Recently on a Facebook group for L5R LCG, a ruling question came up regarding the abilities of Doji Hotaru and Akodo Toturi.

Players think that their abilities DO NOT work on the defense due to a strict reading of the rules:

Learn to Play Document, Ring Effects, Page 13

"The attacking player..."

We have some players who read the ring effect with the above quotations and don't think these two cards can trigger because while on the defense, they are NOT attacking players.

Doji Hotaru's ability reads, "Reaction: After you claim a ring during a political conflict in which this character was participating - resolve that ring's effect."

We have cited the #FFGL5R Live Stream, Lion Preview article, and Crane Preview article which supports that the ability works as intended on the defense. We have also pointed to the rules, pg. 12 under Conflict Resolution that on the defense, the winner takes rings and Hotaru's ability allows her to trigger the ring effect - which I interpret by the Jade Rule: "I f the text on a card directly contradicts the text of the rules, the text on the card takes precedence."

Players think the FFG team that writes the articles did not consult the design team that the cards are working correctly. Apparently, this has happened with Netrunner. The cards "Defend the Wall" have been cited, with its rules text reading: "Reaction: After you win a conflict at this province - resolve the ring effect of that conflict as if you were the attacking player." Some players think Doji Hotaru and Akodo Toturi need errata to say, "....of that conflict as if you were the attacking player" for clarity. I personally think both cards tell you to do the same thing, one just completely spells it out. Otherwise, the rings don't need to have, "The attacking player..." written at all.

Whatever the case, what is the right answer? I'm pretty sure FFG didn't botch how cards work in their first two preview articles.

You can play their ability during defense victory because you claim the ring.

and the part about errata, not neccesary. Check Scorpion province Secrec Cache - " Reaction: After a conflict is declared against this province – search the top 5 cards of your conflict deck for a card and add it to your hand. Shuffle."

end of the text says shuffle, not shuffle your conflict deck and its perfectly clear what you have to shuffle.

if im not mistaking Jade Rule beats possibilty of rulebook contradicting Hotaru/Toturi

I bet people complainig about this are complainig only cause their oponent used that against them, if it was the other way around they would happily accept Hotaru/Toturi reaction.

There's no use starting a debate here as well.
The right answer is we wait for a response from FFG.

The Problem is that even if the defender resolves the Ring, the Ring effect in the rulebook clearly sais that only the attacker gets the benefits from Ring effects. So the wording of Toturi and Hotaru needs correction.

9 minutes ago, Bayushi Nono said:

The Problem is that even if the defender resolves the Ring, the Ring effect in the rulebook clearly sais that only the attacker gets the benefits from Ring effects. So the wording of Toturi and Hotaru needs correction.

That may actually be the intent by the Devs.
Again, we wait on their response.

I see the point. The Phoenix champion reinforces this because it states in its text 'resolve the ring effects as it you were the attacking player' or close enough.

Urk if true this pushes Crane and Lion champions right to the back of the pack ability wise..

This is an astute observation - I feel like as written currently Hotaru and Toturi can resolve the ability if they claim the ring in defense, but since it does not state "resolve as the attacker" and the ring abilities specifically give their actions from the attacker POV, it would only serve to give the attacking player the ability back. Considering Defend the Wall and Shiba Tsukune both include the "as if you were the attacking player" line I must assume this was on the game developer's radar as a purposeful interaction.

This certainly changes things... As written they do not give you the ring ability on defense (unless you want your opponent to get it still.) I can only assume we will either see an errata to these cards to include the wording "resolve the effects as if you were the attacker," and errata to the Ring Effects to take away the attacking player part, or it is intended to give a double ring effect on attack ONLY. For now I recommend we exercise the Grim Rule and play to the worst possible decision - Hotaru and Toturi do not resolve as if they are attackers. This way if you play Lion or Crane and win you know you've earned it, and if the cards receive an errata it will only increase the power you've experienced.

I'd also guess that in 95% or more of cases so far, they have been used while attacking.
So it's not that much of a downgrade in power. Just a change in mindset.

3 hours ago, kpsmith said:

Recently on a Facebook group for L5R LCG, a ruling question came up regarding the abilities of Doji Hotaru and Akodo Toturi.

Players think that their abilities DO NOT work on the defense due to a strict reading of the rules:

Learn to Play Document, Ring Effects, Page 13

"The attacking player..."

We have some players who read the ring effect with the above quotations and don't think these two cards can trigger because while on the defense, they are NOT attacking players.

Doji Hotaru's ability reads, "Reaction: After you claim a ring during a political conflict in which this character was participating - resolve that ring's effect."

We have cited the #FFGL5R Live Stream, Lion Preview article, and Crane Preview article which supports that the ability works as intended on the defense. We have also pointed to the rules, pg. 12 under Conflict Resolution that on the defense, the winner takes rings and Hotaru's ability allows her to trigger the ring effect - which I interpret by the Jade Rule: "I f the text on a card directly contradicts the text of the rules, the text on the card takes precedence."

Players think the FFG team that writes the articles did not consult the design team that the cards are working correctly. Apparently, this has happened with Netrunner. The cards "Defend the Wall" have been cited, with its rules text reading: "Reaction: After you win a conflict at this province - resolve the ring effect of that conflict as if you were the attacking player." Some players think Doji Hotaru and Akodo Toturi need errata to say, "....of that conflict as if you were the attacking player" for clarity. I personally think both cards tell you to do the same thing, one just completely spells it out. Otherwise, the rings don't need to have, "The attacking player..." written at all.

Whatever the case, what is the right answer? I'm pretty sure FFG didn't botch how cards work in their first two preview articles.

Wel that came off as exceptionally mean spirited. The people pointing out the flaw in the abilities are absolutely correct: these abilities do not function as intended as written. Do not mistake these people's words for trying to game the system or eek out an advantage. When the rules do not function as intended, it is often up to players to point it out.

Citing FFGs articles as examples is irrelevant.

The jade rule is irrelevant. You cannot use what the rules say as an argument against what the rules say. The Jade rule is exactly what makes these abilities misfire; it does not resolve the issue.

FFG will clarify the situation in time. Be patient.

11 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

FFG will clarify the situation in time. Be patient.

and if they don't - it is because it is working as intended. If you hear nothing about this from the devs, be certain you are not arguing that you get your ring activation when other cards that let you activate rings do include the text Hotaru and Toturi do not...

It is not unheard of to have the cards changed between spoilers and release, and for spoilers to sometimes include inaccurate information. They are just spoilers. The rules are the rules, and the cards as printed and released are the cards. Until errata is released, play according to the cards and the rules. Card wording is very specific - if it does not say "as if you are the attacking player" then you certainly don't get to assume it...

I think the reason that phrasing isn't included on these two cards is that as an attacker you can resolve the Ring twice and as a defender you can resolve the ring once.

7 minutes ago, Daner0023 said:

I think the reason that phrasing isn't included on these two cards is that as an attacker you can resolve the Ring twice and as a defender you can resolve the ring once.

The point is the perspective of the ability. If you are the defender and you do not "activate the ring as if you were the attacker" then the ability states "the attacking player (your opponent) ect..." This would mean Hotaru and Toturi could actually give their opponent, who is the attacker, the ring's ability if they activate it. Look at Rules Reference page 14 - Ring Effects.

Compare this to Defend the Wall - the Crab province which states "After you win a conflict at this province - resolve the ring effect of that conflict as if you were the attacking player." Hotaru, Toturi, and Defend the Wall would share the wording if they were intended to have the same effect.

These cards are either 1) not intended to give you their effect in defense, or 2) need errata (either to ring effects or hotaru/toturi) to allow them to properly grant the ability in defense. Until we hear anything, we can only go by the rules and cards as written which currently do not allow Hotaru and Toturi to gain any benefit from their ability in defense.

If they are written as intended, the least that FFG must do is edit the Crane/Lion preview articles.
It was there that the first mention of working on defence appeared.
This seems to have been ingrained into everyone since, with nobody delving deeper into the rules until yesterday.

1 hour ago, InquisitorM said:

Wel that came off as exceptionally mean spirited.

Citing FFGs articles as examples is irrelevant.

I'm not sure how it was mean spirited - I cited both sides of the argument fairly to paint the picture of why each side felt the way they did about the rules.

Additionally, if citing official FFG sources that explain how rules work is irrelevant, I'm not sure how to respond politely.

All they need to do is change the rings from "The attacking player...." to "the player that claimed the ring...."

That would be easier than issuing an Errata to the physical cards that have the additional text "as if they were the attacking player."

There is already the text that says "Each time a player wins a conflict as the attacking player, he or she may resolve the ring effect..." so there's no risk of this change resulting in people thinking you can trigger the ring on defense under normal circumstances and should fix the problem.

This wouldn't be the first time they had to change the rule book to remove a confusing or stupid loophole. It is 100% electronic, after all.

I think the spirit of the mechanic is certainly that they can use it on defense. Now they just need to adjust the rules accordingly.

1 hour ago, shosuko said:

The point is the perspective of the ability. If you are the defender and you do not "activate the ring as if you were the attacker" then the ability states "the attacking player (your opponent) ect..." This would mean Hotaru and Toturi could actually give their opponent, who is the attacker, the ring's ability if they activate it. Look at Rules Reference page 14 - Ring Effects.

Compare this to Defend the Wall - the Crab province which states "After you win a conflict at this province - resolve the ring effect of that conflict as if you were the attacking player." Hotaru, Toturi, and Defend the Wall would share the wording if they were intended to have the same effect.

These cards are either 1) not intended to give you their effect in defense, or 2) need errata (either to ring effects or hotaru/toturi) to allow them to properly grant the ability in defense. Until we hear anything, we can only go by the rules and cards as written which currently do not allow Hotaru and Toturi to gain any benefit from their ability in defense.

This here is EXACTLY why, if it weren't for the fact that the preview article sited using this cad on the defense, this wouldn't even be a debate and we would just know that you can't use it on the defense.

Has anybody officially risen the issue to FFG using the Rules Question Form ? I'm asking just not to swarm FFG staff with the same question once and again...

Thanks!

2 minutes ago, barrufet said:

Has anybody officially risen the issue to FFG using the Rules Question Form ? I'm asking just not to swarm FFG staff with the same question once and again...

Thanks!

So I'm told.

18 minutes ago, barrufet said:

Has anybody officially risen the issue to FFG using the Rules Question Form ? I'm asking just not to swarm FFG staff with the same question once and again...

Thanks!

I can 100% confirm it has.

@kpsmith @Bayushi Shunsuke , thank you for your answers!

There is a key different between defend the wall and Hotaru, it's that they occur at different steps. Defend the Wall occurs when skills are compared (3.2.3), Hotaru's occurs at claim the ring step (3.2.7).

Defend the Wall's ability lets you resolve the ring (step 3.2.6), which is where the check if you are the attacking player occurs (why cards like Display of Power and Defend the Wall give you the "attacking player" "trait").

Hotaru's ability goes of at step 3.2.7, and it makes sense, if it was supposed to be gain the ring ability twice on attacking, her ability would just be "Resolve the ring ability twice when you win a political conflict as an attacker" It's simpler wording, and far more clear. So why is it worded so vaguely? And where the ability resolves itself AFTER the resolve the ring ability affect? So the modifier "Attacking player" isn't required.

Rules As Written , the ability gives the ring effect to the attacking player, so you don't get to defend and profit from the defense. Until an errata that is exactly how they should be played, its the correct way.

Rules as interpreted , if the idea was to let you trigger the ring on defense then I feel they would have followed the wording used for every other instance of "using a ring's ability when you claim it on defense". The fact that both champion's lack the "As if an attacking player" clause is either a mistake, in which case FFG will errata, OR its an intentional absence to differentiate the abilities while leaving design space open for something possibly in the future.

FFG articles have been wrong before, even showing cards that experiences changes after they were shown, like Pacifism. They don't have to be correct and hold little sway now that the game has already come out.

Why would you ever allow someone attacking you to pop a ring effect if you win the defense? There isn't a reason shown yet , but with multiplayer being a thing in the future most likely I could see it as a political device to ensure an ally can easily grab a ring ability by swinging at you and blocking with Hotaru or Toturi, but who knows.

But for now, assume your champions trigger rings on attack twice and can trigger abilities on the defense, but only the attacker will be able to use it.

4 minutes ago, TheItsyBitsySpider said:

Rules As Written , the ability gives the ring effect to the attacking player, so you don't get to defend and profit from the defense. Until an errata that is exactly how they should be played, its the correct way.

Rules as interpreted , if the idea was to let you trigger the ring on defense then I feel they would have followed the wording used for every other instance of "using a ring's ability when you claim it on defense". The fact that both champion's lack the "As if an attacking player" clause is either a mistake, in which case FFG will errata, OR its an intentional absence to differentiate the abilities while leaving design space open for something possibly in the future.

FFG articles have been wrong before, even showing cards that experiences changes after they were shown, like Pacifism. They don't have to be correct and hold little sway now that the game has already come out.

Why would you ever allow someone attacking you to pop a ring effect if you win the defense? There isn't a reason shown yet , but with multiplayer being a thing in the future most likely I could see it as a political device to ensure an ally can easily grab a ring ability by swinging at you and blocking with Hotaru or Toturi, but who knows.

But for now, assume your champions trigger rings on attack twice and can trigger abilities on the defense, but only the attacker will be able to use it.

To point out that Defend the Wall actually doesn't say "when you claim it on defense" it says: Reaction : After you win a conflict at this province – resolve the ring effect of that conflict as if you were the attacking player.

That's kind of the key everyone is missing. the effect isn't letting you resolve the ring, it's giving you the "attacking player trait" for step 3.2.6, the resolve ring effect. That occurs BEFORE you claim the ring. Hotaru's occurs AFTER you claim it. They are two separate effects that do two very similar things.

10 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

it's giving you the "attacking player trait" for step 3.2.6, the resolve ring effect.

Neither card gives you the "attacking player trait". There is no "attacking player trait" and your opponent does not stop being the attacking player. That is the problem. If it SAID this, then we would be talking, but nowhere does it say that.

Hotaru says "After you claim a ring during a political conflict during which this character is participating - resolve that ring's effects."

So lets say you claim fire on defense, then trigger the ring. The fire ring states, "The attacking player chooses a character in play and honors or dishonors that character."

The effect of ring of fire is causing the problem because it specifies which player makes a choice, not which player can activate the ability.

You are not the attacking player. Hotaru doesn't make it "as if you were the attacking player" and doesn't make you actually the attacking player. Hotaru does let you resolve the effect, you make it happen, but the effect involved the attacking player making a choice, your opponent is the attacking player, so they make their choice in the effect you resolved.

To be fair, in discussions around the card, I believe in some of the Team Covenant videos for Crane and Lion (After their previews) with the developers, the intention of the cards is to allow you to either resolve the ring twice as the attacker, or resolve its effects as the defender.