1. I wonder how the Red Vengeance works during power challenges, in mil or int it is pretty obvious that I have to kill one of my chars or discard one of my cards, but in power? do i take one power from MY house to MY house or do I give it to my opponent?

2. Eurons immunity to events prevents him from being saved by Risen from the Sea or not?

Rozy said:

This is probably the most confusing part of Red Vengeance. The Martell player does not become the winner of the challenge. It doesn't even stop the Martell player from being considered the loser of the challenge. The opponent is still the winner and the Martell player is still the loser of the challenge. This is very important because it means Red Vengeance will not stop the opponent from playing "after you win" Responses, or allow the Martell player to play them. Similarly, it does not stop the Martell player from playing "after you lose" Responses, or allow the opponent to play them.

All the event does is make the winner execute the claim effect "as if" they had lost the challenge. As you say, pretty straight-forward for military and intrigue. Less clear for power. To resolve claim for a power challenge, the "loser" must take 1 power from his/her House card and move it to the "winner's" House card. In this case, though, the "loser" satisfying claim and the winner of the challenge are one and the same, so you are correct: if you played this on me during a power challenge, I would pick up power from my House card and move it to...my House card. The net effect is that nothing moves.

At first glance, that makes this card pretty useless during a power challenge, but there are times when no net movement of power is going to be critical - like if you're going second and that extra power from your House card lets your opponent win before you can challenge.

Rozy said:

Yes. "Immune to events" means immune to all events, even friendly ones.

Is it the same with Doran Martell and losing in attack as with Red Vengeance?

Rozy said:

No. The situations are different.

If I attack and lose, there is normally no claim effect to resolve.

However, with Doran, when the attacker loses, there is a claim effect to resolve. In a power challenge, the "loser" moves power from his/her House card to the "winner's" House card, same as always. The only difference is that the loser is the attacker (always was in this case) and the winner is the defender (always was). When the attacker moves power to the defender's House card, the loser is moving power to the winner's House card. The unusual thing about Doran is that there is a claim resolution in the first place when the attacking player loses, not what happens between the winner and loser of the challenge.

Red Vengence creates a situation where the "loser" and "winner" are the same person for the purpose of settling claim. Doran does not. Doran is a lot more straight-forward than Red Vengeance.

So long story short, the attacker gives power to defender using the defenders claim.

Rozy said:

Yes. Which is the same thing as saying the loser gives power to the winner using the winner's claim number.

Doran Martell's ability works the same way as Red Vengeance. The losing attacker will have to satisfy the claim effect, which is giving power to the attacker (himself). Thus, the defender won't get any power from the attacker.

Nate will probably change these 2 cards' text in the next FAQs but this is how they work right now.

So ktom was wrong????

OMG world is falling apart...

Rozy said:

~ It´s a failure in the matrix, ;-)

eloooooooi said:

Really? I don't think so.

Why don't you?

eloooooooi said:

Because with Red Vengeance you are still losing challenge (it only cancels claim). Doran turns on new rule: if you lose challenge as a attacker, then claim effect happens depending on the type of challenge initiated (so it works always no matter who wins). Correct me if I'm wrong.

It's hard to believe that there will be errata.

You're not wrong, you're just misunderstanding how claim works. From the Rulebook:

Power Challenge : The defending opponent takes a number of power counters from his House card equal to the claim value on the attacker’s revealed plot card, and places them on the attacker’s House card .

So, when the attacker loses the Power challenge he has to give the attacker X power, depending on which is the claim value on the defending player's revealed plot card. He is the attacker, so he has to give himself his own power.

eloooooooi said:

OK, now I see what you mean. (You said earlier "The losing attacker" and that's different with Red Vengeance). It's clear now.

BTW if we are supposed to be strict with rulebook, then one may say "claim, what claim?"

"If you win the challenge as the defender, no
claim effect takes place."

Rozy said:

ktom didn't read the Core Set rules as carefully as he should have. He was remembering when the claim effects were phrased as "winner/loser" instead of "attacker/defender."

The reasoning is all sound (identity of attacker/defender does not change, but for Red Vengeance and Doran, the attacking player takes on the role of both for settling claim), but the base application in relation to Doran was skewed because I was thinking in terms of winner/loser instead. An understandable mistake given that the cards in question are phrased in terms of winner/loser instead of attacker/defender.

~ The world isn't falling apart. This is the exception that proves the rule.