I noticed that when a Follower is killed (the text uses the word "kill,") either nothing else happens or the character loses a life instead.

Whereas when a Follower is just discarded, using language other than "kill," other things could happen (gain rewards, etc.) and we would be concerned that preventing Follower death in these cases would lead to reward-spamming, etc.

What do you guys think about expanding the definition of Follower death to include those effects that would either discard Followers or lose life instead?

You might think, "Why bother?" Well, to pick just one example, consider the Vampire's Tower space allows you to discard Followers to prevent life loss, while the Vampiric Dragon space (almost the identical space) allows you to kill Followers to prevent life loss. It's a bit inconsistent. But we shouldn't go so far as to say every discard counts as a kill (poor Hag isn't killed by the Mystic, right?) So happy medium...

The 24 effects that kill Followers are (notice there's never any alternative reward/penalty other than life loss):

Kill only: Chasm, Gladiator (trained Followers), Magus (indoctrinated Followers), Hidden Chasm, Falling Slab, Sluagh, Cyclops, Baba Yaga, Soul Drinker, Faithful Hound, Champion, Friendly Giant, Narrow Path. Either k ill Follower or lose life: Vampiric Dragon space, Shrine Priest. Kill Follower, or lose life if you have none: Werewolf, Giant Beetle, Vampire Prince, Vampiric Dragon Enemy.

If we expand the definition of kill as above, we add the following 9 effects:

Either discard Follower or lose life: Vampire's Tower, Lost City, Warlord, Leper, Snake Pit, Rock Face. Discard Follower or lose life if you have none: Grim Reaper, Varthrax (Dragon Rage), Temple Drake.

So if we expand the definition to include the above, it has the following advantages:

1. It's only 9 effects, so the list of exceptions is short. (Kill would increase from 24 to 33 effects.)
2. Definition isn't based on personal interpretation. Effects that already kill Followers only have life loss as an alternative, as do these. (Consistent definition; bridges inconsistencies between Vampire's Tower/Vampiric Dragon, etc.)
3. Gives more weight to gameplay including players who have only basic game and Preservation Spell. Kill only: You would want to preserve them. Kill Follower, or lose life if you have none: You would want to preserve them (you kill Follower, then preserve him, but you don't lose a life because you only lose a life if you have none). Kill Follower or lose life: Your opponents would want to preserve them (if you don't kill Followers, you must lose life. This prevents characters like Valkyrie from strolling through Vampire's Tower, but also makes holding on to the Preservation Spell more exciting for players who own the base game only, as they can force a player to preserve his Follower at the Tower and lose life instead. This space in the base game otherwise just says "discard.")

With all the other effects that discard Followers, we are left with ambiguous sacrifices (e.g. Temple), Followers that could simply run away (e.g. Warhorse), Followers that simply leave, and other language that is just more debatable. Lastly I didn't consider burn or discarding face-up cards (e.g. Destruction Spell) as I don't think those count as kills...

So what do you guys think about defining Follower death as, "Any effect with text that uses the word kill, in addition to the following: Vampire's Tower, Lost City, Warlord, Leper, Snake Pit, Rock Face, Grim Reaper, Varthrax (Dragon Rage), and Temple Drake?" Thanks for your feedback...let me know if I missed any effects or if there are any downsides to this.

EDIT: Credit to Warlock for actually starting the list of effects in another topic.

For me a follower is killed if we can assume that the effect killed the follower. The word "kill" help, though. So even if I'm discarding a follower on the Vampire's Tower, I assume that the Follower is killed, and is not playing some chess with the Vampire.

In the examples above, for me only the Lost City and the Leper are not killing. Leper ultimately will kill the follower, but it won't be an instant death. From the other side the Warhorse is killed instead of running away. Also, it is kind of hard to call a burned followers alive, and they're killed as well. Assuming they already were on the board, and are not removed from the top of the deck.

I personally think "now think hehehe" the words kill and killed all key to other effects and abilities that key to killed. So in effect to have your follower killed it has to say such. I used to think warhorse is "killed" when you lose battle or pc but in key terms this is not the case.

I personally think "now think hehehe" the words kill and killed all key to other effects and abilities that key to killed. So in effect to have your follower killed it has to say such. I used to think warhorse is "killed" when you lose battle or pc but in key terms this is not the case.

Yes, being strict and saying only "kill = kill" is certainly the cleanest way!

I just couldn't help but think the designers let a few kills slip by as "discard," with the vamp being my favorite example...

I personally think "now think hehehe" the words kill and killed all key to other effects and abilities that key to killed. So in effect to have your follower killed it has to say such. I used to think warhorse is "killed" when you lose battle or pc but in key terms this is not the case.

Yes, being strict and saying only "kill = kill" is certainly the cleanest way!

I just couldn't help but think the designers let a few kills slip by as "discard," with the vamp being my favorite example...

Thats what the magicial FAQ is for.... Where ever the next one is hehehe.