Actually what I think Bomb is saying is that it is NOT causing it to leave play again, it is simply saying that as an already moribund attachment is currently moribund:discard pile, change the destination to :hand. Now I know you say it needs to have some form of "instead", "cancel" or "save" to be able to respond to this. But currently, without the word instead, it is still not attemping to remove an attachment from play a second time. It is changing it's moribund state.

"However, the "state" of a
Moribund card can be changed by an effect
that does not actually attempt to remove it
from play a second time."

It is also not "attempting to remove the card from play again" because then it would be more of an effect that would typically only work on a non-moribund card in the first place (such as the previously mentioned Meera who cannot "leave play to go moribund:shadows" if she has already been selected for "leave play to be moribund:dead." As his text only works after an attachment is "moribund:discard", I don't see the requirement of "instead."

I do understand there are previous templates in place, but they alter the destination before it is actually selected. Such as "if killed, instead put on bottom of deck." This card doesn't become moribund:dead and then switch to moribund:bottom of deck," it simply becomes moribund:bottom of deck. With the case of Griff, this is where the rule of changing states does apply, were it says after an attachment is moribund:discard, make it moribund:hand instead.

Slothgodfather said:

I get what you're saying. I do.

But I cannot escape what I see as the truth: That "return to hand" is a removal from play, and that without the word "instead" to override the existing removal from play (which would then put it in line with the stated exception), it is as second removal, and therefore illegal.

Out of context, "return to hand", I agree, removes a card from play. But you are ignoring the condition set by the response itself. The card already has to be "on its way out." It is already a "moribund:discard" attachment, having passed the save/cancel responses along with passives. During responses, you are simply changing the state of the moribund card to "moribund:hand". It doesn't need instead because the initial state does initiate. It is just that by the time we get to resolving things and removing them from the board, Griff has changed that state destination to hand.

If this isn't an example of being able to change a moribund:destination state, then show me one that is please.

Slothgodfather said:

I think Slothgodfather is making the same point I was trying to make but explained it much better. I was struggling to make my point yesterday.

Slothgodfather said:

I can't agree that "return to hand" is somehow made not a removal effect because of context of condition. A removal effect is a removal effect. I cannot think of any precident in this game for the restriction or context of an effect changing the nature of its effect. Raising or lowering STR is always raising or lowering STR. Adding or removing an icon is always adding or removing an icon. Removing from play is always removing from play.

The "instead" is needed, and here is the most clear and detailed way I can think of expressing it.

Timing quoted from FAQ:
1) Action is initiated (In this case, Attachment is discarded).
2) Save/cancel responses (Griff is neither, and one would presume you don't have one)
3) Action is executed (Attachment becomes moribund:discard)
4) Passive abilities, triggered by the action, are
resolved (again, this is not one, so we can skip step 4, and all of its substeps)
5) Responses (in clockwise order until all players consecutively pass) are resolved. (Here we go: attempt to initiate Response. Check restrictions: restriction is "after a Targ attachment you control is discarded". Okay, that is true, so we're good to go. Check cost: Cost is to kneel 1 influence. We'll assume the player can do that, so no problem. Now the effect: return it (obviously refering to the aforementioned attachment) to your hand Problem: Attachment in question is already moribund:discard, and cannot be returned to hand, as that is a second removal effect. Effect cannot function)

The examples are every effect that uses the word "instead" in their text. The word "instead" changes the state successfully by making clear that it is not attempting to remove a second time, but alter the destination, changing step 5 to:
5) Responses (in clockwise order until all players consecutively pass) are resolved. (A ttempt to initiate Response. Check restrictions: restriction is "after a Targ attachment you control is discarded". Okay, that is true, so we're good to go. Check cost: Cost is to kneel 1 influence. Now the effect: return it (obviously refering to the aforementioned attachment) to your hand instead . Since you're not initiating a second removal effect, but clearly simply modifying an existing state in the moribund card, moribund:discard changes to moribund:return to hand instead. Effect is successful)

If, after this, we still disagree, then I can see no value to continuing the discussion.

Bomb said:

You made your point just fine. I understood that you were saying the Response must change the moribund state because the only circumstances under which it can be triggered involves the card already being moribund.

The point I was making is that until this card, FFG has always told us that unless a card specifically affects the moribund state, it does not. For example, the event card Retreat says, " Response : After one of your unique characters is killed, return that character to your hand instead of placing it in your dead pile. " The only circumstances under which that Response can be triggered involves the subject card already being moribund, too. So why add the "instead of placing it in your dead pile" part?

Similarly, the plot card Stay of Execution reads "If a King or Queen character would be killed, instead return it to its owner's hand." Again, the only circumstances under which that (constant) effect applies involves the subject King or Queen already being moribund. So why add the "instead" when, under the reasoning you are using for Griff, all they needed to say was "…return it to its owner's hand"?

The intended purpose of Griff is clear. But to say that his Response can change the moribund state without specifically saying it does (usually by using the word "instead") makes him inconsistent with every other like effect!! That inconsistency either means he doesn't work as written, or we need to apply a completely new interpretation of the moribund rules.

Kristoff and I have been arguing the "he doesn't work as written" point of view (thereby calling for errata to make it do what it is clear it should do). You (Bomb) and Sloth are arguing for the "completely new interpretation of the moribund rules" point of view, whether you realize it or not.

ktom said:

What Targaryen have over the other houses is the means to bring him back should the plan be foiled by discarding him (Ambush from the Plains) or killing him while blank (To Be a Dragon). Sure, there are other ways to do that, but these are the most direct (straight into play) and reliable.

ktom said:

I think that the argument I was making was not coming from the correct angle. My argument was based on replacement effects and how they have a limited definition in the FAQ(no where mentioning how the word "instead" is required). Your argument is based off of the what is possible with cards in the moribund state.

My perspective was skewed by the FAQ itself defining general replacement effects(because it does not define them with "instead") when in fact replacement effects are not always changing the Moribund destination so it is required for that to be generally defined for all replacement effects. Not all replacement effects use the word "instead", however the Moribund state manipulation effects use it.

Double Bluff is an example of a replacement effect that does not include "instead" because it simply does not need to.

Response: After defenders have been declared in a challenge, kneel 2 influence or pay 2 gold to change the effect of winning the challenge to that of another challenge type.

Therefore, I concede on this point and believe the FAQ indeed does have Replacement effects correctly defined to cover all scenarios.

Bomb said:

An excelling observation, which I completely failed to consider.

Shenanigans said:

Except you give up running an agenda and have to run summoning season to reliably use him.

HoyaLawya said:

(Personally, I don't think giving up the agenda is that big of a deal. Unless you have consciously started your deckbuilding process planning to take advantage of an agenda ability, the benefits are not wildly advantageous as an afterthought.)

ktom said:

It is true even with Targ. I guess the cost/benefit of giving up other agendas is an area where we disagree. Then again, I usually do have an agenda in mind when I start building a new deck.

HoyaLawya said:

But I have also heard many people say "when you're done building a deck, there is no reason no to grab an agenda and include it after the fact." It's that attitude I disagree with, and that method of choosing agendas "after the fact" that I think is no loss at all compared to most character-agendas.