For some reason I cannot post on the previous thread.

It all comes down to "you get to initiate one thing." So constant effects that do not initiate can help get beyond the terminal state, but passive effects (or multiple triggered effects) that must initiate separately cannot.

It may be even less : "you get to resolve one effect" - excluding the initiation and the save/cancel step that stem from the initiation of your save effect.

The terminal state must be immediatly removed by an effect, excluding any other possible initiation. That includes any other save/cancel effect that could occur within the very Save/Cancel window that is opened by the save effect (Maester Aemon's as per example above). You could perfectly imagine some save/cancel effect that would stand him again, putting him back into a terminal state and retroactively making the trigger of his save ability illegal in the first place.

Worth noting : the FAQ just say the resolution of an effect is considered to check if the save initiation is legal, not its initiation.

A card cannot be saved from a terminal effect
unless that saving effect also removes it from
the terminal state.

Bolzano said:

It largely comes down to the same thing, though. In this context, "you get 1 initiation" and "you get 1 resolution" is something of a distinction without a difference. (NOTE: I said "in this context." In others, the distinction carries a huge difference.)

The terminal state must be immediatly removed by an effect, excluding any other possible initiation. That includes any other save/cancel effect that could occur within the very Save/Cancel window that is opened by the save effect (Maester Aemon's as per example above). You could perfectly imagine some save/cancel effect that would stand him again, putting him back into a terminal state and retroactively making the trigger of his save ability illegal in the first place.

Bolzano said:

I agree with you on the constant effects, but I think they can remove the terminal state only during the resolution of the effect itself, not before (between initiation and resolution).

Assume there is a card with the following effect :

Response : Choose and stand a character controlled by an opponent to cancel a triggered effect

Then you would be able to stand Maester Aemon to cancel his own save (could be another save instead of a cancel, assuming the burn effect also hits other characters). So the terminal state has not been removed from Aemon. And that's becausee after initiation of the burn effect, virtually anything can happen that put him back into the terminal state. So it was not legal to trigger the save effect in the first place.

Now regarding the "Then" effect case, I would say that removal from terminal state is allowed if those "Then" effect do NOT open a Save Response opportunity. But they can initiate as part of the main effect resolution.

Bolzano said:

I kinda get where you're going, but isn't the effect in both examples that the cancel means there was no save in the first place, regardless of whether the "remove from terminal state" happens or not?

Here's another one for you: In the "Clans-Aemon/Timett" thing, let's say that you kneel Aemon to save himself from burn. I cancel it with something like To Be a Kraken. The save is canceled, but he is still kneeling and thus still CBK. The canceled effect removed him from the terminal state without saving him. Does he survive or not? More to the point, since the save effect did not do both (save and remove from the terminal state), was it retroactively illegal for me to initiate his save?

We are ultimately saying the same thing here: that you can only initiate one effect whose successful resolution would both save the character and put it into a game state (including all constant effects) other than the terminal state. If the successful resolution is not anticipated to result in both the save and new game state, it cannot be initiated in the first place. So arguing over the "one initiation" vs. the "one resolution" semantics is probably not worth it.

Actually I'm not arguing at all about the Risen from the Sea example. Of course it can be cancelled. But if it is not cancelled, its successfull resolution would guarantee that he'd quit the terminal state.

On the other hand, the full resolution of Maester's Aemon 's save do not guarantee that he will quit the terminal state - because kneeling is not part of the resolution of the effect. So if somehow he stands during the Save/Cancel window (say, to pay the cost of another save such as : "Response : Choose and stand an opponent's character to save a character". Assuming the same burn effect is killing other characters than Maester Aemon, that's a possible situation).

In this situation, Maester's Aemon's save has not been cancelled, but nonetheless it's successfull resolution do not make him quit the terminal state. And so it was illegal to trigger it in the first place.

And now I end up wondering what if some effect during the Save/Cancel window when Risen from the Sea was played reduced the STR of the saved character? Then the save successfull resolution would not remove the terminal state. So it would be illegal to trigger Risen from the Sea? But the FAQ tells me its possible to initiate the save.

So to resolve this situation, the only option left is to assume the Save will resolve unsuccessfully (because the character is "Cannot be saved" again due to the terminal state. So something as the Greyjoy character agenda would no be able to trigger its draw effect in this situation.

Sorry, I kind of mixed up the Save/Cancel opportunities to the burn effect and the one opened by Maester's Aemon. So inside this window you can only cancel Maester Aemon, not use Save effects to the burn.

So the legality of triggering Aemon's save is not questioned because it can be potentially cancelled - you're right.

So yes, arguing about wheter initiation or resolution of the effect will remove the terminal state is not worth it.

Bolzano said: