@Ktom - Hmmm... I like the interpretation that because it acts on a single subject that it's a single effect. Is that codified anywhere in the rules? My main point of contention is that playing convention effectively divides effects up by periods when the rules divide effects up by paragraph and they just don't jive. Here's the full text from page 14:
"Additional Notes
Some event cards may have two or more completely separate effects, each with its own play restrictions, cost, or targets. Separate effects will always be separated in a different paragraph. Treat each separate effect as its own card. Unless the event card specifically says otherwise, one effect has no impact upon the other."
Emphasis mine. Technically this is in direct conflict with periods denoting separate effects due to the use of the word "always."
Again, this has nothing to do with playing convention and everything to do with properly outlining the argument and means by which to fix the text within the rules to match playing convention (as do most of my posts).
@Khudzlin - Why does 4.9 apply here? Val doesn't have the word "then" in the text and neither does my hypothetical effect. Did I miss a "then" effect somewhere?
at this point, I am forced to come to the conclusion that you argue for the simple point of arguing and stirring the pot. The whole point of the OP was whether you could trigger Val if you had already reached your draw cap for the round. The answer is no, because her ability tells you to reveal and draw a card. You can't do half an action that tells you to do something like this. Also, as a side note, Val was errata'd to be 3 times a round anyway, to coincide with draw cap, in case a player does not have other means of drawing on the table.