Darago works the same, one way or another.
Sorry, but that still seems to contradict the ruling on Them Ogres ain't Right, which also instructed us otherwise but it was deemed not to count:
If you defeat a henchman, place it in a stack next to this card. The difficulty to defeat Mammy Graul is increased by 1 per card in this stack.
Fair enough. We will discuss.
Here's a point I made in the S&S FAQ thread:
The S&S rules do say:
After evading a summoned card or resolving the encounter with it, banish it unless you’re instructed otherwise.
Lini's power instructs you to do otherwise.
However, one other point that the rules mention is:
However, if you’re told to summon a card that’s already in play, just imagine you have another copy of that card for the new encounter; this summoned copy ceases to exist at the end of the encounter.
(Emphasis mine) This I think is (conceptually) what Vic was saying back in Feb. If a summoned monster "ceases to exist" after the encounter, then it can't be added to anyone's hand or any location.
That said, I do realize the predicate is "if you're told to summon a card that's already in play" but I would have a hard time accepting that a summoned monster should be handled differently if there is or isn't an extra copy of the card.
I'm kind of on the "summoned monsters never go anywhere other than to the box" camp now, but what about summoned boons? I can't think of examples, but the concept is the same.
However, one other point that the rules mention is:
However, if you’re told to summon a card that’s already in play, just imagine you have another copy of that card for the new encounter; this summoned copy ceases to exist at the end of the encounter.(Emphasis mine) This I think is (conceptually) what Vic was saying back in Feb. If a summoned monster "ceases to exist" after the encounter, then it can't be added to anyone's hand or any location.
That said, I do realize the predicate is "if you're told to summon a card that's already in play" but I would have a hard time accepting that a summoned monster should be handled differently if there is or isn't an extra copy of the card.
I think that rules quote is a red herring here. It covers a situation like the Garrison, which has an ability something like (sorry, going from memory here):
"If you encounter a monster other than a henchman or villain, each other character at this location summons and encounters that monster."
The rule is to clarify that you don't have to dig through the box for another copy of the (possibly unique) monster - just refer to the one in front of you already. Then, banish/shuffle/follow the instructions on the "original" monster as normal, according to the outcome of the original encounter, and ignore what should happen to the copies - they never existed as cards anyway. Summoned monsters don't cease to exist; it's cards that you were pretending existed that cease to exist.
The subject of this thread, though, and the thread from February is when you do take a card from the box (could be a random monster or a specific henchman or villain) and are instructed, by some other power that doesn't mention summoning, to do something other than banish the card:
- Them Ogres ain't Right tells you to place defeated henchmen in a stack by the scenario card, and Mammy Graul summons henchmen for you to fight - what do you do with them if you defeat them?
- Lini's Aquamancer role power says you can add a defeated monster to your hand.
- Darago has a similar power to Lini.
The ruling from February effectively said "summoned cards are always, always, always banished afterwards", which was then updated with "unless the power doing the summoning says otherwise". But the latest ruling for Lini and Darago contradicts this, so the team is now looking for the consistent, right answer (and thanks Mike, it is appreciated!).
I think that rules quote is a red herring here. It covers a situation like the Garrison, which has an ability something like (sorry, going from memory here):
"If you encounter a monster other than a henchman or villain, each other character at this location summons and encounters that monster."
I see your point, but that's not the situation I was envisioning. Consider this situation based on your example above:
Valeros is at this location and encounters a monster with the Aquatic trait; let's assume there is only 1 copy in the game. He somehow whiffs and fails to defeat the monster, so it would get shuffled back into the location.
Lini is also at this location, so she summons, encounters, and defeats that monster. What is Lini to add to her hand? Her power says that she should put something into her hand; she defeated and would banish a qualifying monster, but because it's a summoned proxy of a card that got shuffled back into the location, what is she supposed to do? She did her part in activating her power, but gets nothing for it (unless you proxy with a random monster from the box).
Another example would be if you have 2 characters that add monsters to their hands; both defeat the same summoned monster and would normally be able to add it to their hands. Who gets it? Again, you could proxy it, but it's also possible that what the monster is might be important, so a random replacement might not be acceptable (possible foreshadowing).
It's kind of like saying, "I know you played a blessing but there are no more dice, so you don't get your extra die roll and you don't get your card back. Sorry." (Yes, I know you can pick up one of the dice, re-roll it, and add the result; it's an analogy only).
My point is that the rule should be absolute, not "in this case, do this; in this other case, do this other thing; in this other case don't so anything". If there are ways for Lini to fulfill her activation requirements yet not be able to put that card in her hand, then the power is broken.
Now, if the rules said "Summoned monsters are banished returned to the box" then her power would be behave in a consistent manner, because it would not apply to these cases.
It's kind of like saying, "I know you played a blessing but there are no more dice, so you don't get your extra die roll and you don't get your card back. Sorry." (Yes, I know you can pick up one of the dice, re-roll it, and add the result; it's an analogy only).
My point is that the rule should be absolute, not "in this case, do this; in this other case, do this other thing; in this other case don't so anything". If there are ways for Lini to fulfill her activation requirements yet not be able to put that card in...
I think the situations you describe are covered by the final sentence of the Golden Rule:
If a card instructs you to do something impossible, like draw a card from an empty deck, ignore that instruction.
Adding an imaginary summoned Aquatic monster to your hand is impossible, so you miss out. You don't get a proxy and you don't get the "real" one that Valeros allowed to escape back to the deck.
If a scenario did restrict the number of dice you could use, it would indeed be a case of "you don't get your extra die roll and you don't get your card back. Sorry." In that case you wouldn't play the Blessing though :-) Or maybe you'd play a Blessing that would have given two dice, but you're only allowed one... adding the second die is an impossible instruction, so you ignore it.
So the question remains: if Lini defeats a summoned monster card (not an imagined copy) and wants to add it to her hand, does she do so, or do the rules jump in and say "No, that's impossible. The card must go back in the box."
Now, if the rules said "Summoned monsters are banished returned to the box" then her power would be behave in a consistent manner, because it would not apply to these cases.I agree that the rule should be absolute, and that's the way I intend to play it. The problem with changing the wording to "summoned cards are always returned to the box" as opposed to "banished" is that they intend for them to be banished so that basics and elites can be removed at the appropriate time.
I think the Basic removal is mostly a non-issue. Most times that you summon monsters it is a specific Henchman or Villain and those are never Basic. In the Garrison hypothetical, the card is going back in the Deck so it wouldn't apply there either. If this was switched to "returned to the box" you may end up with a couple of Basics that don't get removed from the game early. Not really game breaking or unbalancing.
Dusting this one off, since it seems it's unresolved.
My feeling says there's no problem with allowing Lini's power to work on summoned monsters, balance wise. So for me, it's mainly making the rules consistent. Same goes for the class deck characters that can acquire monster into their hand, like the necromancer.
People reference to Them Ogres Ain't Right. I'd say, that one deserves a FAQ entry rather than limiting Lini's power. For instance, it could state that after defeating an Graul Ogre henchmen "from a location deck", instead of banishing it, add it to the stack next to Mammy Graul.
My guess would be this is solved when in all instances where a text overrules the "banishing" of a defeated monster, if it does not apply to summons, make it explicit by stating the text applies to monsters "from a location deck" only. Then, the basic rule could remain: "do what it says without thinking."
Disclaimer: I don't have the cards at hand, so the exact card names may differ :P