Kneel 1 influence to save a unique (Stark) or (Greyjoy) character from being killed. Then, attach Rhymes with Meek to the saved character (counts as a Condition attachment with the text ' Attached character cannot have its STR raised or lowered by card effects.')

There is some debate as to whether or not this is able to remove terminal effects, and thus save vs Targ cards. I don't think it does, but definitely worth checking on.

On the one hand: STR is calculated from scratch each time it is checked. In that regard, every STR modifier is continually raising and lowering a character's STR. So if a character cannot have its STR raised or lowered by card effects, that would not only stop new ones from being applied, but it would old ones from applying as well.

On the other hand: We know that "after a character's STR is lowered" responses can only be used when a "-X STR" effect is first applied to the character. That's the ruling we have. And it makes sense because otherwise, since STR modifiers are continually raising and lowering a character's STR each time the STR is checked, that response would be valid at all times during the -X STR duration. So at least as far as Responses go, "raising" or "lowering" a character's STR only happens when a modifier is first applied, implying that "cannot be raised or lowered" would only be a factor when a modifier is first applied.

Since there are 2 persuasive arguments, you may want to check with FFG to be sure. However:

I personally find the first argument far more persuasive in the "Rhymes with Meek" situation. I think that because "cannot" goes beyond the moment of initiation. After all, if a card cannot have its STR raised or lowered, continuous effects (like Winterfell Castle or The Dragonpit) would be blocked, no matter when the effect came into play relative to the character (or the character gaining the ability), right? The rule for when you can trigger Responses therefore does not necessarily mirror the application of a continuous effect. So as far as I can tell, if a character gains "cannot have its STR raised or lowered by card effects," all existing STR modifiers should become instantly inapplicable.

Look at it this way, if instead of "Attached character cannot have its STR raised or lowered by card effects," the card said "Attached character is immune to other card effects," what would happen to existing card effects modifying the character's STR (or anything else for that matter)? They'd immediately become invalid, right? (Remember, lasting effects count as "card effects" - we know that from Cat o' the Canals.) That example, combined with the absolute nature of the word "cannot" argue far more strongly for me that once "cannot have its STR raised or lowered by card effects" becomes active, the very next time you go to check the character's STR (from scratch), existing modifiers couldn't affect the card.

Sure, "cannot" means "don't even try" when it comes to initiating things, but it also means "just doesn't happen" when it comes to things like continuous effects (that don't initiate) or lasting effects (that have already initiated). By that logic, the second part of "Rhymes with Meek" should "turn off" existing STR modifiers - meaning that it CAN remove a character from the terminal state of a burn effect.

I have to imagine that it saves you from burn because if it doesn't then, well, I don't see what point there was in FFG printing it at all.

However, we know that immunity isn't applied retroactively against non-continuous lasting effects (3.18 Timing of Immunity). Whether this also applies to "cannot" is another matter.

Isn't there a third possibility, namely that it does shut off constant effects, like Threat from the North, but not lasting effects created by triggered or passive abilities, like King's Landing Assassin? Much in the same way that constant effects from, say, plots end when the plot is swapped, but lasting effects with a set duration persist?

Khudzlin said:

Ratatoskr said:

Because of the absolute nature of "cannot," an all-or-nothing interpretation is appropriate and those really are the only choices. And, based on the fact that existing continuous effect really should stop applying, it seems to me that it needs to be "stops all modifiers from being considered in all STR checks."

FAQ says:

"If an effect has the word "cannot" in its
description, then it is an absolute: That effect
may not be overridden by other effects."

I'm not that good in English, but it seems that "may not be overridden by other effects" should shut off any lasting/constant effect application on attached character.

Or did I miss a point?

Bolzano said:

Some people are just having trouble reconciling the "absolute" nature of the word "cannot" with the well known concept that once a lasting effect is applied, you're stuck with it for the duration. Short of the affected card leaving play, there aren't a lot of examples of lasting effects ending early. That's why some people struggle with the idea that this will get rid of all STR modifiers, existing and future, when it is attached.

Does it bug people they didn't name it Rhymes with Freak instead? haha

Nope, the name is a straight quote from the book.

Well to be fair I believe he uses several words that rhymes with meek throughout that part of the story: meek, weak, freak… etc. I'm not 100% sure though.

Technically, in context, they all rhyme with "Reek."

Coming from a different angle: I think the important operative word in this situation is the "Then" portion. From my limited understanding, the part preceding "then" has to successfully complete before anything afterwards happens. Since the save itself can't be successful without the attachment granted after the "then", can the save even be triggered at all?

Edit: I realize there is a similar effect for "Risen from the Sea". Am I taking the phrasing to literally?

N8Dogg said:

You have to remember that even though the effect has a "then" part to it, it is still part of the same effect. No one can trigger a new effect between the "save" and the "then attach" parts of the event. Similarly, you do not initiate and resolve passive effects between the "save" and the "then attach" part of the event.

That means both the "save" and the "then attach" part must resolve completely before any passive effects are checked again.

Well, since the "kill if STR is 0" condition is a passive effect, that means both the "save" and the "then attach" parts of the event are completely resolved before the terminal effect would actually try to initiate and kill the character again. So by the time the terminal effect can kill the character after the save, the character has been removed from the terminal state.

Over time, the "in order to save from a terminal effect, the save must both save and remove from the terminal state" has devolved into a shorthand of "you have to save and raise its STR in a single effect." While that covers a majority of the situations, people have unfortunately started to take the shorthand literally instead of understanding where it came from and what it really required. For example:

• You do not have to literally "raise the STR" as part of the save; you simply have to remove it from the terminal state (which can happen in a lot of ways other than just raising the STR).
• You do not literally have to use a "single" effect; a compound or multiple effect is fine - the point is that you only get to trigger one thing and removal from the terminal state has to be complete before passives to the one thing you trigger take place.

Hope that makes more sense. The fact that anything is a "save, then" effect does not stop it from being useful against a terminal effect.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I did not fully understand the "same effect" context.