Okay ....this issue is fairly important to the workings of several cards, and has been a minor issue of confusion / debate between me and my friend with whom I play this game.

Basically....several cards use wording such as "If you lose a (whatever type) struggle..." ....or "If you win a struggle by 2, then...." - etc.

Examples are:

Repo Man

If you win a (Combat) struggle at a story to which Repo Man is committed, instead of the normal struggle effects, take control of a support card controlled by the losing player.

------------------

Vengeful Hit

Disrupt : After you lose an (Investigation) struggle, choose a character with an (Investigation) icon, remove that character from the story it is committed to, then exhaust it if it is not already exhausted.

-------------------

Vengeful Mob

Response: After you lose a (Combat) struggle, choose an opponent's character.
If that character has fewer (Combat) icons than all of your characters that are not committed to a story, wound the target character.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Now, I presented this question (on one particular card - Vengeful Mob) over at Board Game Geek forums...and the responses there were kind of mixed, with former Champ Chris Long himself weighing in on the debate.

The question is....when these cards mention "Win" or "Lose" - what exactly must the situation be at the Story Card they are at in order for these terms to apply and their potential effects activated ? For example....if a Magah Bird (Skill-1, No Icons at all) commits to a Story on its controller's Turn-2....and there are no enemy characters that are on the table, meaning the Magah Bird is at the story, alone..... does the Magah Bird actually "win" any struggles ? He wins Skill...because he has Skill-1 and there are no opponents. .... but he has no Struggle Icons (at all) - so can he actually "win" any of them ? My friend and I argued - No - and the general consensus of BGG seemed to be the same.

BUT...the question becomes more complicated if you give the character you are using some Icons. For example...let's say it's Turn-2 ...and this time, we use the example of an Undercover Security, an excellent early-game Agency card:

When we commit the Undercover Security to the same story we used in the example above, we encounter some questions. Terror...there is no Terror...so nobody "wins or loses" .....Combat....now...the Security HAS a Combat Icon....and if he is unopposed...has he still "Won" the Combat Struggle ? One might think so...but if that was true...and we had him and Repo Man (see above description) at the story....would that mean Repo could trigger his effect and take an opponents support card ?

Before you answer...consider the next struggle....Investigation. Now...the Security has a single I-Icon ....and the rules say if you "win" Investigation...you get to put an additional Success Token onto a story. This would suggest that you CAN - win struggles where you are not opposed by anyone, because otherwise - why do we award Tokens for unopposed Investigations ?

This produces some strange in-game effects though.... it would mean, for example, that the opponent (playing Syndicate) could play "Vengeful Hit" - after your Undercover Security has scored 1-Token for you......and the Vengeful Hit could remove the U-Security from the story, and exhaust him....meaning (I guess) when we come to the Skill Check - there would be nobody for you at the story ....at all....and thus you'd get no more Tokens (other than the 1-you scored for the successful Investigation). Is this how you can play Vengeful Hit though ?

Lastly, look at Vengeful Mob - me and my friend had an issue with this - and it was that card which inspired me to ask this over at BGG in the first place. That card says "after you lose a combat struggle...choose and wound..." (etc). He basically said when a Disciple of the Gate I had at story (unopposed) went to put two Success Tokens down - that I should instead "go through the struggles" - and because I had 2-Combat....and he had none (because nobody was at the story) - he claimed he had "lost" the Combat Struggle - meaning he could legally play "Vengeful Mob" - to choose and wound a character of mine (if I recall, he actually chose the Disciple of the Gate himself, since he had a Slavering Gug out, with 3-Combat Icons, but it was exhausted from something I did earlier before my Story Phase / Attack began, so he couldn't use him normally to contest anything). Since the uncommitted Gug's 3-Combat was more than the Disciple's 2-Combat - Vengeful Mob meant he could choose and wound the Disciple, denying me ANYTHING at that story (since I would be dead - I think - by the time we got around to looking at skill).

We might have played that specific timing part wrong - but the general issue of "when do you Win and / or Lose" a struggle seems to stand and perhaps you all can provide your own ideas and insights on this.

Well, we can give for granted that you can win struggles even if your opponent doesn't have any characters at the story, but your characters need to have the appropiate Icons, otherwise it would be a tie to 0, that is not a win even with Fast (as covered by the rules). I think that covers the Magah birds issue.

That would also lead to Repo Man using his ability even when not opposed, and I see no problem with that, that's the way we have been playing Repo Man from the beginning.

The main problem with the other two questions is that we don't have a clear definition of "losing" a struggle, and we don't know if losing a struggle is possible even when you don't have any characters in the losing side.

I think that if a player wins a struggle, then his opponent have indeed lost it, but that's only MHO.

Following that reasoning, that would mean that playing "Vengeful Hit" would indeed remove the Undercover Security from the story, and if you don't have any more characters at that story, would leave the skill comparison as a tie to 0, giving you no additional success tokens. (In fact, that would be the main way for me to play that card).

But I think that your friend argument with "Vengeful Mob" has a flaw. That card is a Response:, that by rules cannot be played when the stories are resolving. That would mean that yes, he would have killed your character, but not before the Response Window that exists after the stories resolutions to handle Responses triggered during them. Your character would be in play till then, so you get all the results of icon struggles and skill comparisons.

Right- and thanks for the reply, so far, Ech .... me and my friend (after checking the rulebook again and hearing back from Chris Long at BGG) did agree and understand that the Response nature of Vengeful Mob had to happen at the end of the Story - ie, after I would have scored Success Tokens for Skill, etc.

I only mentioned it because it involved one of the cards in question and the general concept of "If you aren't there...are you still losing ?" - as you pointed out.

I do agree, as well, as did my friend ....that you (logically) have to actually have at least 1-Icon of a given type to "Win" the Struggle, even if you are unopposed....and obviously you always need at least 1-Skill to score any points at the Success / Skill check.

Looking through the Rulebook though, I can't find any specific instance where they ever say explicitly the conditions by which you lose a Struggle...OTHER than on page-9 ...where it says (under Resolving an Icon Struggle):

"To resolve an icon struggle (such as "Terror"), the active player counts the total number of the relevant icon on all his committed characters at that story. Then the opponent does the same for his characters that are committed to the story. The player (active player or opponent) who has the most icons of the relevant type wins that struggle and immediately exercises its specific effect (see below)."

- It goes on to say that if you tie on a number of icons, including -0- for both sides of that type of icon, that nothing happens and the game proceeds to the next step. That's all pretty basic - so no issues there.

However, the very NEXT section, under Terror Struggle (for example) - says "The player who loses a Terror struggle must immediately choose one of his characters (committed to the story) to go Insane." - etc. etc.

-

The only problem, as it stands, is that the Rulebook never says "you lose a struggle automatically, if you have no characters at the story, and your opponent has at least 1-character with at least 1-icon of that Struggle Type at the story."

? - does the FAQ address this somewhere and I am just being thick and not spotting it ?

Yes, if you have a character with icons, and you send them to a story unopposed, you "win" all of those struggles.

I soloed Repo Man at many stories at Worlds this year and I reaped the benefits many times.

Chevee

I don't think there is any official definition of losing. And you've hit the nail on the thumb - the question that needs resolution is "can you lose when you do not participate in a struggle?"

I think the language implies that if you are at the struggle and didn't win or tie, then you lost.

The rules make it clear that if a character is unopposed and has more than zero icons, they win that struggle.

So one way to interpret it would be that you if your opponent wins a struggle, you lose. However if we think about it in multi-player terms, then that doesn't make any sense - everyone else can't be the loser.

My gut feeling (certainly not official, but it is so hard to get official responses) is that you can only lose if you are present at the story being resolved.

And I only reach this gut feeling due to the implications for multi-player games.

TheProfessor said:

I agree with this, but not only because of multiplayer but also because Terror and Combat struggles would be outrageously imbalanced if you did not participate, but went insane/took a wound anyways.

In anecdotal terms, its like a shoggoth saying "ooga-booga" while in Antarctica, but a nerd in Arkham goes suddenly insane for some inexplicable reason. (Yes, I know Cthulhu himself did this to the dreamers and artists in "Call of Cthulhu" but bear with me here)

To put it another way, if you win the Arcane or Investigation struggles, you reap the benefits. If you win the Terror or Combat struggles that were undefended, then the opponent isn't punished. No character would go insane or take a wound....because there is literally nothing there to scare or kill.

You would still win those struggles for card effect purposes like Those Without Faces (Opponent discards a card for each Terror struggle you won this phase) and that effect would resolve because there is no replacement effect such as found in Erich Zann/Touched With Madness/Grim Wraith which have "instead of the normal struggle effect" in the description of their respective effects. The normal struggle effect being a character goes insane, but if it's undefended and no character goes insane (because nobody 'lost' the Terror struggle) then that effect cannot resolve.

To me its rather simple even if its not perfectly portrayed (although strongly implied in a roundabout way) in the rules. You can win something you participate in, but you cannot lose something you did not participate in. It makes the most logical sense.

TheProfessor said:

So, I disagree with your gut feeling I think it's okay for everyone else to be considered losing the struggles in a multiplayer game, if neither of them commits a character.

Hum, just to add something to the debat.

Considering Magah birds to win struggles if they are committed alone in a story is not possible. This way, they would earn a success token each time you resolve th investigation struggle, would'nt they ???

I agree nothing is clearly explained on the rule book on this specific point, but this is pure niitpicking and I don't understand why you should consider a character that has no specific icons to win in a struggle.

My bet would be the opponent has no specific character, so he owns 0 T icon, 0 C icon, 0 A icon and 0 I icon, so this would be a tie of 0 (which is explicit in the rule). So the global solution would be a tie, not a "win" or a "loss"...

You can't consider losing a struggle if you don't commit anyone but your opponent's character has no specific icon.

Good comments by everyone, and thank you for contributing to the discussion.

I want to make it clear again - as some might not have realized what specifically I was talking about.... is.... in the rules....it's clear that if you have a character at a story....and your character has ZERO-icons (like Magah Birds) .... then if your opponent has a character with even 1-of any of the Struggle Icons (Terror, Combat, etc) - then they would WIN ...and you would LOSE...each of those.

Obviously, it's also clear that if you have a character with NO icons of a given sort, you cannot claim you have "won" the struggle, even if your opponent has nobody there. That's not up for debate either.

The thing I'm keying on - is an apparent hole in the Rules where they do not bother addressing this in a clear single sentence or manner - which is.....if your opponent commits the dreaded Nyarlathotep, the Black Pharaoh to a story.....and you have nobody there to defend against him.... do you *specifically* LOSE - each of the struggles ?

- For those not in the know, Nyarl has 1-of EACH icon -

-

The reason this is important, is that if you play it one way (believing that when Nyarl commits and is unapposed...that not only does he "Win" each Struggle...but you - the other player....automatically are "losing" the struggles. Yes...logic might say you are...but that would mean none of you have an issue with playing a Vengeful Mob - Syndicate card - as soon as Nyarl "goes through the Combat Struggle and says - ' well, you have nobody here, so I win Combat ...meaning you just LOST Combat....' .." ?

But is this true ?

FFG should have had a simple sentence in the Rules clarifying this matter, as it affects several cards (like Vengeful Mob), dramatically - if you are allowed to play it one way , as opposed to another.

Well, you didn't WIN Combat or any other struggle, nor did you tie (in a situation where opponent has Nyarly unopposed at a story). What is left? You LOST those struggles.

Dam said:

I'm not sure that there are only three options (win, lose, tie). There is also "not involved". Some games (L5R, for example) have a "presence" requirement for things. We don't know if you need to be present at a struggle to be involved and have an outcome (win, lose, tie).

Rosh87 said:

Allow me to repeat myself:

Hellfury said:

I cant imagine a clearer way to portray this.

If you do not defend the skill part of a story, did you lose it? No. You did not particpate in it and the opponent gets one more success tokens because you either didn't participate or had characters committed with 0 skill. It is considered, as per the rules on page 10 as UNCHALLENGED .

Did one side win? Yes.

Did one side lose? No, it was unchallenged.

If I am sitting by myself at a table, and I challenge everyone on the planet to an arm wrestling contest and nobody takes up my challenge, if I still go through with the contest anyway (looking like a complete moron in a one man arm wrestling contest), there is no way in hell everybody else lost because they didnt play. "I won a one man arm wrestling contest, therefore everyone else lost" just doesnt come close to being described as even remotely logical.

This metaphor fits.

Hellfury said:

Similarly, in a tournament with an incomplete roster when the teams are paired, the ones that get a free ticket are considered to have won.

There is no distinction between having won because someone participated but lost or losing because no opponent was present.

If the distinction is important for a card effect, the card text will mention it, e.g. "After you win a story in which you were opposed...".

Similarly it would have to say "After you win a <icon> struggle in which you were opposed...", if the effect was not supposed to take effect when unchallenged.

The rule you're referring to (page 10 Unchallenged) does not have anything to do with icon struggles.

The relevant rule is in the FAQ:

(v1.0) Winning an Icon Struggle
It is possible for a player to win an icon
struggle even when his opponent has
committed no characters , or characters
with that icon, to the struggle. For
example, a player would win a Terror
struggle if he had committed any
characters with one or more Terror icons
and his opponent had committed no
characters.

This is crystal clear!

I am not saying that the ruling ha anything to do with icon struggles. I mention it merely as precedent.

So if people lose icon struggles they are not present at, then it should follow logically that the winner of the icon struggle can drive a character insane and or give a character a wound if they have terror/combat icons?

This is the eventuality of the interpretation that you can lose at something you did not participate in.

jhaelen said:

Likewise, it says that while you win an icon struggle even when his opponent has no commited characters , it also does NOT say that the very same uncommitted opponent loses the icon struggle. A very large, if subtle distinction there.

Hellfury said:

Terror and Combat struggle effects both only affect characters committed to stories (and even then winning Terror in Story 1 won't able you to drive insane a character in Story 2), unless you have something in play that changes things.

Thanks Dam, but I think you're missing the point I was trying to make. There is slippery slope logic being instituted here and I think a few posters are missing that. Thats what I was attempting to point out.

Thanks to Jhaelen for at least mentioning the FAQ note on this -which I think I read over without noticing clearly - - - basically, they DO clarify what me, my opponent, and most others here - assumed "logically" at the outset.....which is you DO / CAN win struggles at stories where you are unapposed, as long as you have at least 1-Icon of that struggle type. That's cool ....and also "makes sense".

The issue though, as Hell and others mentioned....is that there is no clear statement that "because you WON...your opponent automatically counts as LOSING". Hell's humorous 1-man arm-wrestle example seems pretty good at illustrating that. Nobody would deny you "Won" the contest as your arm slammed down on your table.....even though you were fighting "nobody"....but could you then accurately / logically / seriously - claim that everyone else in the world (none of whom actually sat opposite you and participated in the arm wrestle) ....LOST ... ?

If you would agree that is silly (to claim all others LOST - just because you Won...against...nobody).....than why is it not silly to think the same thing would apply in CoC struggles / stories ?

Rosh87 said:

If we all agree that I have won the challenge if noone chooses to accept the challenge, we also have to agree that everone else lost. It makes no difference if I win because I actually defeated everyone or if I won because everyone declined to participate. They lost either way, the reason doesn't matter, because nothing in the rules indicates it makes a difference.

Now, I'm not saying I have conclusive evidence that I am right, but it doesn't make any sense to me to be able to win something without my opponents losing, unless we share the win (though that would effectively be a draw).

So you are okay with your opponent being able to play a Vengeful Mob, to wound a character of yours - after you have a character with 1-Combat Icon (say Undercover Security, for example)...be at a story unopposed....? You would get 1-for Skill - 1 for Investigation (in this example) - 1 extra for being unopposed....and then since your opponent "Lost a Combat Struggle" - because he had nobody there ....he can then toss out a Vengeful Mob - and wound one of your guys (potentially) but you are okay with that interpretation ?

I must have miss something in Hellfury's demonstration (I hope he will excuse me, cause I

Even if you don't participate the skill struggle, as you've committed no characters, your opponent still earns succes tokens (doesn't he ?).

So, there is no consideration of challenging or not (except for the extra success token for unchallenge skill struggle) that would avoid the fact that you just

WIN, LOOSE, TIE and nothing else.

The rules (p 9) :

To resolve an icon struggle (such as “Terror”), the active player counts the total number of the relevant icon on all his committed
characters at that story. Then the opponent does the same for his characters that are committed to the story.

The player (active player or opponent) who has the most icons of the relevant type wins that struggle and immediately exercises its specific effect (see below).
If the players tie when counting the number of icons (they both have an equal number of icons of the relevant type, including zero)
then nothing happens and the game proceeds to the next step.

WHen DAM said :

"Terror and Combat struggle effects both only affect characters committed to stories (and even then winning Terror in Story 1 won't able you to drive insane a character in Story 2), unless you have something in play that changes things",

he is right in the consequence, but that's not the way it is written in the rules :

The player who loses a Terror struggle must immediately choose
one of his characters (committed to that story) to go insane, if able.

Remember it's an "If able" consequence. In case you cannot target a valid target, the effect fizzled.

If the opponent is not defending the story and Nyarlathotep is commited alone as an attacker, Yes, he will win every struggle.

He would'nt have any target to drive insane, wound or ready (except himself) but the active player will be the winner of the struggle.

I hope this will help and avoid misinterpretation concerning the fact that even if the player don't participate, he might loose struggles.

@ROSH 87 : YEp, I agree with your interpretation. This card was designed to be a kind of "counterstrike", so this is the spirit of the effect.

Rosh87 said:

Okay then, this is how me and my opponent will play it going forwards

Wow, I can't believe the discussion has gone on this long.

From the very beginning it seemed quite clear to me and no one

has explained it any more clearly than Hellfury.

Hellfury said:

Well, Hellfury's interpretation disagrees with Jhaelen's, and others....in that he (Hell) feels you cannot "Lose" a struggle you are not participating at. However, Chris Long (former CoC Champion and poster over at Board Game Geek forums) responded to my posting of this issue over there by saying he supported Jhaelen's interp, and also said that's how he and his group of gamers (and tourney goers) have played it, and seen it played. So clearly there exists a range of opinions, and I am impressed that it "seemed quite clear to you" - when it seems there are still quite a few ways to interpret it !