dcdennis said:

They are referring to Targ Burn in general and I was just highlighting the fact dupes wont save you against FK as its a terminal effect.

Read up terminal effects dennis. Its worth knowing mate.

Thanks

Endhill said:

why exactly are you calling me out here? what did I say that was incorrect? Oh that's right, NOTHING. 

dcdennis said:

What dennis was trying to say so lovingly, is that FK has the text "if attached character has no other attachments" which is something I know I personally overlooked when I was a new player. So a card like Risen from the Sea will actually not only save and give +1 STR, it will remove the burn and terminal effect from FK as well when RftS is attached. If you try to use FK on a character with attachments, it is a wasted card until you can discard the other attachment(s).

ktom said:

 

 

It feels natural that 'Risen from the Sea' is/was a card designed as a save against burn, however rullings from the FAQ doesn't necessarry make it easier to interpret it that way

Two quotes from the latest FAQ:

(3.20) Terminal Effects

A card cannot be saved from a terminal effect
unless that saving effect also removes it from
the terminal state.

(4.9) The word "then"

If a card has multiple effects, all effects on the
card are resolved, if possible, independently
of whether any other effects of the card are
successful, with the following important
exception:

If a card uses the word "then," then the
preceding effect must have been resolved
successfully for the subsequent dependent
effect to be resolved.

According to 4.9 'Risen from the Sea' is a card with two effects where the second one is only dependent upon first one successful resolution. But according to 3.20 you need to have a single effect that also removes the card from the terminal effect.

Even if you think of any other interpretation you are ending in a loop where snake is eating its own tail

Heh. Someone quoted the FAQ at me. That's funny. 

(Moment of arrogance over…)

Swirek said:

That same section, 4.9, says that the "save" and "gets +2 STR" effects on Moqorro are different, independent effects. So if you need a "single" effect, why does Moqorro work when it, also, is two effects with the same trigger?

3.20 says that the saving effect needs to be able to both save and remove from the terminal state. Despite the fact that the "then attach" part is dependent upon the save, the fact that they share the same trigger means that they share the same resolution step. The dependent "then" effect still (initiates and) resolves before you get to passives, etc. And "kill if 0" is always a passive effect. So that means the character you play Risen on is removed from the terminal state before the terminal effect can be checked and kill the character again because both the save and the "attach, +1 STR" effect resolve completely before the terminal effect can reassert itself.

The point is that since both effects share the same trigger, they both resolve completely (assuming they can) before anything else - including the passive "reassertion" of the terminal effect - can initiate.

Are you possibly (and mistakenly) thinking that the terminal kill is a constant effect, not a passive one?

FFG has been answering the "Risen from the Sea vs. Burn" question this way for approximately 7 years.

To simplify the entire "save from terminal effect" opportunity, you look at a save effect and ask yourself this question:

"After you successfully save the character, will the terminal effect still remain on the saved character?"  If the answer will be yes, then you cannot even try to save the character. 

The removal of the terminal effect might not even be directly from the save itself. An example where this might be possible is with Maester Wendamyr save effect and King's Pavilion(+3 STR to standing characters). 

Response: Kneel Maester Wendamyr to save a character from being killed or discarded. Then, you may kneel 2 influence or kneel a character to stand that character.

You may attempt to save a character from a terminal burn effect if you stand them in the "then" effect and that gets them into a position where the burn effect is no longer going to kill them because of the +3 STR to standing characters from King's Pavilion.  If you are unable to get them into this position because you cannot pay that cost, then you cannot even try.

Other ways this can work is with effects like the plot Stoic Resolve:

"Knelt characters cannot be killed."

If the terminal effect is killing the character, then Stoic Resolve can allow characters like Maester Aemon to save themselves because the save effect puts them into the "cannot be killed" position due to its cost.

 

So, it really does not matter the context of the save attempt as long as after the resolution of the successful save effect the character is then removed from the terminal effect.

ktom said:

 

To verify this we would need to check the FAQ archive but certainly I think that those two paragraphs were not there from the begining of LCG.

As for my point I will try to rephrase it a bit. To be on a same page I'm thinking of initiation part of the effect not its resolution.

According to 3.20 in order to even initiate a save it needs to have an effect  that removes the card from the terminal effect as well (this is the case of Moqorro as its second effect is not dependant on first) but according to 4.9 'Risen from the Sea' is a card with two effects where the second one is only dependent upon first one successful resolution.

Anyway I agree that Risen from the Sea should work as this is in line with the nature of this card. What I'm trying to point out is yet again the rulings are actually making some cards more confusing instead making them clear (Like with TMP and Vicotory conditions if you recall the situation from few months back)

 seems pretty clear to everyone but you :P

Swirek said:

I get that, but just because the "then" has a different, dependent initiation from the stuff before it does not mean that it is not part of the saving effect that the player uses when s/he triggers the Response. After all, you cannot stop after the save part. The "then" part, despite the separate, dependent initiation, is part of the single, overall triggered event effect. 

Swirek said:

Because they share the same Response trigger, the second part of Risen is still part of the overall "save" effect that was triggered by the player when the event is played. The card has multiple (though dependent) effects - the same as Moqorro having multiple (though independent) effects.

The text of 4.9 tells you that the "then" part of Risen is one of the multiple effects of the single event card; it's discussion of the dependency just tells you how the play restrictions work out. But because we're talking about a single card with multiple effects (that share the same trigger, even), 3.20 doesn't make any distinction between whether those multiple effects (with the same trigger) are dependent or independent - just so long as all of the multiple effects resolve before anything else not associated with the triggering of the save effect doesn't resolve in-between.

Swirek said:

I'm not sure I agree with that assessment in this situation. In order for there to be confusion in this situation, you have to conclude that somehow, despite sharing the same "Response" trigger, the part after the "then" on Risen is not part of the save effect triggered by that Response. Despite the ruling that the "then" part of an effect has a separate initiation that takes place as part of the resolution of the original effect, I have never heard of anyone thinking that anything after the "then" is its own completely separate, second effect - rather than part of the resolution of the original.

Swirek said:

What I remember about the situation a few months back is that FFG changed the rules. From Gencon 2011 to Gencon 2012, TMP didn't count in determining modified wins. Then, for Gencon 2012, FFG changed their modified win rules, including a statement that TMP now does count. It wasn't a new rule that made old ones more confusing. It was a new rule that overruled an old one. So I'm not sure how that made anything more confusing. It just said "from here on out, we're doing it differently."

AGoT DC Meta said:

Yes mate I know this but the original poster was looking for help in general and I was just making him aware that dupes wont save a character from a terminal effect.

Dont forget that the Targs have ways to take attachments, Meerenese Brothel springs to mind.

Not sure why Dennis is upset, I assumed by some of his other posts he has been typing in the rules thread that he was a new player to the game. I didnt mean to upset him with my reply.

Thanks

 Lol i get it now. A well executed troll. /golfclap to mister joined the boards 12 days ago.

Ive actually been on a lot longer than 12 days but I rejoined as Endhill again as I could not get into my account due to not playing for a few monthsand forgetting my PS. My name was Endhill before and if you go into the past posts you will see me in here around 6 - 10 months ago'ish. There is no conspiracy.

Im not sure why your being funny with me, I assumed by some of your other posts in the rules thread that you were new to the game and as I know from experience new players can miss things like Terminal Effects.

So I hope that makes things better your end and apologies from me if your not a new player. Cant say anymore than that.

Anyway I think the original poster has enough to go on for a bit.

 

thanks.

 

Endhill said:

 

Sorry, but I am well aware that dupes do not prevent burn (I stated that earlier and I do not feel like quoting it) … that is precisely why I needed help with my Widow's Watch deck against burn.  Does that make sense?

 

Thanks for all of your clarifications… I appreciate it  :)

Maester Vyman? Preventing triggered effects will short circuit event-based burn.  Same for the pots brienne.

flipperlord said: