1 minute ago, Manchu said:

But would you agree just by reading the language on Hotaru's card and comparing it to 3.2.6 that Hotaru's player claims the ring and then the attacking player resolves it (assuming Hotaru's player chooses to use her reaction)?

It seems like this would make Hotaru's Reaction uniformly terrible for her player.

Except for when Hotaru's player is the attacking player, yes. That is, in essence, the core issue under discussion with this thread. The way the reveal articles were written, it gave the impression that Hotaru's player would resolve the claimed ring on defense, rather than the attacking player. Rules As Written, as you've noted, would suggest otherwise. So now we wait to see if a rules change/errata/clarification/something results from the issue, as it would *seem* (though technically we have no clarification either way from the design team) that the ability *as intended* would allow Hotaru's/Toturi's player to resolve the ring on defense as if they were the attacking player.

It seems very bad indeed that Hotaru's Reaction means that her player, having won on the defense, would then have the ring resolved against him by his opponent. This is so bad that it seems incredible.

Of course, the problem evaporates if Hotaru's card is read as commanding her player to be the one who resolves the ring. And indeed, it appears to be written in the imperative: "you who are reading this, resolve the ring." Are there cases where the imperative is used to implicate the opponent of the person controlling the card? Is it the case that when a card tells you to do something, the you in question is the person controlling the card?

Another way of saying this is, we only get to the absurd conclusion that "RAW means Hotaru's Reaction must work against her player" if we ignore that the card is written in the imperative.

I understand that the simple words "as if you are the attacking player" would cut through the knot completely. But I am wondering if there is really a knot.

12 minutes ago, Manchu said:

It seems very bad indeed that Hotaru's Reaction means that her player, having won on the defense, would then have the ring resolved against him by his opponent. This is so bad that it seems incredible.

Of course, the problem evaporates if Hotaru's card is read as commanding her player to be the one who resolves the ring. And indeed, it appears to be written in the imperative: "you who are reading this, resolve the ring." Are there cases where the imperative is used to implicate to the opponent of the person controlling the card?

Another way of saying this is, we only get to the absurd conclusion that "RAW means Hotaru's Reaction is a 100% liability" if we ignore that the card is written in the imperative.

I understand that the simple words "as if you are the attacking player" would cut through the knot completely. But I am wondering if there is really a knot.

The problem is that every other card that resolves the ring effect doesn't leave room for implication, they outright direct you to be able to do so as the attacking player. Display of Power, Defend the wall, Tsukune all directly stated to resolve the rings as if the attacking player.

Hotaru doesn't tell you to treat is an if an attacking player, that's the crux of the issue, since every card has told us to treat the resolution as if we are.

Display of Power requires you lose the conflict and Tsukune refers to unclaimed rings generally; both premises warrant specification that the player resolving the rings per those cards resolve them as if he is the attacking player. So we can safely set aside those cards.

I have a question about Defend the Wall:

"After you win a conflict at this province - resolve the ring effect of that conflict as if you were the attacking player." The players determine who wins a conflict (3.2.3) several steps before the winner, if he was the attacker, is permitted to resolve the ring (3.2.6). So does that (rules as written) mean that the winner resolves the ring at "step" 3.2.3 and - if he is also the attacker - may resolve the ring again at "step" 3.2.6?

28 minutes ago, Manchu said:

But would you agree just by reading the language on Hotaru's card and comparing it to 3.2.6 that Hotaru's player claims the ring and then the attacking player resolves it (assuming Hotaru's player chooses to use her reaction)?

It seems like this would make Hotaru's Reaction uniformly terrible for her player.

I don't think anyone believes the card is worded well. There is a knot to cut through. There are 3 ways to think about this situation that I think most players would agree with.

1) The card is supposed to give the Hotaru player the benefit when claiming the ring in defense - but the rules don't support this. Play according to the rules until we have an update via RR or card errata

2) The card is supposed to give the Hotaru player the benefit when claiming the ring in defense - we should play as intended, and FFG should tell us the intention of the card regardless of the rules. Fix the rules.

3) The card is not supposed to give the Hotaru player the benefit when claiming the ring in defense - its still worded poorly and should receive clarification but she does not get the benefit of the ring effect in defense except for fringe cases where the forced nature of the ring effects may still be beneficial (if there is only 1 character with fate, and you resolve a void ring ability, there is only 1 valid target even if it is a character controlled by the attacking player. the only option is to resolve the ring effect or not, you cannot choose once it is resolved whether to apply the effects or not.)

What I recommend is to be camp 1. This gives you the best practice of following rules, and would only make you stronger (assuming you are crane) when / if it gets fixed. Camp 2 is alright, but realize that 3 is a possibility, and we do not have certainty yet... so you may learn to play improperly while ignoring rules. Even if this card rules in your favor, its still good practice to abide the rules and await correction. Camp 3 is one of those "it's possible" camps... it is possible... but I strongly doubt they intended it to be in attack only, considering its already restricted to MIL / POL type lol... but we should respect these players anyway! They aren't doing anything wrong, and may simply be playing devil's advocate to check those who would ignore the rules because of an assumption of the intended play of a card.

5 minutes ago, Manchu said:

Display of Power requires you lose the conflict and Tsukune refers to unclaimed rings generally; both premises warrant specification that the player resolving the rings per those cards resolve them as if he is the attacking player. So we can safely set aside those cards.

I have a question about Defend the Wall:

"After you win a conflict at this province - resolve the ring effect of that conflict as if you were the attacking player." The players determine who wins a conflict (3.2.3) several steps before the winner, if he was the attacker, is permitted to resolve the ring (3.2.6). So does that (rules as written) mean that the winner resolves the ring at "step" 3.2.3 and - if he is also the attacker - may resolve the ring again at "step" 3.2.6?

Defend the Wall does not effect the game framework steps. It is a reaction to "when you win a conflict at this province." This happens immediately after 3.2.3. You react to winning the conflict and process the card ability "resolve the ring effect of that conflict as if you were the attacking player." This means you immediately resolve the ring effect at that point, with you as the "attacker" for all reference from the Ring Effect. Once the reaction completes play continues, and step 3.2.6 does nothing since the attacker did not win.

@shosuko

As explained above, it seems like "play according to the rules" actually means that if Hotaru's player chooses to use her Reaction then the opponent resolves the ring claimed by Hotaru's player against Hotaru's player. This is rule as written, as long as we assume (on what basis? seems to be Defend the Wall) "resolve that ring's effect" means something other than "[you, Hotaru's player] resolve that ring's effect." Again, if we ignore that the card text is written in the imperative, we must conclude that, rules as written, using Hotaru's Reaction means the ring is resolved against Hotaru's player by his opponent.

20 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

The problem is that every other card that resolves the ring effect doesn't leave room for implication, they outright direct you to be able to do so as the attacking player. Display of Power, Defend the wall, Tsukune all directly stated to resolve the rings as if the attacking player.

Hotaru doesn't tell you to treat is an if an attacking player, that's the crux of the issue, since every card has told us to treat the resolution as if we are.

Yeah it's clear by now that the effect is resolved against Hotaru or Toturi.

And extremely obvious that it was not intended that way, or they would have clarified that it only works on the attack.

What is left to hope is that FFG will just errata this in the next days and we can be done with it.

Because i think that most people would agree that triggering the ring on a defensive victory would in no way make these 2 broken or anything, merely bring them a bit more up to par with the other Champs.

Just now, shosuko said:

Once the reaction completes play continues, and step 3.2.6 does nothing since the attacker did not win.

I think you are exactly correct. And this is why I believe Defend the Wall specifies "as if you were the attacking player."

By contrast Hotaru's reaction happens after 3.2.6.

Furthermore, Defend the Wall may specify "as if you were the attacking player" because its Reaction only ever applies when you win as a defender.* This is not true of Hotaru's Reaction.

*Another point: "After you win a conflict at this province - [you] resolve the ring effect [...]" Who is the you in this text? Why would it be any different from who is the you in this text: "After you claim a ring during a [political] conflict [...] - [you] resolve that ring's effect."

10 minutes ago, Manchu said:

I think you are exactly correct. And this is why I believe Defend the Wall specifies "as if you were the attacking player."

By contrast Hotaru's reaction happens after 3.2.6.

The conflict does not end until 3.3. Until that point the "attacking player" is the player who declared that conflict (pg 3 attacking player)

2 minutes ago, Manchu said:

Furthermore, Defend the Wall may specify "as if you were the attacking player" because its Reaction only ever applies when you win as a defender.* This is not true of Hotaru's Reaction.

*Another point: "After you win a conflict at this province - [you] resolve the ring effect [...]" Who is the you in this text? Why would it be any different from who is the you in this text: "After you claim a ring during a [political] conflict [...] - [you] resolve that ring's effect."

The "you" is the player who controls the card.

If I have a card that says "action: first player gains 1 fate, second player draws a card" I could use this ability at any action window, but who gains 1 fate and who draws a card is determined by the ability, regardless of whether I am the one activating it or not.

Hotaru can resolve the ring effect - but then the Ring Effect says "attacking player chooses a character and removes 1 fate from that character." Unless the ability specifies who is the attacking player, then the attacking player is the one who declared the conflict we are resolving.

Just now, shosuko said:

The conflict does not end until 3.3. Until that point the "attacking player" is the player who declared that conflict (pg 3 attacking player)

Yes but 3.2.6 is written specifically to say that the attacking player resolves the ring. Since Hotaru's reaction happens after 3.2.6, it is arguably inappropriate to apply it to Hotaru's reaction.

Just now, Manchu said:

Yes but 3.2.6 is written specifically to say that the attacking player resolves the ring. Since Hotaru's reaction happens after 3.2.6, it is arguably inappropriate to apply it to Hotaru's reaction.

Saying to "resolve as the attacking player" does not hijack 3.2.6, it only specifies who is the "attacker" for the Ring Effect - as they all refer to this player. If the ability does not specify who is the attacking player, then the game does (page 3, attacking player) and it is the one who declared the conflict we are still resolving (which continues until 3.3)

5 minutes ago, shosuko said:

but then the Ring Effect says "attacking player [...]"

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.

Just now, 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.

The Ring Effects (pg 14) specifies that the Attacking Player chooses and applies the effects of the ring. Abilities do not always grant the controller of the ability all choices of the ability. For instance Kakita Kaezin allows the opponent to choose which of their characters is challenged.

The Hotaru player chooses at step 3.2.7 when they claim the ring in defense whether they want to resolve the effect or not. If they choose to resolve it then the game goes to the Ring Effects (pg 14) and says "attacking player..." since no declaration is made in the ability to resolve "as attacking player" then the game looks for who is the attacking player (pg 3) and decides it is the one who declared the conflict. The conflict is not yet resolved, since that happens at 3.3

Wait, you are skipping a step. You do not go directly to the ring effects text. You go to 3.2.6 because Hotaru's reaction allows you to resolve so we need to read 3.2.6 from the beginning: "If the attacking player won the conflict (in step 3.2.3), that player may resolve the ring effect of the contested ring." However, we know that the first clause ("If the attacking player won the conflict") is not necessarily applicable because it is not "the attacking player" but rather Hotaru's player who is allowed to resolve at this point (3.2.7). The ring effects are described in terms of the attacking player because the text assumes, for the purposes of 3.2.6, that the attacking player is the one resolving the ring. But that may not be the case when Hotaru's player resolves a ring he claims via Hotaru's Reaction. Therefore, you must read the ring effect descriptions in the context of who is actually performing the resolve action.

F yeah!

You show that dead horse who's boss!

More like, the horse was never alive.

• we have a strong sense of what the ability ought to do
• there is a reasonable reading of rules as written supporting that
• the contrary interpretation produces an absurd result
• the contrary interpretation is based on reading of the rules that is arguably incorrect

It seems to me that the controversy here was mostly a phantom although I completely see why it could come up.

28 minutes ago, Manchu said:

Wait, you are skipping a step. You do not go directly to the ring effects text. You go to 3.2.6 because Hotaru's reaction allows you to resolve so we need to read 3.2.6 from the beginning: "If the attacking player won the conflict (in step 3.2.3), that player may resolve the ring effect of the contested ring." However, we know that the first clause ("If the attacking player won the conflict") is not necessarily applicable because it is not "the attacking player" but rather Hotaru's player who is allowed to resolve at this point (3.2.7). The ring effects are described in terms of the attacking player because the text assumes, for the purposes of 3.2.6, that the attacking player is the one resolving the ring. But that may not be the case when Hotaru's player resolves a ring he claims via Hotaru's Reaction. Therefore, you must read the ring effect descriptions in the context of who is actually performing the resolve action.

Hotaru's ability doesn't make you go through 3.2.6. It allows you to resolve a ring effect. This is a completely separate thing. The reaction on Hotaru creates an effect that says "after you claim a ring in a POL conflict, resolve that ring's effect."

None of the effects actually call up 3.2.6.

Display of Power actually resolves the ring effect after 3.2.3 before the province is broken AND before the penalty for not-defending takes place. If my opponent and I are both at 1 honor, and they attack with Ring of Air, and I do not defend but play Display of Power I win the game taking their honor before the -1 honor for not defending applies.

The cards create their own effects, they don't jump around in the game framework. When a card says "resolve a ring effect" it doesn't bring you to step 3.2.6 in the game framework, it brings you to Ring Effects (page 14). When the Ring Effect says "the attacking player chooses a character and removes 1 fate from that character" and the ability doesn't specify who the attacking player is - then the game says "the attacking player is the player who declared the conflict we are resolving." Since we are in a conflict, and still have not resolved it - this designates the attacking player as the opponent of the Hotaru player.

7 minutes ago, Manchu said:

More like, the horse was never alive.

• we have a strong sense of what the card is intended to do
• there is a reasonable reading of rules as written supporting that
• the contrary interpretation produces an absurd result
• the contrary interpretation is based on reading of the rules that is arguably incorrect

It seems to me that the controversy here was mostly a phantom although I completely see why it could come up.

There is no reasonable reading of the rules which support the Hotaru player being the "attacking player" in the ring effect. Note specifically - if you only read the Ring Effect (page 14) you will see that the ring effect specifies that the attacking player makes a choice. Just because you resolve an ability does not mean you make all choices for that ability! The ring effect specifically gives that choice to the attacking player.

10 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

F yeah!

You show that dead horse who's boss!

We can't ride zombie horses if they aren't dead first...

3.2.6 is where resolve is explained, therefore Hotaru's reaction "calls up" that section. Reading in context, 3.2.6 defines what the resolving player does; the attacking player is normally the resolving player (the normal case being 3.2.6) but that is not necessarily the case with Hotaru's reaction.

Not saying this is the only and therefore necessarily correct interpretation; just that it is a reasonable one that supports a non-absurd result for the Crane and Lion champions.

2 hours ago, Klawtu said:

The issue comes when you check out the Rules Reference section on Ring effectst that reads:

"Ring Effects:

Each time a player wins a conflict as the attacking player, he or she may resolve the ring effect associated with the contested ring’s element. The ring effects are as follows:

• Air: The attacking player takes 1 honor from his or her opponent, or gains 2 honor from the general token pool.
• Earth: The attacking player draws 1 card from his or her conflict deck and discards 1 card at random from his or her opponent’s hand. Fire: The attacking player chooses a character in play and chooses to honor or dishonor that character.
• Water: The attacking player either chooses a character and readies it, or chooses a character with no fate on it and bows it.
• Void: The attacking player chooses a character and removes 1 fate from that character."

By that reading even if the player controlling Hotaru or Toturi use the ring effect on the defense the attacking player would get the benefit. It makes no mention of the victor just the attacker.

I'd agree. The issue seems as bad as Runewars was once the rules were released. We had to wait awhile before any FAQ was put out to clear up some issues. Even Games Workshop has improved its FAQ mess from a few years ago, with an FAQ around the time they release a new book.

1 hour ago, shosuko said:

I don't think anyone believes the card is worded well. There is a knot to cut through. There are 3 ways to think about this situation that I think most players would agree with.

1) The card is supposed to give the Hotaru player the benefit when claiming the ring in defense - but the rules don't support this. Play according to the rules until we have an update via RR or card errata

2) The card is supposed to give the Hotaru player the benefit when claiming the ring in defense - we should play as intended, and FFG should tell us the intention of the card regardless of the rules. Fix the rules.

3) The card is not supposed to give the Hotaru player the benefit when claiming the ring in defense - its still worded poorly and should receive clarification but she does not get the benefit of the ring effect in defense except for fringe cases where the forced nature of the ring effects may still be beneficial (if there is only 1 character with fate, and you resolve a void ring ability, there is only 1 valid target even if it is a character controlled by the attacking player. the only option is to resolve the ring effect or not, you cannot choose once it is resolved whether to apply the effects or not.)

What I recommend is to be camp 1. This gives you the best practice of following rules, and would only make you stronger (assuming you are crane) when / if it gets fixed. Camp 2 is alright, but realize that 3 is a possibility, and we do not have certainty yet... so you may learn to play improperly while ignoring rules. Even if this card rules in your favor, its still good practice to abide the rules and await correction. Camp 3 is one of those "it's possible" camps... it is possible... but I strongly doubt they intended it to be in attack only, considering its already restricted to MIL / POL type lol... but we should respect these players anyway! They aren't doing anything wrong, and may simply be playing devil's advocate to check those who would ignore the rules because of an assumption of the intended play of a card.

Problem is number 2 went right out the window when a Dev specifically ruled that it does not work that way. There is still a possibility that this is an error and that future errata to either the cards or rules will change it but if you just decide that you're not going to play by how the people who made the game say it should be played then I don't know what to do for you. You can argue that the rule doesn't make any sense (I did my share of this about the stronghold moving issue) but when you get word on how a card is supposed to function just not following that is hard to justify. Even if you feel you are right it doesn't change what the riling was. Unless you want to argue that Nate French is not a valid authority as to how the rules of this game work I don't see how you can argue that the rules justify that interpretation.

Now that's a big difference from saying that the card always was intended to work that way or that it should work the way the rules as they are now direct it to. Fortunately we've got over a month before the wide release so if they want to fix it they'll have plenty of time.

1 hour ago, Manchu said:

Furthermore, Defend the Wall may specify "as if you were the attacking player" because its Reaction only ever applies when you win as a defender.* This is not true of Hotaru's Reaction.

*Another point: "After you win a conflict at this province - [you] resolve the ring effect [...]" Who is the you in this text? Why would it be any different from who is the you in this text: "After you claim a ring during a [political] conflict [...] - [you] resolve that ring's effect."

Then how do we explain Tsukune gaining the "as if you were the attacking player". Her ability doesn't even occur anywhere NEAR step 3.2.6.

It doesn't ping off that step, it doesn't even check that step. It checks the ring abilities themselves, which requires an attacking player.

As far as the you question, it isn't. But that's why the "As if you were the attacking player" is apart of that you statement on defend the wall, because the rings themselves check for attacking player, not just the check for resolution.

@RandomJC

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