AlliesLost's page

Thanks so much, skizzerz! This was the proverbial "lynchpin" right here:

3. "If any character fails, this barrier is undefeated; banish all the allies, and you may banish this barrier." ... This gives you a choice between potentially finding Rallying Cry again and getting another shot at winning some allies or getting rid of it to move on with your life.

There needed to be a benefit to keeping this bane around for this to make any logical sense, and that's what I didn't see: that someone may want to re-use this to try to gain Allies. Many thanks for opening my eyes to that. And also breaking my logic connection between "a bane can be undefeated" and "that bane can still be banished."

Actually, your final answer does fit my Choice A:

A) "This is a card that does not have to be defeated in order to banish it ... only contested once. Then you can "choose" to banish it, along with all the other attempted Allies (won or lost)."

This is just a rewording of your fuller answer around #3. But my initial resistance to accepting that was: "too easy."

.
.
.
OPTIONAL EXTENDED READING:
All that AND the English/grammar on this one is still a little misleading. Only read on if y'all are interested in why I say that.

I mean, I'm right there with you on strictly interpreting the punctuation. The language and other characters need to be exact and precise in order to convey accurate meaning, in writing, in a complex game, via one portion of a single card. (Much like writing a computer procedure via 1 line of code.) 100% agree.

Ordinarily, any sentence following this format is perfectly clear:

"If any character fails, this barrier is undefeated; banish all the allies."

Here, "banish all the allies" is very clearly an instruction, not a choice.

But once one adds the

"<comma> and you may banish this barrier."

then a new, just-as-possible (if not more common) English interpretation is created for the entire post-semicolon portion (while still being connected to "if any character fails"):

IF you "banish all the allies" THEN "you may banish this barrier."

Because, as we know, English speakers commonly use this pattern with these assumed, embedded, bolded words.

e.g., a mother defining parameters for a 2yo: "Pick up your toys, and you may have a cookie." Same pattern; we add the IF/THEN in our heads.

Using that interpretation, being unable to think of another, immediately raises questions in one's mind:

What do you mean "if you banish all the allies?" That means you can choose not to? And then, what should happen to the barrier if you choose not to banish the allies is not explained.

Bottom line point being that "<comma> and you may" changes the potential interpretation of what comes just before that.

.
.
.
.
Yeah, that's a lot of reading. Maybe the better way to demo the language issue is in comparison with an alternative wording that may have ironcladed the intent against this misinterpretation:

"If any character fails, this barrier is undefeated; banish all the allies, and also you may [choose to] banish this barrier."

(this could work with or without the [choose to], due to "may")

But in the end, it is what it is, and now I (and hopefully others with similarly thicker heads) can interpret this card as it was intended. Thanks again!

New here. First post. I know this thread is old. Just starting Pathfinder of any kind (WOTR). Son & I ran into this card during our starter scenario. I'm stuck on the same thing as the OP and his Con-mates. It's as if RC assuming I know something that I just don't yet.

Unfortunately, I have too little experience to understand the answers given here so far. Summarizing:

"You may choose if you want to banish the barrier, if you don't..."
AND
"If someone fails ... and then you may banish the barrier."

So, here's my noob-confusion...

1) You may CHOOSE to banish this barrier? Why would one NOT choose to banish any bane? That seems like a choice no one would choose, thereby making it not a real choice.

2) You are allowed to banish the barrier if someone FAILS?

I guess when it comes down to the practicals of, "what should I do with this card?"... are we saying that:

A) This is a card that does not have to be defeated in order to banish it ... only contested once? Then you can "choose" to banish it, along with all the other attempted Allies (won or lost)?

B) Or does it have to be 100% defeated in order to be banished? (in which case, why would there be "choice" language in this line?)

C) Are we all supposed to banish any Ally cards from our hand in exchange for the right to banish Rallying Cry?

Son & I played this out as "B", so it kept coming up and one of us kept failing our checks, until it was 1 of 3 left at that location. We finally both did defeat it ... after burning through ~4 of the 30 Blessing cards to do so. So if there were better, intended options for that card, I'd like to resolve a different action vs. the wording.

Either our action (which doesn't 100% match the wording) was wrong, or the wording is unnecessarily ambiguous but our action was fine.

I can only see an "option D" -- everyone wins their random Ally, but you choose NOT to banish this barrier -- if someone can please explain why that would be advantageous to perform. Thanks!