I'm sorry if this question has been posted before. I searched for a bit, but found nothing.

So, here is the situation that happened in one of our games:

Player A has Robert Baratheon with Aprentice Collar attached, Eddard Stark with Apprentice Collar and Tin Link attached, and Davos Seaworth (KL).

link for Davos Seaworth - http://agot.dbler.com/index.php?view=card&arsenalid=20554

Player B kneels a maester before any challenges are initiated and plays Ill Tidings, targeting the Apprentice Collar attached to Eddard Stark.

My question is: can Player A kneel Davos Seaworth to save Tin Link after the Apprentice Collar is destroyed and attach it to Robert Baratheon? I should think so, because I allways thought that every circunstance in the game happens inside the Framework Action Window or the Player Action Window, but as my friend, Player B, pointed out (and I can't get around the feeling he may be right) we couldn't find any point of initiation of a new Framework Action Window when Tin Link will be destroyed (and the opportunity to save Tin Link will not arise until after the Framework Action Window opened by the destruction of Apprentice Collar is closed).

Thanks for your help!

Edit: spelling.

There are no framework action windows involved. Ill Tidings is played as a standard player action, opening up a player action window. In this window, Apprentice Collar is successfully discarded in step 3 when the effect resolves. I believe the Tin Link would be discarded as a (quasi-)passiveaction in step 4, which opens up its own little response opportunities. So Davos would enter here as a save response.

1. Ill Tidings initiates

2. Save/cancel (none played)

3. Ill Tidings resolves (Collar discarded)

4. Passives

--- 4.I. Discarding of Tin Link initiates

--- 4.II. Davos's save ability kicks in

5. Responses to Ill Tidings's effect

6. End of Player Action Window. Moribund cards leave play.

Thank you. I meant Player Action Windows. So, the discarding of Tin Link happens in the passive resolution, Good to know, thanks a bunch for your help!

*Rushes to find the approppriate section of the FAQ to show Player B*

tovra.pt said:

I'm not sure this has been codified in the FAQ. I am basing my answer on memories of past discussions, so I might be wrong on this. The FAQ only tells us an attachment is immediately discarded once its restriction is not met. So I guess an argument could be made for the attachment getting discarded in step 3, simultaneously to the discarding of the Apprentice Collar. But I think that would not give Davos a save opportunity, which seems wrong to me.

Saturnine said:

ktom said:

So this applies to other situations involving constant effect as well, correct? For example, there's Threat from the North revealed. Let's say I have a strength-3 character (now str-2 because of the plot). An opponent lowers my characters strength by two via a standard player action effect (e.g. Shaggydog LoW). So my character would be discarded as a passive effect in step 4 of the corresponding action window, yes?

Saturnine said:

The "if STR is 0, discard the character" is an existing, though conditional, constant effect. It always applies over its duration (in this case, while Threat is revealed).

The "discard attachments when their restrictions are not met" is a passive effect that is not active until all necessary restrictions are undone.

Conditional constant effects are essentially saying "these are the two possible categories cards are always placed into" while passives are essentially saying "oh, crap, that wasn't supposed to happen; now what do we do."

Granted, the difference in resolving conditional constants and passive effects is a pretty fine-line thing. And ultimately, whether it is applied as part of the "new state" something is in as part of resolution in Step 3 and as an actual initiated passive in Step 4 doesn't really matter. I'm just saying - be careful not to mix conditional constants with passive effects. There are differences (primarily, you cannot cancel a conditional constant, but you can cancel an initiated passive).

ktom said:

The FAQ says to treat an attachment restriction as a constant effect, and basically uses the same kind of language as with other constant effects. So I assumed condition met = discard is equivalent to restriction not met = discard .

Yeah, well, the FAQ says that replacement effects are passive instead of constant, too.

If you decide to treat it as a constant effect, you are looking at it as a terminal effect and the timing (and validity) of saves gets confusing. If you treat it as a passive, you get a different timing.

Ktom, could you flesh out the timing for me with the shaggy dog example Saturnine described? I only ask as Shaggy can only be used during a challenge and the timing of when a character left play arose due to threat from the north being a constant (although only slightly, we assumed and agreed that it would be at the end of the player action window in which shaggy was activated).

Underworld40k said:

Is there something else important about the timing within the Player Action window for Shaggy related to Responses or passives?

No , just wanted conformation as it was out first game with threat form the north and we have never really had a constant kill/discard effect like it in play before.

Apologies for hijack of thread

Underworld40k said:

Note that what Saturnine and I are getting into here is a very subtle, technical difference between whether the "moribund:discard" would happen in Step 3 or Step 4 of the action window. The discussion is probably about 85% academic. For most purposes, "it physically leaves play at the end of the action window in which Shaggy reduces its STR to 0" is what you really need to know.

Not to further hijack this thread, but I have a follow-up question about Threat + other burn.

Let's say I reveal Threat, then during the challenges phase I un-shadows Dragon Skull and attach it to a printed 3 STR character. Let's also say I'm first player, and I elect for the (now) 0 STR character to die to Dragon Skull's effect rather than be discarded to Threat. Can my opponent save from this kill effect with Risen from the Sea? And if so, is the character discarded instead? (A GJ player might prefer the character goes to discard rather than dead pile.)

The question I'm getting at here is Threat says "can't be saved," but I'm assuming that refers to the discard effect only. Is that wrong? Meanwhile, the STR boost from Risen would effectively save against the killed effect AND boost the STR of the character, so maybe it isn't discarded in the end anyway (assuming the STR boost happens before the character is hit by the Threat discard effect)?

Sorry to muddle all these concepts together...just wondering how the timing works. ALSO, I believe the FAQ says you can't attempt to save a character with an effect that wouldn't successfully save it (for example, you can't repeatedly trigger the Thrice Drowned in response to terminal burn). In the above example with Threat + Dragon Skull, would the GJ player be able to respond with Risen from the Sea against the Dragon Skull, given the "cannot be saved" discard effect constantly looming in the background?

You are correct that the "discard" effect is "cannot be saved." So if you, as First Player decided to have the character killed, the character's controller would get a chance to save it from the kill.

Remember that in order to do that, they have to both save from the kill and remove from the terminal state - so the same condition (STR 0) is likely to be gone if the save is successful. This will make the "discard at 0: cannot be saved" from Threat not apply any more, either. The card would not be discarded. Since the terminal state for the kill is the same as the terminal state for the discard, a legal save to the terminal kill will indirectly remove it from the terminal discard as well.

Twn2dn said:

So if you do successfully save from the kill in that scenario, when you go to resolve the discard, it doesn't apply anymore because the character's STR is more than 0.

ktom said: