I believe this is a much more effective wording for the rule, and helps generally sum up how Locations should be used in many fields.If extreme advantages to one side are generated via a location, a balanced alternative should be discussed in the relevant versus thread. This can include bystanders that need to be rescued or are able to provide outside assistance, as well as poisons or diseases that are present in the area.
Probably not. If someone could win a battle without even attacking the actual opponent by instead just destabilizing the battlefield by killing whoever is stabilizing it. That isn't really a battle, plus it could be assumed that either character would be capable of such, which would result in an incon anyway.Would either participant be allowed to be assumed to potentially indirectly or directly threaten this person? And would we assume it does nothing in regards of this?