I have couple of questions about timing in Martell.

1. If Maester of the Sun is kneeling and I lose a MIL challenge I think due to his Vengeful I will be able to stand him and save someone for claim right?

2. If I use Maester of the Suns ability to discard Darkstar (PotS) during Valar he will come to the game after the Valar so he does not have do die right?

3. If 2 is correct then this has propably no point, but still...I could use the same ability: Maester to discard Darkstar if Darkstar is already in play to have a dupe on him right? So do I save all character at once or one after an other, because if the second is true then I save someone and dupe Darkstar and can save Darkstar now...

4. When I use When I Woke...on The Viper's Bannermen I first "draw" 2 cards and then put them on the top of my deck right?

5. Is Red Viper(PotS) immune to attaching He Calls It Thinking since he is immune to event or will it become attachement before it is attached? Is he also immune to Someone Always Tells since it is not targeting him directly, I think he is.

Rozy said:

Rozy said:

Rozy said:

Rozy said:

Rozy said:

Rogue30 said:

To follow up on this, if the Maester is standing, you could kneel him to save a character from military claim and then stand him for vengeful. Also, if the attacker had more deadly characters, deadly and vengeful will activate at the same time and the first player will choose the order (so if you are first, you could choose to stand the Maester for vengeful and then kneel him to save for deadly).

Rogue30 said:

Valar kills all characters all at once. By the time you get a chance to save characters all the characters to be killed have already been "marked." So when Darkstar comes into play, he won't be killed as well.

Rogue30 said:

I don't think this is right. The rules for duplicates state that during your marshaling phase you may attach a copy of a unique card you already control to that card as a duplicate. Putting Darkstar into play with his ability is a different effect. Actually, I don't know what the general rule is for effects that try to put a second copy of a unique card into play. My guess is that the effect just can't be executed successfully, but maybe there is some rules exception that allows the second copy to be used as a duplicate (I'm sure ktom will know).

Rogue30 said:

Technically, you trigger the Bannerman's response while it is in the moribund state (put there by When I Woke...) and that is why it is not on top of your deck yet (if it were on top of the deck, it would be too late to trigger its response).

schrecklich said:

Seems correct. I checked FAQ at "Action is initiated":

"f) Marshal the card, or trigger the effect.
Choose targets (if applicable) and proceed to
step two."

schrecklich said:

FAQ (3.27) "Unique Cards and Changing Control" allow this:

"Duplicates can only be played or put into play
on cards you own and control."

Rogue30 said:

My problem is I'm not sure if that phrase ("put into play") in the FAQ is supposed to mean that any effect that puts a unique card into play may put it into play as a duplicate or if it's only referring to effects like Rhaegal that specifically search for a copy of a unique card in play and attach it as a duplicate. You are probably right, but I think the FAQ could be clearer on the topic of putting duplicates into play (ie it could say "Any time an effect attempts to put a second copy of a unique card into play under control of the same player that player may attach the second copy as a duplicate.")

I'm a little lost in all the quoting, so bear with me on the repetition:

1. As others have said, claim will always resolve completely before any passives activate. So if the Maester starts out kneeling, claim will be over and done with (and the character dead) by the time Vengeful can stand the Maester. But if the Maester starts out standing, you can kneel him to save against the claim effect, and then stand him for Vengeful.

2. If a card comes into play between and effect's initiation and resolution, it will not be subject to the resolution. So with the Maester/Darkstar combo against a Valar, you do not need to find a way to save the Darkstar just put into play.

3. The exception for dupes in the rules for uniques holds true for all "put into play" effects. You are allowed to use a "put into play" effect on a second copy of a unique character you already have in play and have that second copy come into play as a dupe. (Unless, of course, you have a copy in your dead pile.) So yes, the combination of the rules for unique and the Darkstar's replacement effect will allow you to dupe the Darkstar with the Maester/Darstar combo and, in a situation like Valar, allow you to immediately use the dupe to save the Darkstar from the currently resolving effect. (This is beacuse saves are triggered sequentially even when there is only one global kill effect; you cannot trigger 4 Responses, even 4 save Responses, at exactly the same time.) Good find.

4. The moribund rules prevent you from ever "drawing" The Viper's Bannermen with their own ability. In the "When I Woke..." situation, the 2 cards are drawn before the character goes to the top of the deck.

5. The PotS-Viper is not immune to the attaching effect of He Calls It Thinking. That is because the direct action of "attach this card to a Martell character" is on the card being attached (the event-turned-attachment) and only indirectly on the character it is being attached to. Immunity only protects from direct effects. Keep that in mind; immunity does two things: 1) prevents the immune card from being chosen as a target by whatever it is immune to and 2) allows the immune card to ignore the final, direct effects on it by whatever it is immune to, targeted or not. So an "immune to events" character will ignore the global, non-targeted effects of Someone Always Tells, and remain in play.

Thanks for explanations ktom. It is awesome that point 3 works.

Rozy said:

Thanks for explanations ktom. It is awesome that point 3 works.

Thank everyone else. With the exception of #3, you had the correct answers before I ever got here. And with #3, the correct answer was reached, just with some uncertainty about the assumptions behind it.