I've only recently started playing the game, and am only just learning some of the intricacies of the game - I hope my first questions aren't something obvious I've missed!

1. Do characters who change control retain all power/gold on them?

I've seen no ruling that implies otherwise (only stating the loss of attachments), but as stealing a Berric Dondarrion or stacked Maester with Reek seems like a big game-changer, I wanted to double-check this.

2. How does the following scenario resolve;

First & Active player declares a challenge with a deadly character
Defender is at 14 power, and blocks with a renown character of higher strength

As I understand it, first the winner is determined (defender), second the claim is satisfied (none, it's a successful defence), third power is not awarded for unopposed, and fourth, passives trigger. Since deadly and renown trigger at the same time, the first player chooses deadly to resolve first, killing the defender's renown character.

What I'm not sure of here is if the defender claims power for renown, or if the entire moribund state will have resolved before he has the opportunity to trigger his passive. Or, in more general terms, if effects which resolve simultaneously (an order of which is determined by the first player) can cause the first event to prevent the second from happening. Secondly, I'm not sure if power on moribund characters counts towards victory totals (I assume it does, as once again there's no explicit statement otherwise).

-Istaril said:

1. Yes. Note that the power on a character always counts towards the controller's victory total. So if you take control of a character with power on it, it's your power as long as you control the character.

2. Have another look at the flowcharts for the challenge resolution and for framework action windows in the FAQ. Renown is awarded as a framework action, before any passives are resolved. So in your scenario, the character would claim power for renown and the game would immediately end.

But you are also correct in assuming that power on moribund characters counts toward your victory total, because for all intents and purposes, they are still in play until the end of the action window (after all responses to the initial action/framework action have been played). So if there was a scenario in which you have a moribund character claim the last power you need to win (either through some passive or a response effect), you win.

-Istaril said:

ktom said:

Ktom: That's a very important distinction, I'm glad you brought it up - thanks! So this in fact means the attachments, unless otherwise specified, remain under the control of the owner - and a maester chain "when character kneels" could still be triggered by the owner, although a "kneel this character" cannot, as it would require the cost to be paid with a card the attachment owner no longer controls.

And Saturnine, thank you as well for the prompt reply. I think my confusion may have arisen from assuming the framework action "Renown is Claimed" was simply an example for "Passive abilities" - an unfounded assumption. I think I understand it now - if Renown happens before Deadly, then there's no conflict whatsoever.

-Istaril said:

Well, there wouldn't be a conflict if it Deadly and Renown were resolved in a different order either.

Deadly happening first is what raised me to ask if Renown would still be triggered by the moribund character - which is a moot point if renown is always resolved first. But I see your point; with a better look at the FAQ, my understanding is that deadly (if it resolved alongside renown, but deadly was chosen by the first player to go off first) would have resolved entirely by the time the second passive would trigger, and so Renown would never have gone off. In other words, there's no opportunity for a moribund triggering of renown (and, by the nature of the ability, there can't be).

-Istaril said:

Heh. Your "just-to-be-sure" scenarios are highlighting my misconceptions quite effectively . I think I've got it now, and it sets a number of other timing questions to rest. While the reasoning behind a lot of these rules makes sense, the exact limitations of timing and the action windows have quite a few intricacies to wrap one's head around.

My misconception here (which I had in the initial question) was that the moribund state only lasted long enough for responses to act on things (saving them, etc), but not until, as is clearly stated in the FAQ (my mistake) all the way to step 6 of the action window.

-Istaril said:

When a Response opportunity is created within an action window, that opportunity stays "viable" until the window closes (in Step 6). All Response opportunities are parallel to one another through the entire window. So, for example, say Player A wins a military challenge against Player B. The order for resolving the challenge is to first resolve the 4 framework events (1. determine winner, 2. implement challenge results, 3. award unopposed, and 4. award renown). From the flow charts, you should know that you do not play passive or Responses to any 1 for those 4 things until all 4 of them are done (so you Player A cannot play Responses to winning the challenge - #1 - before claim is settled - #2). However, you should also realize that, all the different possible Response "triggers" are open to you. You do not have to play all Responses to winning the challenge before playing any Responses to a character being killed for the military claim. You can play Responses in any order, and the opportunity to Respond to something that came before in the window is ALWAYS open to you - until the window closes.

So, since there is no "order of Response opportunities," moribund lasting for "all Responses" or lasting "until the window closes" would functionally be the same thing.

ktom said:

This surprised me a lot. I thought before that if character is taken than all attachments changes owner as well. Does it have any sense to leave attachements under previous owner when character was taken?

berto said:

(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.

The "sense" of it is that there is no correlation between control of attachments and control of the character they are on in the first place. When you play Poison Wine (or any other negative attachment) on an opponent's character, control of the attachment does not automatically switch to the character's controller. If you are feeling benevolent and put a Rusted Sword on your opponent's Sansa in Melee (hoping he'll let you draw a card), Sansa's controller does not take control of Rusted Sword.

So since the controller of the character does not necessarily - at any time - control all of the attachments on said character, why would control of attachment follow control of the character if someone takes control of the character? Or, said another way, if your opponent's character has his Aegon's Blade and your Poison Wine on it, would you get control of Aegon's Blade but keep control of Poison Wine when you took control of the character?

Long and short of it: the "sense" in leaving attachments under previous control comes from the basic rule that you can play any attachment on any character - not just ones you control.