[Rules Q] Creating Conflicts -- Event or Goal

[BeZurKur]

On page 22 it states that players may spend a Story Token during -- what I call -- the Claim Phase to add a Conflict.  Just to be sure: it can be any kind of Conflict, right?  Although there is nothing in the wording of the rules to make me think otherwise, I'm a little thrown off by the example on p. 23 that has Beth create the Event: Someone gets to the diamond.  I'd have thought that Goal: Mannelli gets to the diamond, would make more sense.  It could not be vetoed, and if it fails to resolve in her favor, the diamond is still up for grabs. 

Or is it?  Now that I see it, if someone resolves and wins against Beth / Mannelli, they may narrate that they, and not Mannelli, grabbed the diamond... I think. 

I guess that's really two quesions.  I only read the rules so far and haven't played, so if I'm missing something -- either in the rules or on these boards -- please point me to it.

[TonyLB]

Rules-wise:  When adding a Conflict you may choose either a Goal or an Event.

Strategy-wise:  Events usually drive that tenuous beast "story necessity."  If someone ought to get the diamond, so that play can proceed with the diamond being got, then the Event is a stronger play than the Goal.  If folks are fine with the diamond bouncing around on the ground indefinitely then the Goal is a better play.

[BeZurKur]

Got it.  Thanks.