Bill the pony’s return. 1.0

• Versions
• 1.0

I always love a good Bill the Pony deck! Technically MotK can't go on him, but for a fun challenge, why not? Great theme with Radagast and the other creatures, too.

@FattyBolger why can't Bill have MotK? (Relatively new player asking)

"cannot have attachments" and Motk is an attachment. but, reading closely, you can use Messenger of the King and put Bill the Pony into play, but then flip the contract and do not attach to him. so he is ally and not hero, but in the game. this should be it, following the wording, do not know if there is an official errata.

Looks to me like it should be viable! The card is not an Attachment, so even though it is attached to a character, it's still considered to be a Contract.

@doomguard the contract says that it needs to be attached, but it doesn't count as an attachment if you ask me. At the bottom it clearly states it as a Contract, not an Attachment, so Bill should be viable I believe.

if i remember correctly, caleb said all cards that will be attached are attachements.

Ok, that's wildly inconsistent though. From my time with Marvel Champions and Arkham Horror I've learned to interpret these cards pretty literal, that's why I don't think it's an issue to put the contract on Bill. But hey, its not the first question mark that came up between these 3 LCG's

totally agree... i struggle with that "change of boardstate"- thing. sometimes if the table agrees it is worth to play without some faq of an errata x.0....

@Wittebaard @DestroyerHive I once posed this very question to Caleb in connection w/ MotK and Bill the Pony, noting that technically contracts are not "attachments." His ruling: "I'm afraid you cannot attach anything to an ally that cannot have attachments."

It's still possible to use Bill as a hero, but only in a few specific scenarios that blank characters' text-boxes. About a year ago I built a trilogy of decks around the idea.