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

#21
Zigur

Zigur

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 259 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"

 

That would do it; I'm still not thrilled about it, because it suggests that what counts as a change in game state depends on the nature of the ability, but that would do it and seems the tidiest way to explain Nate's ruling.

 

Either way I'm hoping for clarification about how to determine whether a pre-"then" effect has "successfully resolved in full before" turning to apply the post-"then" effect.



#22
Zigur

Zigur

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 259 posts

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


 

 

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.

 

I think this is roughly what Nate is suggesting.  I'm still not comfortable with how this interacts with the "successfully resolved in full before" requirement for moving from pre- to post-then effects, but it would explain why you could play to save a 4STR but not to boost/attach a 3STR.



#23
Zigur

Zigur

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 259 posts

Updates from Nate:

 

These are good questions. I think that looking at the reasoning behind the existence of the rules we’re discussing will help to understand this interaction.
 
The first two sentences of the third bullet point in the save entry provide much of this reasoning:
 
“If a constant ability or lasting effect imposes a condition upon a card that would continually drive it from play, any attempt to save that 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.”
 
The above quote describes the situation which we would have with most save attempts against Dracarys: the save would resolve, and as soon as it resolves, the terminal condition kicks back in, and the card would be killed again.
 
Instead of allowing the potential for weird “phantom saves” in which players could establish ongoing terminal effects, and then firing off a series of saves (and in some way prospering off these saves with other card abilities), we established a general rule that you cannot save from terminal conditions unless the save effect also remedies the terminal condition. 
 
In other words, it’s not that a save is somehow not able to resolve with regard to a terminal condition that establishes this rule, it’s that even if the save would resolve, the card would be immediately re-exposed to its terminal condition upon the resolution of the save, making the save ineffective. To prevent this situation, we created the rule that says such saves cannot be initiated unless the save effect also remedies the terminal condition.
 
So we get to the Dracarys (or any killed if STR is 0) interaction with Risen from the Sea.
 
A character is reduced to 0 STR, and is killed, and someone plays Risen.
 
The pre-then aspect of Risen saves the character. Upon resolution of the save, two things are imminent: the card is going to be re-exposed to the “-1 and killed if STR is 0” condition, and the post-then aspect of Risen is going to kick in. 
 
These would occur simultaneously, so if the +1 STR from Risen is enough to remedy the card from the terminal condition, the play can be made.
 
Your other questions are a result of the way in which relevant RR entries are worded:
 

 

    • 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?
The Save entry specifies “If the save effect does not also remedy the ongoing condition…”
 
The key here is that we are looking at the entire save effect, not merely the aspect of the effect that performs the save, to establish whether or not it can remedy the terminal condition and be used. In this light, Risen is seen as a single effect, with a pre-then aspect and a post then aspect. In evaluating the entire effect, Risen can save from a terminal 0 STR condition if it lifts the character above 0 STR.
 

 

    • 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?
I think that this is a case where an attempt to explain a situation in the RR is misleading. The sentence you are looking at has both a rule and the rule is then followed with an attempt to explain the situation, and I believe the additional explanation may be confusing the matter. The sentence in question is as follows:
 
"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 the above sentence, the rule itself is very explicit:
 
"If the save effect does not also remedy the ongoing condition, it cannot be initiated.”
 
The “…as…” explanation following that rule not a conditional to the rule (in other words it does not say “…IF the effect has no potential…”) — the rule always applies, and the “as…” clause seeks to help people better grasp the basic case, but confuses the more complex case. Thanks for bringing it to my attention — I will seek to better clarify this interaction in the FAQ update.
 
In short, the answer to your second question is a strict application of the actual rule in this sentence: "If the save effect does not also remedy the ongoing condition, it cannot be initiated.” This is why a single Risen must be enough to remedy the ongoing condition, and if a single Risen will not suffice, you cannot stack them together.

 

 

My reply:

 

 
Allow me to check my understanding.
 
In both the 4STR and 3STR cases, the initial "save" aspect of Risen's effect can be successfully resolved, allowing for the follow-up application of the attachment and the +1 STR.  More broadly, any "save" effect can resolve successfully (at least within the meaning of the definition provided for "then") against an ongoing kill condition.  However, the "phantom save" clause prohibits the triggering, rather than the successful resolution of a "save" effect, which will not, taken as a whole, remedy the underlying condition.  
 
The "phantom save" is different from the "no change in game state" rule.  The "phantom save" rule specifys a situation where although the game state may change (i.e., updating the Dracarys! math), a save effect which will not, taken as a whole, successfully save cannot be triggered, although it might otherwise change the game state?

 

 

 

And Nate's follow-up:

 

This is correct: there’s nothing inherently that would prevent a standard save from resolving against a terminal condition — other than the rule that prohibits the save from being initiated in the first place.
 
For example, imagine a character with an ability like:
 
Interrupt: When this character would be killed, save it.”
 
If such a character were hit with Dracarys, and we didn’t have the “saves must also remedy ongoing terminal conditions” rule, that character could enter a loop in which it saved itself from Dracarys an infinite number of times. Because of the “saves must also remedy the ongoing condition” rule, however, that loop will never exist.
 

 

In both the 4STR and 3STR cases, the initial "save" aspect of Risen's effect can be successfully resolved, allowing for the follow-up application of the attachment and the +1 STR.  More broadly, any "save" effect can resolve successfully (at least within the meaning of the definition provided for "then") against an ongoing kill condition.  However, the "phantom save" clause prohibits the triggering, rather than the successful resolution of a "save" effect, which will not, taken as a whole, remedy the underlying condition.  

In the above, I would only change “can resolve successfully” to “could (theoretically) resolve successfully,” — to the extent that, if it could be initiated, it could resolve...but the rules prevent saves that can’t remedy the ongoing condition from being initiated.
 

 

The "phantom save" is different from the "no change in game state" rule.  The "phantom save" rule specifys a situation where although the game state may change (i.e., updating the Dracarys! math), a save effect which will not, taken as a whole, successfully save cannot be triggered, although it might otherwise change the game state?
 
Yes that’s an accurate take, or looking at it from a slightly different angle: when saving from an ongoing terminal condition, if the save effect does not also remedy the terminal condition, it is automatically considered to not change the game state, regardless of any other potential for change the card might have.

 

 

TL;DR the third bullet under "save" contains some potentially misleading language (which tripped me up, but not Ktom).  You CAN use Risen from the Sea to save a 4STR character from Dracarys!, you CANNOT play 2 to save a 3STR character.



#24
ktom

ktom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1463 posts

So, important endpoint for this:

 

The "if a save doesn't also bring a card out a terminal condition, it cannot be triggered" (Rule A) should be thought of as a separate rule, not a specific application of the "abilities must have the potential to change the game state in order to be triggered" rule (Rule B).

 

As such, changes in the game state that occur but do not remove the card from the terminal state would satisfy Rule B, but not Rule A.

 

 

That may still leave the larger questions of "then" effect timing, but it is an important clarification for the Dracarys!/Risen interaction.



#25
Zigur

Zigur

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 259 posts

Based on the outcome, I think we can conclude the "then" effect is "faster" than the ongoing kill condition (at least in this case).  This does seem to complicate the sequential vs simultaneous question.  I think the simplest answer is that only an interrupt can interpose between a pre- and post-then aspect of an effect?



#26
ktom

ktom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1463 posts

Based on the outcome, I think we can conclude the "then" effect is "faster" than the ongoing kill condition (at least in this case). 

 

This was actually easier to explain in 1.0 where the "kill at 0" would have been considered a passive effect - which wouldn't initiate until the entire resolution of the effect (including the "then" aspect) resolved. 

 

I think the simplest answer is that only an interrupt can interpose between a pre- and post-then aspect of an effect?

 

That certainly works for triggered and delayed effects, but I don't think it will necessarily be true in all circumstances. Some continuing/lasting effects are going to apply throughout the entire resolution (both pre- and post- "then") and need to be considered as things progress.

 

For example, suppose an opponent had a plot card that said, "Characters controlled by your opponent cannot stand." You have a card that says, "Action: Choose a kneeling character controlled by your opponent and take control of it. Then, stand that character." Does the character you take control of stand or not? Conventional wisdom and instinct would say "no" since you cannot stand characters you control (and you do control the character you steal when you try to stand it). But an interpretation of "only an interrupt can interpose" probably would allow you to stand it - since it the continuous "cannot stand" effect has not "interposed" yet.

 

I think the explanation here - as dissatisfying to some as it is likely to be - is the bit about how, if the pre-then aspect of the effect resolves, the post-then aspect must ALSO resolve. So the fact that the pre- aspect must resolve before the post- aspect can resolve is less a question of sequential timing as it is a question of internal permission on the optional extension to the resolution of the ability's effect - since the post- aspect MUST resolve (unless otherwise prevented) once permission is established.



#27
Zigur

Zigur

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 259 posts

That certainly works for triggered and delayed effects, but I don't think it will necessarily be true in all circumstances. Some continuing/lasting effects are going to apply throughout the entire resolution (both pre- and post- "then") and need to be considered as things progress.

 

For example, suppose an opponent had a plot card that said, "Characters controlled by your opponent cannot stand." You have a card that says, "Action: Choose a kneeling character controlled by your opponent and take control of it. Then, stand that character." Does the character you take control of stand or not? Conventional wisdom and instinct would say "no" since you cannot stand characters you control (and you do control the character you steal when you try to stand it). But an interpretation of "only an interrupt can interpose" probably would allow you to stand it - since it the continuous "cannot stand" effect has not "interposed" yet.

 

I think the explanation here - as dissatisfying to some as it is likely to be - is the bit about how, if the pre-then aspect of the effect resolves, the post-then aspect must ALSO resolve. So the fact that the pre- aspect must resolve before the post- aspect can resolve is less a question of sequential timing as it is a question of internal permission on the optional extension to the resolution of the ability's effect - since the post- aspect MUST resolve (unless otherwise prevented) once permission is established.

 

Hmm.  

 

Since Risen from the Sea is interrupting Dracarys! (i.e., responding when resolution of Dracarys! is immanent but incomplete), the ongoing "would be killed if STR 0" condition doesn't resolve and "affix" to the targetted character until after Risen from the Sea resolves.  In contrast, in your example, the "no standing" effect is already resolved and at work when the "stand" component of the "take/stand" ability attempts to resolve.  I think both results can be understood consistently according to a "sequential" view of pre/post "then" text resolution.  

 

That said, we would be forced to choose which view is correct to determine the outcome where two Dracarys! were played to kill an 8 strength Ironborn character (Euron wielding Widow's Wail, perhaps) (Or Dracarys! and Plaza of Punishment were used in conjunction to try and kill a 6 STR Ironborn character).  In that case, a "kill if STR 0" effect attaches to the character prior to the resolution of Risen from the Sea, so we can't get out of the sequence/conditional problem the same way as above.  

 

I am inclined to think your intuition is correct in that case.

 

Alternatively, one could read a "then" into the text of Dracarys! so that it read "[targeted] character gets -4 STR and is then killed if its STR is 0."  This wouldn't change the meaning of the text in ordinary conversation, since you can think of "if" as the inverse of "then," but we haven't been provided with a technical definition of "if" in the RRG, so I concede it is a stretch in terms of interpreting the text of Dracarys!.  The result would be that by playing Risen from the Sea, you would jump between the immanence of the "kill if" condition for BOTH Dracarys! at the same time.

 

This approach shouldn't create consistency problems across ongoing kill conditions since they will have to be framed as "kill if."  It has the further advantage of preserving the ordinary meaning of "successfully resolved in full before" from the definition of "then".  

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=W7sfZOszIs8



#28
ktom

ktom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1463 posts

Since Risen from the Sea is interrupting Dracarys! (i.e., responding when resolution of Dracarys! is immanent but incomplete), the ongoing "would be killed if STR 0" condition doesn't resolve and "affix" to the targetted character until after Risen from the Sea resolves.

 

 

Well, Risen from the Sea is not necessarily interrupting Dracarys! It is interrupting whatever ability or action brings the character to <= 0 STR, and so makes the "kill at 0" delayed effect applicable. (And yes, it is a delayed effect - which indicates that something happens when a future condition is met - and NOT a constant effect - which is active only while the card that creates it is "in play" - as it has been referred to a number of times previously in this thread) Remember that Dracarys! isn't necessarily what creates the conditions necessary for the "kill at 0" to apply. (Think of using it on a 5-STR character, which is later declared as an attacker or defender while Daenarys is standing. Dracarys! is long-gone. In that case, you are interrupting the act of declaring the character as a participating in the challenge - which will make Dany's constant effect applicable, which will make the "kill at 0" delayed effect initiate "automatically and immediately.")

 

Point is, the ongoing "killed if STR 0" condition from Dracarys! is just as likely to be "already resolved and at work" as the hypothetical "cannot stand" ability.

 

I think the real explanation is in the "Priority of Simultaneous Resolution" entry:

 

 

If two or more constant abilities and/or lasting effects cannot be applied simultaneously, the  first player determines the order in which the constant abilities are applied.

 

If we accept the idea of the post- then aspect of the effect as something that MUST happen (whether you want it to or not) when the pre- then aspect completes, we know from this entry that the preference is for things that must happen, but are not triggered, to be applied at the same time, if possible. Effectively, we treat the consequences of both the "kill at 0" and the post- then aspect of the "then" effect as being applicable at the same time when the pre- then aspect is resolved. So, since we can apply the "kill at 0" and "then attach as +1 STR" conditions at the same time - by saying the character's STR is >0 and not meeting the "kill" conditions - we do (and the character doesn't die). Similarly, for the hypothetical, since "characters you control cannot stand" and "then stand the stolen character" can be applied at the same time - by saying the character is controlled by you and so meets the conditions for "cannot stand" - we do (and the character doesn't stand).

 

Now granted, the entry in the FAQ doesn't specifically relate to the post- aspects of "then" effects, but the "apply at the same time, if possible" explanation for the interaction between post- aspects of "then" effects and constant/lasting/initiation of delayed effects is the most consistent I think we've come up with yet. With luck, an FAQ will clarify this, and some other, bits about resolving "then" abilities.

 

btw: an example of constant/lasting effects that could not be applied at the same time, and so would require the FP to make a choice, would be something like having a "kill at 0" and a "discard at 0" effect active at the same time.



#29
Zigur

Zigur

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 259 posts

I think the majority of my post (second paragraph and on) of my post addressed that situation.  At any rate, I think we substantially agree on the process/outcome.  I am sure this area of the rules will be fleshed out as card interactions become more varied and complicated.



#30
mplain

mplain

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1442 posts

For example, suppose an opponent had a plot card that said, "Characters controlled by your opponent cannot stand." You have a card that says, "Action: Choose a kneeling character controlled by your opponent and take control of it. Then, stand that character." Does the character you take control of stand or not? Conventional wisdom and instinct would say "no" since you cannot stand characters you control (and you do control the character you steal when you try to stand it). But an interpretation of "only an interrupt can interpose" probably would allow you to stand it - since it the continuous "cannot stand" effect has not "interposed" yet.

 
This hypothetical example is 90% similar to my question about Frozen Expanse and Osha.
 

Similarly, for the hypothetical, since "characters you control cannot stand" and "then stand the stolen character" can be applied at the same time - by saying the character is controlled by you and so meets the conditions for "cannot stand" - we do (and the character doesn't stand).


So which one is it -- does the stolen character stand or not?