Dear ktom-

This came up on agotcards.org here. Need a rules lawyer on this one:

What happens I play Enslaved on Reek, and then I try to trigger Reek's ability?

There are two legitimate, and two not-so-legitimate, interpretations in my mind.

1) Enslaved is a constant effect, so since Reek is not able to pass control, his effect is not able to be triggered.

2) Enslaved is a passive with the point of initiation being playing the card. According to the FAQ then, if another effect caused Reek to pass control, Enslaved would still be attached but the duration of the effect would end (since it's permanent until control passes again), rendering it essentially useless.

3) Enslaved is a constant effect, so you can trigger Reek but then the effect immediately kicks back in and Reek would remain under your control. (This seems less logical since passing control would essentially be creating an illegal gamestate if it is indeed constant.)

4) Enslave is a passive effect that constantly checks its condition. So it would essentially be the same as #3 without creating an illegal game state, except it would resolve as a passive when the response is triggered. However, this is assuming that it's a passive with the ability to constantly trigger, and it's not clear that there is a real point of initiation for the effect other than actually playing the card.

I don't know. What do you think, sir?

Other people can definitely weigh in here, not just ktom. Feel free.

AGoT DC Meta said:

As it says in the FAQ:

"(3.26) Duration of Control Change
Unless otherwise stated (for example, with a
specified duration), the change of control is
permanent until the card that switched sides
leaves play or control of the card switches
again via a card effect."

So consider these scenarios:

1. You play Enslaved on my character. I discard the attachment. Who controls the character now? I do - the owner - right?
2. You play Enslaved on my character. John takes that same character from you with the effect of Fury of the Stag. When Fury wears off, who controls the character now, you or me? You do - the person who Seductive Promise took it from - right?
3. You play Enslaved on my character. John plays Enslaved on the same character. Who controls the character? John does, since the second attachment made it so that "control of the card switches again via a card effect," right?
4. Looking at #3, I discard John's attachment. Who controls the character now? Me - as the owner as in #1 - or you - as the person John took it from in #2? (Hint: the answer is "you.")
5. Looking at #3, say I discard your attachment, then discard John's attachment. Who controls the character now? Me - as the owner - or you - as the person John took it from? (Hint: the answer is "me.")

The reason I'm spelling all of this out like this is to illustrate some of the larger implications of that FAQ entry.

Control of a card/character is always preempted by a "change control" effect - even from a "constant effect" like Enslaved or a "lasting effect" like Seductive Promise. That's what the "or control of the card switches again via a card effect" text means. You do this all the time when you take control of a character that someone else had taken control of. The set "duration" of the original effect may still be ongoing, but the more recently applied "take control" effect is the one that counts. It is pretty much the only situation in the game where the order of effects matters.

So, if you have Enslaved on Reek, you can still use his ability, and that control change will preempt the attachment, lasting for the duration of Reek's ability (or until Reeks ability is preempted by a newly applied control change).

However, Reek's ability does not "deactivate" the attachment. The attachment is still there, and if Reeks ability is somehow gotten rid of (Fury of the Stag is the more concrete example), the loss of the "most recent" control change pushes control of the character back to the next most recent control change effect that was applied (and is still applicable).

All of this is really just a long way of saying that the FAW entry means that control change effects string together, with the person who applied the most recent (valid) control change effect taking control of the character.

You can trust, by the way, that this "last valid control change applied" approach is what you would get if you sent the question in to FFG because it was hashed out years ago in the CCG thanks to the card " Swayed by the Light. "

ktom said:

So are you saying that, for example, in a melee game, if Lanni player plays Enslaved on Reek, then uses Reek on Stark Player, then Bara player steals Reek with Fury (but doesn't get to trigger his response that phase, let's say), that when Fury wears off Reek will revert to Lanni player because of Enslaved?

That's not what I got from it. It still reverts back to who controlled them last in tiers, so unless I am missing something it would be more like:

1. Stark Player controls Reek

2. Lanni player takes Reek with Enslaved

3. Lanni player uses Reek against Stark player, so Stark is in control of Reek.

4. Bara player plays Fury of the Stag and then cries because there isn't a Martell or Targ player at the table….

so lets rewind and say:

3. Lanni player uses Reek against Martell player, so Martell is in control of Reek.

4. Bara player wins a POW challenge against the Martell player and takes control of Reek

So order of control is: Stark, Lanni, Martell, Bara. When Fury wears off, he should go back to the Martell player as the last controller of the character. Just because the Bara player took control of him for a phase does not negate the Martell player's claim to controlling Reek.

HOWEVER, what happens if that same Bara player had won a challenge with Reek against any the Stark player?

Order of control then is S, L, M, B, S… When the condition of the Fury plot wears off, the Bara player no longer has any claim on the control of Reek, so the control chain is now: S, L, M, S with the Stark player being the last to control Reek.

At least, that's how I read it.

Also, I think another point to make here could be that playing the attachment is your "point of initiation" for the "take control" effect. This means you have control of the card. It does not constantly check to make sure you are in control of the character, otherwise it would have a House Bolton trait and say "the Active player takes control of this character at the start of their challenges" or something similar.

It also has the FAQ entry that ktom points out to determine when the end point is. It either is discarded or control is taken through another effect.

Slothgodfather said:

Lol. I obviously don't play Bara much.

Sloth has got the correct interpretation of this. It's all about the order in which "take control" effects are applied. When one is no longer applicable, control goes back one step in that line - although you can also lose your place in line.

Slothgodfather said:

Would control switch if at any time the attachment is blanked (Meera)? Thanks in advance!

Of course. Blanking the text makes the effect "leave play" and become inapplicable. So control moves back one place in line. Then, when the text comes back, the effect becomes newly applicable all over again, adding a new step at the end of the line.

I'm ok Ktom with what you say, but do you care to elaborate? The Faq only states that when the CARD leaves play, not the effect. So blanking is somewhat considered to be "leaving play"? Isn't that a little to stretch to jump in?

also what happens if you blank the 2nd effect in line? when the text comes back does it jump to the front or stay as the 2nd in line for control

SummerSeaCaptain said:

When a card is blank, it's printed effect(s) no longer impact the game. That's what blanking is. Does the "control change" entry of the FAQ really need to say the effect ends "when the card leaves play or its text box is blanked" in order for blanking mechanic to apply? The FAQ entry on control change helps explain control change, but it does not specifically contradict the blanking mechanic. I'm not sure why someone would think that blanking the text of a control change attachment would not inactivate the effect - the same way that removing the card from play would.

Look again at what I wrote. I said that the effect "leaves play" (in parentheses) and becomes inactive. I put the "leaves play" in parentheses to highlight the fact that blanking the text of a card with a continuous effect is functionally equivalent to the physical card leaving play in that the text of the card stops affecting the game. It is no longer applicable. Given that card text only affects the game while it is in play (unless otherwise specified) and blanking a card's text stops that text from affecting the game, it is not that much of a stretch at all to say that blanking the card functionally removes the text from play - because the text stops affecting the game the same way that the text would stop affecting the game if the card was removed from play.

johnn0411 said:

This is no different than a blanked "gets -1 STR" effect creating a new "after a character's STR is reduced" response opportunity when the blanking wears off.

ktom said:

No no I wasn't suggesting that. I merely thought that since "seductive promise" and "enslaved" have similar text ("Take control of…"), "enslaved" would create a lasting effect that remains active even when enslaved is blanked. Starting from this assumption, I was trying to understand how you justify blanking. Something like feast or famine(you choose 6 gold option) against forgotten plan (you still get the gold).

SummerSeaCaptain said:

The thing is that Seductive Promise creates a lasting effect, and Enslaved is a constant effect. Don't worry, the two get confused a lot.

SummerSeaCaptain said:

Gotcha. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

As Rat says, Seductive Promise is a lasting effect, but Enslaved is a continuous effect. The difference is really in how they are created and how they are maintained. Seductive Promise is created by a triggered effect on a card that ends up in the discard pile long before the duration of the effect is over. Enslaved is created by the attachment being in play (as opposed to triggering) and lasts as long as the attachment is in play.

In the end, while Seductive Promise and Enslaved have similar effects, they do not have similar text. The "Response" part of Seductive Promise (and its absence from Enslaved) ends up being really important. The fact that Seductive Promise is a Response means you could cancel the Response so that the effect never applies in the first place. But where would you cancel Enslaved? Because of this, Seductive Promise has an initiation and a resolution. That resolution establishes the duration, which cannot be "undone." However, because Enslaved has no initiation, it also has no resolution. It's effect is just applied - and will continue to be applied. There is no "duration" other than the continued applicability of the effect - which can be "undone" by getting rid of the card that continues to apply the effect.

That difference means everything in determining if the effect is continuous (and thus needing the card that created it - and its text - to be in play in order to maintain it) or lasting (and thus NOT needing the card that created it - or its text - to be in play, maintaining the effect through its duration).

thanks ktom, I think I finally grasped the difference between lasting and continous effects! Thanks to Rat too

Sorry, thread resurrection but the thread just came up in our meta so I thought id ask here since its pretty much relevant.

Steelshanks Reserves. is their effect lasting or constant?
The way we've been playing it is as a lasting effect "triggering" each time active player changes during the challenges phase. after the challenges phase, whoever had them last gets to keep them until the next challenges phase. blanking them does not return them to their owner, (nor do they return outside of the challenges phase).

Is that about right?

Yes. That's how it works. People can quibble about semantics of "lasting effect" if they really want, but it doesn't really matter what you call it in this case.

Another Reek Resurrection here…

In a Bolton mirror match, keeping in mind the rules of Uniques, say both opponents control 1 copy of Reek. If the first player wins the INT challenge with Reek as the attacker and choses to trigger his response, does that allow the 2nd Bolton player to control both Reeks?

Slothgodfather said:

Oh man! A LIFO stack!!! Awesome!

This is intuitive and I support it, LoL.

How is it a LIFO stack if nothing is ever triggered?