Resist All versus ongoing "save ends both"

I know a similar question was asked on Hordelings (I think) and I gave my opinion, but a situation occurred in the Brit Nats that makes me rethink.

Does a Galeb Duhr, with Stone Transformation already triggered, gain both ongoing 15 poison damage and ongoing dazed when hit with Venom Bolt?

From 2011 Battle Rules, p14
When a power states that a save ends more than one effect (eg. save ends all, save ends both) all described effects or conditions end when the last listed effect or conditions ends.

Galeb Duhr
Stone Transformation: Use at any time: This creature has Resist 30 All until start of its next turn.

Yuan Ti Half-blood Sorcerer
(C) Venom Bolt: (line 10) +18 vs DEF(Fort); 15 acid Damage AND ongoing 10 poison Damage AND Dazed (save ends both)

My thoughts at the time were that the Galeb gains ongoing dazed only.

The resist all 30 means it does not take the 15 acid damage, and under normal circumstances would not gain the 15 ongoing poison (see resistance p 12). But it is linked to the ongoing dazed (as save ends both), the above section from the rulebook states the linked conditions do not end until the last listed condition/effect ends ... the dazed.

Now I'm unsure about this again.

What do you all think?
This was, of course, my game - we ruled as BB said, but we were uncertain. There seem to be 3 options (the issue lies in the wording of "save ends both":

1) Since the damage is linked to the dazed, both take effect since non-damaging effects aren't affected by the Stone transformation.
2) Only dazed stays with the Galed Duhr, the ongoing damage doesn't
3) Neither take effect as the two are linked and dazed isn't a separate saving throw. If one is cancelled, both are.

We played #2.

Question for Tried is - which one is correct, or is there another one we didn't think of? 
I posed pretty much the same question in form: immune slowed is hit by ong 25 necr + slow (save end both).
Though it was academic at the time, it was bound to appear in play (now it has).

In this case I'd argue as follows:
There are 2 conditions "dealt" to victim. Irrespective what their final durations might be there is
a) resist ability that says ongoing can't be gained (since its lower than resist value- I'm assuming resist all counts for this, another slightly unclear...)
b) nothing much that prevents victim from gaining dazed
So: dazed is gained and its duration should be (save ends), i e  I agree with how You played

The question is more confusing if it is the last condition that is resisted, or it is not gained for some other reason.

In such case there is 4th option of irterpretation; one that arguably can be said to follow he rules text most closely
- but one that is gamewise downright stupid, namely:
If a victim can't be affected by (or gain) the last condition in a multiple condition, it gains the ones that it can
and they remain until end of battle or until removed by a suitable curing/"instead"condition or some other such effect.
 --- since last condition never gained can never end, it wont be there to remove the previous ones

A more reasonable extension of the resolution You applied might be:
"If dealt linked (save ends both/all) conditions can't all be applied to a victim, the ones that can are applied each with duration (save ends)"



Its not really that confusing.
As the rules stand, if you don't take the last effect, you don't take any.

You can lose, gain or have not applied any of those prior.  Ending those doesn't end the final effect.
Ending preventing the final effcet, however, solves all the others.

Part of the delay with the rules is me tyring to find all the ff and fi etc., to fix.
but another part is me considering using the termsave ends all as a shorthand for save ends on each condition.  The problem is that this involved going back to a lot of saves, and I hate the idea of saving throw, the accountant's role playing game. 
Its not really that confusing.
As the rules stand, if you don't take the last effect, you don't take any.

You can lose, gain or have not applied any of those prior.  Ending those doesn't end the final effect.
Ending preventing the final effcet, however, solves all the others.




So per bugging_bears post, Galeb Duhr when hit with a Venom Bolt from a YTHBS would not take the ongoing poison, but would be Dazed with a Save Ends. 

If some creature that had Immune Daze and was hit by the Venom Bolt, then said creature would not be Dazed AND would not have ongoing 10 poison damage because it was immune to the last effect of the attack. 

Correct?

Cool

Its not really that confusing.
As the rules stand, if you don't take the last effect, you don't take any.

Makes sense.

You can lose, gain or have not applied any of those prior.  Ending those doesn't end the final effect.
Ending preventing the final effcet, however, solves all the others.

"Preventing final" was the part that needed to be said aloud.

Part of the delay with the rules is me tyring to find all the ff and fi etc., to fix.
but another part is me considering using the termsave ends all as a shorthand for save ends on each condition.  The problem is that this involved going back to a lot of saves, and I hate the idea of saving throw, the accountant's role playing game. 

Sounds tediousUndecided ffi xing. I'm sure everyone values enormously the effort You are dovoting to this; I'm eager and impatient but delays due to job being done well is not something to grumble about.

Falling to save ends each (no linked conditions) does feel like setback of a kind. I find the current mechanism (save ends last, prior(s) end with last) attractive for a number of reasons ... what came as a surprise was that there was so much extra detail riding alongside ...

I don't know if going for the simple but bookkeepy might be safest after all, even if that sacrifices some aestetic.