I have a question about how BMR works when the character it is attached to is sent back to the hand (Ghaston Grey) or discarded from play (Westeros Bleeds)

Section 2.5 of the FAQ indicates that if there are two simultaneous but conflicting moribund destinations, then the first player chooses the destination. So I'm wondering if the lasting effect of "If BMR is discarded or leaves play, kill the character" is considered simultaneous to it being sent to the hand/discard pile, and therefore would allow the first player to choose.

Looking at the Player action window chart in the FAQ, it looks like "Action is resolved" (card is moribund with destination to hand) is step 3. So does the lasting effect from BMR occur at the same time, or is it considered a passive or response (step 4 and 5).?

Then there's also the part of the FAQ that says:

"Although considered in play, a Moribund card cannot be removed from play (or targeted to be removed from play) again by any effect or any attempt to pay a cost for the remainder of the action window. However, the "state" of a Moribund card can be changed by an effect that does not actually attempt to remove it from play a second time." (page 19).

That makes me think that if BMR is trying to "remove it from play a second time", then it cannot kill the character.

I think I might be overcomplicating things though, so some clarification would be extremely helpful. Thanks!

It is not considered simultaneous entry into a moribund state. When the attached character leaves play (as opposed to the attachment leaving play), the attachment is discarded passively because it finds itself attached to a moribund card. So the "if the attachment leaves play, kill attached character" effect fails because the character is already moribund when that effect initiates. Whatever effect made the character leave play "wins" because it is fully resolved before BMR is discarded and the lasting effect initiated.

Just recently, JCWamma on cardgamedb.com mentioned in a rules thread that once a card becomes moribund, all attachments on it are immediately moribund:discard. So when the card actually leaves play to your hand, BMR is just discarded since the character is already moribund:hand and is leaving play already.

Thanks for your responses!

So just to understand it better, would an example of a "simultaneous conflict" in moribund states (as is mentioned in the FAQ) be something like using Flame-kissed to reduce a character's strength to 0 on a Threat from the North turn? Or does one of those take precedence? I'm just curious as to when that sort of conflict could occur.

Yes. That is the classic example. Simultaneous entry into the moribund state only happens when two non-triggered effects, initiated by the same condition, try to remove the same card from play in two different ways.

Just recently, JCWamma on cardgamedb.com mentioned in a rules thread that once a card becomes moribund, all attachments on it are immediately moribund:discard.

Careful with the terminology here. The statement that "once a card becomes moribund, all attachments on it are immediately moribund:discard" is misleading, bordering on wrong. It is more accurate to say that all attachments on a moribund card are discarded as a passive game effect. It's an important distinction because saying that such attachments are "immediately moribund" (instead of "passively discarded") implies that there is no opportunity to save the attachment separate from the character, which we know is not true (eg, Battle of Blackwater Davos).

Well, that statement (immediately) was directly from Damon. The relevant thread on FFG Forums where I also mentioned this:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/83567-rulings-from-ffg/

It also has a link to the CardgameDB discussion that was related to this:

http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/5583-new-player-questions-round-3/page__st__600

I have to admit, I was pretty confused when we got the actual answer from him as well. I always felt that it happening passively was very logical timing-wise.

Side-comment:

With that thread I was desperately trying to start a clean thread, which only related info directly obtained from FFG, so that we could have it in one place instead of spread out willy-nilly.

Naturally it didn't take long for the thread to devolve into the usual bickering...

* Looks at certain people quite pointedly. *

* Looks at certain people quite pointedly. *

I'm sorry if I contributed to that thread's demise. It's too bad you cannot create a thread that can only be posted to by yourself to make sure it is clean and untainted.

* Looks at certain people quite pointedly. *

I'm sorry if I contributed to that thread's demise. It's too bad you cannot create a thread that can only be posted to by yourself to make sure it is clean and untainted.

Heh, sorry if that came out more irked than it was meant. And you were definitely not to blame, I was just being overly optimistic with the whole concept to begin with.

I guess my frustration is much more at there not being any officially provided way of gathering such rulings into one place, where they could be easily accessible. They do form a surprisingly large part of the way cards are to be interpreted, so it would be nice to have them more available.

Even some kind of stickied thread with at least partial moderation (moving discussions to separate threads) would help with this.

Actually... if the old method of being able to indefinitely edit the first post in a thread is still available, then having a post where all of the submitted stuff is edited into the first post could maybe work without there being any clutter between the rulings. Clutter after them isn't an issue, but if you have to crawl through a page of discussion to find the next ruling, then that's a bit unwieldy. And having the discussion afterwards would provide the possibility for corrections, clarifications etc. without reducing the value as a collected reference.

Too bad I'm swamped with work, that might actually be a more worthy approach to pursue.

It could make sense to start a thread and immediately reserve a bunch of posts in it, so that you have the ability to edit all of them later on and have some kind of organization to the thread (also, I have to assume there's a character limit to a single post)