Hmm! I guess it comes down to whether the effects of triggers should definitively count as a result of the things that trigger them. That is, is "resultness" inherited through "resultness" in some transitive sense? This seems a dangerous route to go down; what if players start claiming that any hazard is a result of a chain of events resulting from combat three turns ago?Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Sat Mar 03, 2018 11:03 amI'm not quoting from anywhere. By definition a taking prisoner does not require a combat; indeed. And a hypothetical Hazard Host may cause taking a prisoner outside of combat.Theo wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:12 pmWhere are you quoting from?
Taking a prisoner is not a result of combat, it is the result of a card effect. The definition of Hazard Hosts in MEDM mentions nothing about combat being required. While particular Hazard Hosts may happen to require combat in order to trigger their prisoner-taking effect, they are separate concepts, and prisoner-taking is not combat nor a component of it.
All Hazard Hosts I know cause a taking prisoner in result of successful strike against a character.
The Hazard Hosts do not work separately; they change a result of successful strike(s) from associated attack to "take a prisoner".
That what happened to a character in result of successful strike counts as in result of combat. Does not?
Compare Flies and Spiders with Exile of Solutude, for example (underlining mine):
No argument here. The strike itself is what is forcing the discard of the character.EXILE OF SOLITUDE wrote:One strike of an at home manifestation of any unique Dragon can attempt to capture a non ‐Wizard character. This strike's prowess is modified by ‐1. If this strike is successful, it forces the discard of the character (with no body check) and all cards he controls.
But for prisoner-taking, it is only a triggered effect of the card that is causing the removal from the party. It definitely wouldn't be my natural instinct to think of this effect as a result of combat just because the trigger required combat. Similarly, it seems weird to me to think of, say, Alatar joining another company through his ability a result of combat. It is a result of Alatar's ability, and a decision by the player to use the ability.
Hopefully this highlights why I'm coming from the notions:
* the trigger for prisoner-taking is a result of combat
* the prisoner-taking effect is a result of the trigger
* these don't imply that the effect a result of combat