Well, actually, given that this is written in the passive voice, the subject isn't the attached character, but the (unnaed entity) doing the choosing.

Khudzlin said:

Hah. Thanks for actually answering all the questions. Usually people don't.

1) Agreed

2) This is technically correct. But, per Istaril's reply and as I understand it as well, the nature of the English language would lead to the unnamed entity doing the choosing being the subject. It isn't too much of a stretch to assert this implies the player.

3) I agree, but that doesn't explicitly answer the question of how Dragon Fear directly affects the attached character.

4) Same as above (I'm not even playing my own game… what an ass I am…)

5) Agreed

6) Agreed

Okay, so I want to mention I in no way am advocating that Cat should ignore Orell or that Dragon Fear should kill immune to attachments characters, but I have yet to see a convincing enough argument that I am comfortable in explaining that to a new player with an explanation of any more than "because that's the rules". As no one ever really has an answer as to what, explicitly, Dragon Fear does to the character, it seems to be an implied ruling that the action it forces upon the player affects the character. This would establish a precedent for why Cat should equally ignore Orell. This is the crux of my argument and I apologize if I got to it in a roundabout/ascinine manner.

Edit: What's the rules e-mail? I need to finally e-mail this to them and see what they say. Ktom told me to do so, but I didn't really want to rock the boat. I'm ready to rock the boat.

The unnamed entity is the agent, not the subject. The fact that it's left unnamed suggests it's not relevant.

Khudzlin said:

My email client is telling me this is not an e-mail address.

D:

Just fill in the form and it will send an email to FFG. They will reply to the address you have provided.

Khudzlin said:

Yea… I literally didn't know there was a link at the bottom of the page… Learn something new every day!

I should change my sig to say "Annoying players in new ways every day!"… Hmmmm….

In your defense, it's not exactly prominent.

Khudzlin said:

I can't believe someone is defending me!

Okay! Official answer from Damon. I give it a 7/10 for a little bit of muckiness around Dragon Fear's ability sounding like gained text:

"If a character is immune to attachments, it is immune to Dragon Fear.

'If there is at least 1 Dragon character in play, attached character must be chosen to satisfy MIL claim, if able.'

The key here is that the attachment is affecting the character by placing a condition on him: 'attached character (subject) must be chosen (condition).' Since immune characters ignore the effects of cards to which they are immune, this condition is not placed on the character.

Orell the Eagle, on the other hand, places a condition on opponents: 'opponents (subject) must declare at least (condition).'

For Dragon Fear to work similarly to Orell, it would have to be worded in this manner:

'If there is at least 1 Dragon character in play, attached character's controller must choose attached character to satisfy MIL claim, if able.'

As worded, immunity to attachments protects the character from Dragon Fear's effect."

So, basically if a card is the subject/object of an effect it is immune to, it ignores it. Actually… that's probably a 10/10. That makes me feel like it'll be much easier to rule and explain immunities when weird questions come up. As the subject of Orell's ability is the player, cards like Cat can't ignore it.