A few questions

[ktom 598]

Serazu said:

1. CS Brienne is immune to opponent's character abilities. This means than she can be saved during MIL challenges if opponent has Bitter Crone in play. Contrarily, if somehow Brienne's controller has Bitter Crone in play, she cannot. Right?

Correct. The constant "cannot be saved" effect of Bitter Crone is a character ability. Brienne ignore's the ability of opponent's characters. So she ignores the "cannot be saved" restriction - unless the person who controls her also controls Bitter Crone.

 

Serazu said:

2. I control Aggo and my opponent attaches Motley on him.

 

a. I declare him as attacker and, upon winning a MIL challenge, decide to use his Response. I have to pay 2 gold to my opponent. Right?

Not quite. In order to declare him as an attacker in the first place, you have to pay the 1 gold. Up front, when you declare attackers. It is effectively a restriction on being able to declare him as an attacker. Similarly, when you decide to use his Response, you have to pay 1 gold as part of triggering that Response. So yes, you have to pay your opponent 2 gold, but you pay the gold, one at a time, when you go to do the things Motley charges you for.

 

Serazu said:

b. I pay no gold to my opponent for him being Deadly, since this is a keyword and not an ability. Right?

 

c. If Jhogo had a passive ability on his text box, I still wouldn't pay any gold to my opponent for its activation, since Motley demands payment whenever I decide to trigger an ability, not when an ability is triggered no matter what. Right?

These parts of the question are just asking for confirmation on what a "triggered ability" is. (Even if Deadly WAS considered an ability, it is passive, not triggered.) You don't choose to activate them. They happen whether you want them to or not. So they are not triggered, which moeans Motley does not charge you for them.

 

Serazu said:

3. From the FAQ:

 

(3.37) Unique Cards Entering Play from the Dead Pile
When putting a unique card into play from your dead pile, that copy of the card does not prevent itself from entering play. Multiple copies of a unique card will prevent one another from entering play from your dead pile, unless those copies would all enter play simultaneously.

b. Cards such as Maegi's Promise are not affected by the above ruling, since they don't return cards into play but into their owners' hand, right?

c. Concerning Retreat, it's not affected either since not only returns a card in hand, but prevents a card from going into the dead pile in the first place, right?

Considering that the FAQ entry starts out "when putting a card into play from your dead pile," do you really need confirmation on these two questions? 

 

Serazu said:

4. The "save" effect helps a card avoid dying, discarding and returning to hand (unless it specifically protects vs. some of the above, such as in the case of Bodyguard). So, since Asha cannot be saved, this means that she cannot avoid any of the aforementioned three instances. Correct?

You are looking at this backwards. There is no general "save" effect. There are only card effects that save. It is not that "saves prevent leaving play by any means unless they are specifically limited." It is that "a given save effect only works against what it says it does." There is no "saving by rule." There is only saving by card effect. So do what the card says.

 

But yes, anything that "cannot be saved" has no interaction with any effect that uses the word save.

[Serazu 50]

Maester_LUke said:

Serazu said:
Never mind about 3.a. Narrow Escape is a case that crossed my mind later on.
So, in the Narrow Escape case, if character X was killed in that phase, but there was already a copy of him to his owner's dead pile, does that mean that Narrow Escape cannot help him for his long-dead copy prevents him from returning to play?
There's really no interaction between NE and 3.37 because only that "more recent copy" actually left play this phase. The definition of uniques and their interaction with the dead pile is what prevents NE from working in that case. If a character with a duplicate had died (cannot be saved) earlier in the phase, the duplicate would have gone to the discard pile. Your opponent would likely have to use something like Visenya's Hill to put a copy of a unique directly into your dead pile (or from the CCG days, the old Bastard of Bolton) since it's generally tricky to have a unique character in play while also having a copy of the same in your dead pile.

The main reason for that FAQ entry was Rhaenys' Hill, this was one of the few cases where you would put multiple copies of the same character into play from your deadpile... not counting the difficulty of getting multiple copies there in the first place.

But I 've already mentioned Visenya's Hill as an example. So, a case with Narrow Escape and an "old" copy of a unique card in the dead pile is something entirely possible I suppose

ktom said:

Serazu said:

2. I control Aggo and my opponent attaches Motley on him.

 

a. I declare him as attacker and, upon winning a MIL challenge, decide to use his Response. I have to pay 2 gold to my opponent. Right?

Not quite. In order to declare him as an attacker in the first place, you have to pay the 1 gold. Up front, when you declare attackers. It is effectively a restriction on being able to declare him as an attacker. Similarly, when you decide to use his Response, you have to pay 1 gold as part of triggering that Response. So yes, you have to pay your opponent 2 gold, but you pay the gold, one at a time, when you go to do the things Motley charges you for.

 

Of course, of course. I already know that. What really mattered here is the confirmation that I have to pay 1 + 1 gold, at different times.

A few more questions:

1. Arianne's ability is not cumulative each time she attacks in a challenge, right? From what I understand in her description if, for example, a claim 1 plot card is revealed and she attacks in an INT challenge, the claim raises from the original 1 to 2. If then she attacks in a POW challenge, the claim raises again from the original 1 to 2 and so on. Correct?

2. Each response takes effect once per trigger. The other day I had two Pyrophobias in hand and my opponent a unique character with a duplicate on. The moment his STR was reduced, I used a Pyrophobia to bounce him. He responded by discarding his duplicate. I played my second Pyrophobia and managed to bounce him. Was my action legal or did his save / cancel response disrupted the sequence and there was no open window for me to play my second Pyrophobia? I think that save / cancel responses open an entirely new window for them and them only, and, after it's closed, the sequence continues as normal, but am I correct?

3. I have an Orphan of the Greenblood in play and my opponent a character with icons. I want to sacrifice my Orphan to remove his icons for the phase, so that he cannot be declared as an attacker or defender. If I forget to use the Orphan before the opposing character is declared as a participant in the challenge, then, even if I use the Orphan's ability mid-challenge, the opposing character perfectly legitimately participates in the challenge he was declared for, since the moment he was declared he had his icons, right? From then on, he cannot participate in any more challenges for the phase (unless of course he somehow gains back icons), but at that particular challenge he was originally declared for he participates normally. Correct?

4. Since the word "cannot" supersedes vs. other opposite effects, if The Power of Blood is revealed my Red Viper is beyond any killing for the round, right?

5. Just to clarify a thing concerning responses (I am not referring to the save / cancel ones) in an 1 vs 1 game where X plays something and both he and Y have 2 appropriate responses at their disposal each, then the correct sequence would be something like this: Y reacts by playing one of his responses, X plays one of his own, Y plays his last one, X plays his last one, the game continues. Correct?  

6. Since a keyword can be given to a character even if he already has that keyword, does the same happen with traits? If I attach Blood of the Viper on a Sand Snake for instance, then that character would have a second Sand Snake trait, right? So, in a case when Old Nan removes one Sand Snake trait, the character has the other on, doesn't she?

[radiskull 39]

Serazu said:

A few more questions:

1. Arianne's ability is not cumulative each time she attacks in a challenge, right? From what I understand in her description if, for example, a claim 1 plot card is revealed and she attacks in an INT challenge, the claim raises from the original 1 to 2. If then she attacks in a POW challenge, the claim raises again from the original 1 to 2 and so on. Correct?

2. Each response takes effect once per trigger. The other day I had two Pyrophobias in hand and my opponent a unique character with a duplicate on. The moment his STR was reduced, I used a Pyrophobia to bounce him. He responded by discarding his duplicate. I played my second Pyrophobia and managed to bounce him. Was my action legal or did his save / cancel response disrupted the sequence and there was no open window for me to play my second Pyrophobia? I think that save / cancel responses open an entirely new window for them and them only, and, after it's closed, the sequence continues as normal, but am I correct?

3. I have an Orphan of the Greenblood in play and my opponent a character with icons. I want to sacrifice my Orphan to remove his icons for the phase, so that he cannot be declared as an attacker or defender. If I forget to use the Orphan before the opposing character is declared as a participant in the challenge, then, even if I use the Orphan's ability mid-challenge, the opposing character perfectly legitimately participates in the challenge he was declared for, since the moment he was declared he had his icons, right? From then on, he cannot participate in any more challenges for the phase (unless of course he somehow gains back icons), but at that particular challenge he was originally declared for he participates normally. Correct?

4. Since the word "cannot" supersedes vs. other opposite effects, if The Power of Blood is revealed my Red Viper is beyond any killing for the round, right?

5. Just to clarify a thing concerning responses (I am not referring to the save / cancel ones) in an 1 vs 1 game where X plays something and both he and Y have 2 appropriate responses at their disposal each, then the correct sequence would be something like this: Y reacts by playing one of his responses, X plays one of his own, Y plays his last one, X plays his last one, the game continues. Correct?  

6. Since a keyword can be given to a character even if he already has that keyword, does the same happen with traits? If I attach Blood of the Viper on a Sand Snake for instance, then that character would have a second Sand Snake trait, right? So, in a case when Old Nan removes one Sand Snake trait, the character has the other on, doesn't she?

All of this is correct, except in number 6 - your analysis is correct, but you're referring to Traits, not Keywords.

[Serazu 50]

radiskull said:

 

All of this is correct, except in number 6 - your analysis is correct, but you're referring to Traits, not Keywords.

But I was referring to traits; I 've already said so. And thanks for your help, of course.

Three questions today:

1. The Brotherhood Without Banners: In a case where I win a POW challenge, but I do not control any Brotherhood character:

A. I remove the corresponding power tokens from my opponent's house card and put them on my own house card.

B. I remove the corresponding power tokens from my opponent's house card and discard them.

C. I do not remove any corresponding power tokens from my opponent's house card.

Which of the above applies? The first instance I guess, but am I correct?

2. Gossip and Lies: Do I take into account power accumulated by Renowned characters, characters with A Taste For Blood attached and so on? This event was mainly made for Brotherhood decks and it's the words "you have" that give me pause. If a character I control has power, then do I have that power as well, as his controller?

3. Red Vengeance and Burning on the Sand: These cards pose two exceptions to the rule which says that, in the Framework action window, the claim comes first and then the responses. When exactly did those two events resolve? I guess the RV resolves after step 3 and the BotS after step 2, but am I correct or did I misinterpret something in the rules?

[ktom 598]

Serazu said:

1. The Brotherhood Without Banners: In a case where I win a POW challenge, but I do not control any Brotherhood character:

A. I remove the corresponding power tokens from my opponent's house card and put them on my own house card.

B. I remove the corresponding power tokens from my opponent's house card and discard them.

C. I do not remove any corresponding power tokens from my opponent's house card.

Which of the above applies? The first instance I guess, but am I correct?

This has been asked and answered a lot, so I'll let you look up the details in other threads, but the answer is "C." The Agenda says you MUST place the power on a Brotherhood character, so if you have none, you have no where to put it. You don't get to ignore the Agenda just because you don't have a Brotherhood character out. And if you have nowhere to move the power to, there is no reason to think you get to move it from your opponent's House card.

Serazu said:

2. Gossip and Lies: Do I take into account power accumulated by Renowned characters, characters with A Taste For Blood attached and so on? This event was mainly made for Brotherhood decks and it's the words "you have" that give me pause. If a character I control has power, then do I have that power as well, as his controller?

So... if a character "has" power and you, as its controller, do not "have" that power as well, I suppose power on characters wouldn't count toward your victory total? And how, exactly, are you distinguishing the power a Brotherhood character has accumulated through Renown and other cards effects from the power it has gotten instead of the House card?

Power is power. It's either on your House card or its not. That's all there is to it. You're over-thinking this card.

Serazu said:

3. Red Vengeance and Burning on the Sand: These cards pose two exceptions to the rule which says that, in the Framework action window, the claim comes first and then the responses. When exactly did those two events resolve? I guess the RV resolves after step 3 and the BotS after step 2, but am I correct or did I misinterpret something in the rules?

Read the cards again. Both are Responses that use the word "cancel." So they resolve in the Step 2 (like all "save" and "cancel" Responses) for their respective framework events and do not pose exceptions to the rules at all.

[Serazu 50]

1. It's Summer, I have Balerion in hand and Summer Encampment, Maester 1 with Dragon Lore attached and Maester 2 with Copper Link attached in play. My ultimate goal is to play Balerion for free and use his devastating ability. Then, use the Encampment to bounce him back to my hand to repeat the process in the next round.

Can it be done? I believe not, since, from what I understand, the process would be like: I use Dragon Lore's ability by kneeling it and the attached Maester. I play Balerion. Balerion uses his Response kneeling all non-Dragon characters and locations. Maester 2 and Summer Encampment kneel. Copper Link's Response kicks in, but it's too late to name the Encampment Dragon and then kneel it to bounce Balerion for the location is already knelt by Balerion. Correct?

2. If in the above case, both Dragon Lore and Copper Link were attached to the same Maester would it be possible to execute the combo at its wholeness? I think so, since the process would be like: I use Dragon Lore's ability by kneeling it and the attached Maester. Copper Link's Response kicks in. The Encampment is now Dragon. I play Balerion. He uses his Response, but the Encampment is a Dragon already, so it stays standing, ready to bounce Balerion back to hand. Correct?

3. From the FAQ:

Cards that are killed, discarded, or returned to hand or deck (including their attachments) during the action window are considered Moribund for the remaining duration of the Action Window, and do not physically leave play until Step 6.

What is "Moribund"?
After a card is forced to leave play (by being killed, discarded, returned to its owner's hand or deck, or moved to its owner's shadows area) that card is considered Moribund for the duration of the action window. This includes cards that have been killed, discarded, or returned to hand/deck in order to pay a cost. The Moribund "state" lies after the effect that forced the card out of play, but before the card is physically placed in the dead/discard pile.

A Moribund card (and its attachments) is considered to have been killed, discarded, returned to its owner's hand or deck, or moved to its owner's shadows area, but only for the purposes of triggering responses and passive abilities. This includes responses and passive abilities triggered by a card being placed in the appropriate out-of-play area. A Moribund card is, for all other purposes, still considered in play.

Melisandre has Bound by the Light attached. At some point (let's say for MIL claim), she's killed. She's now Moribund till the end of Step 6 of the Framework Action Window. I decide to use the attachment's Response and opt to put back a copy of her in play. Since it's a Response effect, Melisandre is considered killed, so the copy will not be a duplicate, but a brand-new character. Since Melisandre is not yet in my dead pile, I bypass the restriction of unique cards entering play when a copy of the card in question is in my dead pile, so I play Melisandre normally. When the Action Window is finally resolved, I will have the old Melisandre in my dead pile and the new one in play. Correct?

4. According to FAQ concerning Moribund, CS Melisandre, while Moribund, still grants the +1 STR to all Asshai, GotC Dany still grants the +1 to all Targ characters and so on, till the moment they are physically put into the dead pile. Correct?

5. Continuing the above, if a character with accumulated power tokens becomes Moribund, he retains them till the end of the Action Window, when he's finally put to rest in the dead pile at which point they are discarded. Correct?

6. So, while Taste for Blood is attached to a Moribund character and, since both are not physically out of the game yet, it retains its abilities normally till the attached character is put into the dead pile at which points it goes into the discard pile. Correct?

7. In the above example, is it considered Moribund as well or just attached to a Moribund character? Normally, it's Moribund since it's forced to leave play as well with the attached character.

8. Post-Errata Narrow Escape has "limit once per phase" added. Does it mean that only one NE may be played during a phase, no matter who plays it?

9. This question is silly, but better to be safe than sorry. Upon using House Messenger's ability and reveal the two topmost cards of my deck, do I then take them in hand and secretly pick one and put the other on the bottom of my deck or do I put both on the table and then, while everyone is watching, I pick one and place the other on the bottom of my deck, so that everyone gets to know which card is in my hand? The latter I guess. This guy just sports a weaker version of the The Viper's Bannermen's effect.

10. This question is even sillier, but it plagues me ever since I started playing the game: If asked how many cards I have in hand, do I have to tell the exact number to my opponent? This can be crucial in cases such as the revealing of Rule by Decree and so on. I 've still yet to face such a case, though I 'm curious to know.

Thanks.

[-Istaril 157]

 1 / 2 - Yup, you have it right. Your first scenario doesn't work, while your scenario 2 works fine.

3. Nope. For *all* purposes except triggering effects off leaving play, Melissandre is still in play. Any additional copy of her you bring into play would be a duplicate, and since it's too late to save her, it'll do you no good.

4. Correct.

5. Correct. A good example is Joffrey Baratheon can easily be used to win the game on a Valar, despite being moribund.

6. Yup. So you can trigger it off the military challenge you just lost (and lost the character it attached to, to)

7. It becomes "moribund" in step 4 (passives), when it "realizes" that it's character is moribund.

8. I'm no 100% sure on 8, which is odd.  I should be! The only rules/faq on the subject is the text for "Limited Response", which states that each player may trigger 1 limited response (core rules). Given that the wording of abilities with a limited response aren't any different from a "limit once per phase", I assume that both players may play up to one, but one player may not play two. 

9. I actually don't know 9 - I've always assumed the cards stayed revealed until they reached their final destination, since it says nothing about un-revealing them. 

10. The number of cards in your hand, the contents of your discard and dead pile, etc are all knowledge your opponent has access to. 

[radiskull 39]

 For number 9, the card you are choosing to put in your hand is a revealed card, which means that it's revealed at the time you choose it.  You don't get to pick it secretly.

[ktom 598]

8. Limits apply by player. So each player can indeed play Narrow Escape one time per round each. The Limited Response example is a good way to remember it. If I use a Limited Response this round, it doesn't stop you from using one, too.

9. Rad is correct. The cards are revealed through the entire action, until they end up in their final places.

10. Number of cards in hand is indeed "public knowledge." If it wasn't, you could legall "lie" when actually going to resolve Rule By Decree!

[Serazu 50]

Thank you all for the answers. This baffles me though:

3. Nope. For *all* purposes except triggering effects off leaving play, Melissandre is still in play. Any additional copy of her you bring into play would be a duplicate, and since it's too late to save her, it'll do you no good.

Don’t the rules state that:

A Moribund card (and its attachments) is considered to have been killed, discarded, returned to its owner's hand or deck, or moved to its owner's shadows area, but only for the purposes of triggering responses and passive abilities.

In our case, Melisandre, for the purpose of triggering a response (that of the attachment), must be considered as killed, according to the FAQ. What am I missing here?
 

[Khudzlin 734]

The thing is, responses that save or cancel have a special status (that of save/cancel responses) and a dedicated timing (step 2 whereas "normal" responses happen in step 5). Because of this, you save (or cancel) preventively (before the effect is actually resolved). Once it is resolved, the timing point for saving (or cancelling) has passed and the killing (or discarding or whatever) cannot be prevented anymore.

It might help to think of all responses with "save" as beginning with Save Response and all responses with "cancel" as beggining with Cancel Response rather than the simple Response they share with "normal" responses.

[-Istaril 157]

Serazu said:

Thank you all for the answers. This baffles me though:

3. Nope. For *all* purposes except triggering effects off leaving play, Melissandre is still in play. Any additional copy of her you bring into play would be a duplicate, and since it's too late to save her, it'll do you no good.

Don’t the rules state that:

A Moribund card (and its attachments) is considered to have been killed, discarded, returned to its owner's hand or deck, or moved to its owner's shadows area, but only for the purposes of triggering responses and passive abilities.

In our case, Melisandre, for the purpose of triggering a response (that of the attachment), must be considered as killed, according to the FAQ. What am I missing here?
 

I think the previous poster is missing your question a bit (either that, or I am).


In your case, for the purpose of triggering a response (that of the attachment), Melisandre is "killed". For the purposes of bringing in ANOTHER copy of her, she's still in play. That copy would attach as a duplicate, despite the fact that Melisandre is moribund. Since you're already past the "Save/cancel" step of responses (and Melisandre is already moribund), the duplicate does you no good - it can no longer save her.

[ktom 598]

Serazu said:

In our case, Melisandre, for the purpose of triggering a response (that of the attachment), must be considered as killed, according to the FAQ. What am I missing here?

For the purpose of triggering her Response (ie, initiating it), not for purposes of resolving it.

You only consider the moribund character as being in its eventual out-of-play state for the purposes of checking play restrictions that talk about killing, discarding, returning, placing in a pile, etc. Other than that, the card is still in play. Otherwise, there isn't much point to the moribund state to begin with. 

I mean, technically, if you are going to consider the moribund card to already be killed, discarded, returned to hand, etc., and in it's eventual out-of-play area, then how are you triggering the Response on Bound By the Light at all? It's moribund. For the sake of triggering it's Response, wouldn't you have to think of it as already being in the discard pile? And cards can't be triggered from the discard pile unless they specifically say so?

So you see, it's best not to over-think this. The "considered to have been..." part only refers to what Responses can be triggered, not to a hypothetical game state that applies when resolving some effects, but not others.

[Serazu 50]

1. Days ago I asked this:

Each response takes effect once per trigger. The other day I had two Pyrophobias in hand and my opponent a unique character with a duplicate on. The moment his STR was reduced, I used a Pyrophobia to bounce him. He responded by discarding his duplicate. I played my second Pyrophobia and managed to bounce him. Was my action legal or did his save / cancel response disrupted the sequence and there was no open window for me to play my second Pyrophobia? I think that save / cancel responses open an entirely new window for them and them only, and, after it's closed, the sequence continues as normal, but am I correct?

And I was answered that my assumption was correct. So, having the above as a guide, in the case when I have a character with 2 duplicates attached and he’s killed and then I discard my first duplicate to save him and my opponent responds with He Calls… to cancel it and I respond anew by discarding the other duplicate to save him, I am perfectly legitimate, right?

2. Lord of Light, Protect Us: Does it also cancel the save effect granted by duplicates? It's a gained ability, after all, so I think it does.

3. The other day, a thing came up during one of our games: My opponent had in play Training Grounds and one of those Bolton armies that change controller when he loses a specific challenge. I stole that army. From the Grounds’ wording, we couldn’t be sure whether it had to kneel to attack during my MIL challenges. If the wording was “armies you control”, there wouldn’t be a problem; “your armies” though may prove different. Even if he had lost control of his army, it remained “his” army I believe, so it shouldn’t kneel when attacking during my MIL challenges. We decided to treat “your armies” as “armies you control” in that instance and post our question in the forums for a final answer. What will it be?

[Serazu 50]

And a fourth question:

4. If an opponents manages to, somehow, blank the text box of a Dragon for a period of time and puts an attachment on the character, when the time passes and the "no attachments" constant kicks anew, the attachment will automatically be discarded. Correct?

[Circadia 0]

Serazu said:

 

1. Days ago I asked this:

Each response takes effect once per trigger. The other day I had two Pyrophobias in hand and my opponent a unique character with a duplicate on. The moment his STR was reduced, I used a Pyrophobia to bounce him. He responded by discarding his duplicate. I played my second Pyrophobia and managed to bounce him. Was my action legal or did his save / cancel response disrupted the sequence and there was no open window for me to play my second Pyrophobia? I think that save / cancel responses open an entirely new window for them and them only, and, after it's closed, the sequence continues as normal, but am I correct?

And I was answered that my assumption was correct. So, having the above as a guide, in the case when I have a character with 2 duplicates attached and he’s killed and then I discard my first duplicate to save him and my opponent responds with He Calls… to cancel it and I respond anew by discarding the other duplicate to save him, I am perfectly legitimate, right?

2. Lord of Light, Protect Us: Does it also cancel the save effect granted by duplicates? It's a gained ability, after all, so I think it does.

3. The other day, a thing came up during one of our games: My opponent had in play Training Grounds and one of those Bolton armies that change controller when he loses a specific challenge. I stole that army. From the Grounds’ wording, we couldn’t be sure whether it had to kneel to attack during my MIL challenges. If the wording was “armies you control”, there wouldn’t be a problem; “your armies” though may prove different. Even if he had lost control of his army, it remained “his” army I believe, so it shouldn’t kneel when attacking during my MIL challenges. We decided to treat “your armies” as “armies you control” in that instance and post our question in the forums for a final answer. What will it be?

4. If an opponents manages to, somehow, blank the text box of a Dragon for a period of time and puts an attachment on the character, when the time passes and the "no attachments" constant kicks anew, the attachment will automatically be discarded. Correct?

 

 

1. Yes, you may discard as many duplicates as you need to save a character unless the character cannot be saved or if the save response cannot be triggered. Each save is its own cancel/save response which can be triggered so long as you are still in step 2 of the framework/player action window, and opens up a new oppurtunity to be cancelled with an effect like He Calls in Thinking. Cancelling one such save doesn't affect your ability to use another save. Similarly if a character would die from two different effects within one action window (say, claim, followed by deadly) you could discard one duplicate to save him twice.

2. Yes, duplicate saves are gained abilities on the first copy of the card.

3. Unless the card text specifies "own" or "owner" (ie, Roose Bolton, Snowed Under) "your" always refers to control. For example, Winterfell Castle gives strength to "your" Stark characters. If I took control of Winterfell Castle, my Stark characters would now have +1 strength.

4. Correct, unless the attachment was Milk of the Poppy.

[Serazu 50]

Similarly if a character would die from two different effects within one action window (say, claim, followed by deadly) you could discard one duplicate to save him twice.

Are you sure about it? The killing does not come simultaneously in this case. Firstly, the character is killed through claim (at which point I may save him) and then comes the deadly effect. How can I save him twice with a single duplicate? If I discard the duplicate after the claim killing, then the deadly effect will follow, at which point my duplicate will already be discarded. If I decide to wait till deadly to come into effect and then spend the duplicate, then the character will already be dead through claim.

[Circadia 0]

Serazu said:

 

Similarly if a character would die from two different effects within one action window (say, claim, followed by deadly) you could discard one duplicate to save him twice.

Are you sure about it? The killing does not come simultaneously in this case. Firstly, the character is killed through claim (at which point I may save him) and then comes the deadly effect. How can I save him twice with a single duplicate? If I discard the duplicate after the claim killing, then the deadly effect will follow, at which point my duplicate will already be discarded. If I decide to wait till deadly to come into effect and then spend the duplicate, then the character will already be dead through claim.

 

 

I meant one duplicate each, for each effect. There should be a comma after the "him".

[ktom 598]

The important thing to recognize on #1 is that since the two Pyrophobia's are two different cards, they are two different Responses. Canceling/saving against Response #1 does not shut down the Response opportunity; you can still play Response #2 (or #3, or #4, etc.)

[Calepin 0]

With a card like "A treath of the north", what happen if a character is already at 0 strength, like maester Aemon, for example ?

[Serazu 50]

When Valar Morghulis and Power of Blood are revealed at the same time, which of the two takes precedence? From the FAQ, I assume the Power’s constant ability is the one to take effect before the Valar's passive one, so characters with the Noble crest are unaffected by VM. Correct?

[ktom 598]

Calepin said:

With a card like "A treath of the north", what happen if a character is already at 0 strength, like maester Aemon, for example?

The character has 0 STR. The plot says that if a character has 0 STR, you discard it. Maybe where you are getting confused is that you see the STR as -1 instead of 0, so it shouldn't be discarded? A character's effective STR is never considered to be less than 0, even though the math may take it below 0. For example, if you have a 1-STR character with Poisoned Wine attached (net of -1STR) and a 3-STR character attacking, your total challenge STR is 3 (0 + 3), not 2 (-1 + 3).

Serazu said:

When Valar Morghulis and Power of Blood are revealed at the same time, which of the two takes precedence? From the FAQ, I assume the Power’s constant ability is the one to take effect before the Valar's passive one, so characters with the Noble crest are unaffected by VM. Correct?

That is indeed what the FAQ says. Constant effect plots are active from the moment they are revealed. "When revealed" plots are resolved as passive effects to revealing the plots. So "Nobles can't be killed" is there and active when "kill all characters" is resolved and the Nobles ignore Valar. It's not that one takes precedence over the other because that's simply what happens when any character "cannot be killed" when Valar is revealed. It's standard timing of plots, not a conflict that needs to be sorted out with one trumping the other.

[Serazu 50]

1. Concerning Bloodrider, what happens if I put him into play to cancel the ability of a card such as LoW Catelyn? Will she return to my opponent's hand or not?

2. Threat from the North is revealed, Drogon is in play and QoD Black Hatchling comes out of the Shadows. What happens? I believe it becomes moribund, the plot's constant effect taking precedence over the character's passive one. Then, what? Does the Hatchling's ability kick in and it attaches to Drogon or is it too late for it to be saved?

[ktom 598]

Serazu said:

1. Concerning Bloodrider, what happens if I put him into play to cancel the ability of a card such as LoW Catelyn? Will she return to my opponent's hand or not?

If you cancel LoW Catelyn's ability, she is never actually put into play and thus never actually leaves your opponent's hand. So it's still there - to be triggered again. "Put into play" character abilities are not like event cards - which involve playing the card from your hand as part of the cost. "Put into play" character abilities never actually have the card leave your hand until resolution - which doesn't happen if it is canceled.

Serazu said:

2. Threat from the North is revealed, Drogon is in play and QoD Black Hatchling comes out of the Shadows. What happens? I believe it becomes moribund, the plot's constant effect taking precedence over the character's passive one. Then, what? Does the Hatchling's ability kick in and it attaches to Drogon or is it too late for it to be saved?

Whether the hatchling's ability kicks in and turns it into a dupe or not doesn't matter because it will already be moribund. Whether it is discarded as a character or discarded as a dupe doesn't really matter - because it is discarded.

[Serazu 50]

1. He Calls it Thinking:

There's nothing preventing me from using it to cancel an Agenda's, such as Siege's, response. Right? Unless, now that I think of it,  the fact that Agendas are not in play means that nothing can affect them.

2. Red Vengeance:

The claim on which plot is the one that should be taken into account when RV is used, the attacker's one or the RV player's one? I tend to think that the "as the defender" wording dictates that the RV player's plot claim is the important one. Right?

3. Orphan of the Greenblood:

Can I use its ability to remove icons from a character that has already lost its icons or had none in the first plase? I do not think so. Am I right?