As discussed here Threat from the North and other similar burn effects are resolved as partly constant and partly passive.

Now, how do triggered burn effects with built-in terminals (Magister Illyrio, Aegon's Legacy Incinerate) resolve? I was under the impression that, since for these effects there IS a save opportunity already (unlike for constant effects), there is no need for the terminal effect to be resolved as a passive (in Step 4), but rather the whole effect happens during the resolution (in Step 3).

However, since I didn't find a relevant conversation here on the boards with a bit of searching, I figured this would be good to ask explicitly.

Why would this matter? Mainly in how the terminals from Magister Illyrio (etc.) with Threat from the North are resolved.

The topic came up in the conversation of our latest Q&TR here.

Is the thread broken? I can't seem to reply….

Here we go….

To be clear, constant/passive burn effects do not resolve "partly as one, partly as another" so much as there are two separate effects created by them - a constant/lasting effect (STR reduction) and a passive/lasting effect (if STR is 0, kill/discard the character). The latter one must resolve passively because there is a separate save opportunity - meaning there must be a point of initiation to be interrupted by the save.

Triggered effects are exactly the same. It creates a constant/lasting effect (STR reduction) and a passive/lasting effect (if STR is 0, kill/discard the character), the latter obviously being passive because there is a separate save opportunity - meaning there must be a point of initiation to be interrupted by the save. The triggered effect creates the "kill at 0" condition, which is then checked passively.

Not every use of Illyrio, etc. result in a character being killed/discarded, because not every use will bring a character down to 0. So the kill/discard must be a separate effect with a separate save opportunity since the triggered effect (which gives the -X lasting effect) will not necessarily require you to kill/discard anything.
It's like discarding attachments from a moribund card. It must be a separate, passive game mechanic because during the point you can save/cancel the effect that makes the card moribund, you don't know that it will be successful making it necessary to save the attachments. Similarly, when you have a triggered burn effect, at the save/cancel opportunity for the triggered effect, you don't know whether the -X STR will be successful or whether the "kill at 0" will even apply.

It doesn't really matter much because the passive always happens on the heels of the triggered effect. I'm sure if someone tried really hard, they would be able to find some conflicting passive effect that they could take advantage of (assuming they were first player) by applying it before the "kill at 0" is applied, but I haven't really heard of one yet.

Whether the -X STR constant and "kill at 0" passive are created by a constant, passive, or triggered effect doesn't really matter. They will behave exactly the same once they are created.

ktom said:

Ok, good to know. Having to have the information on the burn being 'succesful' actually opens the whole logic to me a lot more clearly. I was always wondering about whether the game was forcing you to 'pre-calculate' everything in order to figure out whether a certain kind of save/cancel window would be needed.

I think the discard/dead choice going to FP with Threat from the North + Magister Illyrio is one of the few actual applications. Wait a second… Wouldn't that also mean that you effectively need to be FP to burn The Hound (PotS) with Incinerate?

WWDrakey said:

That is quite true. I don't think I'd blow an Incinerate on him, but if you can apply a -4 STR to him with it, it would be the FP's choice which out of play destination he is headed.

WWDrakey said:

Of course, many of your own strategic and tactical decisions will be made based on the anticipated result, but that's not the same thing as the game rules preventing you from doing something, or creating an opportunity to do something, in anticipation of the result.

ktom said:

Wouldn't this also be the case for Risen on a 1 STR character with Flame Kissed? Instead of the case where "No attachments." prevents the attachment that makes the save successful, it's a situation where the successful attachment, not the events +1 STR that makes for an end to the terminal state?

Maester_LUke said:

The example was one way in which Risen can remove the card saved from its terminal state. It was not meant to be an all-inclusive list of the ways Risen specifically, or effects in general, can be used in the face of terminal effects. It was one of many possible illustrations of the theme of "looking ahead to the anticipated resolution in order to determine if it is legal to attempt to save from a terminal effect is the only situation I can think of in which 'pre-calculation' is required - or indeed valid - in this game." I trusted the folks reading the post to generalize the example and relate it back to the topic.

~ So I swear, if your next question is "Wouldn't this also be the case for kneeling Maester Aemon to save himself from burn while Stoic Resolve is revealed," I'm going to kick you in the shin the next time I see you.