Hi,

If A opposes B each other, A initiate an military challenge and B is winning (defend successful).

Could B claim 1 power as B win a challenge against A. (And B opposes A)?

Tks

I don't think I completely follow your scenario, but if Player A initiates a challenge against Player B and Player B's title opposes Player A's title; then, yes, Player B would claim a power.

The Core Set rules only state that you gain a power (once per round) if you win a challenge against a title that your title opposes - it doesn't specify attack or defense.

Yeah, I was confused by the question as well - doulos basically had my answer down to a T just as I was about to submit.

If the question really is "Can you claim power for opposing a title by winning on the defence" - the answer is yes.

Thank you

Scenario 2:

A supports B, A oppose C.

C initial challenge against B

B declare no defenders.

A jump into that challenge and defend for B.

A win challenge.

Could A claim 1 power ? (As A opposes title to C)

Or cannot claim? (As C is the attacker and B is the original targeted defender)

The important thing is that if B's title opposes A's, B can claim the "opposes" power if he wins on defense. Let's be clear, though. B's title must oppose A's. If A's title opposes B's and A attack's B hoping to win and get an extra power, B won't get anything special for winning on defense.

For the follow-up, when you declare defenders through the "supports" mechanic, you become the new defending player. As such, you win the challenge on defense and get all the benefits of winning a challenge as the defender (including any reward for "opposes" that might apply).

For the follow-up, when you declare defenders through the "supports" mechanic, you become the new defending player. As such, you win the challenge on defense and get all the benefits of winning a challenge as the defender (including any reward for "opposes" that might apply).

It is important for the other side, if A defends for B and loses, C claims the extra power for opposing titles (because they won a challenge where their opposing title defended), but B must still pay whatever the claim is, because they were the target of the challenge... unless A is playing Martell and throws out a Red Vengeance or something similar.