A Chain (other than the collar) is attached to a non-maester through The maesters path (Or that Bara event), I am told will "Fall off" because of the "Maester Only" Clause. Would someone kindly point me to where in the rules this is described...

Lets say Leyton Hightower jumps into play, and his buddy maester gets immunity to attachments. A few questions about this situation...
1) Is this maester now an illegal target for new attachments from opponents? Even those that do not effect it (bones of a child)?
2) Do existing opponents attachments "Fall off"? or do they stay there, just no longer effecting the character? (Kind of a big deal with something like Head of a Dwarf/Slander and Lies)

(Again, i would appreciate if one could direct me to the these rulings, cause i cant spot them in the Rules/FAQ)

oshi said:

All of the chains say "Maester character only" Which is why you cannot legally place them on a non-maester. If you tried to do so it would automatically go into the discard pile.

Hightower ability is, "Maester characters you control gain: "immune to opponents' events and attachments" ". So if your opponent tries to put "Milk of the Poppy" on one of your maesters it would not have any effect as long as Hightower is out. The attachment stays on the characters as long as the character is an eligible target. (ex. you can't put any attachment on Hightower since he has the ability "no attachments".)

You could still play "Bones of a Child" on a maester and still activate its ability since it never targets the maester itself.

ZombiePrime said:

ZombiePrime said:

OK, So I can still attach Flame kissed onto a maester that is immune to attachments, it just wont have any effect... Right?

ZombiePrime said:

Is this true? I know that if a maester that already has a maester only chain attachment somehow loses the maester trait, the chains will be discarded, but isn't this a case of "don't even try," like how "Cannot be Killed" characters cannot be chosen as military claim?

It's "don't even try".

oshi said:

Most of this is laid out in the FAQ under "Attachment Restrictions":

(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 including during setup.

For example: Tom has played the card
Motley (Core Set B67) on Kris's House Tully
Recruiter (Core Set S21). Motley has the text:
"Attach to an opponent's character." Later in
the game, Tom uses Seductive Promise (Core
Set T175) to take control of the House Tully
Recruiter. Because the Recruiter is no longer
"an opponent's character" from the perspective
of Tom's Motley card, Motley is immediately
discarded from play.

Unless specifically stated otherwise on the
card, attachments always attach to a character.

Arguing for the sake of discussion. But Motley seems to me like a bad example. Or at least an an example of poor wording.

To me "Maester Character Only" is pretty straight forward.
But when you use "Attach to an opponents character" it seems like an restriction on the initial playing of the card but would become irrelevant once in play. somewhat like the "kneel that location" on 'Martial Law'.

But! the reference seems to be using it as a constant restriction... so... there you go :/

How about if there were a way to move 'Martial law'? are you still restricted to opponents card only? would the newly attached location then be knelt?

oshi said:

Exactly. It doesn't matter how you read the "attach to..." restriction, the rules define it as constant. Period.

oshi said:

The attachment restriction must always be true. If the new location isn't going to be an opponent's location, you can't actually move it. The game sees no difference between the "Attach to an opponent's location" and, say, "King's Landing location only." You would not kneel the new location (any more than the original location stay knelt) because when an active verb like "kneel" doesn't have a specific timing restriction, the interpretation is "when it comes into play" rather than "when it is attached to a card."