Old Ben
We discussed that question today on our way home. Is it possible to
"steal" a vale lordling that is attached to the Eyrie and put that card into play for 1 influence? And which player will control the vale lordling after the marshalling phase assuming that it´s possible to play the lordling?!

foxpillow
I'd say it's possible, but he'd discard immediately because he has to be attached to an Arryn location you control. So, you wouldn't be able to use him as a character, I think.

Old Ben
Ummmh, interesting. I always felt that the atatch to a location you control part only applies when he´s killed and once the charachter is on the Eyrie it mustn´t necessarily be yours?!

"If Vale Lordling is killed, attach it to a House Arryn location you control instead of putting it in your dead pile, if able. (Counts as a Boon attachment with the text "Marshalling: Kneel 1 influence to unattach Vale Lordling and leave it in play as a character.") "

But i might also be on the wrong track here.

ktom
Foxpillow's interpretation is understandable, but Old Ben is right in this case. Because the "attach to a location you control" bit is part of the replacement effect that activates when the Vale Lordling is killed, that's the only time the control of the location is checked. It is a different situation from the constant attachment restriction on something like Pyromancer's Cache.

If you take control of the character-as-attachment and use its effect to turn it "back" into a character, you would still control it as a character because From East to West says that you take control of the CARD until the end of the phase. However, at the end of the phase when the event wears off, control of the card - in its current character state - will revert and your opponent will thank you for spending 3 influence to do what he would have needed 1 for.

Mauve Butterfly
Actually, it might be an entertaining play if you had the Greyjoy Vale Pact on your house card and My Life For Conquest in your dead pile. Especially if you didn't actually have any Arryn locations in play.

ktom
Because if you HAVE an Arryn location of your own, the Lordling will attach (there is no "may") and so that's nothing too bad for your opponent - other than not having access to the Lordling for a round (which could be enough).

dormouse
Does this work? I assumed that

Marshalling: Kneel your House card to reduce the cost of the next House Arryn character you play this phase by 1. When that character enters play, discard the top 2 cards of each opponent's deck.

pretty much meant the card had to be something that had to be played from your hand. That play and put into play were two different things entirely. Not to mention since Vale Lording does not enter play but is unattached and left in play the Vale Pact should not trigger at all.

Mauve Butterfly
I was trying to come up with an example of why you might take control of an opponent's Vale Lordling using From East and West.

The Vale Pact was to give the Lordling the Greyjoy House affiliation, so that he could be killed to get My Life For Conquest back.

Of course, killing him in this way not only gets you the event back but also gets rid of an "unkillable" character your opponent controls making it a good play given the card setup required. Of course, having the Vale Pact out without any Arryn Locations is play might not be too likely, in which case the Vale Lordling would return to your opponent's control (while attached to your location).

Interestingly, you could kill the same Lordling 3 times (influence permitting) and get three copies of My Life For Conquest back. Heck, you could run the Arryns in any house (except Lannister for this purpose) that you intend to abuse the My Life events from. It might be entertaining.

You are quite correct in that the response on the Vale Pact would not be triggered.

Jon Snow
Ok
1. When you take control of a character, you don't necessarily take control of all of the attachments to it. Why isn't the same logic applied here? When you take control of the house Arryn location, do you take control of the attached character?

2. Let's go WAAAY back. 5 years. Hand of the King - Westeros and Illyn Payne - Westeros. you could make Illyn a Lord character during marshalling, attach HotK to him and kill 2 characters (big deal back then). There was a ruling that attachments constantly check the state of the attached entity. Pulling that forward, if the location loses the 'house Arryn' trait, the character attachment should fall off, as it should if ownership is changed.

I just love the fact that we have a ktom to show me the error of my thinking above.

Maester Luke
1. When you take control of a character, you don't necessarily take control of all of the attachments to it. Why isn't the same logic applied here? When you take control of the house Arryn location, do you take control of the attached character?

I think they're using "From East to West" to take control of the attachment (that was a character). Taking control does not cause the Lordling to be discarded, as ktom points out, the "attach to an Arryn location you control" is only an identifier at the time and not a constant check. So it's not a question of gaining the attachment when you take the location.

2. Let's go WAAAY back. 5 years. Hand of the King - Westeros and Illyn Payne - Westeros. you could make Illyn a Lord character during marshalling, attach HotK to him and kill 2 characters (big deal back then). There was a ruling that attachments constantly check the state of the attached entity. Pulling that forward, if the location loses the 'house Arryn' trait, the character attachment should fall off, as it should if ownership is changed.

Hrrmmm... I was totally under the impression that if you High Tide or Frozen Solid the Eyrie (or Waycastle or Vale Granary) with attached Patrol or Lordling, that they would be discarded... but I don't suppose that is the case.

Ktom Let me start this explanation by asking another question:
Suppose I have a location that says "Characters with face-down attachments do not kneel to attack or defend. After you win a challenge, attach the top card of your deck, face-down, to a Lord character you control, if able (limit 1 per round)." What happens if I play Nightmares on the Lord character with that face-down (so he loses the trait)? Does the face-down attachment fall off? In this case, it should be pretty easy to see that the face-down attachment does NOT fall off because the face-down attachment itself does not carry the "Lord character only" condition. Rather, just the passive effect that put the attachment on the character looked for a Lord. Since that effect is resolved, over and done with, it doesn't matter if the character stays a Lord or not.

The Vale Lordling and High Road Patrol are similar. When they die, their REPLACEMENT EFFECT activates and attaches them to a House Arryn location that you control. After it is done doing that - and transforming them into an attachment with the "counts as" text - the character-made-attachment itself does not carry an "attach to a House Arryn location you control" condition. Therefore, it doesn't matter if the location loses the House Arryn trait or if the controller of the character-made-attachment loses control of the location. The attachment stays.

So, do you see the difference between this and Hand of the King? The Arryn characters-made-attachments are placed on the locations BY AN EFFECT that has play restrictions, but the attachments themselves do not carry those restrictions. Since the restriction is on the attaching effect, not the attachment itself, it only needs to be true when the attaching effect resolves. But Hand of the King's "Lord only" restriction is part of the attachment itself, so must always be true.