I'm sure this has been asked elsewhere, but once Banner for the Storm is attached to a character, via it's ability, it can't be attached to another character again, correct? it becomes a Banner attachment and only has that new text, or no?

FATMOUSE said:

No. It still has its response ability. It was also not intuitive for me, but ktom argumented that it says nothing about replacing existing text.

Hmm, ok. But then what's to stop someone from using I'm You Writ Small again and again? Does it "counting" as an attachment really make the difference? Or is it because it's an event, and events have to be triggered from hand? My only objection to that argument is that the card becomes an attachment and is no longer considered an event card. Thoughts?

I dug up that thread you were referring to:

Rogue30 said:

So I'm You Writ Small allow me to make someone deadly every round (while attached)?

ktom said:

Not quite. The event-turned-attachment technically still has the "Challenge" ability text, but you cannot pay the required "cost" of playing it from your hand when it is attached to a character in play. The card-type may have changed from "event" to "attachment," but the nature of the effect (that it is supposed to be triggered from your hand) does not change.

The only reason the Banner characters actually work to jump from person to person when they are attached is because they specifically say "from play or from your hand."

FATMOUSE said:

One the one hand, I see that this is the intention behind the card. On the other hand, there's no textual definition of the "nature of the effect" on the card. There's only the card text, and the fact that the card is now considered an attachment (losing any other card type it may have). So I'm not entirely convinced.

Well, the fact that its card type changes doesn't erase its former text (which can still be triggered). I think that would be the key here.

Saturnine said:

Same here. It just seems a bit too convenient to say the "nature" of the effect is still intact and unchanged. Sure you can say it, but there's nothing in the FAQ or Rules I can find that would support such a statement. Currently, there's nothing about about the wording of the effect on I'm You Writ Small that necessarily ties it to an event. The only reason why it's an event effect is because it's on an event card, but it's no longer considered an event card when it becomes an attachment. Therefore, it's no longer an event effect.

When Gorold Goodbrother changed a Warship into a character, would it not be able to trigger it's ability because that ability was a "location" ability? If the Warship was LIV would you still be able to choose TRV because the effect is a location effect even though it's now on a character?

Just wanted to add that I don't see how this holds true:

"The only reason the Banner characters actually work to jump from person to person when they are attached is because they specifically say 'from play or from your hand.'"

It seems that clause is there to let the ability be used while in hand. Were it not there, it would simply and only work while in play. Had it just specified "from hand" then it wouldn't work from play; thus, it says, "from play or from your hand."

The presence of the clause isn't so the Bannerman can trigger from play, it's there so they can trigger from play and from hand. Were that clause removed, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to jump from character to character.

I was always operating under the assumption it worked this way:

Banner for the Storm can be played from your hand as a character for its gold cost during marshalling, or from your hand for zero during challenges according to its "Response: " text that lets you play it directly from you hand after winning the power challenge.

As a character in play it would keep its entire text box, so that if you won a power challenge you could move it onto a character as an attachment.

As an attachment it would have the text "attached character gains vigilant" as instructed by the "Response: " ability on the card when you play it from your hand as an attachment or turn it into an attachment from being a character in play.

Apparently thats wrong and I can keep moving it around every time I win a power challenge? I interpret the text of the banner as saying "heres a character. you can use it as an attachment, something that it isnt. if you use it this way, it becomes an attachment and this is what is says: (the char gets vigilant)." If they wanted to have the response there it would be in the "with the text: X" portion, wouldn't it? I am not arguing the point that you can't use its attach from hang ability, I am using the argument that when it becomes an attachment the only thing in the "text box" of the attachment is the part starting after the colon of "with the text:..."

Mathias Fricot said:

Before you guys bank too far into the philosophical discussion, the ruling is simply this: because the card's printed type is "event," it is understood that its text effect must still conform to the "events are played from your hand" rule. As such, an event-turned-attachment cannot be triggered while it is in play. Compare it to the spoiled card "Doran's Game," (article "You Gotta Have Teamwork") which says "Response: Kneel a Learned character or 3 influence to cancel the effects of an event card just played. Then, you may kneel a second Learned character to attach the event to your House card. You may play that event as if it were in your hand ." If events-turned-attachments could be triggered from play for their "from hand" effect while in play, then the "as if it were in your hand" text would not be needed there, right?

The "nature" comment was just a way to convey the fact that this rule is tied to the printed card type, not the type the card is currently functioning as.

So maybe the character-turned-attachment that is the Banner should not be able to trigger it's ability while in play as an attachment? Problem is, both characters and attachments can trigger their effects while in play. If you had an attachment with that printed text box, you'd know you could jump it from character to character.

In the end, in this game, unless you are told you can do something, you pretty much can't. The text on Banner does say you can attach it while it is in play (and does not say the "virtual text" of gaining Vigilant is the only applicable text on the card while it is an attachment). The text on Writ does not say you can give Deadly/attach it while it is in play, so you can't.

Convinced or not, that is how FFG rules on it. Just be aware - or try the answer link at the bottom of the page for the "from the horse's mouth" statement.

This is a test, apparently I cannot reply to any threads.

The text on Banner does say you can attach it while it is in play (and does not say the "virtual text" of gaining Vigilant is the only applicable text on the card while it is an attachment).

The issue is what the text of the new attachment is, not of the card that is creating it. Yes, Banner of the Storm has a response letting you attach it to a character that can be triggered while it is in play. I agree 100%. But what about once it is an attachment, that is what I am saying. Is it the entire printed text box of the Banner of the Storm card? You say yes, I think no. Your probably right, I am probably wrong – you’ve clearly investigated this already. Unfortunately for anybody reading this, the “someone already said its how it worked” argument really doesn’t hinder me. I wasn’t there, I didn’t hear it, so I will discuss my perspective.

The text on Banner does say you can attach it while it is in play ( and does not say the "virtual text" of gaining Vigilant is the only applicable text on the card while it is an attachment ).

I interpret the character-turned-attachment as only having the text "Attached character gains vigilant" because that’s what Banner of the Storm tells me to do. I attach it as an attachment to a character. This new form of the card has the text "Attached character gains vigilant." It does not explicitly say that the character-turned-attachment-future-self will retain any other feature of its text. As you said yourself: if we are not explicitly told something, don’t do it. We are not told either way in the card. You assume that it retains everything else, I assume that it does not. Does it also maintain the Bannerman trait? Is it an attachment with the traits “Banner. Bannerman.” Is it an attachment that has Icons? An attachment that has Str? If it retains its text box why would it not retain everything else? We know it is an attachment, but is it also a character? Is there a rule excluding this? In the rules it does not say that attachments cannot have icons or strength. It also does not say they can. This card does not say you keep the rest of its text, but it does in a way imply that you don’t. It says ...a Banner attachment with the text: "Attached character gains vigilant." It has segregated the text using a colon. If it was worded “ …a Banner attachment that also has the text:… ” I would say that yes, it would be implied that this is in addition to other text and not the only text. Here, the original version of the Banner is telling us what the text of the new version of the Banner will be. I just don’t see any reason why we should assume anything else is there based on what the card says to do explicitly. Well, explicitely to me.

Now if it has already been decided, then fine. Maybe its not stated clearly enough for me... there is the possibility that I am too simpleton. But as is always the case; understanding the 'why' doesn't matter, using it properly does. I'll let my opponent move it around, and I'll move my banners around all day every day nine to five because that’s what you say the ruling is. No, I don't need to "hear it from the horses mouth" because I trust your telling me the truth. I just also think the conclusion you are relating to me is wrong. They are not mutualy exclusive.

when an attachment says "attached character gains 'some text'," it is not considered part of the physical text box. If, for example, you used Frozen Solid to blank Banner for the Storm, the attached character would still have Vigilant.

I assume when you say "it" you are refering to the "some text" in the sentence before. FAQ 3.8 says that if we blanked the attached character, it would retain Vigilant because it loses it’s printed text box, not the 'given text box'. If I were to blank Banner for the Storm, Banner for the Storm would no longer say “Attached character gains vigilant” as that is part of its text box (it is not a trait or keyword or icon or symbol or seperated with a think bold line). Then, the attached character would lose Vigilant, since the attachment giving it vigilant is now blank. Now, if you look at it as the text giving Vigilant is granted text onto the attachment from its pre-attachment text, this argument would make some sense. Except its the same card. So its being blanked at the same time. The “attached character gains X” is not part of the character’s text box, and blanking the text box of that character would not stop it from gaining X. Blanking the source still would. In this case, its X turning into Y and giving something to Z. If you blank Y, your saying you shouldnt lose it at Z because X is still giving it to Y independant of your blank. Buy X and Y are the same. You blank X you blank Y. You blank Y you blank X. You can't say it retains all its text and then say blanking won't work, those counter each other out.

Food for thought.

ktom said:

Can you play a card from play? It seems "as if it were in your hand" would still be needed. Well, that's another confusing card. It says "event" while it's attachment now, it doesn't say anything about unattaching, someone may even argue that this event never becomes attachment.

Mathias Fricot said:

It doesn't matter. Character still has vigilant, because once you successfuly triggered Banner for the Storm response, it creates lasting effect - blanking the source changes nothing.

ktom said:

Well, there's a couple of issues. First, there are other game mechanics the designers may have wanted to take advantage of. The biggest one I can think of is that when event cards are played, they enter a moribund state. Then there are other game effects such as Fear of Winter that would have bearing on the event being played as if it came from your hand.

Second, I think the last sentence of Doran's Game might be phrased poorly. It says you may play the event as if it were in your hand, but once it is attached to your House card, it is no longer considered an event and is instead considered to be an attachment:

(3.22) Card Type Changes to Attachment
An attachment is defined as a card in your deck, hand, discard pile, or dead pile, of the actual "attachment" card type, as well as any card in play that is considered to be "attached" to another card... When a card is "attached," it loses any other card type (character, location, event) it may have.

How can you play the "event" if it's no longer an event? What Doran's Game should say is something along the lines of, "Treat this card as if it were in your hand for the purposes of triggering its effects."

EDIT: I think it's funny Rogue30 kind of thought of the same thing; however, the FAQ says it has to become an attachment, and that creates other problems, which I listed above.

ktom said:

So since Banner for the Dragon doesn't say "from play" it can't re-attach itself from one Ambush character to another, right? (Ignoring how it was allowed to attach in the first place...)

ktom said:

What rule are you referring too? This one?

"Event cards are played from your hand for their text effect."

I don't see a rule that is tied to the printed card type. The text effect of a card like I'm Your Writ Small is no longer that of one of an event card once it becomes an attachment. So the rules of an event card no longer apply to I'm You Writ Small once it is attached because it is no longer an event. I'm not saying this to be facetious, it's just that I don't see anything in the rules or FAQ that suggests a card being a printed event and changed to an attachment being treated differently than a printed character or location that was changed to an attachment. Both get treated exactly like any other attachment. This is unlike a non-character card becoming a character. The FAQ tells us that when a non-character is killed it is placed in the discard pile.

Unless someone can show me what in the Rules and FAQ makes printed events so special, I don't see how such a ruling can be made without updating the FAQ itself. i don't have any problem with the ruling, I just don't see anything that currently exists to support it.

ktom said:

Let's not forget how it was also "understood" that TRV's Immunities protected the power tokens on him from certain power steal and blank effects...until it wasn't. The interpretation could have gone either way, and the designers chose it to not protect power tokens. If that's how they wanted to interpret it - fine - but the Rules and FAQ needs to support their rulings. The FAQ was updated to support the ruling on TRV and I don't see how the FAQ wouldn't need to be updated to support this ruling.

ktom said:

FFG can make whatever rulings it wants, but the Rules and FAQ need to be consistent with those rulings. Sometimes the FAQ needs to be updated to create that consistency. I believe this may be one of those times.

FATMOUSE said:

I agree. I've submitted this via the Rules Questions link. I'll post the answer here.

Rogue30 said:

how is it any different from Knighted and "attached character gainst the Knight trait, and gets +1 Str." If I blank Knighted, the character loses the Knight trait. If I blank Banner, they should lose Vigilant. If it was a lasting effect that remained after the card was blanked, wouldnt it also remain after the card leaves play? or moves to another character? by that logic, each time I move it to a new character they would also get vigilant... forever? Since its a lasting effect without any end to it? is there a difference mechanically from having no attachment on the character and having one with no text (other than for cards that say 'character without attachments')?

I'm confused.

Mathias Fricot said:

It's because Banner of the Storm does not actually have the text "Attached character gains Vigilant." It gains this ability via its response. If Banner of the Storm leaves play, Vigilant doesn't remain on the character because it was given to him only while Banner of the Storm was attached to it.

Think of Shadow Tyrion. After you trigger his response, he gets +2 Strength and a keyword of your choice. Does he lose these when you subsequently blank his text box? No, because they were given to him as a lasting effect from the response.

So the Response on the original character gives the attachment a given ability, so blanking the attachment will not remove this
The attachment's given ability also gives the character a given ability, so blanking the attachment will not remove this
And because the original effect in this chain was a Response (that gave a given ability), and not a passive effect (such as Knighted), blanking it doesn't matter because the response has already resolved.
However, removing the attachment from the character will break the condition of the lasting effect, its no longer an attached character, and this will remove Vigilant.

Well, thats clear now. But can we please establish the moving around part of the Banner? I cant even weave through the paragraphs well enough to tell who is agreeing with whom.

So I got a reply from Nate regarding I'm You Writ Small . He refered me back to the description of Events in the core rules - "Event cards are played from your hand for their text effect" - stating that an event card cannot be triggered from any other state unless the card text says you can (which is what Doran's Game is doing, for example). Thus the printed text on I'm You Writ Small becomes inactive once played. Its status as an attachment and the boon it gives are lasting effects created by playing the event from your hand.

He said he'll look into clarifying this in a future FAQ update.

Saturnine said:

Alright. The card is no longer an event card, so I'm not sure how the Event rule applies to it, but if Nate is going to clarify the FAQ - so be it. Thanks for letting us know what he said.

FATMOUSE said:

ktom said:

That works.

FATMOUSE said:

I know I'm digging up an old thread, but I just wanted to confirm if this is still the correct way to play the Banner for the Storm. It can still bounce from character to character with each POW challenge you win? Granted, since passives are first it isn't standing anyone extra that challenge, but I'm curious if it's still the same ruling.

Why would it change?

This isn't a "ruling" as in "this is the way that FFG says a situation that could have gone either way works." It is simply how non-attachment cards work when they are acting as attachments.

The only "ruling" related to this questions is the reminder that part of the "cost" of triggering an event card is playing it from you hand, so you cannot trigger "event text" unless the card is in your hand or some other effect allows you to trigger it as if it were in your hand.