12 replies to this topic

[ingsve]

With the recent ruling about Jory Cassel and Catelyn I remembered another old interaction with his type of ability that I just wanted to check that it will work in 2.0 as well.

 

Jory can save himself from burn right? So that he ends up in the discardpile instead of the deadpile. The reason I think it would work is that since he is sacrificed to trigger his ability he will be removed from the terminal state which would then make it a legal trigger. That's how it used to work with the old CCG versions of his effects and I see no reason why it would be different now.

[mplain]

When assessing if a save attempt would successfully save a character and keep him alive, you do not take costs into account. Same as with changing the game state.

"Therefore, if the save effect does not also remedy the ongoing condition..."

Sacrificing Jory is a cost to use his ability, not a part of the save effect.

So no, you cannot attempt to save Jory from terminal burn with his own ability.

[ingsve]

Hmm, ya that might be the correct way to interpret the rules as written. Which just goes to show that the rules are flawed and full of mistakes. Saves like this never belong in the deadpile. Perhaps Nate can give a special ruling that allows this because otherwise it's a crime against nature.

[mplain]

Nate gave a special ruling explicitly prohibiting you from doing this, or saving a low STR char from Dracarys by playing multiple Risens. The "must change the game state" rule doesn't mind you using saves against terminal burn, but the entry under "Saves" does. It's not a mistake, it was done on purpose.

Although now that we know that infinite loops are still possible in 2.0 anyway, i'm not sure if this "must remedy the ongoing condition" rule actually does any good...

[ingsve]

Well, saving a low STR character with multiple Risen is a different matter altogether. The only thing that prevents Jory saving himself would be the specific wording that it's the effect that has to remove the character from the terminal state rather than it happening by the overall triggering of the effect.

[mplain]

Well, the distinction between costs and effects is pretty clear and universal in this game.

[ingsve]

Well, the distinction between costs and effects is pretty clear and universal in this game.

 

Yes, ofc but this is a special case which possibly wasn't considered when writing the rules and to me it would seem that the important thing is whether the terminal state remains after a save is triggered rather than the specific question of what part of triggering the save removed the state. We could even imagine a future card that gives +STR to kneeling characters and then you could have a situation where you could kneel Maester Aemon to save himself from burn if you allow the terminal state to be removed by costs also.

 

Given the wording in the RR it's clear what the ruling is but that doesn't mean it's the most intuitive ruling.

[Zigur]

Yes, ofc but this is a special case which possibly wasn't considered when writing the rules and to me it would seem that the important thing is whether the terminal state remains after a save is triggered rather than the specific question of what part of triggering the save removed the state. We could even imagine a future card that gives +STR to kneeling characters and then you could have a situation where you could kneel Maester Aemon to save himself from burn if you allow the terminal state to be removed by costs also.

 

Given the wording in the RR it's clear what the ruling is but that doesn't mean it's the most intuitive ruling.

 

Given the new distinction between save "attempts" and save "effects," provided this was an ongoing effect, my reading is it would be permissible, just like blanking Sadsa or adding power to 7Cat.

 

I don't think anybody but Nate knows what's within the 4 corners of a save "attempt," so who knows.  My best guess is the totality of the save effect, considered in conjunction with lasting effects (and probably forced reactions/interrupts) on the table, but ignoring player-triggered reactions or interrupts.  

 

With that in mind, It's not clear to me why a cost (in this case, Jory sacrificing himself) wouldn't be a part of the save attempt, although it's surely not a part of the save effect. Nate's communications with me made it pretty clear the save effect had to be sufficient to remedy the ongoing communication, but his new ruling broadened it to save attempt, which... well, as I said, who knows.

[andrewaa]

Then can Jory save himself from ptts?

[LaurenF]

Then can Jory save himself from ptts?

 

Jory definitely can save himself from any non-burn kill effect, including targeted kill (Put to the Sword) and claim. He still goes to the discard pile as a cost of his effect though.

[Mallyb]

Ah I've played him wrong then, I thought cus he doesnt really save anyone (as he would be off the board) then you couldnt trigger it... So confused!

[istaril]

Ah I've played him wrong then, I thought cus he doesnt really save anyone (as he would be off the board) then you couldnt trigger it... So confused!

 

http://www.cardgamed...27-jory-cassel/

[mplain]

Best Answer

The word of Nate:

 

Hello Nate! One more question please.
Can Jory Cassel save himself from Dracarys?
Jory's ability would *kinda* remedy the ongoing condition - he wouldn't be killed for having 0 STR anymore, because he'd be out of play and in the discard pile.
Sacrificing Jory is a cost, not an effect, but it's still a part of the *save attempt*, so could this work?
I'm also thinking of a hypothetical card in lieu with the old 1.0 faction events that said "stand a character to [do some cool stuff]". Imagine a card that says "Save a character to give it 1 power". Would this card be able to save new Catelyn Stark (WotN) from Dracarys + Blood of the Dragon?
Thanks Nate!

 

Hello,

The rules reference reads: “If the save effect does not remedy the ongoing condition, it cannot be initiated."

Jory’s ability is a save effect:

To see if the save effect is legal, we must see if the application of the effect will remove the character from the terminal condition. The cost is not factored into this consideration. In this case, a successful application of the effect would not remove Jory from the terminal condition, so the ability cannot be triggered.

For your hypothetical card, you have created an ability where the save is not an effect, but a part of the cost. I don’t believe that we would create such a card, but it would be a case where the above quoted line ( “If the save effect does not remedy the ongoing condition, it cannot be initiated.”) is not applicable. This would be a case where we would need to apply the more general rule: “Any attempt to save the card must also remedy the ongoing condition.”

I realize that there has been some confusion about the two phrases, as people have tried to parse the difference between “effect” and “attempt.” I think the best way to consider these rules is as two different layers of prevention:

1) If the save is part of an effect, the specific rule applies: “If the save effect does not remedy the ongoing condition, it cannot be initiated.”

2) If the save is not part of an effect (none such exist yet, and may or may not ever), the more general “any attempt to save the card must also remedy the ongoing condition” would be used to cover the situation.

Nate

 

tl;dr The cost is not factored into this consideration