I take it to mean that its power activates if you used it for any of the checks to defeat.
If you defeat a non-villain monster when playing this spell, banish that monster, even if it would otherwise be undefeated.
There is no mention of really which part of defeating the monster you played the spell on. So as long as you played the spell as part of defeating the monster, it activates. The things that usually render a monster defeated are the checks to defeat (i.e. not Before the Encounter or After the Encounter stuff). So as long as you play it on any of the checks to defeat, it activates.
(I think it exempts villains because banishing a villain without defeating it would mean you couldn't close the villains location, which would result in a condition where the scenario couldn't be won.)
Yeah, I think that sounds about right, Hawk. As far as why they exempt villains, I think it has more to do with not wanting to make the game too easy than it does with the closing thing. I would think that banishing all villains, however that happens, would be counted as win. Currently, the only way to banish a villain is to defeat them and then for it to be impossible for them to escape. If there were some other way to banish a villain, such as Disintegrate not excluding them, that would surely count as a win, right?
I'm pretty sure they worded disintegrate (and likely similar future cards) this way so they would never have to answer that question. Right now, in the rules, a banished villain would create some kind of time paradox, trapping your characters in that scenario forever!
Yeah, I think that sounds about right, Hawk. As far as why they exempt villains, I think it has more to do with not wanting to make the game too easy than it does with the closing thing. I would think that banishing all villains, however that happens, would be counted as win. Currently, the only way to banish a villain is to defeat them and then for it to be impossible for them to escape. If there were some other way to banish a villain, such as Disintegrate not excluding them, that would surely count as a win, right?I'm pretty sure they worded disintegrate (and likely similar future cards) this way so they would never have to answer that question. Right now, in the rules, a banished villain would create some kind of time paradox, trapping your characters in that scenario forever!
I would just say instant win. Scenario explodes...every one gets free items, weapons, armor, and items.
I have to admit, I still don't understand Disintegrate.
If you defeat a non-villain monster when playing this spell, banish that monster, even if it would otherwise be undefeated.
This part of the power contradicts itself. Under what circumstances can I have defeated a monster that would be undefeated?
I could understand if it were "... even if it would otherwise not be banished". That would cover monsters that can be defeated but then return to location decks, such as Rat Swarm and Ogrekin.
Is the power supposed to work on Trolls that require the Fire trait to defeat them? What about the scenarios and locations that say "If you would defeat a Xyz, roll 1d6. On a 1 the Xyz is undefeated"? (In that last case I'm thinking the golden rule states that scenarios & locations overrule Disintegrate.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit, I still don't understand Disintegrate.
If you defeat a non-villain monster when playing this spell, banish that monster, even if it would otherwise be undefeated.This part of the power contradicts itself. Under what circumstances can I have defeated a monster that would be undefeated?
I could understand if it were "... even if it would otherwise not be banished". That would cover monsters that can be defeated but then return to location decks, such as Rat Swarm and Ogrekin.
Is the power supposed to work on Trolls that require the Fire trait to defeat them? What about the scenarios and locations that say "If you would defeat a Xyz, roll 1d6. On a 1 the Xyz is undefeated"? (In that last case I'm thinking the golden rule states that scenarios & locations overrule Disintegrate.)
There are many banes that say something along the lines of "If the check to defeat doesn't include the ____ trait, this monster is undefeated," as you pointed out.
Disintegrate negates that, saying "Even if you wouldn't normally be defeated for whatever reason, and would normally be shuffled back into the deck, you're still banished."
I do agree with the locations and scenario cards that overwrite that kicking in, though, because, as you pointed out, they are higher in the hierarchy for effects.
There are many banes that say something along the lines of "If the check to defeat doesn't include the ____ trait, this monster is undefeated," as you pointed out.
Disintegrate negates that, saying "Even if you wouldn't normally be defeated for whatever reason, and would normally be shuffled back into the deck, you're still banished."
I'd like to agree with that, but that's not what the power on Disintegrate says. It says "If you defeat a non-villain monster..." and that can't trigger when "this monster is undefeated."
If Disintegrate said "If you succeed at all checks to defeat a monster, ..." it would be wordier but it would work to overrule the special "undefeated" rules on Trolls and Hirgenzosk (and Vic rules here that Hirgenzosk isn't banished). I think that succeeding at the check(s) to defeat is the standard that people are using to gauge when Disintegrate's defeated-but-undefeated power triggers, but the card doesn't tell you to do that.
As I noted above, if it said "... even if it would otherwise not be banished", it would still have a purpose against Rat Swarms, Ogrekin and other monsters that like to hang around after being defeated.
But I can't resolve the inherent contradiction in "If you defeat a monster ... even if it would otherwise be undefeated."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been reading over what Vic wrote. Here is how I understand it.
The different is whether the bane says "is undefeated" or "would be defeated". A bane that requires a trait, for example the Muck Graul, says "If the check to defeat does not have the Fire trait, Muck is undefeated." So, succeeding at the check sort of temporarily toggles the Muck Graul to "defeated" but then his power toggles him back to undefeated. You are checking whether you met the condition of that power after you've declared him defeated. Sort of like this:
Me: Woohoo! I rolled higher. You are defeated Muck.
GAME: Muck Graul is defeated.
Muck Graul: Did you have the Fire trait?
Me: What?
Muck Graul: Did you have the Fire trait? Its a simple yes or no question. Just answer it and we'll move on.
Me: Umm...No.
GAME: Muck Graul is changed from defeated to undefeated.
Me: Ahhh crap. Oh wait, but I played Disintegrate
GAME: Muck Graul is banished.
Muck Graul: Nooooo.....
ME: Yes!
While Hirgenzosk is worded differently. He says "If Hirgenzosk would be defeated, he is undefeated." It never allows you to consider him defeated at all. You are checking the condition of that power BEFORE you declare him defeated.
ME: Woohoo! I rolled higher. You are defeated Hirgenzosk.
Hirgenzosk: Hold on there, before you declare me defeated, I declare myself undefeated.
GAME: Hirgenzosk is undefeated.
ME: Ahhh crap. Oh wait, but I played Disintegrate.
GAME: Hirgenzosk is undefeated.
ME: What?
Hirgenzosk: That won't work here.
ME: Nooooo.......
Hirgenzosk: Yes!
I didn't catch it either (obviously since Vic is replying to me in that thread.) But that seems to be the way we are to understand it.
