There are 3 player in the game. Player A oppose Player C, and Player B support Player C.
Now, Player A initiate a combat challenge to Player C, and player C cann't defend. So, Player B claim help play c to defend. And then player B lost the challenge, Play C must to accept the challenge lost effect. And Now Player A can claim an addictional Power for oppose title on Player C, or not?
I believe player A can not claim the power. The rules for supporting another title state that when a supporting player declares defenders in a challenge in which the player he/she supports declares no defenders that the supporting player is considered the winner or loser of the challenge (but the supported player satisfies the claim in the event of a loss). So in this case, player A is the winner and player B is the loser (not player C). You would need player A to be the winner and player C to be the loser for A to claim a power for defeating an opposed title.
Not entirely.
You need to read further, into the actual examples. There, it clarifies that the Supporting player is considered the winner/loser of the challenge for the purpose Responses, passives and keywords like Renown. The challenge's "defending player" never actually changes (this is why the original defender settles claim and the attacker doesn't get a chance to reassign stealth to the Supporting player's characters). So technically, the attacker has won a challenge (initiated) against the person with the Title they oppose and could claim the extra power from the Titles.
Woo! there have two different answers, which is correct?
Rex Tan said:
Woo! there have two different answers, which is correct?
Hahah, you really are a newbie.
ktom is always correct
.
By the way, just curious, so the supporting player counts as the winner/loser for the purpose of passives, responses, and keywords. I know that leaves claim and opposed titles bonuses for the original defending player. Are there any other game effects not covered by that list for which it would still matter that the original defending player was the winner/loser of a challenge? Also, another point of clarification - if the supporting player wins the challenge, the original defending player would claim a power (the only titles for which a player could be opposed and supported are ones that you reciprocally oppose the attacking player).
schrecklich said:
Rex Tan said:
Woo! there have two different answers, which is correct?
Hahah, you really are a newbie.
ktom is always correct
.
By the way, just curious, so the supporting player counts as the winner/loser for the purpose of passives, responses, and keywords. I know that leaves claim and opposed titles bonuses for the original defending player. Are there any other game effects not covered by that list for which it would still matter that the original defending player was the winner/loser of a challenge? Also, another point of clarification - if the supporting player wins the challenge, the original defending player would claim a power (the only titles for which a player could be opposed and supported are ones that you reciprocally oppose the attacking player).
Hehe , I know Ktom is really really profressional, but i just not get unique one answer.
Rex Tan said:
Ultimately, any answer you get on the boards has to pass through your own reasoning and thinking. The first answer outlined its reasoning from the rule book. The second answer outlined its reasoning with the same rule book, plus the FAQ and insight gained from the specific examples in the rule book. It's up to you to decide which one you think is more complete and correct.
schrecklich: to my knowledge, claim and "opposed" would be the only game effects that look at the "original" defender in this situation. Everything else falls under the "passives, Responses and keywords" guidelines. Unopposed would be the only other possibility when resolving challenges, but there, the "at least 1 defending character and a defending STR greater than 0" carries more weight than the identity of the defending player.