Let us throw another rule into the mix....

Quote

The controller of the card from which an ability is resolving makes all decisions required by that ability’s resolution unless another player is specifed by the ability’s text.

so the rules state that in Hotaru and Toturis case their player resolves all decisions as it does not say the attacking player gets to decide.

Since the Jade Rule exists and the card orders the owning player to decide this overrules the rr on attacking in effects. Huzzah

1 minute ago, Casanunda said:

I've now typed "resolving" far too many times. The word has lost all meaning to me.

I can relate!

As for amending the Ring Effect text to change "attacking player" to "resolving player," you make an extremely good point about letting the printed, purchased cards stand while the digital-only, free RR changes as necessary. I guess the question is just, was it intended that the Crane and Lion champs should resolve rings they claim in their player's favor? That would certainly make them more flexible and worthwhile. If not, I think they might be a bit overcosted.

I am so much lost in this thread already.... >_>

12 minutes ago, Matrim said:

Let us throw another rule into the mix....

so the rules state that in Hotaru and Toturis case their player resolves all decisions as it does not say the attacking player gets to decide.

Since the Jade Rule exists and the card orders the owning player to decide this overrules the rr on attacking in effects. Huzzah

problem with this being that the issue doesn't occur on the ability itself, but the rules.

But if we contain the ring resolution as apart of the cards ability, than the that ruling still doesn't let Hotaru/Toturi resolve on defense, since another player is being specified in the ability.

Oooo I want to add another one! What about if you defended against an attack where multiple rings were available, who would pick what ring is resolved?

1 hour ago, ForceM said:

I guess it's okay, but at this point it's really just... lamenting the obvious.

The criticism is imho justified, but there is just no point to continue this. If they just would do a /close thread sometimes in these forums ?

We all have things to lament sometimes. Fortunately bytes are awful cheap these days. I think most people are just trying to convince themselves and others that they were not silly for having the opinion that they worked the way they thought they worked before the ruling...no matter which 'side' of the debate on how they thought they worked they happened to fall on. That, and some people really love talking about and thinking about the minutia of timing and are genuinely interested in how the sequences of these things work,

The answer to which, BTW, is: No one is silly to have believed it worked either way. There were good reasons for both points of view. We'll just hope they change it now.

And as to the minutia of timing...No idea what y'all are talking about there, but hope you're having fun.

What is "the ability" in question?

"Ability" is a defined term and does not include "Ring Effect."

Therefore the ability in question must be Hotaru's Reaction. If Hotaru's player chooses to use her ability then, per the rule quoted Hotaru's player makes "all decisions required by that ability’s resolution unless another player is specified by the ability’s text."

Hotaru's Reaction requires making decisions regarding how the Ring Effect is resolved. Hotaru's Reaction does not specify that someone other than Hotaru's player makes those decisions. Thus Hotaru's player makes those decisions.

Just now, KakitaKaori said:

No one is silly to have believed it worked either way. There were good reasons for both points of view.

Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to get across last night - not that there was one necessary and obvious answer but that rules as written could support either side. Matrim's contribution makes an ever stronger case.

5 minutes ago, KakitaKaori said:

The answer to which, BTW, is: No one is silly to have believed it worked either way. There were good reasons for both points of view. We'll just hope they change it now.

So much this! I've been wrong before on these forums. Being wrong can suck, but not as bad as staying wrong! I thought Doji Challenger's ability was bad for exactly the reason it was good. It was my bad for not having more play experience, and I am totally corrected now for why Doji Challenger's ability is great. The same thing happened with Shadow Adept. I thought "lose 1 honor to take this card back? bah!" and yet I've used it to reduce my honor so that I can steal my opponent down 1 more with my stronghold before activating Ring of Air and Levy to bomb them out of the game! lol

No one is silly for being wrong - or even arguing possibly points of view which they may know are incorrect before they argue them. Just don't take it personally (or deliver it personally) and be ready to accept what is right when it has been made clear.

3 hours ago, shosuko said:

So much this! I've been wrong before on these forums. Being wrong can suck, but not as bad as staying wrong! I thought Doji Challenger's ability was bad for exactly the reason it was good. It was my bad for not having more play experience, and I am totally corrected now for why Doji Challenger's ability is great. The same thing happened with Shadow Adept. I thought "lose 1 honor to take this card back? bah!" and yet I've used it to reduce my honor so that I can steal my opponent down 1 more with my stronghold before activating Ring of Air and Levy to bomb them out of the game! lol

No one is silly for being wrong - or even arguing possibly points of view which they may know are incorrect before they argue them. Just don't take it personally (or deliver it personally) and be ready to accept what is right when it has been made clear.

If anything, this topic is a textbook example of not only the need for timely FAQs or errata, but also for improved player base, rules team, and company communication.

17 hours ago, Manchu said:

What is "the ability" in question?

"Ability" is a defined term and does not include "Ring Effect."

Therefore the ability in question must be Hotaru's Reaction. If Hotaru's player chooses to use her ability then, per the rule quoted Hotaru's player makes "all decisions required by that ability’s resolution unless another player is specified by the ability’s text."

Hotaru's Reaction requires making decisions regarding how the Ring Effect is resolved. Hotaru's Reaction does not specify that someone other than Hotaru's player makes those decisions. Thus Hotaru's player makes those decisions.

The ability in question says to resolve the Ring Effect. The Ring Effect says "the attacker...", therefore the ability in question says that the attacker makes the choices.

17 hours ago, Klawtu said:

Oooo I want to add another one! What about if you defended against an attack where multiple rings were available, who would pick what ring is resolved?

I believe that you would resolve the effect of the claimed ring, not being able to choose any from any additional effects available.

5 hours ago, Oliveira said:

The ability in question says to resolve the Ring Effect. The Ring Effect says "the attacker...", therefore the ability in question says that the attacker makes the choices.

The Ring Effect involves decisions required to be made as a result of resolving Hotaru's reaction. Therefore, Hotaru's player would make those decisions.

A Ring Effect is not an Ability. The Ability in question is Hoatru's reaction. Hotaru's reaction does not state "the attacker."

54 minutes ago, Manchu said:

The Ring Effect involves decisions required to be made as a result of resolving Hotaru's reaction. Therefore, Hotaru's player would make those decisions.

A Ring Effect is not an Ability. The Ability in question is Hoatru's reaction. Hotaru's reaction does not state "the attacker."

I think that the goal is clarity. The ring effect is designed to be a prize for the winner of an attack. The clearest way to do that is to use the wording "the attacking player xxx" In this way they know its not just winning, but winning in an attack that earns the ring effect. Adding in extra wording there to cover ability activations takes away from that natural clarity.

Think about it - as it is now the exact ring effect can all easily fit on a card that both tells you what the ring effects are, but also reminds you through the wording that the attacker is the one who gets it.

Then abilities on cards can simply include "as the attacker" in the ability effect. In this way players know they get the ring effect when they play that card, but the ring effect is still clearly a prize for winning an attack.

The only issue with clarity - the only confusion about ring effects - is with Hotaru and Toturi. I am not convinced that any other ring effect wording could both show clear intent as a prize for winning in attack, easily fit on a card for new players to keep next to the play area, and also use the more ambiguous wording on these two cards. I believe this is why they changed to the new wording, and that the best answer is just to add the clarifying words "as the attacker" to these cards.

If it ain't broke - don't fix it. The ring effects aren't broken, they are designed in a clear and simple way that makes it easy to understand and use. No other card about activating a ring's effect causes any confusion as to how it resolves. There is no confusion, or error in adding "as the attacker" to cards which activate a ring effect.

I do see a problem with adding any type of phrasing that indicates "the player activating this ability makes all decisions for this ability." You don't decide anything with the Ring of Earth. Even if you decide which option to use, the Ring of Fire still gains honor or takes honor for the attacker. I don't see these as bringing more clarity. We know what the problem is, why not just fix the problem - why try to shoehorn in an inarticulate and vague rules addition?

Just to be clear, the rule @Matrim cited is an actual rule, not a proposed clarification.

1 hour ago, Manchu said:

Just to be clear, the rule @Matrim cited is an actual rule, not a proposed clarification.

Yes and no. It is a rule, but not in that way. What that rule means: Shameful Display says "During a conflict at this province, choose 2 characters -" That rule means the controller of this card, who activated this ability will choose 2 characters.

The ring effect is a different game element, and always clearly states the "attacker" or "their opponent" chooses, or does something. This explicitly removes the power from the person who may have activated any ability.

I quoted that mostly because it is a continuation of the argument that the rules need to be changed for this interaction to work properly, or that the rules already work in such a way - that is incorrect. The rules are fine, the cards (Hotaru and Toturi) need to receive errata. Ring Effects explicitly state what happens, and to whom. Without the ability explicitly stating "as the attacker" there is no saving Hotaru / Toturi.

3 hours ago, shosuko said:

I think that the goal is clarity. The ring effect is designed to be a prize for the winner of an attack. The clearest way to do that is to use the wording "the attacking player xxx" In this way they know its not just winning, but winning in an attack that earns the ring effect. Adding in extra wording there to cover ability activations takes away from that natural clarity.

Think about it - as it is now the exact ring effect can all easily fit on a card that both tells you what the ring effects are, but also reminds you through the wording that the attacker is the one who gets it.

Then abilities on cards can simply include "as the attacker" in the ability effect. In this way players know they get the ring effect when they play that card, but the ring effect is still clearly a prize for winning an attack.

The only issue with clarity - the only confusion about ring effects - is with Hotaru and Toturi. I am not convinced that any other ring effect wording could both show clear intent as a prize for winning in attack, easily fit on a card for new players to keep next to the play area, and also use the more ambiguous wording on these two cards. I believe this is why they changed to the new wording, and that the best answer is just to add the clarifying words "as the attacker" to these cards.

If it ain't broke - don't fix it. The ring effects aren't broken, they are designed in a clear and simple way that makes it easy to understand and use. No other card about activating a ring's effect causes any confusion as to how it resolves. There is no confusion, or error in adding "as the attacker" to cards which activate a ring effect.

I do see a problem with adding any type of phrasing that indicates "the player activating this ability makes all decisions for this ability." You don't decide anything with the Ring of Earth. Even if you decide which option to use, the Ring of Fire still gains honor or takes honor for the attacker. I don't see these as bringing more clarity. We know what the problem is, why not just fix the problem - why try to shoehorn in an inarticulate and vague rules addition?

I think the desire to clarify in the rules as opposed to the cards is the rules are readily available online while issuing card errata means it becomes necessary either for players to write on their attractive cards and/or the cards to be reprinted. This was why I suggested the rules erratum I did - it made the rules fit the card language or so I thought.

Perhaps the easier solution would be to add a bullet point to Ring Effects with wording like:

"If a card effect allows a player to activate a Ring, that player is treated as the Attacker for all purposes relating to that Ring Effect" ?

Quote

I think the desire to clarify in the rules as opposed to the cards is the rules are readily available online while issuing card errata means it becomes necessary either for players to write on their attractive cards and/or the cards to be reprinted. This was why I suggested the rules erratum I did - it made the rules fit the card language or so I thought.

Perhaps the easier solution would be to add a bullet point to Ring Effects with wording like:

"If a card effect allows a player to activate a Ring, that player is treated as the Attacker for all purposes relating to that Ring Effect" ?

Errata is not a problem though. It happens in nearly every card game, and has been pretty viable for 20+ years. FFG would re-print the cards in all future print runs with the correct text, so most players wouldn't even have a flawed card. We wouldn't need to physically write the correct text on our card, its just 2 cards and you just remember they work the way we all thought they did.

I think changing the rules is more problematic because it can lead to more complexity. A new player next year buying a new core set wouldn't experience any effect of the errata. Their cards would have the correct print. If we changed the rules instead, they would have a flawed, overly complex rule set that was changed only to suite that 1 card error. Future card designs would have to accommodate the new rule set, instead of using the more clean and straight forward version we have now. Further we'd have more cards that includes the line "as the attacker" which would become redundant... so its already trading one problem for another.

Better to fix the real problem - a misprint on 2 cards - than to muck up the waters needlessly.

57 minutes ago, shosuko said:

I think the desire to clarify in the rules as opposed to the cards is the rules are readily available online while issuing card errata means it becomes necessary either for players to write on their attractive cards and/or the cards to be reprinted. This was why I suggested the rules erratum I did - it made the rules fit the card language or so I thought.

Perhaps the easier solution would be to add a bullet point to Ring Effects with wording like:

"If a card effect allows a player to activate a Ring, that player is treated as the Attacker for all purposes relating to that Ring Effect" ?

That could work although wouldn't adding Effect to the first section be the right choice or does keeping it just "a Ring" have a particular point? I'm trying to thing of possible scenarios where there would need to be a difference.

If the above text was added, wouldn't it also make some sense to simply remove the first sentence under Ring Effect or move it in a more concise form also as a bullet?

Looking at the current RR would this cover the bases? "If a card ability or effect would allow a player to resolve a ring effect, that player is treated as the Attacking Player for the ring effect."

I agree with and concur with what Mr ' Matrim has said earlier

and from my friend Elliot when he found the 'pinnacle of perfection' article.

also side note: - do we have an offical response from the FFG team that created L5R on Hotaru and Toturi ability.

for the final time,

even the article :

Until we here anything new, the ruling stands. As it does not state to activate the ring "as attacker" it is still wonky... We'll have to see if they errata it, leave it, or what... They might be waiting until they get the Online FAQ live, as that might be where they plan to list any errata.

My take is it doesn't work on defence simply because there are so many cards that explicitly state, "as though you were the attacker."

That said, I have no idea what the intent was. By straight raw though, I'd play it as not working on defence until something changes.

It would be a good idea to point out the order of conflicts:

• 3.2. Declare conflict (attacking player declares conflict type, location, element, and attackers)
• 3.2.1. Declare defenders (defending player declares defenders for the conflict)
• 3.2.2. Conflict action window (players take actions to determine outcome of conflict)
• 3.2.3. Compare skill values (determines if attacking player or defending player wins conflict)
• 3.2.4. Apply unopposed (not relevant to this discussion)
• 3.2.5. Break province (not relevant to this discussion)
• 3.2.6. Resolve ring effects
• 3.2.7. Claim ring
• 3.2.8. Return home (not relevant to this discussion)
• 3.3. Conflict ends/ Conflict was passed

To keep from being too long winded, I'm not going to fully quote any post

On 9/1/2017 at 0:34 PM, KakitaKaori said:

Some of us are just incredibly long winded. It's OK.

With that in mind, I guess here is a good place to start:

On 8/31/2017 at 4:12 PM, Manchu said:

That is only true in the context of 3.2.6, which permits the attacking player to resolve the ring and therefore defines each ring resolution in terms of the attacking player. Since Hotaru's reaction occurs explicitly after 3.2.6, and specifically implicates that the controller of the card is the one resolving the rings, it only makes sense to read the ring rsesolution descriptions in terms of the player who is actually performing the resolve, i.e., Hotaru's player.

RR-P21-3.2.6. Resolve ring effects does not define ring effect resolution in terms of the attacking player. It also states that, "If the defending player or no player won the conflict, nothing happens during this step." Your timing is off in this. By the time you have claimed the ring, and used Doji Hotaru's/Akodo Toturi's (Herein after referred to as HotaTuri.) ability, framework step 3.2.6 has already checked if the attacker won, completed the step, and framework has moved on to step 3.2.7, where the victor claims the ring. Since we are not in framework step 3.2.6, it cannot have any effect on the ring effect resolution caused by HotaTuri's reaction. Also, since attacking player is determined during framework step 3.2 and is cleared at framework step 3.3, if you are defending when you resolve a ring effect using HotaTuri's ability you don't get to make any decisions involved in the effect.

On 8/31/2017 at 8:46 PM, Manchu said:

The rules in question can be summarized as

• given [circumstances], [player X] may resolve ring effect
• resolving ring effect means [player Y] [does something]

While the [circumstance] determines [player X]; in the RR-P14, each Ring Effect explicitly defines [player Y] as the attacking player. Since [Player Y] is a constant, not a variable, it cannot be changed except by the Jade Rule, and since HotaTuri does not change the ring effect in any way, the Jade Rule does not apply.

On 9/2/2017 at 1:09 PM, Manchu said:

The Ring Effect involves decisions required to be made as a result of resolving Hotaru's reaction. Therefore, Hotaru's player would make those decisions.

A Ring Effect is not an Ability. The Ability in question is Hoatru's reaction. Hotaru's reaction does not state "the attacker."

The Ring Effects, as previously cited, involve decisions be required to be made by the attacking player. Resolving HotaTuri's reaction has no decisions, unless the claimed ring has multiple elements, as stated in RR-P14-Ring Effects: "Whenever a player resolves a ring effect for a ring that has multiple elements, that player may choose among those elements when the conflict’s ring effect resolves." (The wording on this is actually kinda bad, it would be more clear if it stated, "If a ring has multiple elements whenever a player can resolve a conflict's ring effect, that player may chose among those elements which ring effect to resolve," since you are choosing the effect before it resolves.) In which case, HotaTuri's controller decides on the effect, and the attacking player makes the decisions available in that effect.

On 9/1/2017 at 2:01 PM, Manchu said:

Hotaru's Reaction requires making decisions regarding how the Ring Effect is resolved. Hotaru's Reaction does not specify that someone other than Hotaru's player makes those decisions. Thus Hotaru's player makes those decisions.

There is nothing in HotaTuri's ability that involve's any decisions. The ring was decided at the beginning of the conflict, and HotaTuri's ability does not modify the ring effects in anyway. I only included this because I wanted to emphasize the point, and have an excuse to type HotaTuri as much as possible.

HotaTuri

One thing I want to point out, Akodo Toturi is a brilliant stategist. Being the one who resolves a ring effect, no matter when you do it, may or may not have strategic significance. And, using Hotatri's ability gets you a ring effect resolution.

On 8/31/2017 at 5:30 PM, Manchu said:

Tsukune arguably warrants specification because she is not resolving the ring at issue in the conflict - instead, unclaimed rings.

Technically, it only has to specify because by framework step 3.5, there is no attacking player. Since there is no attacking player, if it didn't state, "as if you are the attacking player," you would never be able to use the ability: No attacking player, no target of effects nor anyone to make required decisions, no change in game state.

For an example of the Jade Rule in regards to resolving ring effects and claiming, we refer to Display of Power. You play it at the end of framework step 3.2.3. It effectively says, skip framework steps 3.2.6 and 3.2.7, resolve the ring as if you are the attacking player, claim the ring, and continue with 3.2.4. Per RR-P7-Framework Effects and Framework Steps: "A framework step is a mandatory occurrence, dictated by the structure of the game." The effects of Display of Power overrides this because of the Jade Rule.

I think I've covered every rule discussion in this thread that I am motivated to respond to.

I'm sorry, I think you lost me somewhere between the Jade Rule and my popcorn running out... is there a TL;DR or even less long-winded version?

2 hours ago, Zesu Shadaban said:

I'm sorry, I think you lost me somewhere between the Jade Rule and my popcorn running out... is there a TL;DR or even less long-winded version?

"I respond to specific posts with rules references to show timing and why 'as if you were the attacking player' is important" might a good TL;DR if you don't like lawyering?