ktom said:

Did we have word from FFG on this recently? Because this is at least the second time you flip-flopped on this. Back in February, you convinced me it was exactly the other way round. In August last year you said what you said here. ~Make up your mind, will ya?

That said, I've sent that question to FFG twice and haven't received an answer. ~Maybe I'm on some kind of blacklist or something.

I think Valar is different from Wildfire Assault in that aspect.  To me, Wildfire Assault does its kill effect during Step 3 Resolution.  Step 1 Initiation is for choosing 3 characters not to die, and Darkstar is ineligible for this.

Valar, on the other hand, initiates it's effect during Step 1, thus allowing saves to be made among eligible to be killed characters during step 2. If Darkstar enters during Step 2 because of Maester of the Suns save effect, it should not be subject to the kill effect.  Otherwise, I am struggling to see the point of Step 1.  You look at all eligible characters to die in Step 1 and thus choose who you want to save from the kill effect based on what characters were present in Step 1 during Step 2.

I also don't really know.  It's a tricky situation overall.

There was a hypothetical situation post I made a few weeks ago where if Timmett Son of Timmett's ability were reversed, would he be eligible to be killed if he stood up from saving Tyrion during a Valar.  I thought we agree that he would not be killed because that is after kill effects initiation.

I couldn't get to the August link you posted.

Ratatoskr said:

Did we have word from FFG on this recently? Because this is at least the second time you flip-flopped on this. Back in February, you convinced me it was exactly the other way round. In August last year you said what you said here. ~Make up your mind, will ya?

I happen to think the general consensus is wrong. I still think that when a non-targeted effect resolves (eg, Valar, Balerion), it shouldn't matter if the character was there for initiation or not because it is the (untargeted) resolution that matters. And since it is not targeted, it applies to everything in play. But others have a really hard time with that, not feeling comfortable breaking the initiate-resolve chain for the character that came into play, so I said what the general consensus amongst players seems to be, even though I disagree.

It may have been ruled by FFG at some point, or I may have just gotten tired of explaining to people why I think they're wrong. I don't remember.

So that's the reason for the "switch." I still think the answer from February is the right answer, but it felt like an uphill battle, so I threw in the towel. A definitive answer from FFG is probably the best thing.

In the case of Valar/Wildfire and Maester of the Sun/Darkstar/Bloodrider, since an effect is executed after the save opportunity (in this case the kill), how can Darkstar and Bloodrider not die? They enter play in Step 2 and then the kill effects are executed in Step 3 aren't they?

mdc273 said:

Bomb said:

ktom said:

I think I mis-spoke.

The scenario that was reversed was what if Clansman must stand to save Tyrion.  So, if Timett stood to save Tyrion from Valar, would he then be killed by Valar?  I had though we came to a point where he would not be killed by Valar in the discussion, but I can't recall and can't seem to find that forum topic right now.

Bomb said:

In the case of Darkstar and Bloodrider entering play in Step 2, would they have an opportunity to be saved? I can see why the concensus would be the way it is if the framework wouldn't allow the save. I would imagine they do get a save opportunity as there is an effect waiting to resolve for which they can be saved, even though they weren't in play for the "trigger" of the effect.

My assumption was that the only reason to say that an effect triggered in step 1 was to indicate that it in fact is going to resolve if nothing happens to prevent and/or modify it. Knowing it's triggering means you know you have to cancel/save or it will successfully resolve it's effect on all affected parties. Is that not what it represents?

mdc273 said: