...for example, if defeating the bane would have allowed the first character to attempt to close the location, the avenging character would get that opportunity after defeating the bane.
OK it means if character A fails to defeat a closing henchman then is character B avenge by defeating that same henchman, he gets an opportunity to close.
But now suppose that the closing condition is "summon and defeat a monster/the danger..." and A character fails to defeat that bane, it seems to me that since it's not an encounter, character B cannot avenge (and therefore cannot close). True ? (and if I'm wrong, if character B would avenge and defeat, does it close?)
The summoned monster totally IS an encounter - that hasn't really changed since RotR. So, yeah, char B *can* avenge.
Not much point in doing so, however, since he WON'T be closing - the To Close applies to Char A and it says "summon and defeat". Did Char A defeat the summon? - No, he did not. Do I wish it worked otherwise? - Yes, I do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Longshot is correct (Char B is allowed to avenge, but it won’t accomplish anything meaningful). This same question came up yesterday in the PbP Box Runner hangout so I’ll just copy/paste my response there below and tidy it up a bit.
1. The closing rules say that YOU have to be the one that succeeds at the close attempt. If someone avenges you, you by definition failed.
2. Point 1 is reinforced by "No One Else Can Take Your Turn For You" -- it explicitly calls out that others can't close for you
3. Avenging makes it explicit that the original encounter is not successful by saying "If the encounter is avenged, first apply effects that happen when the bane is undefeated, ignoring steps and effects that would cause the bane to go anywhere. Then, the avenging character begins a new encounter against the same bane."
The avenging character inherits the encounter. But, that's all they inherit. They don't inherit anything outside of the scope of the encounter (such as the power or effect that caused that encounter to happen). Any such powers or effects will still only care about the original player, whether that is an attempt to close or some bane that says “Summon and defeat the danger or bury the top card of your deck” — the original player would bury the top of their deck even if they’re successfully avenged. Because, avenging doesn’t change anything about things that happen because of the original encounter.
I fully agree, although the "No One Else Can Take Your Turn For You" isn't really a proof RAW. It's only a general rule allowing exceptions. As an example : the paragraph of the Rulebook P.10 stated in the OP clearly says that in certain circumstances, someone else can indeed close during your turn (meaning you can't just take "No One Else Can Take Your Turn For You" as a golden rule).
IMHO
If you're in the middle of an attempt to close that requires summoning and defeating something, someone else avenging your encounter doesn't make them able to succeed at your attempt to close. They can't take your turn for you.
Avenging says "original encounter is undefeated but someone else can get a shot at a second encounter against the same card." That's all it does. It doesn't pass your attempt to close off to the avenging character (because it never says it does that), so that other character can't impact your closing attempt.
Now, if someone avenges your original encounter with a closing henchman, then yes, they get a chance to close off of it. That's because the rules say "If the scenario lists a henchman with the word “closing,” you may attempt to close your location after defeating that henchman from that location." If the avenging character did indeed defeat that henchman, the rules say they get a close attempt. The example in the Avenge the Encounter step is referring to this quoted rule. The example is not a rule in and of itself, it is an example.
You aren't the first one to say that you find my point 2 unconvincing, but it really is the actual rule doing the work here (along with point 1 saying that you're the one making the attempt). Point 3 is just a supporting argument to fall in line with the first two but in and of itself is not the actual rule blocking this from happening.