Had this come up in a Dark Elf vs. Dwarf game.

Dwarf puts out a Great Book of Grudges on a Slayer of Karak Kadrin in the Battlefield.

Dark Elf on its turn plays Soul Stealer on the Slayer, taking the Slayer and Book into its battlefield.

Two turns later

Dwarf puts out another Great Book of Grudges on a Slayer of Karak Kadrin in the Battlefield.

Dark Elf on its turn plays Soul Stealer on the second Slayer, taking the second Slayer and Book into its battlefield. Now there are two Great Books in the Dark Elf battlefield. What happens? Does one Great Book get discarded? Was the Soul Stealer play illegal?

-Wraith428

My guess is that Soul Stealer play is illegal in that scenario. But it's just a guess, I have nothing to back it up

Stick to your Meccg rules answers, Jose .

wraith428 said:

Taking control of a unit does not give you control of its attachment. (FAQ v1.1, Attachments)

This means the Dwarf still controlled the Book after DE took control of the Slayers, and he was not allowed to play another book:

Some cards in this game are unique. They are marked with a banner before their card name to indicate their uniqueness.
If a player has a copy of a unique card in play, he cannot play, take control of, or put into play (via a card effect) another copy of that card. (Rulebook, Unique)

Dam said:

Lol, you're almost omnipresent, Rauli

Entropy42 said:

So where does the book go. Does is stay with the unit? If so and the dark elf player uses the unit to attack does he deal the extra damage from the Great Books bonus power.

Alternately does it stay in the zone the unit was in and become unattached and discarded?

Other options?

Wraith428

The first book is destroyed whenever the Slayers leave play because attachments are destroyed as soon as the unit they are attached to leaves play. The unit still gets the extra 2P from the Book, but any activated abilities on the attachment can only be triggered by its controller.

If you are referring to the 2nd book, the answer is that it never enters play. Its an illegal play, like playing a unit to your opponents quest zone. You just can't do it.

Entropy42 said:

Another question, if the Slayers with Book destroyed when DE control him, who will take the 6 indirect damage? DE or Dwarf?

According your sentence, I guess the DE will take the 6 indirect damage.

Yes, the DE player will.

Why wouldn't Great Book of Grudges enter the discard pile once Soul Steal took control of the card? The card can't just hang out there without a unit to attach it to right? game on

As long as the stolen slayers of KK stays in play, the great book of grudges would stay on it.

From the FAQ: "If a unit with an attachment attached
to it exchanges control between players,
the attachment does not exchange
control"

So there is no way your opponent gets the Slayers + the Book. Now, what happens to the book?

From the FAQ: "If the card an attachment is attached
to leaves play, the attachment enters its
owner’s discard pile."

Technically the Slayers didn't leave play, so this is probably the source of the confusion, but I would say that the attachment enters the Dwarf discard pile. It is similar to any other attachment being "unattached", it is trash now. It doesn't just lie on the floor, powering the unit from afar. Thus, no one will be taking indirect damage and no one will be gaining the 2P.

The next Slayers to come out can get their own Book since there is no other copy of that card in play. If they are also stolen, then that Book is discarded too.

I have no actual citation for what happens to the attachment if the unit switches sides, but I would think the requirement that attachments be attached or they cease to work supersedes the specific example of a card with an attachment switching sides versus being discarded. Either way the attachment isn't going to be attached anymore and is discarded.

HappyDD said:

No, your opponent gets Slayers + Book, but you still control the Book is what the FAQ is saying. Discarding the Book is out of the question, since attachments only leave when destroyed or the card they are attached to leaves play. As the Slayers are still in play (out of play being deck, hand and discard pile), don't see how one could justify Book getting tossed.

I'm pretty sure Dam is wrong about this.

Ya, Dam, I'm not sure what to say. The FAQ is pretty clear your opponent doesn't get the Book, and I'm not sure how the Book remains in play without a unit attached to it... I can't play an attachment into one of my zones "attached" to some other unit, so I'm not sure how it just sits there. Do you have any reference for that?

All quotes from FAQ 1.3 (print-friendly)

"The player who plays the attachment is
in control of it while the attachment is
in play. The attachment does provide
loyalty for the controlling player." (p. 6)

Say I play Slayers, then Book to them. I played both, so I control both, yes?

"If a unit with an attachment attached
to it exchanges control between players,
the attachment does not exchange control." (p. 6)

Opponent then takes control of the Slayers, so he now holds their control, but last line above states control of the attachment does not exchange, meaning whoever had it previously (me) is still in control of the attachment.

"If the card an attachment is attached
to leaves play, the attachment enters its
owner’s discard pile." (p. 6)

Did Slayers leave play when they went over to my opponent's control? No, so attachment still sticks to them.

"If an attachment has a zone
requirement (e.g Attach to a target
unit in your battlefield.), then that
requirement must be met only when
it enters play. If the unit later moves
zones, it does not have an effect on
the attachment. However, all other
requirements on the attachment must
be met at all times. If at any time they
are not met, then the attachment is
discarded from play." (p. 6)

Further, requirement on GBoG is "Attach to a target Dwarf Unit", not your dwarf unit. Is the Book still attached to a Dwarf unit? Yes.

Still a newbie here, but I guess the Book goes with the Slayer and stays with him, until the Slayer is destroyed. It will give the 2P to the Slayer for the benefit of the HE attacking (should he chose to) but the ability for indirect damage in case of the Slayers destruction would benefit the original owner, since he is still in control of the attachment.

tako said:

Tako and Dam are right, for all the reasons he has listed. You can control a unit without controlling the attachment on that unit. There are plenty of times when that happens.

Entropy42 said:

Ok, I kind of follow. Let me ask this a different way: Is the "moving unit trick" the only way that this situation can occur? It seems kind of funny to me to control an attachment attached to a unit that switched sides, thus losing the attachment but retaining some of its effects.

Check this example, the (?)'s are where I am asking "is this correct?":

I am playing Chaos and have a unit which I played Effulgent Boils on (for some reason). If my opponent (Dark Elf) takes control of the unit it will not keep the attachment, yet the attachment will still be in play (?) and affecting that unit (?) and thus corrupt that unit (?),

HappyDD said:

Its not the only way. In your example, you could have just played Effulgent Boils onto one of your opponents units to begin with. You would then control an attachment which is on a unit that you don't control.

Your unit (lets assume it was a Bloodthirster so that playing Effulgent Boils on it was an even worse play) is taken by the DE player. The attachment goes with the Bloodthirster, and stays on him, and still affects him and keeps him corrupted. The DE player just doesn't "control" it. For Effulgent Boils, not controlling it is not a big deal. If, however, the DE player had a card that said, "Action: Sacrifice an attachment to deal 8 damage to your opponents capital" he could not sacrifice the Effulgent Boils to trigger this card, because you cannot sacrifice a card you don't control.

Entropy42 said:

Ah, okay. My confusion was that I read "Opponent does not control the attachment" as "Attachment is now unattached". I guess this particular way of writing it was so that the opponent that stole the Bloodthirster (for example) does not gain Chaos loyalty from the Boils attachment. Anyway, thanks for answering!