Jump to content



Photo

about new card Secrificed to Two Gods


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 db123456

db123456

    Member

  • Members
  • 105 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 02:36 AM

 its an event and has an ability: response: save a crest H char from being killed. then, that char claim a power.

 

can someone play it to save a char from being killed to win the game(kill effect from flame-kissed) because claim a power(he has 14 powers)?



#2 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,766 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 02:52 AM

db123456 said:

 its an event and has an ability: response: save a crest H char from being killed. then, that char claim a power.

 

can someone play it to save a char from being killed to win the game(kill effect from flame-kissed) because claim a power(he has 14 powers)?

That's an awesome question and idea.

Unfortunately, I believe the answer is no because they are still terminally afflicted and thus cannot be attempted to be saved unless the save removes them from the terminal effect.  Whether successfully saving them ends the game or not won't matter, but I could totally be wrong because the save ends the game before they are killed again by the terminal effect.



#3 Vaapad

Vaapad

    Member

  • Members
  • 364 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 03:13 AM

 I would say no.    FAQ 3.20: "A card CANNOT be saved from a terminal effect unless that saving effect also removes it from the terminal state."

Since this event does not remove the character from the terminal state created by FK, the save cannot even be attempted.  That's my understanding anyway!


"And for the first time in hundreds of years, the night came alive with the music of dragons."

#4 Ratatoskr

Ratatoskr

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,565 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 03:29 AM

You can't even try to save a card affected by a terminal effect unless the save removes the card from the terminal effect at the same time. Also, being a Then-effect, the power grab part only happens if the save part was successful.

There's a situation where this would work though: If the character in question has Devious Intentions attached to him, and the power he gains would get him from 0 to 1 STR, you could use Sacrificed to Two Gods to save the char from a burn effect.



#5 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,654 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 03:38 AM

Ratatoskr said:

Also, being a Then-effect, the power grab part only happens if the save part was successful.
But the "attach as +1" part of Risen from the Sea is a "then" effect, too, and we know that works to save characters from terminal effects. So I'm not sure how the power grab being a "then" effect is relevant (which, apparently, you don't believe either since your "Devious Intentions" example depends on the "then claim power" happening).

Personally, I think you'll need an official ruling on this because the "remove from the terminal state" rule is not interpreted solely from the point of view of the effect as it resolves. It also includes the game state once it does resolve. For example, if I put Flame-Kissed on your Maester Wendamyr, you can't kneel him and use his ability to save himself because it doesn't remove him from the terminal state. However, if Stoic Resolve is one of the active plots, you can kneel Wendamry to save himself because, once knelt, the continuous effect making knelt characters "cannot be killed" removes him from the terminal state. The save does not directly remove the character from the terminal state, but it indirectly places the character into a game-state situation where the terminal effect no longer applies.

So we know that the rule about "the save must also remove the character from the terminal state before it can be triggered" is satisfied when the save only removes the character from the terminal state if it is combined with active continuous effects. Well, if you think of "the game is over when a player reaches 15 power" as a continuous effect (which isn't an unreasonable thing), there is a really strong argument that this save, combined with a continuous effect, puts the character into a game state where the terminal state no longer applies - because the game is over.

While I tend to agree that when checking the play restriction on the save, you must assume the game continues (and therefore, "game over" is not an acceptable game state for removing a card from a terminal state), it's not unreasonable or illogical to go the other way.

To my mind, both positions are equally valid, so an official FFG ruling is probably necessary.



#6 Ratatoskr

Ratatoskr

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,565 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 03:50 AM

ktom said:

 

So we know that the rule about "the save must also remove the character from the terminal state before it can be triggered" is satisfied when the save only removes the character from the terminal state if it is combined with active continuous effects. Well, if you think of "the game is over when a player reaches 15 power" as a continuous effect (which isn't an unreasonable thing), there is a really strong argument that this save, combined with a continuous effect, puts the character into a game state where the terminal state no longer applies - because the game is over.

 

 

Wow. What an involved and yet compelling argument. I bow to you and obey. I will send this to FFG at your behest, Master.



#7 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,654 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 03:56 AM

Ratatoskr said:

Wow. What an involved and yet compelling argument. 
~It's what I do.



#8 Ratatoskr

Ratatoskr

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,565 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:01 AM

ktom said:

~It's what I do.

 

~Yeah, rub it in. Poser.



#9 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,766 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:07 AM

Has this question ever been brought up with Tarle the Thrice Drowned?  If it has, then maybe we can use that ruling as a precedent.



#10 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,654 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:47 AM

Ratatoskr said:

ktom said:

~It's what I do.

 

 

~Yeah, rub it in. Poser.

~Oh yeah. I'm the poser.   ~I'm not the one who has to write a column to convince people he knows the rules.

Bomb said:

Has this question ever been brought up with Tarle the Thrice Drowned? If it has, then maybe we can use that ruling as a precedent.
As far as I know, it hasn't.



#11 dcdennis

dcdennis

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,376 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:50 AM

ktom said:

  ~I'm not the one who has to write a column to convince people he knows the rules.

 

 

 

evoked an irl-lol. well played.



#12 Ratatoskr

Ratatoskr

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,565 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 05:18 AM

ktom said:

~I'm not the one who has to write a column to convince people he knows the rules.

 

Pwned by ktom. What else is new?






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS