Jaqen H'gar burned

By Ikaros, in 2. AGoT Rules Discussion

Posted at

ktom said:

Bomb said:

Basically, what are the exceptions and allowances for saving if the save effect itself does not specifically remove the terminal state but has outside effects that might reinforce it?

It all comes down to this: you can only initiate one effect to both save and remove the card from the terminal state.

If you need to go through two initiations to do this - triggered and/or passive - you are not allowed to use either one. So Jaqen cannot discard the dupe because it requires 2 initiations (the triggered save and the passive return to Shadows) to save and remove him from the terminal state. In the "Clans-Aemon" (or simply the Timett/Tyrion/Valar example), you only need to initiate one thing (the save), even though it is the combination with an (always on, non-initiated) constant ability that completes the removal from the terminal state.

Posted at

Twn2dn said:

Ugh, OK this makes sense…. Again, pretty counter intuitive on FFG's part, and poor templating/scripting if the initial idea was that Jaqen would be protected from pretty much any removal source. If FFG intended Jaqen to work the way he actually does, then he's just a crappy character all around (gold cost too high, doesn't gain the abilities of cards that reference their own name, since he doesn't actually gain that name, etc).

Um, but isn't Jaquen still protected for any removal source except burn? Doesn't that qualify as "pretty much any"?

Posted at

Twn2dn said:

If FFG intended Jaqen to work the way he actually does, then he's just a crappy character all around (gold cost too high, doesn't gain the abilities of cards that reference their own name, since he doesn't actually gain that name, etc).
Posted at

Alright fair enough. Thanks!

I just wanted to get to the bottom of what is considered to be possible in removing the terminal effect.

Posted at

KristoffStark said:

Twn2dn said:

Ugh, OK this makes sense…. Again, pretty counter intuitive on FFG's part, and poor templating/scripting if the initial idea was that Jaqen would be protected from pretty much any removal source. If FFG intended Jaqen to work the way he actually does, then he's just a crappy character all around (gold cost too high, doesn't gain the abilities of cards that reference their own name, since he doesn't actually gain that name, etc).

Um, but isn't Jaquen still protected for any removal source except burn? Doesn't that qualify as "pretty much any"?

Uh, I think he is not protected from "cannot be saved" effects too. And they are so many.

Posted at

Ikaros said:

Uh, I think he is not protected from "cannot be saved" effects too. And they are so many.

That goes without saying.

Posted at

Bomb said:

Ikaros said:

Uh, I think he is not protected from "cannot be saved" effects too. And they are so many.

That goes without saying.