Hello,

in the last scene of The Druadan Forest we do not place damage tokens but progress tokens on enemies and then place them in the victory display instead of the discard pile.

As for the the 3a text, we don't really attack and kill them but we try to convince them we are not enemies.

Does the propriety of core Legolas apply here? Can we still consider them "destroyed"?

They aren't destroyed, I'm afraid. Being destroyed is precisely the result of having damage tokens equal to the card's health.

Ok. Thank you.

I had a few doubts because the Core Set Manual says "defeated" and not "destroyed" under the "Hit points and damage" paragraph.

And also because Legolas is a core set card, and maybe at the time of the core set release there was no clue of The Druadan Forest attack mechanics.

Thematically speaking, I see no reason not to activate is response in this case, but rules are rules.. In my modest opinion, "defeat" would have been a bettere wording for legolas.

Ok. Thank you.

I had a few doubts because the Core Set Manual says "defeated" and not "destroyed" under the "Hit points and damage" paragraph.

And also because Legolas is a core set card, and maybe at the time of the core set release there was no clue of The Druadan Forest attack mechanics.

Thematically speaking, I see no reason not to activate is response in this case, but rules are rules.. In my modest opinion, "defeat" would have been a bettere wording for legolas.

I do not think there is currently a meaningful difference between defeat and destroy. It is possible it will be distinguished later. Perhaps there is an interaction where there is a difference I'm not thinking of. I believe they are fully synonymous, though.

There has been an official ruling in the past indicating that 'destroy' is equal to placing enough damage tokens on an enemy. Or maybe that was in the core set manual. Anyway, it was long long ago. I do not believe 'defeat' has been defined separately.

There has been an official ruling in the past indicating that 'destroy' is equal to placing enough damage tokens on an enemy. Or maybe that was in the core set manual. Anyway, it was long long ago. I do not believe 'defeat' has been defined separately.

When an enemy has damage equal to its hit points it is both defeated and destroyed. But you are correct that "defeat" has not been adequately defined.

Any time one of these cards has 0 hit points, it is immediately defeat ed. Defeated characters are placed in their owner’s discard pile, and defeated enemies are placed in the encounter discard pile.

There are currently no examples of "defeat" being different than "destroy" in the Core Set Rules so for all intents and purposes they are the same until defined otherwise. Maybe in a specific scenario there is more clarification on the matter, but I am not sure.

I believe they have to be fully synonymous for the following reason:

An enemy with the Indestructible keyword cannot be destroyed by damage, even when it has damage on it equal to its hit points.

Any time one of these cards has 0 hit points, it is immediately defeat ed. Defeated characters are placed in their owner’s discard pile, and defeated enemies are placed in the encounter discard pile.

When you combine these two rules to an enemy with the Indestructible keyword, it would be possible to defeat (but not destroy) an enemy (such as Thaurdir in The Treachery of Rhudaur) causing you to discard it when you shouldn't be able to.

This was the offical ruling I was searching for. Thank you cmabr002, no more doubts about the "destroyed" word. I consider this a full clear answer to my question.

But I still have doubt about destroyed/defeated to be fully synonymous. You say that in some circumstances (indistructible) you can defeat an enemy without destroying it.. how can they be fully synonymous?

The word defeat is also used for scenarios, and we can't think about destroying a scenario.

In Shadow and Flame the word defeat is not used, but the durin's bane is also indistructible and you can't destroy it but you can let him fall into the dark pit. I would call this defeat the enemy.

So when I said that i would have been worded Legolas with "defeat" is because I like to think about him as character who get satisfaction defeating an enemy without necessarily kill or destroying it.

But this is offtopic and simply my opinion,

cmabr002 is saying that Defeated and Destroyed must mean the same thing, because if they didn't mean the same thing then you could Defeat an Indestructible enemy. We know we can't do this, so we conclude that Defeat is the same as Destroy.

Ok, now it's clear. I didn't understand well before, maybe because I'm not a native english speaker.

Thank you.

In fact, Destroyed and Defeated mean the same thing, but not when a character or enemy is Discarded (example, effects that occur when a character is Distroyed do not occur when you discard Gandalf ally or Galadriel ally).

(This is specified is the FAQ).