Yesterday we'd this situation:

I've Berric and my oponent plays Ygritte and take control of my Berric. Then he make a couple of challenges and claim some power. I don't have any power on my house card, and he has.

When I play "Valar", Ygritte & Berric go to moribund state because Berric can die, and I get back Berric. At this point, Berric gains "can not be killed" but he is in moribund state. I supose that Berric "ignores" the moribund state and remains in play, because he "can not be killed", like you can save Tyrion+Timett and a second clansman from a doble Valar.

Is that true?

Thank's.

I'm pretty sure the Tyrion+Timmet thing works because the "cannot be killed" is being gained before the effect resolves. My memory is that once something is moribund, adding "cannot be killed" to it WHILE it's moribund will have no effect because the character is, technically, already dead.

I don't think you regain control of Berric when the kill occurs - he goes into your opponents Moribund > Kill pile and when everything resolves he leaves moribund but goes to your dead pile

Berric gets killed because his controller, your opponent, has power on their house

An another example are the Bolton characters - if your opponent controls several of your Bolton characters and some plays VM, you do not get control of those characters before they are actually killed (There's an event card which allows you to claim a power each time a Bolton character changes control and I thought I would be able to use that)

Ygritt is a special case that retorno to you in the step 4, so you dona have to wait útil she is physically out of the game, but since berric is already death in the step 3, he does not exit from the moribund state and he is removed from game

@Hast: the question isn't whether he gets control of Beric back because he died; it's whether he gets control of Beric back because YGRITTE died. The answer is a bit ambiguous because her control change lasts until she "leaves play." It's not entirely clear whether that control change happens when she physically leaves play, or when she becomes moribund. The way she is worded makes it seem that she needs to physically leave play, in which case, you don't get control of Beric back in this situation.

But regardless of that outcome, once a character is moribund, it cannot become UN-moribund. Gaining CBK after you are already "moribund:dead" is like putting on your Kevlar vest AFTER being shot. It doesn't "undo" the death. The Tyrion/Timmett thing is totally different because Timmett gets CBK in the save/cancel step BEFORE he ever becomes moribund.

Thank's Ktom!

But then, I remember time ago people say If you control Timmett and Tyrion, you can save Timmet, Tyrion and a 3rd clansman in case of 2 Valar at the same time. Kneeling timmet to save tyrion at 1st valar, and kneeling a second clansman to save tyrion from 2ond valar. I supose that the 2on clansman shoul die like Berric, right?

Being considered "in play" is not the same as being considered "not dead." He may be "in play," but the fact that he is moribund means that he is already on the way out. The kill effect was already successful. Gaining CBK afterwards does not retroactively make Valar unable to kill him. That ship has sailed.

You are wrong. Once moribund, gaining CBK will not make him "un-moribund" and allow him to stay in play. But if you don't believe that answer, feel free to send it directly to FFG for an official response.

Thank's! Sorry I posted before read your reply :-P. Already edited.

Ah. Yes, in that "save from second Valar" idea, you are correct. The second clansman would save Tyrion (it is still "in play" despite being moribund), and its new CBK would protect it from the second Valar - if it weren't already moribund/dead from the first Valar.

Ok, all clear. Thank's a lot!

I found this topic very interesting. I've been thinking on this:

Being considered "in play" is not the same as being considered "not dead."

So let's consider that Berric's text says "Can not die" instead of "can not be killed" ( like Spanish literal translations for Berric xD) . Kill is not the same as die, so if you kill him in point 3, when does he die? he can not die in point 3 because he becames moribund so he should die in point 6 when the physical card is moved to the death pile. But if this happend, in point 4 gets "can not die" and then he can not die for moribund in point 6, no?

After all this, I think I was using some wrong concepts. If I'm right, characters can't be alive or death, they are just in play or out of play. When they are in play, they can be killed and became moribund, but nowhere say they die. So, the text "can not die" has no sense because "die" is not a state for a character.

Is all these correct? I don't know if I explained clearly enough.

I think you might be over-thinking it.

An effect kills a character. When that effect resolves, the character dies. When an effect that uses the word "kill" makes a card "moribund," the card has died - even if it takes until Step 6 to "bury" it.

It's a matter of perspective; the effect kills, the character dies. Just like the effect/mechanic "plays" a card or "puts it into play," but the card "enters play."

So functionally, there really is no difference between "this character cannot be killed (by an effect)" and "this character cannot (itself) die."

Yeah, thank's a lot.