Blood Magic Ritual

By darknoj, in 2. AGoT Rules Discussion

Posted at

The FAQ

Do Shadow attachments have two chances to attach when they come out of Shadows, once by the rules and once by the text on the card? No

The Shadows Rules Insert

"Attachment cards attach to another card when they come out of Shadows, as indicated in their text"

vs You
There is no explicit rule that says a Shadows attachment must have explanation and clarification text. It is in fact unnecessary as the rules explicitly establish that Shadows attachments function as normal attachments when coming out of Shadows. This means that its lack of clarification text means it functions as a normal attachment after coming out of Shadows and must attach to a legal target, in this case a character. Then, you trigger the response

An attachment coming out of shadows is just a card coming out of shadows, like any other. It doesn't attach to anything unless it's card text says so. It does NOT attach to a card *then* jump onto the card pulled from the dead pile, no more than any other shadows attachment must first attach to something *then* be triggered to move them to the appropriate character (have you ever put Dragon Skull on your own character first?).

I have no idea where you're manufacturing this claim that shadows attachments function like a normal attachment when pulled out of shadows; there are no such rules in the core or FAQ allowing for them to attach when they come into play from shadows. Without any text, they can not attach (as supported by the FAQ quote I've bolded).

Posted at

All I'll contribute at this point is that BMR says "non-Army character" -- Matt, you appear to have misread that, which makes your post confusing

Posted at

Yes! More of the inaccurate knowledge dumping! HOORAY!

Posted at

Whatever man. Istaril is comparing your "knowledge" of rules with the actual rules, so, as I've said, whatever…

Posted at

mdc273 said:

@Bomb - Your timing is really complicated as you appear to be assuming that Blood Magic Ritual enters play. Note that it does not ever enter play if you assume it attempts to attach directly to the Army. Note the explanation I give for 3 above.

Where is BMR then if it is no longer in the Shadows and it is not yet in play? Is it on a cloud above Westeros staring down at all the character cards? Is it sitting at a burrito bar stuffing it's face with wholesome deliciousness while it waits for the player to sort out who it's pulling out of the dead pile?

The shadow rules tell you that the shadow attachment's own text tells you exactly how it attaches when it comes out of the shadows. This does not have to be passive and you can still pull an attachment out of the shadows just to trigger effects. If there is no eligible card to attach it to, it is discarded from play. It's a lot like tripping over the hidden attachment by accident but it being impossible to carry(too much **** in your arms perhaps), so you toss it away.

Pretend it's like a random magic wand found on the ground. Your arms are full of ****(because you are already carrying too much). You realize that you have use for this wand right away, so you put down enough of your **** so you can pick up the wand and cast a quick spell with it. The spell is reviving a dead character. You want to keep this wand, so you hand it to this revived character, but realize this character has no arms to wield it. So you toss the wand away and move on with your group of characters, including the revived one. Then you all have a party at a brothel.

Posted at

mdc273 said:

Also your timing on Black Cells is not accurate. It would be:

  1. Blood Magic Ritual attempts to come out of Shadows
  2. Blood Magic Ritual fails to attach and is discarded without entering play
  3. Black Cells trigger condition is not met. A card did not come ouf of Shadows. A card was discarded from the Shadows play area.

3 is established by the next sentence after the emphasis:

"If the Shadow card cannot legally attach (or the attempt to attach is canceled) the card is instead discarded and is not considered to have come into play."

What makes you think that, just because it fails to enter play, the cars hasn't come out of shadows? It was in shadows. and is no longer in shadows, it would seem to me that whether it enters play or gets disarded after it leaves shadows, it has still satisfied the restriction on The Black Cells. Is their a precedent that makes you believe that this is not the case?

Posted at

I think that last example (the timing of triggering black sails) was partly my fault. I assumed MDC's argument after my post would be to use the wording of the FAQ to say the card had never entered play. Turns out, as you point out J_Roel, it doesn't even have to - it just has to leave shadows.

And all of this is tangential. Unless you're in Mdc's camp, and he seems to be the only one who is, the question is "Is "attach to a character" as the second sentence a play restriction of triggering the response". No one seems to say it is.

So I think Darknoj's initial statement still stands; go ahead and use BMR on a no-attachements character.

Posted at

Here is my ruling.

You all have WAY too much time on your hands.

/thread

Posted at

-Istaril said:

The FAQ

Do Shadow attachments have two chances to attach when they come out of Shadows, once by the rules and once by the text on the card? No

The Shadows Rules Insert

"Attachment cards attach to another card when they come out of Shadows, as indicated in their text"

vs You
There is no explicit rule that says a Shadows attachment must have explanation and clarification text. It is in fact unnecessary as the rules explicitly establish that Shadows attachments function as normal attachments when coming out of Shadows. This means that its lack of clarification text means it functions as a normal attachment after coming out of Shadows and must attach to a legal target, in this case a character. Then, you trigger the response

An attachment coming out of shadows is just a card coming out of shadows, like any other. It doesn't attach to anything unless it's card text says so. It does NOT attach to a card *then* jump onto the card pulled from the dead pile, no more than any other shadows attachment must first attach to something *then* be triggered to move them to the appropriate character (have you ever put Dragon Skull on your own character first?).

I have no idea where you're manufacturing this claim that shadows attachments function like a normal attachment when pulled out of shadows; there are no such rules in the core or FAQ allowing for them to attach when they come into play from shadows. Without any text, they can not attach (as supported by the FAQ quote I've bolded).

That isn't in the Shadows pamphlet on the Support page. My reference was the Shadows pamphlet on the Support page.

…

Ah, found it. It's in the FAQ and not the pamphlet. Man do they make this difficult. I wish they'd remove the links on the support page if they're defunct. It creates this type of confusion. For reference, the full paragraph from the FAQ (not the Shadows pamphlet on the Support page):

"Character, location, and attachment cards that come out of Shadows come out standing. Attachment cards attach to another card when they come out of Shadows, as indicated in their text – if there are no eligible cards to attach to, the attachment card is discarded."

Let's re-examine that passage and apply it without interpretation of the card's intended effect. There is no indication of how the card is attached on Blood Magic Ritual as there are on the former Shadow cards (having an effect before the attach effect is unprecedented). This means it will never have an eligible card to attach to and will thus be discarded as it is required to be attached to something per that passage. So as written and without interpretation, this card is useless.

The apparent consensus interpretation will fall much as Darknoj indicates except Blood Magic Ritual never enters play. This is implicitly supported by the quote from the FAQ on the Dragon Skull question, emphasis is mine:

"If the Shadow card cannot legally attach (or the attempt to attach is canceled) the card is instead discarded and is not considered to have come into play. "

It never enters play, never attaches, and never leaves play. The only part of the card that successfully resolves on a No Attachment character is putting the character into play. It does technically create the lasting conditional effect, but it is irrelevant as it refers to itself and can never trigger.

Also, the "No" on the Dragon Skull question means that attachments do not have two opportunities to attach. That question does not rule out the possibility of there being a Shadows attachment with a response that triggers after it comes out of Shadows, has an effect on the original character it attached to (say having it claim 1 power), then attaching to a new character. Text like that would look similar to Blood Magic Ritual and would not be explanation and clarification text. It would be a response with a trigger condition of the card successfully coming out of Shadows and attaching to a card in play.

@Vaapad - Thanks for pointing that out. It doesn't change the logic, but I do appreciate you pointing out I had misread it.

@Bomb - I will eventually Rules link this, but it would still be in the Shadows area. That is why I chose the verbiage "attempts to come out of Shadows". It can not successfully come out of Shadows and therefore never leaves the Shadows area. See the above, bolded part of the quote. There may be designer intent that there is a not-in-play, not-in-shadows, not-in-hand, not-in-deck, not-removed-from-game, not-dead, not-discarded, just-came-out-of-shadows state, but that is not explicitly indicated anywhere that I can find. Also, your metaphor assumes that you find the wand on the ground and are able to pick it up. My example says you have a bomb (hah!) in your hands that if you put it down it kills you. You don't have an opportunity to pick up the wand. Or you could just say the wand isn't in your plane of existence and you can't interact with it (more accurate).

@J_Roel - I see a card attempting to come out of Shadows, failing, and going to the discard pile. It is an observation of what actually happens. There is currently no framework that I am aware of that would allow a card to be considered to have successfully come out of Shadows, but not enter play. The game can't even check the trigger condition for The Black Cells. It has to see a card in play with a state of "just came out of Shadows" to trigger The Black Cells. This card does not exist in play to satisfy the trigger condition. Blood Magic Ritual has already been discarded as part of the framework that tried to get it into play before getting to Step 5. Again, this could all be made moot with clarification, but as written there is no actual way to resolve this without interpretation.

@r480 - Click the Shadows pamphlet link on the support page. I challenge you to find the exact passage he just quoted there. You won't.

@fhornmikey - 0/10. Successful trolling involves the trolled actually getting into a heated argument with you. Like this whole thread would be a good troll post if my next reply were

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTiZCcFnjOUmT69rqpw8jt

@Istaril's second post - Not sure what Black Sails thing you're referring to, did you delete it? Also, I'm not sure where you got the second effect being a play restriction/trigger condition comment from. I agree it is an effect.

I'm not actually trolling. I swear! I'm just picky!

Posted at

I meant Black Cells. Phonetic typing failing…

Posted at

mdc273 said:

@Bomb - I will eventually Rules link this, but it would still be in the Shadows area. That is why I chose the verbiage "attempts to come out of Shadows". It can not successfully come out of Shadows and therefore never leaves the Shadows area. See the above, bolded part of the quote. There may be designer intent that there is a not-in-play, not-in-shadows, not-in-hand, not-in-deck, not-removed-from-game, not-dead, not-discarded, just-came-out-of-shadows state, but that is not explicitly indicated anywhere that I can find. Also, your metaphor assumes that you find the wand on the ground and are able to pick it up. My example says you have a bomb (hah!) in your hands that if you put it down it kills you. You don't have an opportunity to pick up the wand. Or you could just say the wand isn't in your plane of existence and you can't interact with it (more accurate).

If you are going to argue that an attachment is still in the shadows after it comes out of the shadows, then that just appears counterintuitive to your pedantry. You seem to want to find reasons game activity is not possible by picking apart every single word in any rule or FAQ passage that you can find, but then attempt to use reasons that are incredibly far from existing in the rules to support the argument. To me, it would just be 50x easier to do one of 3 things:

1) After the card is released and we see the actual printed text, to ask FFG(assuming the text hasn't been updated with better clarity).

2) Accept the idea that many times the simplest and most accepted answer is normally the right one.

3) Offer a bum a nickel to discuss these kinds of cards with him. I'm sure as long as you have nickels, 40's, crack, or fried chicken, they will pretend to understand your arguments, as long as you continue to provide them with one of the aforementioned items. They will continue to nod to you in false understanding, even though deep down, they are terribly confused. Upon finishing their session with you, they tell themselves, "I think I prefer participating in the show Bum Fights for a cheeseburger."

And to that, I finish with this passage from the book of AGoT:

"At the beginning of the any phase, a card that is in Shadows can come
out of Shadows and into play at the discretion of the player controlling
the card."

(Yes there is a grammar error from the FAQ passage above. If you can find it, you will receive a nickel.)

Posted at

mdc273 said:

"Character, location, and attachment cards that come out of Shadows come out standing. Attachment cards attach to another card when they come out of Shadows, as indicated in their text – if there are no eligible cards to attach to, the attachment card is discarded."

Let's re-examine that passage and apply it without interpretation of the card's intended effect. There is no indication of how the card is attached on Blood Magic Ritual as there are on the former Shadow cards (having an effect before the attach effect is unprecedented). This means it will never have an eligible card to attach to and will thus be discarded as it is required to be attached to something per that passage. So as written and without interpretation, this card is useless.

The apparent consensus interpretation will fall much as Darknoj indicates except Blood Magic Ritual never enters play. This is implicitly supported by the quote from the FAQ on the Dragon Skull question, emphasis is mine:

"If the Shadow card cannot legally attach (or the attempt to attach is canceled) the card is instead discarded and is not considered to have come into play. "

Sigh. Let's get your terminology straight, that might help clarify this. There are only three types of effects in the game (see FAQ, I pointed you to this several times already).

Now, the whole Response: on Blood Magic Ritual is one triggered effect . It's not somehow a combination of several effects, it's one effect. There is no "sub-triggered-effect" of "partial triggered effect" type of effect in the game, that is all your imagination. While the effect is often executed one step at a time, don't be fooled. It's still just one effect. The easiest place to help understand this is to look at Wildling Wisewoman, who cancels one whole effect, even though only a portion of it would be granting draw.

Now, the Shadow-rules talk only about the fact that the text on the card needs to indicate how a card attaches. Nothing whatsoever about the first sentence in a triggered effect . And, as we all should know by now, every single effect in AGoT needs to be executed to completion, before something else (be it a game mechanic or a card effect) can take place, unless the words save or cancel are involved. There is text on the card (word attached in the Response: ), so this effect will be the one used for the attaching. So, before it is executed, the card will not be attached to anything, due to the "only one chance to attach" portion of the rules. And the card won't get discarded before the clarifying effect is either executed to completion or cancelled (until then it "can legally attach", by triggering the effect that is).

Now, since what everybody else is arguing is based on the existing rules for triggered effects, and you're the one saying that somehow the Response: effect is not executed like triggered effects usually are (to completion, before anything else takes effect), the burden is with you to: 1) convince everybody else that this is the case using the text one the card and existing rules + rulings (which you are trying to do, but nobody is believing you) or 2) send the question to FFG and report your findings.

Let's think of it this way. If you're the one trying to overturn an established theory in physics, it's your job to first figure out a test that proves conclusively that your theory is correct and that the existing one is false, then it is again your job to do those do that test with scientific rigour and report all the findings. It's not somehow the job of the scientific community to painstakingly prove your theory wrong. ;)

So, you've had your crack at 1) and it doesn't seem to be working. Now, if you truly believe in your theory, I suggest you follow 2), submit the question and then report your answer.

Posted at

Response: After Blood Magic Ritual comes out of Shadows, choose a non-Army character in your dead pile and put it into play. Attach Blood Magic Ritual to it. If Blood Magic Ritual leaves play kill attached character.

I thought I would start with the quoted text as that was getting forgotten during the long thread

I'm not totally adverse to what MDC was saying - and if someone wants to throw me some fried chicken and nickels that's fime :)

What we can say about the text is that this is different to any other existing shadow attachment

All the other shadow attachments specifiy a required, legitimate, existing target (in play)

The FAQ suggests that shadow attachments will always specify what the card needs to be attached too - and this seems to be the case

Solely because of that one point, I think we have to accept that the card does not get attached to something else prior to choosing the dead character

I haven't seen the card yet but there seems to be something not right about it ~ hence the long thread

Maybe it should really be a shadow event card which then becomes a boon attachment with the quoted text - that would be more consistent with other cards and there would no issues / questions about how it works

Maybe there is some great artwork on it and they didn't want a plain event card!

BTW : I assume if the card is attached to a no-attachments character (due to plot card such as Fortied Position) and then at some point it becomes an illegal attachment, that the attachment would then get discarded, leave play and the character would be killed … as opposed to the card just being discarded as an illegal attachment?

Posted at

HastAttack said:

Response: After Blood Magic Ritual comes out of Shadows, choose a non-Army character in your dead pile and put it into play. Attach Blood Magic Ritual to it. If Blood Magic Ritual leaves play kill attached character.

I thought Ii would start with the quoted text as that was getting forgotten during the long thread

I'm not totally adverse to what MDC was saying - and if someone wants to throw me some fried chicken and nickels that's fime :)

What we can say about the text is that this is different to any other existing shadow attachment

All the other shadow attachments specifiy a required, legitimate, existing target (in play)

The FAQ suggests that shadow attachments will always specify what the card needs to be attached too - and this seems to be the case

Solely because of that one point, I think we have to accept that the card does not get attached to something else prior to choosing the dead character

I haven't seen the card yet but there seems to be something not right about it ~ hence the long thread

Maybe it should really be a shadow event card which then becomes a boon attachment with the quoted text - that would be more consistent with other cards and there would no issues / questions about how it works

Maybe there is some great artwork on it and they didn't want a plain event card!

BTW : I assume if the card is attached to a no-attachments character (due to plot card such as Fortied Position) and then at some point it becomes an illegal attachment, that the attachment would then get discarded, leave play and the character would be killed … as opposed to the card just being discarded as an illegal attachment?

A small victory! Your BTW isn't quite right, though. The rules explicitly state that if the card can not find a legal attachment to go onto, it is not considered to enter play. If it doesn't enter play, it doesn't leave play and that is the condition for the kill effect triggering.

@Bomb - If it's not in play and not in Shadows, where is it? The Shadows rules literally say that if it has no eligible character to attach to (which it doesn't if you grabbed a No Attachment character) that it never enters play. Where did it go to when it failed to come into play but "came out of Shadows"? Is there some ethereal limbo the card went to that we just don't discuss often? It didn't go Moribund, because that is the mechanic by which cards in play leave play, not cards not in play fail to enter play. That's the distinction here.

@WWDrakey - I am the one interpreting it as a triggered response. Everyone else must be interpreting it as explanation and clarification text, if they weren't it would fail to ever enter play as I've indicated and literally would do nothing. You appear to be dismissing that the effect as printed is unprecedented, that's fine. It doesn't change that fact, though. Again, I'm the one saying it is a triggered effect, everyone else must be saying it's explanation and clarification text or the argument for it ever entering play falls apart. If you're referring to my original original argument, the burden is not on me. The card does not function as printed and the burden on resolving the issue falls upon each indivudal TO. Most TOs will rule with the concensus, as will I. This does not change the fact that the card is unprecedented and does not function as printed. Equally, the TO interpretation that the card enters play and then is discarded is also inaccurate. Individual TOs may rule that it works this way, but the rules as printed do not support that. I will rule this way if it is the consensus, but it is not correct.

The only burden truly lies on FFG. If they do not clarify then individual TOs are left to their own devices to decide how the card functions. If they follow consensus, there will be no issue. It is the TOs that do not follow consensus that will cause this to be an issue. I am only providing the dissenting opinion on this, as is generally the case with my posts.

It is currently unknown if the unicorn is affected by the Total Dickwad Theory. Recent evidence would suggest that they are in fact subject to the Total Dickwad Theory as some Maesters of Oldtown have postulated, but more evidence is required for a definite conclusion as all evidence comes from a single specimen of unicorn.

Posted at

The "BTW" assumes the character becomes "No attachments" at some point after Fire and Blood becomes attached to it (which might happen with Fortified Position, as stated - it might also happen with Deceit). If that happens, Fire and Blood becomes an illegal attachment and is discarded. This sets off its passive and kills the character. This situation is different from the one where Fire and Blood cannot attach in the first place.

Posted at

mdc273 said:

@WWDrakey - I am the one interpreting it as a triggered response. Everyone else must be interpreting it as explanation and clarification text, if they weren't it would fail to ever enter play as I've indicated and literally would do nothing. You appear to be dismissing that the effect as printed is unprecedented, that's fine. It doesn't change that fact, though. Again, I'm the one saying it is a triggered effect, everyone else must be saying it's explanation and clarification text or the argument for it ever entering play falls apart. If you're referring to my original original argument, the burden is not on me. The card does not function as printed and the burden on resolving the issue falls upon each indivudal TO. Most TOs will rule with the concensus, as will I. This does not change the fact that the card is unprecedented and does not function as printed. Equally, the TO interpretation that the card enters play and then is discarded is also inaccurate. Individual TOs may rule that it works this way, but the rules as printed do not support that. I will rule this way if it is the consensus, but it is not correct.

The point I was getting at was what you said earlier: " having an effect before the attach effect is unprecedented ".

Let me say this really unkindly (I apologize beforehand) to drive the point home: This is completely and utterly false. There is only one triggered effect in the text. Not several ones. Only one bloody effect. A triggered effect is just that: one effect. Okay? Once you take that into account, the card is by no way "unprecedented". If there were "several effects", then you could just cancel one of them. But you always cancel one effect, which is the whole triggered effect.

Comprende? :P

Now, it is not unprecedented for the clarification to be part of a triggered effect, as can be seen from, f.ex. Maester Malleon's Tome:

Response: After Maester Malleon's Tome comes out of Shadows, attach it to a unique character. Then, if it is Winter, look at an opponent's unused plot deck, and move a plot card from that plot deck to that player's used plot pile.

Another clarification text in the form of a triggered effect, presto. Now, what you're arguing is that the "clarification for attaching has to be at the beginning of a triggered effect, can't be in the end or middle". Which you're not really in any way basing on anything. Or are you? If you have a basis for this, please link to the rules.

Otherwise, according to your argument , Turncloak would actually succesfully attach when brought out of shadows, regardless of whether it is brought out during the Challenges phase. In both cases the clariification is within a triggered effect, only the textual position of the clarification is different and the existence of the target before the effect is triggered. And this is exactly what the addition to the FAQ was made to clarify. One opportunity to attach only.

Now, the point about Blood Magic Ritual is that it directly states that "it will be creating a target for itself through it's triggered effect". Which basically works according to the Golden Rule (Card text over rules mechanics in case of conflict. For some reason I was unable to locate this in the current FAQ and Rules by text searching… odd). And here's probably part of your problem. You're not liking the fact that Blood Magic Ritual by itself changes the rules for itself . Which is what a lot of cards, starting from Fox's Teeth, tend to do. It's not that the card doesn't work, it's just that it bends the existing rules a bit to work .

So, the only real question are the No Attachments characters, and whether you can trigger the effect choosing a No Attachments character as the target to begin with (this would be the crux of the original issue). If you are allowed to trigger it in the first place, then you start executing the effect and like Bomb said: character comes into play, Ritual can't attach, the character remains in play, Ritual cannot anymore attach legally, and thus gets discarded. No characters were harmed in the process.

Posted at

I have sent the following rules questions to FFG to help clear up Blood Magic Ritual.

Good morning,

Blood Magic Ritual is a new shadow attachment that was just released. There are a couple of questions that some of us have about what can be done with this card.

Card Text
Response: After Blood Magic Ritual comes out of Shadows, choose a non-Army character in your dead pile and put it into play. Attach Blood Magic Ritual to it. If Blood Magic Ritual leaves play kill attached character.

1) Does the lasting kill effect kill the currently attached character or the character that is pulled out of the dead pile upon Blood Magic Ritual leaving play? For example, I pull Khal Drogo out of the dead pile and attach this to him successfully(the lasting effect "If Blood Magic Ritual Leaves play, kill attached character." is in place. Someone moves the attachment to Daenarys Targaryen with Crown of Meereen. I then discard Blood Magic Ritual with Tin Link. Which character is killed?

2) There are questions as to whether or not you can pull a "No attachments" character out of the dead pile with Blood Magic Ritual. Upon doing this, what is the outcome of the entire effect? Many believe that per the rules, you can pull a "No attachments" character out of the dead pile, and Blood Magic Ritual is then discarded without attaching(and nothing happens to the character). I just want to be sure that "No attachments" characters can be revived with this attachment and have no repercussions. This way we can clear the air on anyone who thinks one way or the other.

Thank you for your patience and have a good day.

I will post the exact reply to these questions when I receive them. I am pretty certain we know the answer to question #2, but it is better to be sure it is the correct interpretation. I felt it was worth asking both at the same time.

Posted at

Bomb said:

I have sent the following rules questions to FFG to help clear up Blood Magic Ritual.

Good morning,

Blood Magic Ritual is a new shadow attachment that was just released. There are a couple of questions that some of us have about what can be done with this card.

Card Text
Response: After Blood Magic Ritual comes out of Shadows, choose a non-Army character in your dead pile and put it into play. Attach Blood Magic Ritual to it. If Blood Magic Ritual leaves play kill attached character.

1) Does the lasting kill effect kill the currently attached character or the character that is pulled out of the dead pile upon Blood Magic Ritual leaving play? For example, I pull Khal Drogo out of the dead pile and attach this to him successfully(the lasting effect "If Blood Magic Ritual Leaves play, kill attached character." is in place. Someone moves the attachment to Daenarys Targaryen with Crown of Meereen. I then discard Blood Magic Ritual with Tin Link. Which character is killed?

2) There are questions as to whether or not you can pull a "No attachments" character out of the dead pile with Blood Magic Ritual. Upon doing this, what is the outcome of the entire effect? Many believe that per the rules, you can pull a "No attachments" character out of the dead pile, and Blood Magic Ritual is then discarded without attaching(and nothing happens to the character). I just want to be sure that "No attachments" characters can be revived with this attachment and have no repercussions. This way we can clear the air on anyone who thinks one way or the other.

Thank you for your patience and have a good day.

I will post the exact reply to these questions when I receive them. I am pretty certain we know the answer to question #2, but it is better to be sure it is the correct interpretation. I felt it was worth asking both at the same time.

I have two questions~

1,when the charactor die because of BMR leaving play,can I save it?

2,I have one unique charactor in play,and another in my dead pile,when I use BMR bring the unique charactor out of the dead pile,what happen?

Posted at

Since there is no indication to the contrary, you can save the character.

I assume you mean the unique in your dead pile has the same name as the one in play. This is similar to the "No attachments" situation, because the target would come into play as a duplicate and cards cannot be attached to duplicates. Note that this situation is unlikely to happen in the first place, since the unique in play could not have gotten there if there was a copy of it in your dead pile at the time.

Posted at

Khudzlin said:

  1. Since there is no indication to the contrary, you can save the character.
  2. I assume you mean the unique in your dead pile has the same name as the one in play. This is similar to the "No attachments" situation, because the target would come into play as a duplicate and cards cannot be attached to duplicates. Note that this situation is unlikely to happen in the first place, since the unique in play could not have gotten there if there was a copy of it in your dead pile at the time.

As for 2; you could use Visenya or Aegon's Hill, just as an example.

Posted at

I know. That's why I said unlikely rather than impossible.

Posted at

Khudzlin said:

…cards cannot be attached to duplicates.

I've searched through the FAQ and the Core set rules - where does it say you cannot attach a card to a duplicate?

Most attachments have some effect they grant something to the card they are attached to, so it would be pointless to attach anything to a duplicate, but I've not seen any rule that it is not allowed.

When a card comes out of shadows, regardless of type, it has come into play. Following the timing chart:

Step 1 Initiation: pay cost to bring card out of shadows

Step 2 Save/Cancel: nothing used to cancel card coming from shadows

Step 3 Resolution: card has come out of shadows successfully

Step 4 Passives: activate any passive to anything that happened in the previous steps, including other passives - such as standing the King's Landing location.

  • Step 1 - 3 for each passive that activates during Step 4

Step 5 Responses: trigger responses to anything that happened in the previous steps, including other responses - such as trigging the Alchemist's Guild Hall location for it's kneel effect.

  • Step 1 -4 for each response that is triggered during Step 5

Step 6 Clean up: any moribund cards leave play

Assuming I didn't make any mistakes in that chart, let us look at what happens when Pinch of Powder and Dragon Skull are brought out of shadows during the shadows phase. To save space, I will list them both together in this single framework - though I know they are completed seperately.

Step 1 Initiation: Pay the cost to bring out of shadows

Step 2 Save/Cancel: nothing used to cancel card coming from shadows

Step 3 Resolution: The card has come out of shadows successfully - note that it has not "attached" to anything yet, it is simply in play.

Step 4 Passives: PoP's passive ability activates here (similar to other passives like King's Landing) so you attach this to a character.

  • Step 1 - 3 for each passive that activates during Step 4

Step 5 Responses: Dragon Skull's response should be triggered here (similar to other responses like AGH) so you attach this to an opponent's character.

  • Step 1 -4 for each response that is triggered during Step 5.

Step 6 Clean up: any moribund cards leave play

Now, what does this analysis mean for Blood Magic Ritual and it's awsome ability? Again, assuming I've made no major mistakes here, lets take a look:
Step 1 Initiation: Pay the cost to bring out of shadows

Step 2 Save/Cancel: nothing used to cancel card coming from shadows

Step 3 Resolution: The card has come out of shadows successfully - note that it has not "attached" to anything yet, it is simply in play.

Step 4 Passives: assume no passives activate here

Step 5 Responses: Blood Magic Ritual's response should be triggered here (similar to other responses like AGH) so go through Steps 1 - 4 for this effect:

  • Step 1: Initiate BMR's response by Choosing a non-Army character in your dead pile
  • Step 2: Assume no cancel is used
  • Step 3: Resolve BMR's response by putting that chosen character into play. Further resolving the effect, attach BMR to that character.
  • Step 4: no passives to a character entering play.

Step 6 Clean up: any moribund cards leave play

Now, assume the character has "no attachments" as a keyword. They are still a valid choice for the "choose a non-army" character in the dead pile. There is no argument there. Then when the rest of the text attempts to attach it to that character who is now in play with active keywords, it finds itself unable to be attached.
I would think you would try to resolve the effect as much as possible, however, looking at the FAQ post about how shadow attachments are supposed to attach, we see that:
"The text on a Shadow attachment explains and clarifies how a Shadow attachment attaches when it comes out of Shadows. If the Shadow card cannot legally attach (or the attempt to attach is canceled) the card is instead discarded and is not considered to have come into play."
Assuming the FAQ is law, then you have to apply the complete effect to the "play restrictions" of this attachment coming out of shadows since it choosing a non-Army character and being able to attach to it is obviously part of the effect. So while I can see how you would want to twist the wording up on the timing to allow you to choose a non-army but then discard the attachment because of the now active keyword, the FAQ says the card ability explains how it is to attach to a character, and it does, but with slightly grey timing.
Side note, what verb do you all tend to use when a passive is activated? "triggered" seems incorrect unless passives are "triggered passives" and not "triggered effects". Just curious.
Additional side note, if I bring Dragon Skull out of shadows, stand my King's Landing location during Step 4 and trigger my DK response during Step 5, what happens if that Response ability is cancelled? The above FAQ states that it is "not considerd to have come into play" so would that mean I would have to rewind the standing of the KL location?
Posted at

For some reason I can't edit my post now, but disregard my question about Dragon Skull getting cancelled at the end.

Posted at

Slothgodfather said:

I've searched through the FAQ and the Core set rules - where does it say you cannot attach a card to a duplicate?

FAQ section 3.20: Unless specifically stated otherwise on the card, attachments always attach to a character.

Posted at

Me to Damon via the rules link:

"How does Blood Magic Ritual interact with a character that has the "No Attachments" keyword? I can see it two ways: 1) the "No Attachments" character enters play, BMR cannot attach to it, BMR is discarded, and the character remains in play unconditionally; or 2) because a player cannot successfully resolve the entire response on BMR if he chooses a "No Attachments" character, that character is not a valid target for BMR in the first place. Please let me know which, if either, of those is correct. "

Damon's reply: "1."