6 minutes ago, shosuko said:

Actually the ring effects are not optional. When you win a conflict as attacker using the ring effect is optional, but Toturi choosing to activate it when the effects would be favorable through target restriction like ring of void or water when they are the only ones with valid targets is legit.

Good point.

Now, we just need to convince the doomsayers that the two Champions aren't all that terrible.

1 minute ago, Bayushi Shunsuke said:

Good point.

Now, we just need to convince the doomsayers that the two Champions aren't all that terrible.

I still think it's more backlash from people expecting one thing and then getting another rather than any real assessment of the champions' strengths. If getting ring benefits as a defender had never been suggested, would people still think that getting double rings is so bad?

1 minute ago, JJ48 said:

I still think it's more backlash from people expecting one thing and then getting another rather than any real assessment of the champions' strengths. If getting ring benefits as a defender had never been suggested, would people still think that getting double rings is so bad?

I would. They are already limited by mil / pol type, to also limit them to attacking is very restrictive. We shouldn't play against the rules, so i recommend playing as ruled.. but i also expect we'll see an errata soon to fix them.

Getting that hint (a rather large one) that they work on defence is too ingrained in people's minds.

I doubt that anybody could remove the preview articles from their memory, and give an objective argument.

My concern is less-so with this ruling (though I'd of course prefer it be the other way) but rather that this is the second controversial ruling and the game isn't even out yet. Where's the QA? How did this make it through 2 years of development and testing?

If that's RAW and RAI why not have the text read, "When this character wins a conflict as the attacker resolve the ring twice"? Or "Reaction: After claiming a ring while attacking resolve that ring a second time."

The dangerous precedent being set here isn't short-term, it's long-term. Is this the quality we're to expect moving forward? Rulings contrary to official FFG materials? Judges not knowing the rules?

I love this game, that's why I care. They need to tighten this up otherwise we're on the 2-3 year rollercoaster once again and then some other NEW SHINY LCG comes out to get people to buy cores and the cycle continues.

16 minutes ago, Reiga said:

My concern is less-so with this ruling (though I'd of course prefer it be the other way) but rather that this is the second controversial ruling and the game isn't even out yet. Where's the QA? How did this make it through 2 years of development and testing?

If that's RAW and RAI why not have the text read, "When this character wins a conflict as the attacker resolve the ring twice"? Or "Reaction: After claiming a ring while attacking resolve that ring a second time."

The dangerous precedent being set here isn't short-term, it's long-term. Is this the quality we're to expect moving forward? Rulings contrary to official FFG materials? Judges not knowing the rules?

I love this game, that's why I care. They need to tighten this up otherwise we're on the 2-3 year rollercoaster once again and then some other NEW SHINY LCG comes out to get people to buy cores and the cycle continues.

It's a bit foolish to expect a game launch to be perfect. Rules can be updated, and cards can receive errata. All will be well, and things just get better as they go forward.

This ruling is RAW only, and only if any changes or errata do not come is it permanent.

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

Do we know that the wording of the rings was finalized at the time the articles were written? From what I can tell, the initial introductions to the rings makes no mention of the attacker in their abilities, so it may be that this specification was added later.

If that's the case it sounds more like they changed their mind and intentionally nerfed the two champions, rather than made a mistake and got stuck with it.

No it sounds exactly like they just didn't word them correctly or they didn't think about them when they made the ring explanations. And then whoops suddenly it turns out that 2 of worst champions in the game(aside from Altan) are even worse hehe.

And if it is indeed a nerf then the situation looks even worse. Why would they nerf bottom of the barrel champs? And in such insignificant way? This change barely achieves anything balance wise it's more of a spit in the face and unwillingness to admit a small mistake.

They worded it poorly, they gave examples on how to play them, it turned out that according to rules the cards don't work the way they were designed and now the team doesn't want to make it look like they made many errors early in the life of the game so they won't publish errata(I still hope they will tho).

Can someone please be nice enough to summarize this whole thread?

If I'm reading this correctly, this is a rather large SNAFU on the part of the FFG design group.

13 minutes ago, LordBlunt said:

Can someone please be nice enough to summarize this whole thread?

If I'm reading this correctly, this is a rather large SNAFU on the part of the FFG design group.

I wouldn't consider this a major problem. Its not uncommon for promo materials and previews to have incorrect descriptions. The wording is odd, and I think the design intent is to have them properly use the ring effect even in defense - but all it takes is an errata and its done. Sometimes errata takes a few weeks to clear.

The situation is being handled in the way I would consider proper. This means - we have the rules interpretation based on the rules mechanics. Above all, we play by the rules first. When the intent does not properly function based on the rules then we don't ignore the rules, they change them. They need to clear and release an errata to fix this, they can't just say we play it one way, when the rules (and other cards) clearly play it the other way.

Its not that major of an issue to have these problems on game launch, there were a lot of cards being released at once and as soon as cards are released they will see more game play than any QA testers could run through. Seeing some RR updates and card errata is no biggie. The way FFG handles errata is re-prints include the errata text. I had several cards from LotR LCG that I didn't realize were errata, because I already had the correct version. NBD bra

The Summery: The RR did not have any wording that prevented the Stronghold from being moved. The players found the issue and sent in their rules request. Because the rules did not properly prevent it the answer was that you could move the Stronghold. Shortly after a RR update was released which included wording that the Stronghold couldn't be moved and the game continued.

Hotaru / Toturi do not includes the phrase "as if you were the attacking player" on their card. We supposed they intended you to properly utilize the card effect in defense, but the rules do not support this. When the players noticed this and asked the developers, they responded that it does indeed work according to the rules. Everything always does... We have not yet received any update, but the proper fix would be to errata these cards to include "as if you were the attacking player." What we need to do is just wait. The game can't work any way than the rules allow it to work, so we just need to await the errata and then there isn't really anything to complain about...

3 hours ago, Reiga said:

Where's the QA? How did this make it through 2 years of development and testing?

From what I heard from some playtesters (and if I understood correctly), the rules have been rewritten and complexified at the end of the playtesting phase when their work was done which if true seems totally stupid.

3 hours ago, JJ48 said:

If getting ring benefits as a defender had never been suggested, would people still think that getting double rings is so bad?

Considering that people were already considering them almost the worst champions before that "nerf", I think so.

2 hours ago, BordOne said:

No it sounds exactly like they just didn't word them correctly or they didn't think about them when they made the ring explanations. And then whoops suddenly it turns out that 2 of worst champions in the game(aside from Altan) are even worse hehe.

And if it is indeed a nerf then the situation looks even worse. Why would they nerf bottom of the barrel champs? And in such insignificant way? This change barely achieves anything balance wise it's more of a spit in the face and unwillingness to admit a small mistake.

They worded it poorly, they gave examples on how to play them, it turned out that according to rules the cards don't work the way they were designed and now the team doesn't want to make it look like they made many errors early in the life of the game so they won't publish errata(I still hope they will tho).

And that's not done on cards that will rotate and we'll be able to forget in a few years, or cards that are pretty insignificants, it's done on evergreen champions, the cards that will be the basic identity of the Crane and Lion Clan until the end of the game...

1 hour ago, shosuko said:

When the players noticed this and asked the developers, they responded that it does indeed work according to the rules. Everything always does...

I love it when a plan comes together!

24 minutes ago, KerenRhys said:

From what I heard from some playtesters (and if I understood correctly), the rules have been rewritten and complexified at the end of the playtesting phase when their work was done which if true seems totally stupid.

Considering that people were already considering them almost the worst champions before that "nerf", I think so.

And that's not done on cards that will rotate and we'll be able to forget in a few years, or cards that are pretty insignificants, it's done on evergreen champions, the cards that will be the basic identity of the Crane and Lion Clan until the end of the game...

Rules are a technical manual, not a kids story. They need to be well defined and as semantically correct and consistent as possible. Notice how the RR is a living document - very easy to update at any time. Its already been updated once... No reason they won't continue as needed.

Errata dude... Do you even know what this is? When FFG errata a card, all future prints of the card are updated. If these warrant an errata (they should, for clarity, either way) then these first release will be the only copies that don't display the correct text. It doesn't matter if a card is evergreen, it can still get fixed... We are bound by what things say now - that doesn't mean things can't change.

Seriously - people getting salty over this... Maybe y'all are just new to card games. This isn't an FFG thing or lazy development. 20 years ago L5R, mtg, netrunner, even pokemon received errata, and they all continue to receive errata today. The ruling someone shared here is only stating how the game works now - by the cards and rules as presented at this moment. It does not share the intent of the card, or mean no rules or card changes will not happen to bring the card in line with its intended design.

1 hour ago, KerenRhys said:

From what I heard from some playtesters (and if I understood correctly), the rules have been rewritten and complexified at the end of the playtesting phase when their work was done which if true seems totally stupid.

This, if true, is stupid and is a definitive way to invalidate the work the playtesters put into all cards. With this ruling contradicting the preview article, it raises the question on whether these cards were tested RAW or RAI, and how much stability could one expect from these cards tested under different parameters.

2 hours ago, shosuko said:

Seriously - people getting salty over this... Maybe y'all are just new to card games. This isn't an FFG thing or lazy development. 20 years ago L5R, mtg, netrunner, even pokemon received errata, and they all continue to receive errata today. The ruling someone shared here is only stating how the game works now - by the cards and rules as presented at this moment. It does not share the intent of the card, or mean no rules or card changes will not happen to bring the card in line with its intended design.

I think most people are salty over the stupid FFG policy that makes Nate unable to be the designer rather than PR person(because I refuse to belive that he wants to make this type of statemens). It is clear that the cards don't work the way they were designed and he had perfect opportunity to state that and ensure us they will somehow fix it sooner or later, instead he is forced to double down on the mistake.

Question for Lion and Crane players:

How often are you defending with these 2 clan champions in the relevant conflict type?

40 minutes ago, BordOne said:

I think most people are salty over the stupid FFG policy that makes Nate unable to be the designer rather than PR person(because I refuse to belive that he wants to make this type of statemens). It is clear that the cards don't work the way they were designed and he had perfect opportunity to state that and ensure us they will somehow fix it sooner or later, instead he is forced to double down on the mistake.

You are making some pretty large assumptions there. No-one has said anything about the way the cards were designed so it is in no way clear.

Well, it's a RAW written answer, that kind of feels like an unintended consequence.

Like these two champions were the first made in the design process before the word attacker was added to the ring descriptions themselves. They hung around so long the obvious error in their text was glossed over because of everyone knew what it meant.

As I said before, the fringe case of you forcing your attacker to resolve the ring is too infrequent it feels like that was not the desired intention of the cards.

But that is RAW as written, but we shall see if an errata comes or not. But I also don't agree with people that they are the weakest champs.

3 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

But that is RAW as written, but we shall see if an errata comes or not. But I also don't agree with people that they are the weakest champs.

Yea, that honor definitely still goes to Altansarnai.

Just now, Joe From Cincinnati said:

Yea, that honor definitely still goes to Altansarnai.

I also disagree with that statement.

6 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

I also disagree with that statement.

Understood

This whole thing was based on a daft assumption based on people not reading the ruddy cards properly.

Tsukune says she resolves rings 'as attacking'

Hotaru does not.

Which means she does not. Same with Toturi or anything else that doesn't have that wording.

Which means that people assuming they do are doing exactly that, and then whinging when their assumption is proven wrong and now the cards are 'junk'. Kisada doesn't say he resolves two rings either, should I assume that?

I'm sorry, but this is the most ridiculous mountain out of a molehill ever.

After re-reading both the Crane and the Lion card spoilers it almost seems like FFG kind of noticed somwthing, but, then forgot to go back and fix it?

The Crane spoiler clearly states that Hotaru can use the ability on defense, and presents as an advantage. Where as the Lion spoiler is a little more vague about Toturi.

Typical Rogukan for the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. Maybe FFG embraced the in game flavor a little bit too much?

14 minutes ago, Daigotsu Steve said:

Kisada doesn't say he resolves two rings either, should I assume that?

Kisada:

"Leave me out of your politics Steve. I have a wall to defend."

55 minutes ago, Joe From Cincinnati said:

Question for Lion and Crane players:

How often are you defending with these 2 clan champions in the relevant conflict type?

In the Lion MU it seems like a backbreaking strategy to play "Charge" into "Toturi" as the defender.

12 minutes ago, Ignithas said:

In the Lion MU it seems like a backbreaking strategy to play "Charge" into "Toturi" as the defender.

If a Lion player left Toturi face up and floated some fate into the conflict phase......it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone though. Shouldn't be that backbreaking if you're paying attention.