Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Dracarys + Risen from the Sea

- - - - -

Best Answer istaril , 02 November 2015 - 03:03 PM

Assuming the character was at 4 STR prior to the application of Dracarys, Risen from the sea will save the character, as the successful resolution of the save would also result in the successful resolution of the +1 STR, which would remove the terminal state. 

 

Relevant entry, RRp19 "Saves"
 

xIf a constant ability or lasting e ect imposes a

condition upon a card that would continually drive

it from play (for example, a lasting e ect that applies to

a character over a period of time, and kills that character

if its STR is 0), any attempt to save the card must

also remedy the ongoing condition. Otherwise, upon

resolution of the save attempt, the card is immediately

re-exposed to the ongoing condition, and removed

from play.  erefore, if the save e ect does not also

remedy the ongoing condition, it cannot be initiated,

as the e ect has no potential to change the game

state. As such, using a duplicate to save from such an

ongoing condition is also prohibited.

 

Go to the full post »


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1
slivah

slivah

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

What happens when risen from the sea is used to save the character from dying due to the effects of the dracarys?is it saved or the second phrase of the event isnt resolved and therefore the character dies ?



#2
istaril

istaril

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1732 posts
✓  Best Answer

Assuming the character was at 4 STR prior to the application of Dracarys, Risen from the sea will save the character, as the successful resolution of the save would also result in the successful resolution of the +1 STR, which would remove the terminal state. 

 

Relevant entry, RRp19 "Saves"
 

xIf a constant ability or lasting e ect imposes a

condition upon a card that would continually drive

it from play (for example, a lasting e ect that applies to

a character over a period of time, and kills that character

if its STR is 0), any attempt to save the card must

also remedy the ongoing condition. Otherwise, upon

resolution of the save attempt, the card is immediately

re-exposed to the ongoing condition, and removed

from play.  erefore, if the save e ect does not also

remedy the ongoing condition, it cannot be initiated,

as the e ect has no potential to change the game

state. As such, using a duplicate to save from such an

ongoing condition is also prohibited.

 



#3
Alexfrog

Alexfrog

    Advanced Member

  • Small Council
  • 480 posts

If the +1 saves them from being 0 they live.  If they are still 0 even with it they die again.



#4
slivah

slivah

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Interrupt: When a [Greyjoy] character would be killed, save it. Then, attach Risen from the Sea to that character as a Condition attachment with the text: “Terminal. Attached character gets +1 STR.” 

My question exactly is that the 1st phrase ends after the save it.So the whole text of the card resolves also or after the save the character still remains 0 str so he must die before resolving the attach condition ?i am just a bit confused prior to the 1st edition texting etcetc . Ty in advance for your time



#5
istaril

istaril

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1732 posts

Interrupt: When a [Greyjoy] character would be killed, save it. Then, attach Risen from the Sea to that character as a Condition attachment with the text: “Terminal. Attached character gets +1 STR.” 

My question exactly is that the 1st phrase ends after the save it.So the whole text of the card resolves also or after the save the character still remains 0 str so he must die before resolving the attach condition ?i am just a bit confused prior to the 1st edition texting etcetc . Ty in advance for your time

 

It's certainly a puzzling situation - in fact, "Then" effects are one of the few in which we've had to go straight to Nate for clarification on the timing - you can find that information here. It's clear that both the save and the attach-to-character share the same initiation point, and what seems to be the case here is that the "then" is more of a conditional than something separating the two in time. That is to say that the "then attach" thing happens IF the save happens, not after. That's not quite the case (since the two effects are interrupted separately), but I think that's how it's intended to be treated by the game. Especially given that the RRp19 entry is specifically written in such a way that calls to mind Risen from the Sea/Burn, and that it worked this way in first edition.

 

That said, you could certainly convincingly argue (as you do) that there's a gap in between the resolution of the two effects, and therefore the constant 'kills' the character before the Then effect initiates. If you want to rule that out officially, I suggest you send in your question directly to FFG here. If you do, please be sure to post both your exact question and your answer when you get them!

 

Edit: Moderately relevant link.



#6
keranov

keranov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts

What about the following situation, which just came up in octgn:

 

I am making a challenge with Theon (3 STR) knowing that I have 2 x Risen from the Sea and can boost it to 5 STR to prevent a potential Dracarys.

The opponent plays a Dracarys on him and Theon is now -1 STR (if the STR can go negative at all).

I play the first Risen which boosts the STR of Theon with 1 to a total of 0. I guess boosting the STR is a game state change, so I am allowed to play it.

Theon is still at 0 STR and is going to die from Dracarys' lasting effect, so I play my second Interrupt (Risen) and boost him to 1 STR total to save him from dying.

 

Is this correct?



#7
istaril

istaril

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1732 posts

What about the following situation, which just came up in octgn:

 

I am making a challenge with Theon (3 STR) knowing that I have 2 x Risen from the Sea and can boost it to 5 STR to prevent a potential Dracarys.

The opponent plays a Dracarys on him and Theon is now -1 STR (if the STR can go negative at all).

I play the first Risen which boosts the STR of Theon with 1 to a total of 0. I guess boosting the STR is a game state change, so I am allowed to play it.

Theon is still at 0 STR and is going to die from Dracarys' lasting effect, so I play my second Interrupt (Risen) and boost him to 1 STR total to save him from dying.

 

Is this correct?

 

No - the problem here is that the first save would not be succesful, so it can't be initiated at all. It would fail to save the target (the then conditional would fail accordingly), there would be no change in game state. 

 

The relevant passage is on p19, "Saves"

any attempt to save the card must also remedy the ongoing condition. Otherwise, upon resolution of the save attempt, the card is immediately re-exposed to the ongoing condition, and removed from play. Therefore, if the save effect does not also remedy the ongoing condition, it cannot be initiated, as the effect has no potential to change the game state.

 

 

In this case, the first Risen from the Sea does not pull the character out of the "kill if 0 state", so cannot be used at all.



#8
uday

uday

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

So I was thinking about this very long. I don't have Rules Refernece handy and FFG page don't work for me right now, but I'll try to include relevant paragraphs later. Let me know if you find any (I mean ANY) flaws in those examples.

 

Dracarys played on 4 STR Greyjoy character. Attempt to play Risen. We check if it's legal:

Save character, then (but in fact exactly at the same time) we attach it and give +1 STR. This means character is now at 1 STR and we successfully stop character from constantly being killed. Save is legal then, we changed game state so we can play Risen.

 

Dracarys played on 3 STR Greyjoy character. Attempt to play Risen. We check if it's legal:

Save character, then (but in fact exactly at the same time) we attach it and give +1 STR. This means character is still at 0 STR and we didn't stop character from being constantly killed. This means that 1st part of card (save) is not legal to apply. This means that "then" part never resolves. Card will not change game state, thus is illegal to be played.



#9
istaril

istaril

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1732 posts

100% correct.



#10
uday

uday

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

I find this logic very convoluted.

 

Save -> +1 STR (change of game state) -> total STR still 0 so save illegal to play -> save illegal to play so +1 STR cannot be resolved -> whole card cannot be played.

 

I'm not really sure that's how "then" effects work. Pre-then effect must be resolved successfully (game state must change) to start resolving post-then effect. So in case of 4 STR character if sole pre-then save effect is successfull, why can't it be successfull with 3 STR character?



#11
istaril

istaril

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1732 posts

I find this logic very convoluted.

 

Save -> +1 STR (change of game state) -> total STR still 0 so save illegal to play -> save illegal to play so +1 STR cannot be resolved -> whole card cannot be played.

 

I'm not really sure that's how "then" effects work. Pre-then effect must be resolved successfully (game state must change) to start resolving post-then effect. So in case of 4 STR character if sole pre-then save effect is successfull, why can't it be successfull with 3 STR character?

 

Then effects are among the trickiest in the game, timing wise. I find it easier to think of them as conditional rather than temporal; the resolution of one effect depends upon the other, but there isn't really a timing delay. They were hashed out in detail here.

 

I do see your point here; you're not worried about the conditionality, but the fact that whether a card was legal to play depends (in this case) on whether one of its effects resolves to allow the other to resolve upon which the first effect might depend, which would then allows you to initiate it. It's... well, convoluted is the right word. Obviously, if it said "Save AND give +1 str" you could use it regardless of whether the save would work, as the +1 STR would affect the game state.



#12
Zigur

Zigur

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 259 posts

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation, Istaril.  I think Risen can either ALWAYS be played in response to Dracarys! or it can NEVER be played in response.  I find your yes if 4 STR, no if 3 or less STR interpretation unsatisfying, because it means that the conditional/timing rules relating to effects depend on the strength of the character.  I must say, on careful examination I believe the answer might actually be that you can NEVER use Risen to save from Dracarys!.

 

RRG, p. 19:  SAVE... If a constant ability or lasting effect imposes a condition upon a card that would continually drive it from play (for example, a lasting effect that applies to a character over a period of time, and kills that character if its STR is 0), any attempt to save the card must also remedy the ongoing condition. Otherwise, upon resolution of the save attempt, the card is immediately re-exposed to the ongoing condition, and removed from play. Therefore, if the save effect does not also remedy the ongoing condition, it cannot be initiated, as the effect has no potential to change the game state.

 

RRG, p. 21: THEN... If the effect text of an ability includes the word “then,” the text preceding the word “then” must be successfully resolved in full (i.e. the game state changes to reflect the intent of the pre-then aspect of the effect in its entirety) before the remainder of the effect described after the word “then” can be resolved.

x If the pre-then aspect of an effect does successfully resolve in full, the resolution of the post-then aspect of the effect must also attempt to resolve.

x If the pre-then aspect of an effect does not successfully resolve in full, the post-then aspect does not attempt to resolve.

 

 

 

Here's the bottom line: either Dracarys! kills the character after the "save" effect but before the "+1" effect on Risen from the Sea in BOTH cases, or in NEITHER case.  There is no intelligible reason why Dracarys! would pseudo-interrupt Risen from the Sea in the case of a 3 STR character but operate as a pseudo-response in the case of a 4 STR character.  If Dracarys! "interrupts" to kill the character, it kills him/her in both cases, since the "+1" has not been applied and the character's strength is still 0.  On this view, Risen from the Sea can never be played in response to Dracarys!, because it will never affect the game state - no effective save, and no +1.  If Dracarys! "responds" to Risen, then the +1 affects the game state in BOTH cases (either resulting in a ((4 + 1) - 4) = 1 STR character; or resulting in a ((3 + 1) - 4) =  0 STR dying character.  In either case, the game state has changed as a result of forcing a new calculation on the Dracarys! math and, going forward, potentially changing the interaction of certain cards (i.e., a second Risen from the Sea) on the updated game state.

 

I take your point about a "conditional" versus "temporal" interpretation of "then," although I would note that the definition of "then" provides both "conditional" and "temporal" cues (e.g., "before") but I disagree with the application in this particular case.  The "save" does not depend on the "+1" - the "+1" depends on the "save," and the save is ineffective in BOTH cases, UNLESS you take the view that the "kill if 0" state is put on hold for the application of Risen from the Sea.  It doesn't matter whether the character had 4 STR or 3 STR before Dracarys! was played.  If Dracarys! "interrupts," the character dies and the +1 cannot save them.  If Dracarys! "responds," the +1 is effective at changing the game state even in the case of a 3 STR character. 

 

Per the rules, the "save" aspect of Risen's effect must successfully resolve in full in order for the "+1" component of Risen from the Sea to attempt to resolve.  But, the "save" effect cannot successfully resolve in full before the +1 attempts to resolve IN EITHER CASE.  Since the save cannot resolve in full without the +1, the RRG suggests that Risen from the Sea is quite deliberately an ineffective tool for saving from Dracarys! - it would need to read "save AND give +1 strength" or "when a character would be killed, give it +1 STR and then save it" in order to save from burn.

 

In the alternative, if that interpretation is wrong and the "kill if 0" effect is put on hold pending the resolution of Risen from the Sea, Risen from the Sea can be played in either case, since the +1 resolves and impact the game state.

 

I note that this is not all that different from the Arianne discussion.  To grossly simplify the difference, assume a card reads "X, then Y."  The "Arianne" problem is "what happens to effect Y if X's resolution is prevented?"  The answer: Y does not occur.  The "Risen" problem is "what happens to effect Y if X's successful resolution depends on Y resolving?"  It seems to me that the answer is also: Y does not occur.  I would argue you can't play the card and treat it as if it read "Y then X" or "X and Y" - you didn't get X to successfully resolve in full before the resolution of Y, so you don't get Y.



#13
istaril

istaril

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1732 posts

I'm amused, because I made the same case in 1st edition, and was ruled against (this same situation existed). I think you've caught me in a situation where I'm taking first edition (confirmed) rulings, and trying to reverse engineer them to make them work as I'm making assumptions of preserved intent. Which is what I try to disabuse others of, so I applaud you for catching me in it!

 

You've convinced me, here - I'll flag Ktom to get his thoughts on it as well, but I strongly recommend you send in this question (and post the question you send in) to FFG through the rules link provided in the pinned threads here.



#14
Zigur

Zigur

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 259 posts

I have sent the e-mail and will update when I get a reply!



#15
uday

uday

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation, Istaril.  I think Risen can either ALWAYS be played in response to Dracarys! or it can NEVER be played in response.  I find your yes if 4 STR, no if 3 or less STR interpretation very unsatisfying, because it means that the conditional/timing rules relating to effects depend on the strength of the character.

My thoughts exactly at first.

 

 

I must say, on careful examination I believe the answer might actually be that you can NEVER use Risen to save from Dracarys!.

My thaughts exactly at second.

 

I'm still not convinced to either of 3 interpretations, but I'll try to argue for classic (Istaril's) one. Moreso to convince myself than anything. I'm assuming here that pre-then and post-then are done at exactly the same time.

 

Dracarys vs 4STR character and Risen.
Playing Risen and resolving save, then +1 STR has possibility to actually remove constant kill effect. Thus pre-then (save) is legal to resolve, which makes post-then to resolve also.

 

Dracarys vs 3STR character and Risen.

Playing Risen and resolving save, then +1 STR has no possibility to actually remove constnt kill effect. Thus pre-then (save) fails to resolve, which makes post-then impossible to resolve. No game state change - card illegal to play.

 

Oh it would be so much easier if it was save and +1STR, or even, +1 STR, then save. I really hope for good explanation from Nate and/or errata.



#16
Zigur

Zigur

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 259 posts

The word of Nate:

 

Risen from the Sea is Treated as a single effect or game occurrence, with both a pre-then and a post-then aspect. (In other words, it is not treated as two separate effects.)

 
The entry under the Save heading establishes that saves against ongoing conditions (such as that established by Dracarys) can be used if the save effect would also remedy the ongoing condition. As the game considers both the pre-then and the post-then aspects of Risen from the Sea as a single effect, it qualifies as remedying the ongoing condition as long as the +1 STR is enough of a boost to raise the character above STR 0.
 
If one copy of Risen from the Sea would not remedy the ongoing condition, the save could not be played due additional language under the Rules Reference entry on Save (third bullet point): “…Therefore, if the save effect does not also remedy the ongoing condition, it cannot be initiated.” 

 

 
 
As you can imagine, this response doesn't sit well with me, given my lengthy post above.  I sent Nate a follow up e-mail:
 
 
  1. How should the definition of "then," which states that "... the text preceding the word "then" must be successfully resolved in full (i.e., the game state changes to reflect the intent of the pre-then aspect of the effect in its entirety) before the remainder of the effect described after the word "then" can be resolved," be interpreted?
    • In this particular case, I am confused about how the save aspect of Risen's effect can be successfully resolved in full before the +1 STR is added, since the +1 STR is necessary for the save to be effective.
  2. I have two questions about the text in the third bullet under "Save," which I think quoted in full reads: "... if the save effect does not also remedy the ongoing condition, it cannot be initiated, as the effect has no potential to change the game state."
    • First, since Risen's effect has two aspects, I am unclear how this section applies.  Is the fact that Risen has a save aspect enough to make this text apply, even though it also has a +STR aspect?
    • Second, I read the text here as not prohibiting the use of futile saves, but prohibiting the use of cards which have no potential to change the game state; why is it that playing Risen and forcing the Dracarys! math to update doesn't qualify?  We know this could change the game state at least insofar as it would allow a second Risen to be played successfully?

 

 

 



#17
ktom

ktom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1462 posts
Since that bullet defines a save that doesn't REMOVE a character from the underlying condition (completely) as a failure to change the game state, wouldn't a "partial removal" from the underlying condition (like 1 Risen when +2 is needed) fail that definition? Meaning that "no futile saves" and "must have the potential to change the game state" are the same thing in this context - since the rules define anything other than the complete removal of the underlying condition as an unsuccessful change in game state?

#18
Zigur

Zigur

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 259 posts

Since that bullet defines a save that doesn't REMOVE a character from the underlying condition (completely) as a failure to change the game state, wouldn't a "partial removal" from the underlying condition (like 1 Risen when +2 is needed) fail that definition? Meaning that "no futile saves" and "must have the potential to change the game state" are the same thing in this context - since the rules define anything other than the complete removal of the underlying condition as an unsuccessful change in game state?

 

I don't think the rules specifically define what constitutes a "change in game state" anywhere, and I read the third bullet Nate is directing our attention to as merely re-stating the rule from page 2 that "A card ability can only be initiated if its effect has the potential to change the game state. This potential is assessed without taking into account the consequences of the cost payment or any other ability interactions."  I don't read it as creating a special clause that abilities which have a save aspect cannot be played unless the save will be successful, I think it's just re-stating the general rule that cards whose effects won't independently do anything to change the game state can't be played.

 

I think perhaps the best reading of what Nate is saying is that the +1 on its own is insufficient to change game state "without taking into account... any other card ability interactions," sort of like trying to drop Seen in Flames to get Mel's kneel against an opponent with no cards in hand.  The +1 doesn't matter without the second Risen?  The trouble for me is that it IS doing something - forcing the Dracarys! math to update and adding an attachment to the dying character.  I guess adding the attachment and updating the challenge math are purely formal changes to the game state that don't matter unless you plan to play the second Risen or have some other weird reaction to do.

 

I guess the takeaway is different math, same outcome = no change in game state?  

 

So, by similar logic, you couldn't attach a Little Bird to a character with an INT icon, since while the math would update, we don't care unless a different ability which takes away an INT icon is played - you couldn't, for example, preempt Calleote + Tears.



#19
ktom

ktom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1462 posts
But "different math, same outcome" has been specifically ruled as a change in game state for situations like adding/removing icons.

The problem here is that people seem to be trying to generalize the rules stated under the "saves" section in the RRG into non-save circumstances. I think the real takeaway here is, "If you try to SAVE and the result is that the card is still required to leave play by the same effect, there is no change in game state, no matter WHAT other consequences the save effect may have"
  • Zigur likes this

#20
uday

uday

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

I promised I'll put paragraphs from rulebook so here they are.
 

The word “Then”
If the effect text of an ability includes the word “then,” the text preceding the word “then” must be successfully resolved in full (i.e. the game state changes to reflect the intent of the pre-then aspect of the effect in its entirety) before the remainder of the effect described after the word “then” can be resolved.

  • If the pre-then aspect of an effect does successfully resolve in full, the resolution of the post-then aspect of the effect must also attempt to resolve. 
  • If the pre-then aspect of an effect does not successfully resolve in full, the post-then aspect does not attempt to resolve.
  • If a constant ability or lasting effect imposes a condition upon a card that would continually drive it from play (for example, a lasting effect that applies to a character over a period of time, and kills that character if its STR is 0), any attempt to save the card must also remedy the ongoing condition. Otherwise, upon resolution of the save attempt, the card is immediately re-exposed to the ongoing condition, and removed from play. Therefore, if the save effect does not also remedy the ongoing condition, it cannot be initiated, as the effect has no potential to change the game state. As such, using a duplicate to save from such an ongoing condition is also prohibited.
  • A card ability can only be initiated if its effect has the potential to change the game state. This potential is assessed without taking into account the consequences of the cost payment or any other ability interactions.

 

 

So when checking if ability can be played we check if it will change game state (according to Quote 3). Potential changes when playing Risen: saving character from kill effect, putting attachment in play, creating lasting +1 boost to characters STR.

 

We have a "then" card so while checking if it can be played we must determine if pre-then effect can successfully resolve and change game state (see Quote 1).

If it does resolve in full, post-then aspect must also attempt to resolve (still Quote 1). In this case we'll put attachment in play and put +1 STR boost on character (change of game state).

If it does not resolve, post then aspect does not even attempt to resolve, thus no change in game state at all, which prohibits us from playing card in first place.

 

Risen is (among other things) a save effect so to determine if pre-then aspect of card can resolve we must check if whole effect (save, then +1 STR) can also remedy the ongoing kill condition.

If answer is yes, then pre-then effect can resolve, thus post-then effect can resolve, thus we successfully saved character and put +1 boost, thus remedied ongoing kill effect.

If answer is no, then pre-then effect cannot resolve, thus post-then effect do not attempt to resolve, thus this effect as whole has no potential to change game state, thus we cannot play it.

 

 

 

I still have problem with that, because of timing. As Zigur pointed in his post and as we discuss in Warhammer's thread if timing is:

pre-then and post-then are seperate occurances, then my whole post above is worth nothing.

pre-then and post-then are single occurance, then I have issue with Warhammer.


  • Zigur likes this