Francisco G. said:

I was considering burn effects that state something like "Give a character -2 STR and if their STR reaches 0, they are killed. Then, give that character +2 STR.". However, I think that phrasing would not work with save effects because they are still at 0 STR before they reach the "then" portion. Plus, I don't think anyone would use these types of burn effects if they existed.

I think that it would not be out of the question to provide more save effects that conditionally boost STR. For example, "Save attached character from being killed or discarded from play. Then, if that character's STR is 1 or less, attach this to that character with the text 'Character has +2 STR'.". This way, it is designed specifically for burn and will help keep characters alive when it is not burn. If killed by non-burn, it also gives weak characters a little boost. Maybe give it a 1 influence cost to keep it from being an ultimate auto-include since not everyone uses influence all the time. Or an even bigger cost would be to "kneel and save a character from being killed or discarded from play" just to make it possible to use but not all the time.

I think if I magically become a champ, I'd make a terminal saving effect somewhere for fun. That, of course, would require me to stop building 20 different decks and actually attend the main tournament. :-)

I might be the only one in existence hoping they come out with some kind of attachment or event card that allows you to change from one version of a character to another, duplicate-wise. It could make for interesting deck builds that involve having one version of X and two versions of X OR 3 different versions of X. I think that would be kind of neat… A little overpowered in some cases, but neat nonetheless.

Kennon said:

So says the championship level player with Jaime as his avatar

-Goshdarnstud

I think the real STR of burn is not that it kills characters without the option to save (that's a nice bonus, but 95% of the time it's a non-issue against non-GJ decks), but that burn effects tend to be spot removal that work "on demand" rather than as responses. To me, it seems fine that Targ is better at killing GJ, but given GJ's cancel and Targ's lack of location removal I'm not sure that's even true. I'm beginning to think GJ is the top house at the moment (certainly up there with Stark and Martell).

Incinerate specifically is potentially problematic given it requires fewer stacked burn effects than is traditionally needed to burn a high-STR character. The main concern I have is that people will be able to choose "ally" or some trait that is associated with low-cost characters. It is neat that this card can be used in combination with thematic decks such as dothraki or Dragon, and in those decks it will likely be one of very few burn cards. We'll see how it plays out.

Twn2dn said:

I know what you are saying ¿Dan?, i was referring to the intent of the developers and what Will said about dupes disapearing.

They said, i think in the last FAQ, that the intent was that dupes saved against anything that doesn't say cannot be saved. Well, they don't, they don't save against burn and Burn even go farther by making people not use dupes because of it….why bother.

Add S&D and right now, the only reason to carry dupes is for probability issues.

My idea (which could be diferent of giving +1/2 to the character after saving ) was to respect the intent of the dupes in how they save against anything that doesn't say cannot be save. And if you want, make some burn that says cannot be save.

Let's see how it plays out - but I'm with drakey. Incienrate does seem awfully easy to pull off - very eminiscent of BoTS

I think if ti starts warping the metagame, maybe the W/O Atathcments errata would be a nice fix.

WWDrakey said:

Haha, that's what happens when you've got a half-baked idea. Then your brain farts on you: Just as per FAQ, the "pre-then" portion of the text must be fulfilled to its entirety before "post-then" part goes to completion. Being an out-of-play entity, the "pre-then" part started as a bad effect, which quickly became a worse ability "post-then" because the idea is now in-play. On the whole, however, this is considered a bad effect rather than a worse ability for purposes of card interaction, because of its origin as a bad effect.

In other words: Good call.