Elected Guild Leader! and Win/Lose a combat

[helium_wong]

For the purpose of the Elected Guild Leader! card, I need to know what is winning/losing a combat. From the FAQ, I know that lose a combat = need to Run Away from the monsters. Can I assume that if someone is not lose a combat = win a combat? i.e., there are only 2 results for a combat, either win or lose?

e.g., if a Thief encounter the Lawyers, the player still win the combat and so, the Elected Guild Leader! still get a face-down Treasure?

Thanks.

[Eben]

Originally Posted by helium_wong

For the purpose of the Elected Guild Leader! card, I need to know what is winning/losing a combat. From the FAQ, I know that lose a combat = need to Run Away from the monsters. Can I assume that if someone is not lose a combat = win a combat? i.e., there are only 2 results for a combat, either win or lose?

e.g., if a Thief encounter the Lawyers, the player still win the combat and so, the Elected Guild Leader! still get a face-down Treasure?

Thanks.

Actually, there are three outcomes. You can win a combat, lose the combat or end up in a situation where there is no combat. IE, monsters that won't fight.
You win the combat by defeating the monster in some manner.

You lose the combat by being forced to run away.

You do neither if the monster won't fight you.

[Clipper]

Actually, you can win some combats where the monsters won't fight you. If the monster simply wanders off (like the Amazon vs. a female), then the combat is continuing and players can add a Wandering Monster within the reasonable time you must provide before winning. If nobody plays any cards to stop you, you win the combat (even though you didn't end up killing anything).

I agree that there are three types of ending to a combat, though. Winning and losing are the first two, of course, with the third being the combat being ended without a result. This will happen when a card specifically ends a combat without declaring a result. Friendship Potion is one such card. Cards that end the combat player's turn (e.g., Curse! Wander For Ten Years from Legends) would also cause this to happen.

[Blazinjsin]

Originally Posted by Clipper

Actually, you can win some combats where the monsters won't fight you. If the monster simply wanders off (like the Amazon vs. a female), then the combat is continuing and players can add a Wandering Monster within the reasonable time you must provide before winning. If nobody plays any cards to stop you, you win the combat (even though you didn't end up killing anything).

How would that be considered winning the combat?

[Clipper]

Originally Posted by Blazinjsin

How would that be considered winning the combat?

You win a combat by having a higher combat strength than the monster side after providing reasonable time for your fellow players to interfere. If there are no monsters on the monster side, your combat strength is inherently higher. Other players still have the same time to interfere that they would in a combat with monsters present, although their options are limited (adding Wandering Monsters is pretty much the only thing they can do here).

[MunchkinMan]

I'm fairly certain that Andrew and I have said, somewhere, that if you didn't have to Run Away, or combat did not end in a way where you were forced to take Bad Stuff because of a card that was played that ended combat and cut out the process of Running Away, but clearly end things badly for the munchkin side, that combat could be considered a win.

, that run on sentence makes sense...

[Clipper]

I think you might need a didn't in the "but clearly end things badly for the munchkin side" bit, MunchkinMan.

With that correction, it makes sense. Transferral Potion definitely throws a spanner in the works, though...

[Mister Ed]

Originally Posted by Clipper

I think you might need a didn't in the "but clearly end things badly for the munchkin side" bit, MunchkinMan.

I don't think so. I think that phrase goes with the part before it, not the part after it.

Originally Posted by MunchkinMan

...end in a way where you were forced to take Bad Stuff because of a card that was played that ended combat and cut out the process of Running Away, but clearly end things badly for the munchkin side...

Does it make more sense when I pull that chunk out by itself? He's talking about a situation where a card ends combat badly for the Munchkin side, even without the Run Away step being involved.

[Clipper]

Originally Posted by Mister Ed

Does it make more sense when I pull that chunk out by itself? He's talking about a situation where a card ends combat badly for the Munchkin side, even without the Run Away step being involved.

Ah, yes. I can see the ambiguity now. The "did not" that appears just before the part you quoted was intended to encompass the part after the comma. I was only applying it to the stuff preceding the comma.

[MunchkinMan]

I'd really love to know what happened to the first half of that last sentence. . . I'm going to guess that was, at the very least, supposed to be a "Hopefully" that got eaten by my phone. Text entry is great except for on forums, where it seems to just eat words. . .