mutiple checks to defeat in a card with both "or" and "then"

[BrettLU]

I know in the rule book have an example.
If check to defeat lists "check A or check B then check C"
you have to do either check A or check B, and then do check C.
Or an easier interpretation is
(check A or check B) then check C

In CotCT, we encounter another card.
checks to defeat are "check A then check B or check C"
In our game, we do check A first, and then choose another check from B or C.
Or can be read as
check A then (check B or check C)
Is it the right way?

If above examples are all correct.
Is there any card that requires you to either combat twice, or do diplomacy check?
(check A then check B) or check C
Would this card write in a different way?

[elcoderdude]

The Core rulebook explicitly says that your first two examples are correct.

Core rulebook p.11 wrote:

“Or” takes priority over “then,” so if a card says “Wisdom 10 or Combat 13 then Combat 15,” you must first attempt either a Wisdom check with a difficulty of 10 or a combat check with a difficulty of 13; after that, you must attempt a combat check with a difficulty of 15.

That said - I don't know how Paizo would indicate your third situation if that was what they wanted. Off the top of my head I can't remember such a card. (I've a vague feeling I've seen it, though. Maybe in Wrath?)

[Longshot11]

elcoderdude wrote:

Off the top of my head I can't remember such a card. (I've a vague feeling I've seen it, though.

I don't believe you have. As you say - given current rules and card layout design - Lone Sharks simply have NO way to indicate something like that. To achieve OP's Option C, they would have to use the monster's power section, with something like:

"While acting, after you attempt a Combat check against this card, attempt a Combat X check; suffer damage as if you attempt a check to defeat. If you fail this check, this card is undefeated."

This would be quite cumbersome and unneeded. Also, Lone Shark on the whole DOESN'S want to spare you any checks to defeat, so I can't imagine them doing it. Monsters requiring 2 checks to defeat are generally "bosses" and I imagine the reason they have an alternative second (or first) check is there more for mechanical, not thematical reasons: the second check should allow casters a chance to win the encounter, even if they don't have a second combat spell on hand.

[Mike Selinker]

I'm not aware of any time we've tried to do that.

[Frencois]

Anyway, I guess a "good" solution would be something like:
{A} "Diplo or Combat then Diplo or Combat".
Which would read as:
"(Diplo or Combat) then (Diplo or Combat)".

Granted, it's not the same as
{B} "(Diplo then Diplo) or (Combat then Combat)".

{A} is actually a bit "easier" than {B} because it allows more options:

{A} and {B} allow C+C and D+D
{A} allows in addition C+D and D+C

But gamewise I'm pretty sure it would be OK (if needed in the future) just to use {A} IMHO

[Mike Selinker]

I imagine that what we'd do in this case is kind of like what we'd do with the ally Ayruzi in Rise of the Runelords 6: move some of the check dynamics out of the check boxes. So something like

COMBAT 20
or
DIPLOMACY 12
If you succeed at the combat check to defeat, attempt a Combat 20 check to defeat. If you succeed, it is defeated; if not, it is undefeated.

or

COMBAT 20
then
COMBAT 20
Instead of defeating this card normally, you may attempt a Diplomacy 12 check to defeat. If you succeed, defeat this card; if not, it is undefeated

Maybe.