I built a deck around moving Blood Magic Ritual to other characters using the Crown of Mereen, for targeted killing. I have been told this does not work. But I was wondering if not why?

Blood Magice reads:

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.

so if I move it to one of my opponents characters using Crown, which reads:

If a White Raven card is not in play it is Summer. Response: After you win a challenge in which attached character participated, choose an attachment. Take control of that attachment, and attach it to an eligible card of your choice.

So if I bounce BMR using Dragon Theif while on my opponents character, who dies? Not my reserrected character since it is no longer attached to him, unless the game remembers. Please help me understand.

Thanks!

When all the Blood Magic Ritual discussion was going on when it was first spoiled, I sent in that very question to FFG, but did not receive a response.

In my opinion, the way it is worded, it will kill the character it is currently attached to and the onus of the lasting effect is on Blood Magic Ritual. Others disagreed with that sentiment and thought the onus of the lasting effect was on the resurrected character, but it was never brought up again because the situation is not all that likely.

I suggest sending the question in to FFG or perhaps wait and see if this is addressed in the FAQ considering all the questions and attention that was brought to this attachment upon it being released.

Bomb is correct - it's a bit of a confusing situation. Given the wording, both camps have reasonable arguments (whether the lasting effect applies to BMR or to the character). I also believe as he does that the lasting effect applies to BMR, and so it'd kill whatever character it is attached to when it is discarded.

I'm gonna venture an agreement to the side that says if it didn't leave play when it was moved from one of your characters, it would not kill them. When it leaves play due to Dragon thief (or similar attachment hate), it would look for an attached character and kill them, not the fetched character.

I'll take the other side an say that, upon being attached to the resurrected character, BMR creates a lasting effect that will kill that character when it leaves play. It could be better worded, as is so often the case, but that seems to be how it's intended to work.

It's a shame FFG never answered this.

Speaking of contacting FFG... where is the Rules Question link now? I don't see it at the bottom of the page like it used to be.

Speaking of contacting FFG... where is the Rules Question link now? I don't see it at the bottom of the page like it used to be.

very, very, very bottom

I'll take the other side an say that, upon being attached to the resurrected character, BMR creates a lasting effect that will kill that character when it leaves play. It could be better worded, as is so often the case, but that seems to be how it's intended to work.

It's a shame FFG never answered this.

If it only affected the character that you got out of the dead pile, regarldess of whether it was still attached or not, then you couldn't ever get dragons out of the dead pile, like you can right now with the current wording.

Thanks for the help! Over at agotcards.org and cardgamedb, they are saying that it would not work. That makes no sense to me, the card cearly states attached character, so it should blow up the attached character no matter who its attached to, Dragon Bite says the same thing as BMR, and that one can change targets.....

Rio - the reason for the distinction is that BMR creates a lasting effect when triggered (in other words, a point in time where the effect was established), while Dragon Fear is a (conditional) constant that applies to the character it is currently attached to.

The argument against you using BMR the way you describe is that "Attached character" was determined when the attachment was first attached, as established by the response. If it was not part of the response and was worded "If BMR is discarded from play, discard attached character. Response: therestofthetext", there'd be no question at all.

As it is, there's (clearly) some ambiguity, and I disagree with Amuk's reasoning. We can't simply assume it *should* say "That character", because, as Stormwolf stated, that would be a contradiction of BMR/No Attachments ruling. My earlier opinion still stands.

The argument against you using BMR the way you describe is that "Attached character" was determined when the attachment was first attached, as established by the response. If it was not part of the response and was worded "If BMR is discarded from play, discard attached character. Response: therestofthetext", there'd be no question at all.

As it is, there's (clearly) some ambiguity, and I disagree with Amuk's reasoning. We can't simply assume it *should* say "That character", because, as Stormwolf stated, that would be a contradiction of BMR/No Attachments ruling. My earlier opinion still stands.

Well, I've thought since Day 1 that that was a broken ruling (not that I didn't use it in a Balerion Regional deck anyway ). But it still makes sense precisely because the card never attaches to the resurrected Dragon and thus the lasting effect doesn't take effect). If it does attach, however, I say the lasting effect is created and remains in effect even if the card moves.

The argument against you using BMR the way you describe is that "Attached character" was determined when the attachment was first attached, as established by the response. If it was not part of the response and was worded "If BMR is discarded from play, discard attached character. Response: therestofthetext", there'd be no question at all.

As it is, there's (clearly) some ambiguity, and I disagree with Amuk's reasoning. We can't simply assume it *should* say "That character", because, as Stormwolf stated, that would be a contradiction of BMR/No Attachments ruling. My earlier opinion still stands.

Well, I've thought since Day 1 that that was a broken ruling (not that I didn't use it in a Balerion Regional deck anyway ). But it still makes sense precisely because the card never attaches to the resurrected Dragon and thus the lasting effect doesn't take effect). If it does attach, however, I say the lasting effect is created and remains in effect even if the card moves.

Yeah, that's the counterargument I can support, and the reason I think there's wiggle room on this question (not the "that character" one)..

What other lasting effects are created to characters by other cards? Ever example that I have been given has been on the character... How does BMR remember what it brought out of the dead pile? Is there precident to this?

What other lasting effects are created to characters by other cards? Ever example that I have been given has been on the character... How does BMR remember what it brought out of the dead pile? Is there precident to this?

Fiery Kiss has an analogous effect:

Response: After Fiery Kiss comes out of Shadows, choose 1 non-Army Baratheon character in your dead pile and put it into play. That character gains vigilant until the end of the phase. At the end of the phase, discard the character if it is still in play.

The event leaves play after it resolves but the lasting effect remains. Not as long in most cases, no, but the concept isn't really any different.

Honestly, I expect the ruling on No Attachments characters to be changed at some point. Until then, though....

The differance to me is that Fiery Kiss specifically refers to the card pulled from the dead pile. BMR does not, it refers to the attached character (which can change), as far as I know the game and the card has no memory of what happened before. If this were the case than the game would remember every attachment that was ever attached to someone.

Most attachments don't create lasting effects on the characters they were previously attached to, so that wouldn't be a problem. Furthermore, you need to be careful throwing around that "game has no memory" talk, as we've basically boiled that down to refer only to characters needing to be in a challenge at resolution, as "the game has no memory of them having participated in the challenge" if they are removed from it.

I love this thread!

I hate to say I agree with Amuk, but I agree with Amuk. (and it's not you, it's that I hate this card and everything about it from balance to rules) The reason goes back to why we've established that it can work on a "no attachments" character. It's all one effect that resolves at the same time. This means that what happens when you bring it out of Shadows is that this lasting effect is established:

"If Blood Magic Ritual leaves play, kill attached character."

This is a lasting effect that is dependent on Blood Magic Ritual, but completely separate from it. It does not say "kill the character to which Blood Magic Ritual is attached". Therefore, the only reference the lasting effect has to what character it should kill is the character to which Blood Magic Ritual was originally attached, or "attached character". "Attached character" is referential text (or a variable) that refers to "the character that was returned by Black Magic Ritual" (the stored value).

I'm going to add another element to this and don't read this if you're already confused, but for those willing to read... Let's add another layer to this. Let's say the original character gains "Immune to Attachments" after it entered play. Would Blood Magic Ritual be able to kill it? I would argue yes. If Blood Magic Ritual would kill it after gaining "Immune to Attachments" how could Blood Magic Ritual changing who it's attached to be relevant? It is a Local Lasting Effect at that point (one that is immediately applied with or without a duration and that can not be changed by a change in game state) that is dependent on Blood Magic Ritual, but completely separate from it.

I'm going to add another element to this and don't read this if you're already confused, but for those willing to read... Let's add another layer to this. Let's say the original character gains "Immune to Attachments" after it entered play. Would Blood Magic Ritual be able to kill it? I would argue yes. If Blood Magic Ritual would kill it after gaining "Immune to Attachments" how could Blood Magic Ritual changing who it's attached to be relevant? It is a Local Lasting Effect at that point (one that is immediately applied with or without a duration and that can not be changed by a change in game state) that is dependent on Blood Magic Ritual, but completely separate from it.

I agree with this, and your statement is supported by the following discussion:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/77586-inmunities

The required Immunity would be to Card effects.