Any chance i can get a break down of how this works?

Unlike other attachment control cards it dosent state that the character the attachment is moved to has to be an eligable one. Does the text of CbtR trump the text of the attachment?

Example, i have cat stark (Atot version) out with the crown of winter attached, CbtR is played taking control of the crown and then it is attached to cersei lannister and my opponent opts to take control of it. Does the crown then get discared as the stark unique only is no longer a met condition (like how chains are lost when not on a maester)? Is the stark unique only a play condition for getting out of hand?

We agreed that it would be discarded as it dosent meet the conditions on the card itself (which was important as my opponent had a miserable time with a lannister intrigue heavy deck with cat and crown out on turn one )

A restriction such as "X character only" is constant and the attachment will be discarded as soon as that condition is no longer met (e.g. moving Crown of Winter to a non-Stark character).

Also, be aware that Compelled by the Rock is banned for tournament play, so don't get to attached to it (see what I did there? )

We thought as much, no worries on the banned and restricted lists as my group plays casually and arent bothered. Although that said i build my decks to be tournament legal but thats just my little OCD coming through.

Hold on there: the text of the card is:

"Marshalling: Choose two characters. Move an attachment from one of those characters to the other. You may take control of the attachment when it is moved."

The text of the card does NOT "trump" attachment restrictions. You can only ignore or violate a rule - including attachment restrictions - if a card effect specifically allows you to. The absence of "if able" does not allow you to move illegal or ineligible attachments. If you choose Catelyn Stark and Cersei Lannister with the intention of moving Crown of Winter to Cersei, you will not be able to do so because the attachment is illegal on Cersei. "Move" is a single-step process. If the attachment cannot "arrive" on Cersei, it will never "leave" Cat - and have no reason to be discarded. (This is no different than playing the Brotherhood agenda and winning a power challenge with no Brotherhood characters: without a place to move power to , there is no reason to think the power will be moved from the loser's House card, only to be discarded.)

In general, you cannot try to move attachments to (or play them on) an ineligible character. There is nothing on CbtR specifically telling you otherwise, so the attachment does not more. If it doesn't move, it is not discarded, either.

OOOo, that changes things quite a bit then. While my play group knows that agot is about not being able to do things unless specifically stated it was the lack of 'eligible card' that threw us (like crown of Meereen).

In that case if there is no eligible character to move it to then they presumably cant take control of the attachment either?

It seems a much less useful card now, are there any reasons it is considered so powerful as to be banned? Just curious.

Underworld40k said:

Underworld40k said:

Keep in mind, also, that most of the attachments people play do not have restrictions as narrow as the crowns. The "eligible character" restriction also does not stop you from moving negative attachments from your best character (where it was played) to your worst character just before you settle military claim. Or from breaking up an opponent's attempt to "suit up" a single character by moving the attachments between characters his controls - taking control of the attachment in the process so he cannot trigger it. It's a very versatile card and you can almost always find a character you'd rather an attachment was on. So while it may seem "much less useful" now that you know about the eligibility on moving, it is probably only "marginally less useful" in practice.

ktom said:

Ah, my bad. The attachment restrictions still throw me off a little for some reason.

Saturnine said:

It's the same reason you cannot play a "Maester only" chain attachment on CS-Sansa, letting it be immediately discarded just so that you can trigger her Response and draw a card. The attachment restriction must be true in order for the attachment to be put on her in the first place.

ktom said:

Yeah. I was simply applying the "restriction not met = discard" logic of something like a character losing the necessary trait to moving an attachment without thinking about the target restriction. My bad.

Saturnine said: