So I looked through like six pages of the rules forum and couldn't find this asked anywhere.

If I take control of say, The Kindly Man, and he dies, what happens? He says attach to "your" house card as "your" only agenda. It doesn't say attach to "owner's" house card as "the owner's" only agenda, so he would go to the controller's right? I know that whenever a card leaves play it is going to the owner's out of play area by default, but these seem to specify the controllers out of play area, so not sure if that would override the default of owner's out of play area.

Staton said:

Doubting Septa: "…instead put it on the bottom of your deck and draw 1 card."

The Hound: "…instead shuffle him back into your deck."

(Just to name a few).

The wording is the same format here as it is on Kindly Man. If the only indication of "seem(s) to specify the controller's out-of-play area" you've got is the word "your," it seems close to impossible to say that the Kindly Man becomes the controller's agenda, but Damphair, Septa, and The Hound go to the owner's deck. There is nothing more "overriding" the rule of "owner's out-of-play area" on The Kindly Man than there is on any other character with a replacement effect.

Now, the thing to be aware of is that the play restrictions are going to be judged by the controller's situation. So, if I take control of your Kindly Man and am playing my own agenda, it's going to go to your dead pile when it dies (not become your agenda), even if you do not have an agenda.

Mmmmkay. Good examples there. So if I take control of the kindly man and he dies and I'm not running an agenda then it would check to see if the owner was running an agenda, if he is then the kindly man dies, but if he isn't, he becomes an agenda on the owner's house card, correct? Just want to make sure I have everything down.

Staton said:

1. Controller has agenda, owner has agenda: character goes to owner's dead pile
2. Controller has agenda, owner has no agenda: character goes to owner's dead pile
3. Controller has no agenda, owner has agenda: character goes to owner's dead pile
4. Controller has no agenda, owner has no agenda: character goes to owner's House card as agenda

ktom said:

One question here, regarding option 3. How does this specifically happen… does the Agenda become moribund:agenda and notice that it's owner already has an agenda in Step 6? If so, why does it go to the dead pile, instead of being discarded? (What makes it revert to dying, instead of being discarded like most cards in illegal states)

…or, does it never become moribund:agenda, but rather somehow pre-checks that it's target would be illegal?

ktom said:

Why is #2 and #4 a different destination?

Bomb said:

In #3, the mechanics are that the card becomes "moribund:(owner's) agenda," replacing the usual "moribund:(owner's) dead pile." When you get to Step 6 and go to physically remove it from play, it is the replacement effect - switching it from dead pile to agenda - that cannot happen, so you revert to the "norm" for the non-replaced effect, which is the dead pile.

ktom said:

But if you cannot attach them to your house card in the first place, then why does it go as far as attaching to the owner's house card in that instance?

I see two play restrictions:

"attach him to your house card"
and
"as your only agenda"(you cannot have an agenda)

I feel that you do not meet the ability to attach them to your house card in the first place because you do not own them. However if that is irrelevant and the "as your only agenda" is the only play restriction, I do not follow how and when this is checked for two times. At which point is the play restriction checked for the owner? At the same time as that of the controller?

It just doesn't make that much sense to me that if the controller cannot legally attach him to their house card in the first place that the next play restriction comes into play and is checked against that same controller.

Bomb said:

What this means is that "attach him to your House card as your only agenda" is not two separate play restrictions. It is just 1. (I have said from day 1 - when Griff was spoiled - that these cards really should have been worded "If this card would be killed and you are not running an agenda, instead attach it to your House card as an agenda with the 'text X'." That's how these characters function, after all.)

Bomb said:

Bomb said:

The "play restriction" is never actually checked for the owner. When the card dies, you look at the controller's circumstances and decide what happens to the card (same as you would if the owner controlled it). So, in 1 & 2 above, the character never tries to become an agenda, no matter what is going on for the owner, because the controller is running an agenda. The fact that there is no "second check" is why #2 ends up the way it does - the destination is set without any input from the owner. In 3 & 4, the character tries to become an agenda, no matter what is going on for the owner. In #4, it does become an agenda without any further issues. In #3, though, if the card does become an agenda, you end up with an illegal game state caused by the replacement effect. As a result, the replacement effect is ignored and the card goes where it would have gone before the replacement effect created the illegal game state.

It's like playing a "draw 3" effect after you have already drawn 1. The "draw 3" effect has passed all of its play restrictions and was completely legal to initiate. However, its resolution would create an illegal game state in that you would get more cards than the draw cap allows. So you ignore as much of the resolution as is necessary to bring the resolution back to a legal game state - and only draw 2 of the 3 cards. Same thing here. It's not that the replacement effect fails to meet its play restrictions and therefore does not initiate - it's that the resolution would create an illegal game state, so you ignore just as much of the resolution as is necessary to bring it back to a legal game state - ie, the kill effect sends it to the dead pile.

Anyway, the short answer is that the play restriction is never actually checked for the owner.

I just thought I'd chime in and let ktom know that Damon's (apparently) backing his answer, with much the same logic:

My text is italic, Damon's is plain:

Suppose neither me nor my opponent are running an Agenda. Further suppose I control a Kindly Man that is owned by my opponent. The Kindly Man is killed.

What is the result?
a) Kindly Man attaches to my House card as an Agenda.

b) Kindly Man attaches to his owner's House card as an Agenda.

This.

c) Kindly Man goes to his owner's dead pile.

Any insight you could give would be most appreciated!

It is a complicated process but what it boils down to is that it runs a check to see if its controller has an Agenda. If the answer is "no agenda" its replacement effect kicks in. Leaving play it automatically reverts to its owners out of play area, at which point it attempts to attache itself to the owners House card as his or her only agenda. If they have an agenda the effect fails. If they do not it successfully attaches.

By the way, I should probably mention that the "illegal game state" I was referring to in my last post has nothing to do with the "as the only agenda" restriction of the character/agenda's play restriction. The illegal game state is the attempt to violate the basic "only one agenda" rule - without a specific effect allowing you to do so (like on The North agendas).

Thank you. I get what you are saying. I know it's part of the rules but I don't really like how it works even with the rules. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean I shouldn't follow it. Thanks!