chambers could have been written such that the other interpretation would be true instead? Note: I'm not assuming my interpretation is correct. This is just an example. (i.e. Response: After Queen Cersei's Chambers is played from hand kneel one influence to attach it to your House Card. It gains: Queen Cersei's Chamber is an attachment.)

There's an entry in the FAQ that says:

(3.20) Attachment Restrictions
Any attachment that has a restriction (such as
"Lord or Lady only" or "attach to an opponent's
character") is immediately discarded
from play at any time that restriction is not
met, regardless of immunity. Such restrictions
are constant effects, and the attachment should
be immediately discarded any time a restriction
is not met.
(...)
Unless specifically stated otherwise on the
card, attachments always attach to a character.

So the point is made here that there is no difference between "attach to an opponent's character" and "opponent's character only," right? There really isn't any difference between "you may choose to play as an attachment to your House card," "attach to your House card" and "House card only," either.

In all cases, the continued existence of the text is what makes the location-made-attachment legal on your House card - according to this entry in the FAQ. Blanking the Chambers makes it an illegal attachment on your House card (since attachments always go on characters unless otherwise specified) and it would therefore be discarded.

In order for it to survive as an attachment on your House card after being blanked, you'd need a triggered ability that created a lasting effect - so that the "otherwise specified" was not dependent on printed text. Something like "Response: After you play this card from your hand, attach it you your House card." Think of something like the Bannermen, which say "Response: attach to an (X House) character." The restriction is thus part of the play restrictions of the Response, not the continuous attachment restrictions of the attachment itself. (And yes, by the way, this does mean that if you use Banner for the Kraken and attach it to the required GJ character, you can later move it with an attachment moving effect to a non-GJ character.)

So Chambers current wording creates a constant effect. I thought it created a lasting effect due to "You may choose..." Therefore, in the example I gave:

"Response: After Queen Cersei's Chambers is played from hand, kneel one influence to attach it to your House Card. It gains: Queen Cersei's Chambers is an attachment."

Queen Cersei's Chambers would also be considered an attachment due to a constant effect (It gains: Queen Cersei's Chambers is an attachment), right?

Now that I think about it, is it possible for a non-attachment card to be an attachment to a non-character card through a lasting effect? It seems like the FAQ's restriction prevents that and only allows for constant effects (FAQ 3.20...Unless specifically stated otherwise on the card [insert constant effect], attachments always attach to characters).

FATMOUSE said:

The current wording creates a constant effect because that's how the FAQ tells us to interpret these restrictions. The choice for how to play it is no different than, for example, choosing whether or not to play an attachment from your hand in the first place. However, no. In the example you gave, the location would not be considered an attachment due to a constant effect. When a card is attached to another card, it is considered an attachment - and only an attachment - regardless of their printed card type. That's right out of the FAQ. So Queen Cersei's Chambers is not considered an attachment due to a constant effect. It is considered an attachment by game definition. Your "it gains" text is completely unnecessary.

Said another way, the current wording on Queen Cersei's Chambers does not create a continuous effect that continues to make the location an attachment. Just being attached to the House card does that by the basic game rules. However, it does create a continuous effect that counters the basic rule that attachments (regardless of the printed card type) are attached to characters. Blanking the Chambers makes it fall off because the attachment is not on a character - not because it is considered a location again.

FATMOUSE said:

Yes, it would be possible. In fact, Abandoned Forge works because of this (there is no Weapon attachment that says "attach to a location"). You are reading the "unless specifically stated otherwise on the card" a bit too literally. The lasting effect would be created by something "specifically stated on the card." That's all you need to satisfy the FAQ requirement for specific exception to the default. Remember that lasting effects essentially function the same as constant effect - they just are not dependent on the continued presence of the card/text that put them into the environment in the first place.

Just want to say thanks, ktom. So thanks, ktom!