If a unique character changes control (for example, Reek) that character may have attachments or duplicates attached. Attachments, unless changed control, still address their original owner ("you"), naturally. But what about duplicates? On being played, the rules state, they cease to be any sort of attachment.

As duplicates are used as a save response, their use must be activated (a triggered effect?). Therefore, the question is whether the character controller chooses whether to use a duplicate or does control of the duplicates remain with the character's original owner?

I am pretty sure that saves with dupes are an action taken by a character's controller and therefore the original owner does not make the decision about the use of the dupes s/he stacked up on the character. However, I feel the need for some KTom validation.

Winter.

When you take control of a character you also take control of its duplicates. It's up to the new controller if he or she wants to use them.

Using a dupe of a character requires you to control the character (because the "save" effect is considered to be a gained ability and only the controller of a card can use its abilities) and the dupe itself (because the dupe is discarded as a cost and costs can only be paid with cards you control).

Luckily, whenever you take control of a character, you also take control of any dupes that are on it (though not attachments). This is actually one of those (seemingly rare, but not really) situations that is stated clearly in the FAQ:

(3.25) Taking Control of a Card With Attachments
Any time control of a card switches via a card effect during a game, the new controlling player gains control of said card and all duplicates.
Unless specified in game text, the new controlling player does not gain control of any attachments on said character.

So "take control of a character" includes everything you - the new controller - need to use dupes that are already on it as a save.

If I play attack an opponent with Reek, steal a unique character, and then my opponent plays a new copy of said unique... What happens if he attacks me with Reek and steals the unique character back? Or everyone's returned because of Roose Bolton's ability, for instance?

Boerta said:

Your opponent cannot play a copy of a unique card they own that is currently in play (except as a duplicate).

Relevant bit from the Core rules:

"You may also not play or take control of a unique card if there is a copy of that card in your dead pile, or if your opponent has taken control of another copy of that unique from you." (p. 19, Unique Cards)

Boerta said:

He can't do this. A player can play duplicate only on cards he own and control.

THanks, KTom. Sorry to miss that in the FAQ!

While we're discussing Reek, I'll share my favourite way of using him:

If you play Dubious Loyalties on Reek, you can trigger his response on winning the challenge, take control of an enemy character, and then trigger the Dubious Loyalties response to take Reek back (since you won a challenge in which he participated, and Dubious Loyalties doesn't specify he should have participated on another player's side).

Winter said:

That's pure evil! Is that really legal?

Also, I like using Roose Bolton to return expensive units captured with Dubious Loyalties on them, and sweetening the pill with Terror in the Dungeons.

Boerta said:

That's pure evil! Is that really legal?

ktom said:

Boerta said:

That's pure evil! Is that really legal?

Why wouldn't it be?

I see no reason, but it looks so powerful i kinda wanted to double check for the inevitable argument with my playgroup

I was pretty confident about the timing rules, but if I'm honest I mentioned it here to have a cast-iron KTom blessing to show my friends, who have thought it seemed iffy.

Wait a second.

(3.25) Taking Control of a Card With Attachments
Any time control of a card switches via a card effect during a game, the new controlling player gains control of said card and all duplicates.
Unless specified in game text, the new controlling player does not gain control of any attachments on said character.

When does the rule about losing all attachments kick in? If Reek changes control, doesn't he lose his Dubious Loyalties attachment, thus preventing you from triggering the response that gets him back?

And on a related note, could you utilize that with "In Ramsay's Name" to claim a couple free power on Reek?

Let's kick it up a notch, and imagine a convoluted Bolton power-grab:

Bolton player has Reek w/Dubious on him, a Weeping Water location standing, Val on the board, and "In Ramsay's Name" in their hand.

They play "In Ramsay's Name", kneel the Weeping Water to return it to the top of their deck, and then use Val to immediately play it again.

They initiate an intrigue challenge with Reek, and win... then trigger Dubious Loyalties to bring him back home.

According to what you're saying in this thread, Reek would claim 2 power on his way over, and another 2 on his way back into the original player's control. (assuming, of course, the two power he claims on his way over to the other player wouldn't cause them to win the game)

Additionally, Weeping Water stands whenever a character changes control... so could you kneel it again in the middle of the challenge to play "In Ramsay's Name" again? Netting Reek 3 power on his trip home?

Oh. I think I get it now.

The Dubious Loyalties attachment becomes moribund when Reek changes control, but since regaining control is a response, you can still activate it before the card gets discarded.

So the end result would be that you take one of their characters, get Reek back, Dubious Loyalties goes to the discard pile, and the Weeping Water stands back up.

You couldn't use WW + Val in the middle of the challenge, since Reek changes control both times before the next action window opens.

I'm still curious about "In Ramsay's Name" though. Can you stack it to claim more than one power on Bolton cards changing hands? I don't see why not, but maybe there's some obscure rule about only having one event of the same name active at the same time.

runrum said:

Nope. Dubious Loyalties never becomes moribund. I'm not sure why you think it does?

runrum said:

What rule about him losing all his attachments are you referring to? There isn't one. The "taking control" bit out of the FAQ that you quoted doesn't say anything about discarding attachments. It only says that if you take control of a character, you do not take control of the attachments on that character. Who controls the attachment as compared to who controls the character has absolutely nothing to do with whether the attachment is discarded or not. Otherwise, how could you put attachments like Flame-Kissed or Motley on a character that you didn't control?

Short of an attachment restriction requiring the character to be controlled by a specific player (eg, "attach to a character you control" or "attach to an opponent's location"), who controls the character has nothing to do with who controls the attachment. So without an effect that actually says "discard the attachments when you take control of the character they are attached to," the attachments stay put - under the control of whomever controlled them before the character switched control. It's no different than if you had played Dubious Loyalties on an opponent's character to begin with.

So again, I'm not sure why you think attachments are discarded when a character changes control?

runrum said:

Yep. That sequence works. You end up with Reek having 4 power on him - 2 from his own control change (1 control change x 2 event effects) and 2 from Dubious Loyalties (1 control change x 2 event effects).

runrum said:

Yep. That sequence works.Well, it is true that Weeping Water will stand passively when Reek goes to "the other side," but you won't be able to use it to put the event back on top of your deck, or Val to draw it, before using Dubious Loyalties because neither of them are Response effects. As "Any Phase" effects, you have to wait to use them until all Responses involved in winning/losing that challenge are complete. If you use them while your opponent controls Reek, you will have passed on the "after you win a challenge in which attached character participated..." response opportunity and are thus too late to trigger Dubious Loyalties.

However, if you do the whole sequence (getting back Reek with 4 power), go through the Weeping/Val combo to play In Ramsay's Name on him for a 3rd time, use an effect to give you another intrigue challenge, and attack and win with him, you can do the control exchange thing again at 3 power for each control change. Assuming handing your opponent a character with 7 total power on him doesn't lose you the game before you can trigger Dubious Loyalties, you'll get Reek back with 10 more power on him than he started the phase with.

Good luck with this deck. It could be interesting.

Ah, I was confused about the rule.

So when you steal characters, you don't gain control of their attachments... but those attachments stay on the character? Makes more sense.

You could still save a character you've attached Nymeria to, even after someone stole it... but if that character was Arya Stark, the new controller benefits from the +1 STR and stealth that the attachment provides.

Come to think of it, that makes the Nymeria attachment a very powerful counter to people using stolen Bolton characters for the claim of military challenges.

runrum said:

Personally, I'd rather have Nymeria on my own character so as to mitigate the military claim that hits me....

True. I totally forgot the "No Attachments" rule all over Bolton cards.

Before you reminded me, I was thinking of Nym as a way to save Steelshanks Reserves while they "merry-go-round" around the board collecting power at each player.

Now, I think the Reserves would make for a much stronger and trickier power-grab. Make sure you go last, and during one of the other player's challenges, play "In Ramsay's Name" + Weeping Water + Val + another In Ramsay's Name. That way, when they transfer to you, they claim 2 power, Weeping Water un-kneels for another "In Ramsay's Name", and you can pull the Reek trick... but claim 6 power on him instead of 4.

Yeah, that's a lot of cards to line up for a combo... but it's only one more card from the original idea, and it adds up to 8 power for winning one intrigue challenge (not including bonuses like unopposed, or stealing an opposing character with power on it)

Ah, theorycrafting. =)

Core Set Melisandre helps a lot in Bolton Merry-Go-Round builds; that way the power on all your characters won't give your opponents the win.