Claiming Answers to My Rules Questions

[Kintara]

I'm a little confused on how claiming works in relation to alliance and opposition.

Firstly, am I right in assuming that if you claim a conflict, but end the page without controlling it, that the conflict is left unresolved if no one claimed the controlling side?  In other words, to resolve a claim, someone must claim the side that ends up in control at the end of the page, correct?  And it's not necessary to have opposing claimants to resolve, just a winning one?

Secondly, what is the exact definition of losing a conflict?  My assumption is that if you claim the winning side of a conflict, then the "losers" are any player claiming the losing side, and/or any player with a character allied on that side, whether there was a claim or not.  May I distribute story tokens as I please to anyone claiming/allied on that side?  Do claimants have first dibs?

Lastly, if I create a conflict but never take a side, am I entitled to a story token for only creating the conflict?  This was implied this in the tactics section, but the rules only seem to say that they are entitled to their one token if they lose.  Do I need to burn an action or reaction to establish my alliance, or claim the losing side?

[TonyLB]

Firstly, am I right in assuming that if you claim a conflict, but end the page without controlling it, that the conflict is left unresolved if no one claimed the controlling side?  In other words, to resolve a claim, someone must claim the side that ends up in control at the end of the page, correct?  And it's not necessary to have opposing claimants to resolve, just a winning one?

Correct on all counts.

Secondly, what is the exact definition of losing a conflict?  My assumption is that if you claim the winning side of a conflict, then the "losers" are any player claiming the losing side, and/or any player with a character allied on that side, whether there was a claim or not.  May I distribute story tokens as I please to anyone claiming/allied on that side?  Do claimants have first dibs?

Claimants don't have first (or any) dibs.  You can distribute story tokens as you please to anyone who is (or at one time was) allied on that side:  someone who opposed you, either by action or by having created the conflict in the first place.

Lastly, if I create a conflict but never take a side, am I entitled to a story token for only creating the conflict?  This was implied this in the tactics section, but the rules only seem to say that they are entitled to their one token if they lose.  Do I need to burn an action or reaction to establish my alliance, or claim the losing side?

If you created it, and you never allied with the winning side, then you are entitled to a story token.

Does that help?

[Kintara]

Yes, that helps.  Thanks very much.

[dunlaing]

By "entitled" you mean that you would be eligible for a story token in that circumstance, not that the winner is required to give you one, right?

[Anders Gabrielsson]

Claimants don't have first (or any) dibs.  You can distribute story tokens as you please to anyone who is (or at one time was) allied on that side:  someone who opposed you, either by action or by having created the conflict in the first place.

Regarding the "at one time was [allied with the losing side]": if someone first opposed the conflict and then supported it, you can give them story tokens?

[TonyLB]

By "entitled" you mean that you would be eligible for a story token in that circumstance, not that the winner is required to give you one, right?

The rules require that if the creator of the conflict is eligible for story tokens then they must get the first one.  So in this case I guess I mean both:  if you're eligible then the winner is required to give you one.

[TonyLB]

Regarding the "at one time was [allied with the losing side]": if someone first opposed the conflict and then supported it, you can give them story tokens?

Yeah, that's what I meant, but I may be house-ruling there.  In fact, I think I am talking house rules, my bad.

Okay, standard rules:  people who are currently, right now, losing ... they're the people who can get story tokens.  This creates an incentive not to switch to the winning side when you're getting trashed as opposition.

House-rules I've played under:  people who were ever on the losing side ... they're the people who can get story tokens.  This creates an incentive to play both sides of the conflict and generally sow dissent and confusion.

Name your poison.

[Anders Gabrielsson]

Thanks for the clarification.

[dunlaing]

By "entitled" you mean that you would be eligible for a story token in that circumstance, not that the winner is required to give you one, right?

The rules require that if the creator of the conflict is eligible for story tokens then they must get the first one.  So in this case I guess I mean both:  if you're eligible then the winner is required to give you one.

Ah. I missed that. That's pretty cool.

What if no one's on the losing side? Say I create a conflict. On the next page, I claim it an roll up one side, then stake two debt and split the die. No one else plays on it. Do those 2 potential story tokens just disappear? Or is there someone who can get them? As an example, let's say that my friend Jim is playing Polytropos and I created the conflict "Polytropos gets captured by the Enigma." Assuming Jim never played on the conflct, can I still give him the story tokens since his character was inconvenienced?

[TonyLB]

No one else plays on it. Do those 2 potential story tokens just disappear?

Yes, under those circumstances the two potential story tokens just disappear.

Likewise, if I'm smart enough to throw in one pointless reaction ("I react your roll of a two, trying to lower it ... curses!  I didn't roll a one!") then I become the only person eligible for those story tokens, and no matter how meaningless and irrelevant my opposition was, I get the Story Tokens.  In order to win Story Tokens you don't need to live up to a very high standard of opposition:  you just need to be better than the other opponents.