Hey there,

I had some doubt this morning about this Davos :

"Response: Kneel Ser Davos Seaworth to save an attachment on a character from being discarded from play. Then,attach it to another eligible character,if able. "

If I'm not mistaken, it is NOT possible to save a Flame Kissed that has just killed a character to attach it to another character and kill it too, right? I mean, when the character dies from the passive killing effect (STR is 0), only then does the attachment becomes moribund, after the save opportunity.

Which makes Davos usefull only for such effect as Dragon Thief, Meereen Brothel… but not saving attachement on cards leaving play.

Bolzano said:

It's after the save opportunity for the effect making the character leave play, but would that mean it's also too late to save the attachment?

What's the timing on attachments on a character that is moribund becoming moribund themselves? If it all happens at the same time, then I don't see why you couldn't save the attachment.

Or even if it happens later… but then we'd need a separate framework window…

Huh.

Step 3) : Flame Kissed hits the table

Step 4.1) Killing effect initiates

Step 4.2) Save / Cancel opportunity : let's say I save my character. So my attachment will never be moribund and I can't trigger Davos' Response. I can't trigger it even if I didn't save my character, right? Because I still have an opportunity to save it afterward, and I hardly imagine having just saved a card that is NOT leaving play.

Step 4.3) Character is actually killed by Flame Kissed. He becomes moribund along with his attachment Flame Kissed.

… and there is no longer Save opportunity for Davos Response to kick in.

Bolzano said:

Yeah, the only way I see Davos being able to save in this example would be if the attachment on the killed character becoming moribund is considered an effect in its own right, and there's some kind of 4.2.5: Save opportunity for attachments… but we have no reason to think there is.

But it feels to me like there's a hole in the framework… the fact that the attachments on the character go from fine to moribund instantly in step 4.3 without their own Save window strikes me as odd.

KristoffStark said:

Sorry, this comment was the result of me, (once again) mistaking Save effects as things that remove the moribund state, rather than preventing it in the first place.

Bolzano said:

Step 4: Passives

Step 4.1.I: "Kill at 0" effect initiates.
Step 4.1.II: Save/cancel against "kill at 0" effect
Step 4.1.III: Resolve "kill at 0" - character dies and becomes moribund
Step 4.1.IV: Passives to 4.1.I - 4.1.III
Step 4.1.IVa: Initiate "discard attachments from moribund character"
Step 4.1.IVb: Save/cancel against attachment discard (DAVOS GOES HERE)
Step 4.1.IVc: Resolve attachment discard (attachments become moribund)

The fact that attachments are discarded passively as a result of the card they are attached to becoming moribund - not along with the it - is almost literally the first ruling FFG made after outlining the current timing structure in … what? … 2004?

Since Davos' abitility is worded like Viserys' (save, then do something) and we know that Viserys can save himself from terminal effects (he's the exemple in the FAQ), that means Davos can save a Flame-Kissed and attach it right back. And that means Wendamyr's save could be used against a terminal effect if his controller has 2 influence available and standing the saved character would result in its STR being higher than 0 (Lyanna Stark, King's Pavilion).

Khudzlin said:

Only the FFG ruling from 2004 ktom is talking about allows it in the timing structure.

There is no doubt that it can save from a terminal effect since the terminal state is removed, the issue was when is it allowed in the timing.

Thanks ktom - I didn't know about this ruling, started to play in Winter ccg

Khudzlin said:

Wouldn't discarding an attachment because the attached card becomes moribund be considered a terminal effect, as the discarding would still be applied if the attachment was merely saved?

Khudzlin said:

I wasn't refuting your conclusion. It just doesn't have anything to do with the original question.

Nice! I, too, was totally unaware of this - as, I assume, were most players. So, are we going to see Davos OOH in Targ decks now?

Luckily, it's too expensive.

ktom said:

Btw, is the same true for attachment becoming illegal when they no longer meet a restriction?

Bolzano said:

ktom said:

Just to make sure I got this down.

FAQ 3.20 says

(3.20) Attachment Restrictions
Any attachment that has a restriction (such
as "Lord or Lady only" or "attach to an
opponent's character") is immediately
discarded from play at any time that restriction
is not met, regardless of immunity. Such
restrictions are constant effects, and the
attachment should be immediately discarded
any time a restriction is not met including
during setup.

So it's like this: The attachment restriction is checked constantly, but the discard resulting from a failed restriction check happens passively? Right?

So let's say there was a card with the following effect: "Any Phase: Choose a character. That character loses a trait of your choice. Then, any opponent may pay 1 gold to have that character gain a trait of his choice".

The losing and gaining of the trait will both happen in step 3 of the action window. Will the chains on a Maester that had lost its trait due to the above effect and regained it immediately become moribund?

Ratatoskr said:

This is exactly the same process as "gets -X STR and is killed at 0." The STR value is a constant - and becomes 0 instantly - but the effect of removing something from play by killing it must have a point of initiation. Otherwise, the character would effectively become "spontaneously moribund." And the game just doesn't work like that.

Ratatoskr said:

It all comes down to the fact that "immediately," in game terms, really means "at the next possible opportunity in the timing structure for you to do something like that."

OK, got it! Thanks a lot!

Quick follow-up:

A character with an attachment is killed with a terminal burn effect (say, Incinerate). The kill effect initiates as a passive in step 4 of the Action Window. The attachment's discard effect initiates as a passive in that very same step. Now what happens? Usually the FP decides the order in which passive effects resolve. But here, the initiation of one (the attachment discard) relies on the successful resolution of the other (the kill effect). If the character is saved from the kill effect (say, by Risen from the Sea), the attachment should never go moribund.

So, although both effects initiate in the same step, they can't be said to initiate at the same time, because one is dependent on the other. So the FP doesn't get to decide anything. About right?

Are there other examples where two passives initiate in the same step, but not at the same time?

Ratatoskr said:

This, BTW, is why I usually say, "Step 4: Passives to anything that happened in Steps 1-3, or earlier in Step 4."

Ratatoskr said: