Prisoner taking: a RESULT of combat?

The place to ask all rules questions related to MECCG.
Post Reply
User avatar
Theo
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm

Prisoner taking: a RESULT of combat?

Post by Theo » Sun Mar 04, 2018 12:05 am

Konrad Klar wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 11:03 am
Theo wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:12 pm
Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:54 am
No. Being taken prisoner is in result of combat. It is not valid reason to forbid revealing "Prisoner-taking cards which state they are playable on a character facing an attack/strike", nor Prisoner-taking cards at all.
Where 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.
I'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.
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?
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? :shock:

Compare Flies and Spiders with Exile of Solutude, for example (underlining mine):
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.
No argument here. The strike itself is what is forcing the discard of the character.

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
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.

Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Prisoner taking: a RESULT of combat?

Post by Konrad Klar » Sun Mar 04, 2018 10:35 am

Theo wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 12:05 am
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.
And a playing a Risky Blow is also not in result of combat, but it requires a combat, and so on...

Some comparison:
Lure of Power and successful influence check.
CC-4 is triggered by successful influence check but CC-4 is not result of successful influence check, but result of Lure of Power.
But... Lure of Power does not change a result, nor conditions of influence check, that can trigger CC-4 (if successful).

Hazard Hosts change a result of successful strike; imprisoning action is not extra action invoked after (and in addition to normal results) of successful strike. An imprisoning action is not triggered.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: Prisoner taking: a RESULT of combat?

Post by Theo » Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:18 pm

Konrad Klar wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 10:35 am
Hazard Hosts change a result of successful strike; imprisoning action is not extra action invoked after (and in addition to normal results) of successful strike. An imprisoning action is not triggered.
There is an "if" clause, which is the trigger. The effect is a replacement effect. Instead of being injured (a result of combat), the character is taken prisoner (a result of the replacement effect).
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.

Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Prisoner taking: a RESULT of combat?

Post by Konrad Klar » Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:27 pm

Trigger of what?
Trigger of result of successful strike? Right.
But I am under impression that with or without Flies and Spiders there would be a result of successful strike anyway.
Potentially eliminating a character, or discarding it in result of bc (for Orcs or Trolls).
Dragon's Blood consists a trigger of failed strike.
Can you say that bc resulting from failed strike against Dragon attack is not result of combat?

P.S.
Now I realize that I do not get what the Exile of Solitude changes in the picture. Does it not say what happens "if" strike is successful?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: Prisoner taking: a RESULT of combat?

Post by Theo » Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:52 am

I think these are good things to distinguish.

With the Exile of Solitude example, I was differentiating that the card changes the behavior of "it" (the strike). The card makes the strike itself discard the character instead of causing a body check. The strike is a part of combat, so its (newly re=specified) direct effects are undeniably a result of combat.

Similarly, Dragon's Blood causes the character to make a body check. Body checks are defined under combat. So a character eliminated by that body check is eliminated as a result of combat.

I see Flies and Spiders differing from Exile of Solitude in that the card (not combat) is replacing a trigger for a body check a with a trigger for something entirely new that doesn't need to have anything to do with combat. While the trigger is a direct result of combat (a strike being successful), the effects of the new thing being triggered (character leaving part from being taken prisoner) does not seem like a direct effect of combat, rather a direct effect of the definition of prisoner taking (which has no tie to combat) as well as the Flies and Spiders replacement effect.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.

Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Prisoner taking: a RESULT of combat?

Post by Konrad Klar » Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:52 pm

I think that there are two things to distinguish.

An activity and what causes the activity.
Pallando the Soul-keeper wrote:Unique. Maia. Manifestation of Pallando. Two strikes. Detainment and -3 prowess against hero companies. Discard this card if Pallando comes into play. As a creature, may be played keyed to Lindon, Númeriador, Arthedain, or Cardolan; or at sites in these regions. As a permanent-event, the next non-Ringwraith minion discarded from play is instead eliminated. Discard when a minion is so eliminated.
Whatever would cause a discarding of minion, it is not Pallando the Soul-keeper as a permanent-event.
Pallando the Soul-keeper only changes an action "discard" to "eliminate".
If minion character would be discarded in result of wounding by Abductor, it would count as removing from a company in result of combat.

@Theo
What I understand from your last post:
Prisoner taking effect does not count as a result of combat and period.
It does not matter that the action resulted from successful strike.
If result would be "discard" or "make additional bc" then OK, but not "is taken prisoner".
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: Prisoner taking: a RESULT of combat?

Post by Theo » Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:06 pm

Added numbers:
Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:52 pm
1) Whatever would cause a discarding of minion, it is not Pallando the Soul-keeper as a permanent-event.
2) Pallando the Soul-keeper only changes an action "discard" to "eliminate".
3) If minion character would be discarded in result of wounding by Abductor, it would count as removing from a company in result of combat.
Agree with (1) & (3). For (3), the Abductor is a hazard creature, which in my mind is necessarily combat. Permanent-event Pallando the Soul-keeper is not necessarily combat.

For (2), Pallando the Soul-keeper's replacement still requires the character to be discarded. So the initial discarding removes a character from the company before his arguably-non-combat replacement effect triggers, and its elimination effect does not violate the can't-remove-from-company rule.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:52 pm
@Theo
What I understand from your last post:
Prisoner taking effect does not count as a result of combat and period.
It does not matter that the action resulted from successful strike.
If result would be "discard" or "make additional bc" then OK, but not "is taken prisoner".
These aren't quite what I was trying to say. Consider this hypothetical alternative wording that Flies and Spiders *could* have had:
"If the strike wounds a character, the strike causes the character to be taken prisoner."
Under this wording (similar to Exile of Solitude, given above), I would agree that the prisoner taking is a direct result of combat (the strike).

What I don't believe is that an effect that is triggered during a combat sequence necessarily means that the effect is a result of combat. It being triggered would be a result of combat, but the effect itself can be a result of something non-combat related.

Flies and Spiders doesn't have "the strike causes" wording; the prisoner taking is thus being performed by Flies and Spiders, not the strike, and neither Flies and Spiders (a permanent event that requires combat to be played, but doesn't cause combat or an effect of combat) nor taking prisoners is defined to be combat.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.

Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Prisoner taking: a RESULT of combat?

Post by Konrad Klar » Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:50 pm

Theo wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:06 pm
What I don't believe is that an effect that is triggered during a combat sequence necessarily means that the effect is a result of combat. It being triggered would be a result of combat, but the effect itself can be a result of something non-combat related.
I also do not believe that an effect that is triggered during a combat sequence necessarily means that the effect is a result of combat.
Effect of Something has Slipped may be triggered during combat, but it is the effect of character (or ally) becoming wounded, which may happen for other reasons too.
Like all effects that are triggered during combat but (in my opinion) are not results of combat, it does not replace a result of dice roll in strike sequence.
Theo wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:06 pm
Consider this hypothetical alternative wording that Flies and Spiders *could* have had:
"If the strike wounds a character, the strike causes the character to be taken prisoner."
Under this wording (similar to Exile of Solitude, given above), I would agree that the prisoner taking is a direct result of combat (the strike).
So mere successful strike is not enough here, but is enough for Exile of Solitude?

BTW. Can you imagine/manage non-combat situation in which Flies and Spiders can be played?
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

User avatar
Theo
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:49 pm

Re: Prisoner taking: a RESULT of combat?

Post by Theo » Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:56 am

Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:50 pm
Theo wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:06 pm
Consider this hypothetical alternative wording that Flies and Spiders *could* have had:
"If the strike wounds a character, the strike causes the character to be taken prisoner."
Under this wording (similar to Exile of Solitude, given above), I would agree that the prisoner taking is a direct result of combat (the strike).
So mere successful strike is not enough here, but is enough for Exile of Solitude?
Maybe my communication wasn't clear? The wording in this quote *would* convince me that the prisoner-taking is a result of combat. This kind of wording is similar to Exile of Solitude in that in both cases the wording implies that the strike itself is what directly causes the prisoner-taking.

In contrast, the actual Flies and Spiders wording does not say that the strike directly causes the prisoner-taking, but that the strike result is merely triggering the prisoner-taking effect of Flies and Spiders. This is a subtle difference, but an important one for what I'm saying.
Konrad Klar wrote:
Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:50 pm
BTW. Can you imagine/manage non-combat situation in which Flies and Spiders can be played?
No. Would you like to pursue the route that all effects of cards that require combat are by definition a result of combat? Because I think that route could exist, although I don't think that it is implied by the current English wording.
It is not our part here to take thought only for a season, or for a few lives of Men, or for a passing age of the world.

Konrad Klar
Rules Wizard
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:35 am
Location: Wałbrzych, Poland
Contact:

Re: Prisoner taking: a RESULT of combat?

Post by Konrad Klar » Sat Mar 10, 2018 11:45 am

I am unable to see the pattern that makes a results of combat a some effects of cards that say "if strike is successful" (Exile of Solitude),
and does not make a results of combat a some effects of other cards that say "if strike is successful" (Flies and Spiders).

Maybe the fragment does fit in the pattern:
Dark Minions, Taking Prisoners, Rescue and the Rescue-attack wrote:At any point outside of the initial attack or conditions by which a
hazard host is played, the hazard host is discarded if there are no imprisoned
characters are under it. Whenever, the hazard host is discarded, the rescue site always
returns to the location deck.
Underline mine.
We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”