1) If you use seductive promise on a character that has attachments on him, does the control of the attachments on the character transfer to you as well, or does your opponent still control all attachments (and how they're used in the game?)

2) When determining effects, do the effects always resolve and go away in the order that was determined by the player winning initiative?

I ask this because in a game last night, I used Drogon's ability to reduce a Lannister Character to 0, my opponent then made the argument that the only action he could take at that point in time was a save action, so he knelt (something I can't remember which card) to save, then knelt a location I believe to raise his str (+3) till the end of the phase, which effectivly saved the character. Then at the end of the phase Drogon's ability left the character before the bonus to STR left since I was first in order or play.

Some clarification on these rules would be greatly appreciated.

I'm not 100% on these, but:

1) You steal control of the character, not attachments, unless the card says so

2) The burn effect persists through the save, so the character would be saved by the save effect, but immediately dead again before the +3 could resolve

I believe you're not even allowed to attempt to save from a terminal effect (like drogon's) unless it removes the character from the effect. From the FAQ:

"(3.20) Terminal Effects
A "terminal effect" is any effect that would cause a card to become Moribund and would still cause that card to be Moribund even after the card was saved.
A card cannot be saved from a terminal effect unless that saving effect also removes it from the terminal state.

For example: Flame-Kissed (CORE T103) is played on Selyse Baratheon (CORE B70), who has a STR of 2. Selyse cannot be saved from the effect of Flame-Kissed unless the save also removes her from the terminal state, either by boosting her STR, discarding the Flame-Kissed card, or removing Selyse from the play area. Viserys Targaryen (CORE T108) is an example of a card with a save effect that would remove itself from the terminal effect of Flame-Kissed."

Winged_Human said:

Note, though, that how they are used in the game might not change much. For example, if an attachment says something like "attached character gets +2 STR," it doesn't really matter who controls the attachment and controls the character: the +2 STR happens anyway. Another interesting situation is when the attachment has a triggered effect. Of course, only the controller of the attachment can choose to trigger the effect, so if the attachment says something like "kneel this attachment to save attached character from being killed," they may be less likely to do it. However, if the attachment says something like "kneel attached character to give another character +2 STR," the controller of the attachment actually could not do it - because kneeling the attached character is a cost and you cannot pay costs with cards you don't control.

So the basic rule of thumb is "attachments don't change control when characters are stolen," but the implications can be a bit deeper than "the original controller still determines how they are used in the game."

Winged_Human said:

Next, as Lethuin mentions, if your opponent saves his character from Drogon's ability, Drogon's -1 STR is still there and would reassert itself immediately. (Look at it this way, if the save effect said "save this character from being killed, then, stand that character if its STR is 1 or greater," would the Clansman stand? Of course not - because it's STR is still 0.) So it would die immediately after being saved - long before your opponent could trigger a second effect to give it +3 STR.

Lastly, all effects that have the same duration (eg, "until the end of the phase") end at exactly the same time. So just like the First Player doesn't get to say whether it is 2 - 3 or -3 + 2, he doesn't get to say whether it is "+2 leaves, then -3" or "-3 leaves, then +2" because both disappear at the same time (and the character's STR effectively goes up by 1).

With all of that background, it should be easier to see that what your opponent did (save the character, then raise its STR, then insist that the -1 modifier wears off before the +3 modifier with the same "end of phase" duration) was pretty much impossible. Even further, it is against the rules.

When a card is in a situation where even if you save it, it just dies again from the same effect, it is said to be in a "terminal state." The classic example of a "terminal effect" is the "kill if character's STR is 0" you find on so many Targ cards. If a character is in a terminal state (ie, subject to a terminal effect), you cannot even try to save it - unless the same save effect simultaneously removes the card from the terminal state. So, you will never be able to combine 2 effects - 1 that saves, the other that increases STR - to avoid Drogon's ability. You will need 1 single effect that both saves the card and increases its STR (they do exist). At the very least, you'll need 1 single effect that saves and removes the character from play (like Viserys' save) so that it cannot be killed by the 0 STR a second time (since it was already discarded, returned to hand, etc.)

Hey guys/gals,

Thanks a bunch for all your input. You've helped me immensely. You guys are GREAT as always!

Quick question, ktom,

You say you can't even try to save it, but (and I know, this won't come up often if ever), is that really the case? Say I wanted to discard a card from my hand for whatever reason; could I play a save effect I know wouldn't save a burned character to lose it? Like if I knew a Rule by Decree was coming next turn and I wanted to have less cards in my hand?

Lethuin said:

I'm not sure why do you ask. Rules forbid you to trigger save effect in this scenario. Just like e.g. Asha's ability "cannot be saved" - you just can't.

Lethuin said:

So no, you are never allowed to throw a save at a card in a terminal state just to get rid of the card, to create something to Respond to, etc., unless that save also removes the card from the terminal state. The rules just flat-out forbid it with the use of the word "cannot."

Now, in the absence of the word "cannot" or some other condition/restriction that prevents initiation, you are allowed to play effects that have no hope of resolving successfully for whatever reason you'd like. (For example, you could play a card that said "kill all characters in play" when there are no characters in play.)

This was me being a huge rules lawyer here, but the reason I asked was because, since it says 'cannot be saved', I was thinking that means that I couldn't successfully save it, but I could still try (knowing it would fail). But I'm happy with this interpretation as well, I was just making sure.

Thanks again ktom!