Q:Can chains on TMP attach to a printed maester character who just lost his maester trait?

A:Printed refers to the ink on the card. The game may not consider it to count as a maester, but it still has maester printed in the text box, so yes The MAester's Path will still be able to move a link to it…which immediately is discarded because all links must be attached to a maester character.

Q:Can I cancel an effect would let character leave play after opponent's save action has been resolved?

A:No. If you are going to cancel the effect you must do so immediately.

rayind said:

A:No. If you are going to cancel the effect you must do so immediately.

You may want to send this one to him again. The question is not phrased well. It is not entirely clear whether you are asking if you can cancel the save or cancel the original kill effect after a save to the same effect has been triggered and resolved.

The answer you have here is for canceling the save. But since there is no order to saves and cancels, it is possible to cancel a killing effect even after saves have been played. For example, let's say there's a 3 player game. Martell, Greyjoy, and Lannister. Martell loses a MIL challenge and decides to kill The Red Viper (Tales from the Red Keep) for claim. This TRV has the ability "If you are not running an Agenda,The Red Viper gains: 'Response: After The Red Viper is killed, kill all characters in play'." The Martell player decides to trigger that Response. The Greyjoy player, sitting to the left of the Martell player, gets the first save/cancel opportunity and saves one of his characters by discarding an Iron Mines. The Lannister player gets the next save/cancel opportunity and, having no saves but wanting to keep his characters, wants to use The Iron Throne to cancel TRV's character ability. And it's totally legal to do that in this situation - even though Damon's answer above would make it seem like you couldn't because its context is not really clear from the question as phrased.

The first answer also goes against precedent. My head hurts…

Well, yes, the first answer is Damon not thinking the situation all the way through, too.

The "Maester only" on the chains themselves (other than Apprentice Collar) should stop you from moving them off of the agenda and onto a Maester with the printed, but blanked or removed trait, in the first place - just the same as you cannot play a chain from your hand onto a non-Maester and then discard it immediately as illegal.

ktom said:

Not sure why it would matter that the chain says "Maester Only" when you try to attach it. By that logic, Abandoned Forge wouldn't even work since you can't attach attachments to locations to begin with.

mdc273 said:

We agree that you cannot play a link on a non-Maester character from your hand and then immediately discard it as illegal, right? And can we agree that you cannot use Kraznys mo Nakloz to move a Bodyguard attachment to a non-Lord or Lady, then immediately discard it as illegal? Such situations demonstrate that if an attachment has a restriction, any attempt to put the attachment on a character that does not meet the restictions fails and the attachment never attaches in the first place.

That's all that is happening in this situation, too. Any attempt to use TMP to put a chain attachment with a "Maester only" restiction on a card that has no effective Maester trait fails, and the attachment never attaches to the character in the first place - meaning it stays on TMP.

mdc273 said:

No. The difference is that the effect of Abandoned Forge creates a lasting effect that directly contradicts the rules about "illegal attachments," and with all card effects that directly contradict rules text, you follow the card effect.

Yes, you're right.

I sent your example to Damon, and here is the reply:

It is possible to cancel the kill effect immediately after a previous player has saved one of their characters. It is not possible to pass on taking a response action repeatedly while your opponent saves his characters, and then after your next pass he chooses not to save anyone and also passes, then you try to cancel. Once all players have passed consecutively the window for responses (including save/cancel responses) closes.

rayind said:

It is possible to cancel the kill effect immediately after a previous player has saved one of their characters. It is not possible to pass on taking a response action repeatedly while your opponent saves his characters, and then after your next pass he chooses not to save anyone and also passes, then you try to cancel. Once all players have passed consecutively the window for responses (including save/cancel responses) closes.

This ruling is going to create some funky situations that will be hilarious. It might see players even want cancels/saves to go LIFO. That would make this matter. Right now, it has no practical effect except to allow someone to save and then someone to play To Be A Kraken.

@Ktom - I would posit that technically the rules do not check at the initiation of playing an attachment whether the action is legal. I checked the core rules and the FAQ and could not find an actual reference to attachments checking play legality (other than the reference that they're generally played on characters). Technically, you should be able to play Milk of the Poppy on a No Attachments character as written. Then you would have two conflicting effects that need to be resolved. It's not in the spirit of the game, but the rules aren't particularly clear as to what the attach action actually includes. Damon's ruling clearly backs that the attach action does not check for legality of attaching. I would go so far as to say that, as written, Abandoned Forge should in fact literally not work even though it would allow you to attach weapons that would immediately fall off.

We obviously need a very clear definition of the attach action, both card effect wise and marshalling phase wise. We all play under the assumption that legality is checked at initiation of the attach action and constantly while in play. Damon's ruling would suggest this is not entirely accurate.

mdc273 said:

This is not some new ruling, this is just how the timing of responses works as clearly laid out in the FAQ. And it does have practical effects that many players are unaware of. See here:
http://www.cardgamedb.com/index.php/index.html/_/game-of-thrones/quill-tankard-regulars-issue-12-r312

mdc273 said:

These attachment restrictions are play restrictions. Play restrictions are checked during the initiation of an action or response. See FAQ page 17.

That response by Damon was simply an error or oversight on his part. He's human. It happens.

On the contrary, I think the rules are quite clear about this.

The Core Set rule book says :

"A card with the text “No Attachments” may not
have any attachments on it at any time."

We know that may not is the same as "cannot" and that it means you cannot even attempt to do the illegal action.

Said another way, lets assume you were able to play an attachment on a "No attachment" character and it would then be immediatly discarded as a passive. The attachment would be still considered in play until the end of action window step 6)

So during the whole Step 3) 4) 5) and 6) we are directly contradicting the "No attachment" keyword rule. So the whole assumption is wrong and it is true that we cannot play attachment on a "No attachment" character.

mdc273 said:

1. Determine the cost
2. Check play restrictions (including availability of targets)
3. Apply penalties to the cost
4. Apply other modifiers to the cost
5. Pay the costs
6. Marshal the card/trigger the effects

Why would attachment restrictions not be considered in #2? Why would it matter whether it is an "attach" effect or playing an attachment from hand?

mdc273 said:

" 'Maester character only' was not considered in the question, and also was not in the answer. It obviously should have been referenced. The Apprentice Collar would be able to be attached since the character is still a printed Maester and the link itself does not require it to be a maester. The other current links all require it to be a maester so would not be able to be moved."

So Damon has reaffirmed the way people have always played post-errata TMP. Both the printed and the "effective" Maester trait is needed to move a chain attachment (other than Apprentice Collar).

I got a new reply, and Damon said :"I was wrong in the first reply."

So ktom is correct,as usual.

Damon just got ktom'd!

Guys, it's not like that.

Damon simply answered the question that was asked ("Since TMP moves a chain to a character with the printed Maester trait, does it still work if the character has lost its Maester trait to a card effect?") without thinking to map out the entire situation ("Yes, but that doesn't let you ignore any other attachment restrictions on the attachment or the character.") and thus answer the un asked question..

We've all done that!

So ktom is correct,as usual.

Okay. When is card text active and when is it inactive?

What is the "attach" action. it's not defined in the book. Why does TMP not create a lasting effect while Abandoned Forge does?

@mdc: Got your point, and already answered above.

mdc273 said:

mdc273 said:

So, back to the play restrictions. Since the rules say that play restrictions are checked as part of initiating any effect, you have to check the restrictions on the attachment whenever you play the attachment card or trigger an effect that would "link" one card to another.

mdc273 said:

Here's one that I asked because of someone's, I believe, misinterpretation of one of ktom's posts on the subject:

Q : If I am playing with the House of Dreams agenda and place a location and Increased Levy in my setup cards, can I then, upon revealing setup, attach Increased Levy to my House of Dreams location?

A : No. The start of the game begins with the first Plot Phase, so the location from House of Dreams is not in play until that Framework Action that begins that phase.

I think this stemmed from ktom's answering a question as to whether IL can be attached and stating that it couldn't, because it is "already in play… and not part of setup… so not a valid target." And the person in question took that to mean that all you needed to do is put a valid target down in setup and change the IL destination from the setup location to the HoD location, misinterpreting "starts the game in play" to mean it was in play during setup, which is apparently not the case.

I really don't know why this point is so hard for people. A Setup attachment placed during setup must go on a card that was also placed as part of setup. The location from HoD is not placed as part of setup. I don't see much to ponder there….

ktom said:

Are you saying that "attach" = "play" for all intents and purposes or "attach" = "put-into-play"? It sounds like the latter.

Also, TMP would innately be contradicting the rules if the lasting effect put a chain on a printed Maester without the Maester trait. Therefore it sounds like it would become a lasting effect based on what you said about Abandoned Forge creating a lasting effect due to contradicting the rules. Why is that not the case? These are basically the same situations that appear to have different results. There is precedent in both cases that would prevent it from actually happening, yet in one we ignore the precedent and the other we apply it.

mdc273 said:

So you see? "Attach" is a result; it is not an action. Whether the action "plays" a card or "puts it into play" depends on the circumstances, not on the result - same as when you "play" a character or "put it into play."

Obviously, in the case of TMP, it is a "put into play" action that results in "attaching" one card to another (because you are not paying the cost of the attachment to take it from your hand and put it onto another character during your turn in Marshalling).

mdc273 said:

Short answer here, Abandoned Forge specifically contradicts attachment requirements because its effect names a single card that can receive the attachments it is trying to attach. TMP does not specifically contradict attachment requirements because its effect does not name a single card that can receive the attachments, only a "class" or "set" of cards.

ktom said:

I've gotta learn this double quote thing… Time to try it…

ktom said:

If "attach" is the result of the action, why would TMP not be able to attach the link to a printed Maester who has lost the Maester trait? You had indicated that the reason it is illegal at one point was due to it being denied at the initiation step. If it's a result and not an action, is there a separate initiation of the "attach" result and that's when it gets denied?

ktom said:

I'm going to flip your conclusion because it doesn't add up to me. How about this? Abandoned Forge's effect explicitly and inherently contradicts the rules by its nature while The Maester's Path is assumed to be legal unless it is illegal and therefore does not inherently create a new, rule-breaking lasting effect. That is the core difference. I can get behind that, but it still doesn't cover the reason the link's "attach" result can't be initiated (i. e. the above question).

Also, is the "No attachments except weapons" superflous under your assessment on Abandoned Forge? It seems so.

mdc273 said:

Now, remember that you have to check all the applicable play restrictions. When you play an attachment from your hand, you can have play restrictions on the attachment card (e.g., "Stark character only," "Lord only," etc.) and have play restrictions on the card you want the attachment to end up on (e.g. "No attachments"). You consider both, even though you are just playing the attachment. The "No attachments" prevents you from initiating your action, even though it is not on the card you are trying to play.

Same thing with TMP, except there are even more play restrictions. You have to consider the restrictions of the agenda's response, the restrictions on the card you want to attach, and the restrictions on the card you want to put the attachment on. So, for example, say you want to use TMP to attach Lead Link to "Change of Seasons" Maester Aemon. When you go to trigger the Response on TMP to make this happen, you have to check the restrictions of the Response itself ("After you win a challenge", "Chain from this card," "printed Maester"), the restrictions on Lead Link (" Item. Chain. Maester character only"), and the restrictions on Aemon (" Maester. Night's Watch. No attachments except Boon. "). All of these are applicable to whether or not you can initiate the effect on TMP, even though a bunch of those play restrictions are not on the agenda itself. As a result, you cannot use TMP to put Lead Link on this version of Maester Aemon because Lead Link does not have the "Boon" trait, making it illegal to even put it on him in the first place. That makes sense, doesn't it?

Well, if you want to use TMP to attach Lead Link to any other printed Maester who has lost his trait to Nightmares, Meera, or something like that, you have to check the restrictions of the Response itself ("After you win a challenge", "Chain from this card," "printed Maester"), the restrictions on Lead Link (" Item. Chain. Maester character only"), and the restrictions the Maester (probably none, but he does not have the "effective" Maester trait, right?). All of these are applicble to whether or not you can initiate TMP, even though a bunch of those play restrictions are not on the agenda itself, same as above. Well, the restrictions on TMP are fine (you won the challenge, Lead Link is on the agenda, and the character you want to move it to has the printed Maester trait), but since the character has no effective Maester trait, the play restrictions on Lead Link ("Maester character only" ) will not be met. As a result, you cannot use TMP to put Lead Link on the printed Maester who has lost his trait.

Short version: when you check the play restrictions to see if you can trigger TMP, you must meet all associated play restrictions, not just the ones written on TMP. If you cannot do that, you cannot initiate TMP. It's that simple.

The only way that you can ignore play restrictions is if they are specifically contradicted by a rule or an effect. TMP doesn't do that. If it singled out the attachment and the "recipient" (say by targeting them or searching for the specific card to be attached), then it would single them out and specifically contradict associated play restrictions.

(That's what Abandoned Forge does, and why it is different from TMP. It singles out the Weapon attachments by specifically searching for them, and it specifically singles out itself by being self-referential. Because of that, it bypasses the normal play restrictions on those cards, so the initiation of the effect does not fail for failing to meet required play restrictions.)

mdc273 said:

ktom said:

+1 on this. It's like "(cannot be saved)" in costs when the timing structure itself denies the opportunity to save a card that becomes moribund for a cost.