Hi, I am curious as to what the best way to nullify burn cards (namely house Targaryen) is. I am continuously getting beaten in long drawn out games against targ burn decks, and i am sick and tired of it. lol …. any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

In for the answer. Id like to know too

That's a big question…

The answers are many - and it depends on which burn cards you're suffering under. Attachments can offer some protection from burn effects like "Flame Kissed", but an attachment you might want to consider is "Flaming Sword", which makes you immune to strength reducing effects.

There are a few "Saves" that work against burn effects, like "Risen from the Sea" and "Moqorro" out of Greyjoy.

Playing higher strength characters makes a huge difference, as does having a "Forgotten Plans" (or a strength boosting plot) to combat the inevitable "Threat from the North" turn. A deck like Wildlings has very little to fear from burn, as it has some big beefy characters that are very difficult to kill.

Without tech-ing against burn specifically, keep in mind that burn typically requires many cards; draw engines, recursion engines, influence providers and gold providers, and by messing with any of the above you can probably douse the flames to the point where you can survive the burn. Burn feels harsh, but at best they're trading card-for-card with you and gaining a slight resource advantage in the process. Force them to use two cards to your one, beat them on intrigue, or put a stop on their recursion to find yourself slowly choking out the flames.

Burn is also typically very slow (hence the long drawn out games out mentioned). Rush can therefore be effective. Also, maybe look at some "no attachments" characters - some of Targ's best burn comes from attachments (flame kissed, dragon skull, harried by dragons). On the other hand, having an attachment sometimes acts as protection itself (hatchlings' feast for example).

One particular deck i play uses widow's watch and a lot of dupes… that deck in particular is very susceptible to burn. While i understand that every deck has natural weaknesses, i would like to at least have a capable "answer" to the burn "question."

flipperlord said:

can you run that deck with high STR characters? Or maybe many war crest characters and Randyl Tarly / power of arms? As was mentioned above, burn can struggle against high STR characters because it's that much harder to reduce the STR to 0.

Cough*kingspavilion*cough

Cough*kingspavilion*cough

dcdennis said:

This may be a viable option…. i will give this some considerable thought and playtesting… many of my characters unavoidably have lower strength, so this may be the way to go…

thanks

flipperlord said:

One suggestion for this particular decktype:

Widow's Watch allows you to also search for copies of unique attachments… So run some decent positive unique attachments 2x each, preferably ones that fit your deck otherwise and maybe give you a bit of a strength bump. Then either dupe the attachment, or play one and keep the other on hold until the first copy gets discarded. A unique attachment can be irritating for even Targ to get rid of, since Dragon Thieves don't work on them. If you're running this out of Stark, then something like Summer/Needle should work, Crown of Winter might be too costly, but the immunity to events would even stop Incinerate (one of the few the others don't completely stop).

Dont forget though the dupes wont help with Targ cards like "flame kissed" as there effect is terminal. Im sure the Targ player has a good few terminal cards at there disposal.

I think "Kings Pavillion", stopping str reducing, higher str characters and attaching attachments is the way forward.

Be carefull with dupes as there still prone to terminal effects and you could see yourself losing x 3 character.

try not to play low str characters.

Did you say you play Stark, if so you have the option of the Boltons who have a load of characters that cannot have attachments and are high in strength.

You can also get to there influence locations that they need to kneel a lot with "frozen solid" and "freezing rain".

Plots wise, "Power of Blood", "Threat from the North" spring to mind.

Flame kissed only gives the minus two if the card has no other attachments. That is what people are referring to.

-Istaril said:

Small clarification here. Indeed "Moqorro" will work however 'Risen from the Sea' won't.

'Risen from the Sea' doesn't work agains burn effects as they are usually treminal effects and you can't even attempt a save against such effect if it doesn't remove a treminal effect at the same time. Unfortunatelly second part of 'Risen .." effect is dependant on successful save which in this case will never happen.

Swirek said:

Swirek said:

That is completely false. Risen from the Sea will work because it can remove the terminal effect with it's "then" effect. The reason it can be attempted is because after the Save resolves completely, the terminal effect will then be removed. That is of course the character is not "No attachments" or isn't burned so bad the +1 STR bonus won't be of an increase to raise their STR above 0 at the time.

hehe, double pwnd

dcdennis said:

They are referring to Targ Burn in general and I was just highlighting the fact dupes wont save you against FK as its a terminal effect.

Read up terminal effects dennis. Its worth knowing mate.

Thanks

Endhill said:

why exactly are you calling me out here? what did I say that was incorrect? Oh that's right, NOTHING.

dcdennis said:

What dennis was trying to say so lovingly, is that FK has the text "if attached character has no other attachments" which is something I know I personally overlooked when I was a new player. So a card like Risen from the Sea will actually not only save and give +1 STR, it will remove the burn and terminal effect from FK as well when RftS is attached. If you try to use FK on a character with attachments, it is a wasted card until you can discard the other attachment(s).

ktom said:

It feels natural that 'Risen from the Sea' is/was a card designed as a save against burn, however rullings from the FAQ doesn't necessarry make it easier to interpret it that way

Two quotes from the latest FAQ:

(3.20) Terminal Effects

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

(4.9) The word "then"

If a card has multiple effects, all effects on the
card are resolved, if possible, independently
of whether any other effects of the card are
successful, with the following important
exception:

If a card uses the word "then," then the
preceding effect must have been resolved
successfully for the subsequent dependent
effect to be resolved.

According to 4.9 'Risen from the Sea' is a card with two effects where the second one is only dependent upon first one successful resolution. But according to 3.20 you need to have a single effect that also removes the card from the terminal effect.

Even if you think of any other interpretation you are ending in a loop where snake is eating its own tail

Heh. Someone quoted the FAQ at me. That's funny.

(Moment of arrogance over…)

Swirek said:

3.20 says that the saving effect needs to be able to both save and remove from the terminal state. Despite the fact that the "then attach" part is dependent upon the save, the fact that they share the same trigger means that they share the same resolution step. The dependent "then" effect still (initiates and) resolves before you get to passives, etc. And "kill if 0" is always a passive effect. So that means the character you play Risen on is removed from the terminal state before the terminal effect can be checked and kill the character again because both the save and the "attach, +1 STR" effect resolve completely before the terminal effect can reassert itself.

The point is that since both effects share the same trigger, they both resolve completely (assuming they can) before anything else - including the passive "reassertion" of the terminal effect - can initiate.

Are you possibly (and mistakenly) thinking that the terminal kill is a constant effect, not a passive one?

FFG has been answering the "Risen from the Sea vs. Burn" question this way for approximately 7 years.

To simplify the entire "save from terminal effect" opportunity, you look at a save effect and ask yourself this question:

"After you successfully save the character, will the terminal effect still remain on the saved character?" If the answer will be yes, then you cannot even try to save the character.

The removal of the terminal effect might not even be directly from the save itself. An example where this might be possible is with Maester Wendamyr save effect and King's Pavilion(+3 STR to standing characters).

Response: Kneel Maester Wendamyr to save a character from being killed or discarded. Then, you may kneel 2 influence or kneel a character to stand that character.

You may attempt to save a character from a terminal burn effect if you stand them in the "then" effect and that gets them into a position where the burn effect is no longer going to kill them because of the +3 STR to standing characters from King's Pavilion. If you are unable to get them into this position because you cannot pay that cost, then you cannot even try.

Other ways this can work is with effects like the plot Stoic Resolve:

"Knelt characters cannot be killed."

If the terminal effect is killing the character, then Stoic Resolve can allow characters like Maester Aemon to save themselves because the save effect puts them into the "cannot be killed" position due to its cost.

So, it really does not matter the context of the save attempt as long as after the resolution of the successful save effect the character is then removed from the terminal effect.

ktom said:

To verify this we would need to check the FAQ archive but certainly I think that those two paragraphs were not there from the begining of LCG.

As for my point I will try to rephrase it a bit. To be on a same page I'm thinking of initiation part of the effect not its resolution.

According to 3.20 in order to even initiate a save it needs to have an effect that removes the card from the terminal effect as well (this is the case of Moqorro as its second effect is not dependant on first) but according to 4.9 'Risen from the Sea' is a card with two effects where the second one is only dependent upon first one successful resolution.

Anyway I agree that Risen from the Sea should work as this is in line with the nature of this card. What I'm trying to point out is yet again the rulings are actually making some cards more confusing instead making them clear (Like with TMP and Vicotory conditions if you recall the situation from few months back)

seems pretty clear to everyone but you

Swirek said:

Swirek said:

The text of 4.9 tells you that the "then" part of Risen is one of the multiple effects of the single event card; it's discussion of the dependency just tells you how the play restrictions work out. But because we're talking about a single card with multiple effects (that share the same trigger, even), 3.20 doesn't make any distinction between whether those multiple effects (with the same trigger) are dependent or independent - just so long as all of the multiple effects resolve before anything else not associated with the triggering of the save effect doesn't resolve in-between.

Swirek said:

Swirek said: