I'm seeking clarification on what happens when I use the Crown of Meeren's effect to steal a restricted attachment for which I do not have a legal character to attach it to once I gain control of it.

It seems to me that the attachment would be immediately discarded as soon as I choose to attach it to a character that it cannot legally be attached to. I have seen others argue that if I do not have a legal character to whom I can attach an attachment, then I cannot take contorl of it in the first place and thus the crown has no effect on such an attachment. However, the crown is a "then" card and the rules for the word "then" stipulate that an effect after the word "then" cannot be triggered unless the previous effect on the same card (the one followed by "then") was reoslved successfully... in this case, I don't see anything stopping me from taking control of an opponent's attachment, so I'm not sure that argument is accurate.

Can someone explain to me how this is supposed to work, and more importantly, why? (Ideally with specific references to the rulebook and FAQ document.)

Thanks!

You can take control of the attachment, but you cannot move it to a character that would otherwise be an illegal target. If you control the attachment and it has a trigger ability say like the Tin Link, your opponent may not trigger its response to that character kneeling but you could. However since kneeling the attached character is the cost to trigger the Lead Link, if you took control of it you would not be able to ever trigger its ability, but your ownership also prevents your opponent form triggering it also.

If it helps any, the answer to the scenario is "option #3;" neither of the ones you have proposed.

Venthrac said:

But you cannot choose to attach it to a character that it cannot legally be attached to. The FAQ's entry on attachment restrictions say that such restrictions are constant effects. While the entry goes on to say that means you should discard them any time they are not met, the fact that it is a constant effect also tells you that you cannot purposefully violate the restriction. So, for example, you cannot move a "Stark character only" attachment to a non-Stark character (and then discard it) any more than you could play a "Stark character only" attachment from your hand onto a non-Stark character (and then discard it).

Venthrac said:

That would be incorrect. When a single card has multiple effects, but not all of them can be resolved, you do as much as you can. The FAQ's "Word 'then'" entry says pretty clearly that you resolve all the effects independently, unless the word "then" is in there. So the "take control" is not tied to the "move" part of the Crown's effect in any way.

Venthrac said:

Um... you may want to re-read the card. The word "then" doesn't appear at all. So your argument here doesn't track. The effects are independent, even though they are separated by the word "and" instead of a period.

Venthrac said:

Take the stuff I said above and put it all together. You trigger the Crown and to choose an attachment. That attachment is transferred to your control and moved to an eligible character that you choose. There is no "then," so these two effects happen independently. You get control of the attachment (check), and you move it to an eligible character. If there is at least one other eligible character for you to move it to, you must choose the character and move the attachment. But if there are NO eligible characters, you cannot make a choice, so you cannot move it. That part of the effect simply does not resolve successfully. If that happens (ie, no one eligible character for you to choose and move the attachment to), the attachment stays where it is. After all, there is nothing on the text of the Crown, or in the rules, saying you should discard the attachment that is otherwise legal on the character it is attached to. (Of course, if it was an "attach to a character you control" attachment - and you now control the attachment, but not the character - it will be illegal and discarded.)

I have no idea why I thought the word "then" was a part of that card's effects. I must have just mentally filled it in. That's my mistake.

So to bring all this full circle, if I use the Crown of Meereen to take control of my opponent's Gray Wind attachment, and I have no eligible characters to whom I can move it, it remains where it was before I used the crown. However, because I now control it, my opponent cannot make use of the card. Is that right?

Yes. That is correct.

Note, of course, that non-triggered effects ("attached character gains +2 STR") still apply.

Got it.

Thanks for your assistance!

Venthrac said:

Not only can your opponent not use it, but you can.

You would also be able to now use said card because it is under your control. That's kind of funny... grab your opponent's Grey Wind which is attached to Robb Stark and then you get both the kill and the buff, haha.

I've seen people do that in Stark-v-Stark matches. I'll attach my Grey Wind to your Robb so I can kill 2-STR characters. And to make things even more interesting, I'll do it after you attach your own Grey Wind to the same Robb.

Doesn't Greywind being unique prevent that or is it allowed because the 2 copies are controlled and owned by different players?

Khudzlin said:

This. Your opponent having a copy of a unique card in play doesn't prevent you from playing that card.

can I use"Crow of Meereen" to take control of opp's Tent(such as Khal Drogo's Tent),then attach to my House Card?

snowfrost said:

Any reason to think that you couldn't?

You can do so if it is an attachment (but not if it is a location, because Crown of Meereen's response specifies attachment).

we know,When Tent's text is blanked,it will discard.

When I take control of opp's Tent,it is not attach to "my house card",so I think it will discard.

another question,can I take control of "Increased Levy" with "Crown of Meereen"?

snowfrost said:

As long as they chose to play it as an attachment on their house card, yes. All day, yes.

another question,can I take control of "Increased Levy" with "Crown of Meereen"?

beacuse "Increased Levy" say "Attach to a location you control",when I take control of "Increased Levy",it is not attach to a location that I control.

snowfrost said:

snowfrost said:

As to the first part, if you're taking control of it as an attachment, you can attach it to your house card since that's part of its text and it is now referring to you as the controller.

As to your second question, what makes you think you can't? Of course, if you have no location to move it to on your side of the board, it would be discarded because of it's text… which would be okay, since you're still taking a gold away from your opponent.

snowfrost said:

Ah, but part of the crown's text says to move it to another valid target of your choice (I'm paraphrasing for convenience)

stormwolf27 said:

Response: After you win a challenge in which attached character participated, choose an attachment. Take control of that attachment, and attach it to an eligible card of your choice.

This part

snowfrost said:

Another way to explain it is this: discarding illegal attchments is a passive game effect. You do not initiate passive effects for "take control of that attachment" until after the entire effect (including the "attach it to an eligible card" part) resolves - by which time, the attachment will not be on an illegal card.

snowfrost said:

Wait, what? Really? I wouldn't think so. The text on Khal Drogo's Tent and similar cards is a play restriction that is only checked when the card is played, no? It doesn't look like one of those constant attachment restrictions to me.

Ratatoskr said:

(3.22) 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. … Unless specifically stated otherwise on the card, attachments always attach to a character.

"You may choose to play Khal Drogo's Tent as an attachment on your House card" is no different than the "attach to an opponent's character" form of such restrictions and is therefore considered constant. For one thing, if that wasn't a constant effect, there would be no active "attach to your House Card" text keeping the attachment on a non-character card after it was played.

I see. Thank you, ktom.