sand snake veil states "Attached character is immune to opponent's non-plot card effects" how does that work in regards to attachments? would it be immune to the attachment or would it be immune to the attachments texts? or am i just wrong?

Wolfbrother said:

There is no distinction between being immune to the attachment, and being immune to the attachment's text.

If you're asking, "Could the opponent of someone who has a Snakeskin Veil still attach a card to that character?" then the answer is yes. Immunity to an attachment does not prevent it being being attached. It just prevents the attachment from doing anything to that character.

also if a character has " no attachments except weapon" could a multiple trait attachment be played on them if one of those traits is not weapon?

excellent so something like fishing net would not have an effect correct?

Correct, a fishing net, while it could still be attached, would not function.

"No attachments except Weapon" only cares whether an attachment has "weapon." It doesn't care about anything else.

Though now that I've said that, I'm uncertain. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

KristoffStark said:

You were correct. A fishing net is as much a Weapon as it is an Item or Condition.

Anything that looks for Traits only looks for the existence of that trait on a card.

Fishing Net has all those traits(Item is still a trait that has no synergy) just so you can use it more loosely and so it can be more easily targeted.

i think i need to word that better, "no attachments except weapon" the question is if a attachment is multiple traits and that character can't have those traits equipped wouldn't it "fall off" similiar to 'maesters path agenda' and a maester losing maester trait?

Wolfbrother said:

As long as one of those traits is a Weapon, it is eligible to be attached to the character. Once it loses the Weapon trait, it falls off.

Wolfbrother said:

Wolfbrother said:

No, Bomb's confirmation of my explaination still stands.

If something says "No attachment except weapon ," Then as long as it has weapon , it is a weapon . It doesn't matter if it's also an item, siege, armor, or even Night's Watch . It's a weapon . That's all that matters.

If it said "cannot attach items .", that would be different. But if It says "no attachments except weapon. ", then having weapon is all it cares about.

ok the confusion comes from the way the framework handles immunity, essentially nothing of that type may directly effect a card with immunity to that card type and i thought the same might be true with weapon only characters since the other traits are "illegal"

Wolfbrother said:

There's no need to assume that play restriction rules are the same as immunity rules. They are different things and work very differently.

Or, to put it differently, "No attachments except weapon ," is NOT the same as "No attachments that have any trait that is not weapon ."

Instead, it is "No attachments that do not have the weapon trait."

Wolfbrother said:

The other traits have nothing to do with the attachment being a Weapon . "no attachments except…" does not check for any other traits except for the specified trait it needs.

Consider an attachment with no traits. It's missing Weapon , so it cannot be attached.

Consider an attachment with Weapon . It HAS Weapon , so it CAN be attached.

Consider an attachment with Weapon. Boon. Item. Armor. It HAS Weapon , so it CAN be attached.

If I had said to you, "I will only go to a baseball game with a ticket for the Bleachers. So I can only accept ' No ticket except for Bleachers '" Let's say I am offered a ticket that had the traits " Bleachers. Owner's Box. ". Will I reject the ticket offer because it gives me the option to go to the Bleachers or the Owner's Box? No, because it's still a ticket for the Bleachers, but it's also a ticket for the Owner's Box. It still has the Trait that I require, so I am accepting it.

For the record, I'd go to the Owner's Box and not be stubborn.

Keep in mind that the definition of immunity is that the immune card ignores the direct effect of what it is immune to. What it is immune to does not go away or become illegal - only that the effects are ignored. On the other hand, "No attachments except weapon" doesn't ignore a weapon attachment that is still there - it makes it illegal for the card to be there in the first place. So the mechanics are fairly different and explaining one in terms of the other is an "apples & oranges" kind of thing.

immune cards ignore all effects from cards of their immune type correct, westeros bleeds would not effect the "immune to events" red viper correct?

Correct.

According the the FAQ, Immunity effectively does two separate things:

1. Makes it illegal for the immune card to be targeted by the thing(s) it is immune to.
2. Allows the immune card to ignore the direct effects of the thing(s) it is immune to, targeted or not.

For some reason, a lot of people seem to miss the broader implications of #2. It is clear that the event-immune Viper cannot be chosen as the target of an event card like Die By the Sword, but they miss that even if the effects of the event do not specifically target anything (like Westeros Bleeds), the effects are not applied to the immune card (so the Viper is not discarded).