"No attachments"

Is it a keyword?
Is it an immunity?

discuss….

dcdennis said:

Keyword.

It is a keyword, because it is listed as such in the Core Set rulebook. It does not contain the word "Immune", so it isn't an "Immunity keyword" (note that immunities are a subset of keywords).

Another related question. Are "House X only" restrictions keywords or not? Not that it matters, but I'm curious nonetheless.

(On House X only) I don't think it's mentioned anywhere, but since, as you stated, it doesn't have any effect on the game at all, that's not all that surprising.

Khudzlin said:

The City of Shadows agenda states, " You may ignore the 'House X only' deckbuilding restriction on any card with the crest. Whenever you bring any card with a 'House X only' restriction that does not match your House card out of Shadows,pay 1 additional gold. If you do not have any cards in Shadows,you cannot claim power for unopposed challenges.". That's the only reference to "house x only" that I know of, and based on that alone, I'd say it's a "deckbuilding restriction" (like "limit 1 per deck" on the Streets) and not a keyword.

"House X only" is a deckbuilding rule/restriction, not a keyword. You can tell because it is listed and explained in the core set rules under the "Tournament Play and Deck Construction Rules" section, not the "Keywords" section.

"No Attachments" is a keyword. It is listed as such in the rule book.

Cards that are "No Attachments" can still be targeted by attachments and they can still be directly affected by the direct effects of attachments cards. So I have a hard time understanding how "No Attachments" could be confused for an immunity. They just cannot have the attachments on themselves - which is a far cry from immunity.

So a man could say that a no attachments char is 'immune' from having something attached to it?

dcdennis said:

So a man could say that a no attachments char is 'immune' from having something attached to it?

~ Well, a man could say anything, but that doesn't make it true.

It would be a bad idea in the context of the game to say that a "No attachments" character is 'immune' from having cards attached to it. For one thing, it is untrue because "immune" has a specific meaning within the context of the game. A "No attachments" character is no more 'immune' from having cards attached to it than The Darkstar is 'immune' to being discarded from your hand, or a kneeling character is 'immune' to being knelt, or a moribund card is 'immune' to being removed from play. Just because something is prohibited by the rules, cannot resolve successfully, or doesn't happen under most normal circumstances does not make the card "immune" to whatever it is that cannot resolve successfully.

For another, it invites problems with cards like Den of the Wolf and Balon's Host. If you call "No attachments" an immunity from having something attached, it implies that Den of the Wolf allows things to be attached and Balon's Host does not (instead of the other way around).

Heck, "cannot be killed" is considerably more like "immune to being killed" than "No attachments" is to "immune to having things attached," but you cannot call that immunity, either.

If i make it to worlds and hang out with you for 5 mins, i think you will quickly learn that 99 % of the time i am just goofing around on here and will stop taking me seriously. Wasnt intending to contradict or attempt to disprove any opinion you have, just having a few cocktails and trying to make myself giggle.

….totally succeeded btw in case anyone was wondering, wasnt expecting anyone to take that prevous reply seriously.

The part with the tilde was for you. The rest of it was for anyone else who looked at the post and said "yeah, that's a good way to look at it."

During that same 5min, I think you will quickly learn that 96% of the time, I am not taking things seriously so much as erring on the side of caution because I so little faith that everyone else gets the joke.

ktom said:

Mary me

ktom said:

Since I met ktom at GenCon, I hear all of his posts in a totally different, much more laid back voice than I used to.

Then I should visit the WCS and meet him too. At the moment, I imagine him to be something like this:

ktom is a man of ~ 5.5 feet and at the age of 34. He is neither fat nor skinny, is married and has 2 children. For about 250 days per year he is prof at some university. That's cool and probably well-payed but very boring, so he hangs out on the rule board all day. He is continuously facepalming at our stupidity and yells his comments loudly while writing them. In his spare time, he likes to write Nate French spam mails with contents like "F*** the new FAQ, sir." or "Could you please release a new FAQ? These noobs beat a path to my door.".

If you want more, ask Freud or Jung.

livingEND said:

I can't say about any of the rest of your post, but I am absolutely totally 100% convinced that this part is very, very true.

I don't know about the rest of you, but ktom does pretty regularly facepalm at my stupidity. I get it in person nonetheless!

Yes ktom, I know…I could avoid most of your scolding if I actually bothered to read the cards.

Shenanigans said:

Bah. Reading cards is for sissies!

Okay as this discussion is very specific.. is there a way to attach an attachment to a "no attachment" char successfully?

Or on the other hand - if i take ktoms example - the rule (or ktom, not that there's much of a difference) say that if it says "cannot be killed" then it would mean - don't even try.

Does this apply to "no attachments" also? Or would the attachment be discarded when it tries to be attached.

A similar question arrises for me in the case of events- can i unsuccessfully play event cards of which the requirements are not met?

(With the effect of them being discarded without any effect to the board?)

MrFixit said:

So the favorite, when people really want attachments on a "No Attachments" character is to use Fortified Position or Nightmares, then, while the character is temporarily blanked, play Milk of the Poppy on it to permanently blank the character.

MrFixit said:

So no, you cannot play an attachment on a "no attachments" character, resulting in an immediate discard, just so you can get the attachment out of your hand, in your discard pile, or to say you played an attachment.

MrFixit said:

So: You cannot attempt to play something like Die By The Sword after winning an INT challenge, knowing it won't kill anything, just to get it out of your hand. Similarly, you cannot play Westeros Bleeds outside of the dominance phase or without kneeling the required 4 influence - but you can play it inside the dominance phase by kneeling 4 influence, even if there are no characters in play to discard.

Roger that. I thought so but i wanted to be clear as last time an opponent played a plot card to have the player with the most cards discard until only four cards are left in his hand. Well i was stuck with a sh*tload of attachments and events and had one card more than another player .. so i had to discard 6 cards of mine and was wondering if that could have been avoided.

But it was more wishful thinking than anything more.

MrFixit said:

Well, he only has to "waste" cards so as not to have the biggest hand… in the aforementioned scenario, ditching one card would have been sufficient to avoid losing 6.

yeah that was the idea..

But speaking of this - the mentioned Plot is Rule by Decree:

Cannot be cancelled. When revealed, the player with the most cards in hand chooses and discards cards from his hand until he has 4 cards in hand.

Assuming i would have somehow be able to get rid of one card what would happen if 2 players had the same amount of cards??

…

And is there actually a way to get rid of a card if i haven't done so by the time Plot card have been revealed?

MrFixit said:

Nothing happens if 2 or more players are tied for highest number, because "the player with the most cards" is not defined (it would need to be "players with the most cards").

Only if that card has a save/cancel response applicable to any of the framework events or the plots resolving. Ahead of the Tide is such a card (cancels determination of initiative winner); Risen from the Sea might qualify (if a plot kills a Greyjoy char); so might He Calls It Thinking (if an appropriate response is used).

Khudzlin said:

Or if Dragonstone Port is in play.

Ratatoskr said:

The important "take-home message" here is that once plots are revealed, you have to resolve all of them before you can play any other effects, including Responses to any of the plots. The only exception would be proper saves and/or cancels, the only kind of effects that can be used between the initiation and resolution of other effects.