Slothgodfather said:
…
I usually say "initiate" and/or "trigger condition" for passives. So Valar meets its trigger condition when revealed and initiates.
Vaapad said:
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."
im not sure about this, becuause the same attach BoM said if its discarded kill the character…anyone can explain this? the charactes live or die?
As it stands the character lives.
The attachment targets a character in the dead pile, and while cards are in the dead pile there by default have no active text (golden rules aside, the recursion theon for example, or targeting restrictions from effects that interact with the out of play areas such as the rituals stipulation of a non army character).
The attachment pulls them out per its effect and THEN goes to attach and finds that it cannot as the no attachments keyword is active again. The attachment is then immediatly discarded as it is never attached to the targeted character (and cant exist in a vaccum). As it has never been attached to a character its kill condition is not met.
EDIT.
The easiest 'fix' ,if your of the opinion this is broken, would be an errata to pick a non army character without the 'no attachment' keyword. But thats an argument about design intent, and we fix practical problems, not conundrums of philosophy. (goes to camp his sentry gun).
Underworld40k said:
As it stands the character lives.
The attachment targets a character in the dead pile, and while cards are in the dead pile there by default have no active text (golden rules aside, the recursion theon for example, or targeting restrictions from effects that interact with the out of play areas such as the rituals stipulation of a non army character).
The attachment pulls them out per its effect and THEN goes to attach and finds that it cannot as the no attachments keyword is active again. The attachment is then immediatly discarded as it is never attached to the targeted character (and cant exist in a vaccum). As it has never been attached to a character its kill condition is not met.
EDIT.
The easiest 'fix' ,if your of the opinion this is broken, would be an errata to pick a non army character without the 'no attachment' keyword. But thats an argument about design intent, and we fix practical problems, not conundrums of philosophy. (goes to camp his sentry gun).
Right. Since it doesn't specify to check for keywords (and there are none while a card is OOP), it grabs the character and puts it in play. Then it can't attach and gets discarded. When it leaves play, the "… kill attached character" checks for an attached character, finds none, and fizzles. If it finished with "..leaves play, kill that character," we'd be having a whole different conversation.