Grants immunity to non-plot card effects. 

The effect granting the immunity is a non-plot card effect. 

~ Was misprinted and should be called Schrödinger's Castle Battlements?

~~ Toss a coin for every effect?

The FAQ states: (3.17) Self-Immunity - A card with immunity is not immune to its own abilities.

sabrefox said:

Yep. And the card with immunity in this case is the location, no? So it is not immune to its own abilities. How does this then imply that it would not be immune to another card (Castle Battlements in this case)?

Ah, too early - my brain didn't pick up on that

It would appear that FAQ (3.18) doesn't provide any clarity here either: "Timing of Immunity - Immunity is only considered when a triggered effect (or a passive ability) first resolves. A card cannot gain immunity to a triggered effect (or a passive ability) with a lasting duration once that effect has first resolved."

Since the immunity is provided by the attachment's constant ability, it has no point of resolution and thus cannt be cancelled.  Thus the card is now immune to the effect that is providing it immunity.   Nice pickup on that circular reference.

It would seem easy enough to fix by making the immunity resolve as a passive effect instead - "Once in play, attached location is immune…" or something.  That would be allowed under the FAQ section above.

sabrefox said:

What you have here is an endless loop. 

ktom said:

So, what should be done about it in your opinion? Wait for an erratum? If you were judging at an event, and this card was played, un-errata'd, how would you decide?

I guess one could always point to the FAQ, page 14: "If, at any time, two (or more) lasting effects create an endless loop that cannot successfully resolve itself, resolve the loop as if neither lasting affect were occurring" and rule that the immunity-granting effect of the card is in fact nullified (I'm aware that this is not an endless loop created by two lasting effects, but raher one constant effect cancelling itself out, but I guess the FAQ passage quoted is the closest thing we have to a ruling, right?)

Ratatoskr said:

Well… I would actually argue that there are two lasting effects here. Albeit one of them is being created by the other one. So, I can see some validity in arguing that solution.

~ Of course, I'd rather go with the Quantum Mechanical solution here and treat this as a superposition of two quantum states that collapses into one state when measured. Hence my coin flip argument. But then, I used to be a physicist… ;)

WWDrakey said:

~Huh. I know the words, but still I don't understand what you're saying. But then, concerning physics, I'm with Macbeth: "Throw physic to the dogs, I'll none of it" (V.III)*.

*Yeah, I know he meant medicine, so sue me.

Edited to remove post.  There is nothing to see here but my own stupidity. ;)

Why is this being over-thought?  Obviously the immunity text on the card would be worthless if it could never be applied.  Clearly the intent of the attachment is not to be immune to itself and to be immune to all other non-plot card effects.  Is there a FAQ entry for constantly applied/gained immunities not being immune to it's source?

The best text would be "Attached location is immune to all non-plot card effects except for Castle Battlements." where it is self-referential.

I understand there is always that one person in a tournament setting that might be a dick about it and that is why there is this discussion.  Unsuspecting players will play this card not considering that there is a hole in its own ability because it's not defined in the rules as an immunity not being immune to the source of the immunity.  It's probably assumed to be not immune to it's the origin of the immunity, but it's unfortunately not defined in the FAQ as such…

Isn't there an old attachment out there that has "Attached character gains: "No attachments.""?

No one questions the intent of the card, but as noted, the current rules surounding immunity don't fit this card as written, especially the sectionsabout Self-Immunity and Scope of Immunity. I'd agree with your simple fix though.  Nice and simple.

Bomb said:

The new Bastard attachment comes close to this, "After you play Bastard from your hand, discard all other attachments on attached character. Attached character gains the Bastard trait, loses a P icon, and cannot have attachments played on it." The first statement is a passive effect to clear the card of existing attachments, then the second is a constant effect that doesn't affect the Bastard card becuase it is already played and attached.
 

If I were judging, I'd argue that the absence of the word "other" (so that the card read "…immune to other non-plot…" is a clear mistake and exercise my power as a TO to say the immunity to everything other than the Battlements stands. (While waiting for official errata.)

Usually, my answer is "if I didn't know about it before the event, you play it as written rather than as assumed, then I'll send it to FFG and issue a house rule if necessary until the errata comes." But in this case, there is no real "as written" resolution, making it a clear mistake.

In the end, though, the text as written cancels itself out and should be errata'd.

If it was worded as a "gained" keyword, then under the FAQ of not being immune to itself, it would work as "intended' correct?

Slothgodfather said:

Except that it would become immune to the source of the gained text, thus removing the gained text, and so on ad infinitum.

Further, the "gained" keyword is still not considered a card ability, and the "cannot be immune to itself" rule is that cards cannot be immune to their own abilities.

To do what you are suggesting, Sloth, the attachment would need to be a triggered or passive effect. Essentially, it would need to read something like, "Response: After Castle Battlements is attached to a location, choose that location. It gains immunity to non-plot card effects."

At that point, the immunity is coming from a lasting effect that does not depend on the continued activity of the attachment's text, instead of a constant effect that does need to attachment text to be active.

OK, now I'm really confused…isn't this what I suggested above (albiet, the wording was slightly different) and told that immunity is a constant effect?  After thinking about it, I agree, since if immunity was a passive effect, it wouldn't resolve until the effect it should protect against has already resolved.  

Immunity being a constant effect is the trouble, not the specifics of where the immunity text originated from, right?