39 minutes ago, Manchu said:

.........I think you have the heavier burden, honorable Scorpion, because you want to show your interpretations (and TBF apparently Nate French's) is the only one; whereas I only intend to show a reasonable (low threshold) alternative case.

Wu

Tang

Fan

.................

Now do you see why I serve the Shadowlands? I could have settled this a long time ago with a good ol' fashion leg wrestle.

11 minutes ago, Manchu said:

Because p. 14 and 3.2.6 say the same thing, the same issue of reading in context occurs. Both rules state the normal case, neither necessarily covers the special case wherein the resolving player is not necessarily also the attacking player. I think you have the heavier burden, honorable Scorpion, because you want to show your interpretations (and TBF apparently Nate French's) is the only one; whereas I only intend to show a reasonable (low threshold) alternative case.

The rule per Nate French's call just means that defending with Crane and Lion Champions is (in most cases) sub-optimal. Extremely so. Okay so these are very aggressive characters. I'm fine with that, although I would obviously prefer the other reading - not just because it makes Hotaru and Toturi more flexible but also because I think Nate French's call creates a bit of a trap. It's likely that many players will not unreasonably believe that their Clan champs are better than worse. But the Scorpion-chan will pull out his tablet and show screen shot of Nate French ruling the other way. "So sorry, friend Crane! It seems Doji Hotura has unwittingly betrayed you!"

p14 and 3.2.6 do not say the same thing. 3.2.6 describes that the attacking player may resolve the ring effect of the contested ring. It only lists the Ring Effects for simplicity, page 14 shows the ring effects. There is no case where there is not an "attacking player" and a ring effect in resolution. If there were, then it would simply fizzle as there is no attacking player.

In the case of all cards - except Hotaru and Toturi - it is clarified in the ability that you resolve the ability "as the attacking player" to allow the ring effect to be fulfilled. In the case of Hotaru and Toturi - their abilities are only able to be triggered during a conflict, and without any text in the ability stating otherwise - the attacking player is still the person who declared the conflict currently resolving.

As you can see from the wording on page 14, Ring Effects - there is no case of resolving a ring without an attacker. Either the effect gives it, or the game gives it. If for any reason these don't give it, then it would fail to resolve.

24 minutes ago, Himoto said:

Are you seriously trying to argue that rules clarity and consistency is more important in a game where all that's at stake is winning the occasional tournament than in law where even the lowest stakes often rank up in the thousands and the months of life lost?

The law has FAR better reason to insist on "rules as written" (so people can actually know what the rules are and avoid being on the aforesaid wrong side), and even it doesn't cling to literal interpretations.

Is it more important? no. I did not say it was more important. What I did say was that it was possible to have very clear and consistent rules because a game is a controlled environment. Nothing happens without it being in the rules to happen. Every card is made with the rules in mind. The process is not perfect - thus we have FAQS, Errata, and Rules Reference updates... as we will with this situation to correct any issues where there is a lack of clarity, consistency, or if rules are not functioning as intended. Until we receive any updates we play as the cards rules read.

Sure, they say the same thing. They begin by introducing the concept of resolving a ring and then define the effect of resolving each ring.

36 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

I'm not trying to sound overly critical of the game, or designers, or even the rules as written. So I'll apologize if I am. most of it it's pretty spot on and they really just need a good copy editor to fix a majority of the small errors in the rules texts, or inconsistencies in them. Had a decent conversation about how the rules on playing action cards in dynasty can be a bit iffy since the conflict window specifically calls out event action abilities from hand, while the dynasty just says action abilities. (As in not worded the best if you start over thinking it.)

But I imagine the document will get cleaned up and better in the next few months so not going to worry about it too much.

Well, they've shown that they can easily put out a new version of the rules to correct mistakes with the shift to v101 in a short amount of time. It was a minor fix but it means they can do it or maybe they were simply rushed to get this to print that multiple errors were just not noticed.

On 8/31/2017 at 6:36 PM, Zesu Shadaban said:

How ornate are we talking? I kinda want one now too, maybe a group discount can be applied.

ADD: Should it also be printed in Japanese with translation below?

I was thinking about this ornate.

I will however take your suggestion about the translation into consideration. ?

LOL "forged edict"... life imitates art!

22 minutes ago, Manchu said:

Sure, they say the same thing. They begin by introducing the concept of resolving a ring and then define the effect of resolving each ring.

An effect which tells you what the attacking player, and their opponent do. If the ability didn't tell you who was the attacking player, then you refer to what the game tells you - which is the player who declared the conflict. This is why Hotaru doesn't get the benefit of the ring she resolves if she claims it in defense.

Seems we are just talking past one another now. Both pages refer to resolving the ring as the result of winning as the attacker. But that is not the case with Hotaru; she lets you resolve for claiming. Whether you look to either p.14 or 21 to figure out what "resolve" means, you get rules that refer to something other than resolving a ring as a result of claiming it; hence those pages are read by analogy to the atypical case of the resolving player not necessarily being the same as the victorious attacker.

3 minutes ago, Manchu said:

Seems we are just talking past one another now. Both pages refer to resolving the ring as the result of winning as the attacker. But that is not the case with Hotaru; she lets you resolve for claiming. Whether you look to either p.14 or 21 to figure out what "resolve" means, you get rules that refer to something other than resolving a ring as a result of claiming it; hence those pages are read by analogy to the atypical case of the resolving player not necessarily being the same as the victorious attacker.

If I had an ability that said "the first player draws a card, and discards a card at random from their opponent's hand" would you believe that player 2 can draw a card with this ability just because they played the card?

If I had an ability that said "you resolve a ring" would you believe it meant "attacking player resolves ring" regardless of the word "you"?

19 minutes ago, Manchu said:

If I had an ability that said "you resolve a ring" would you believe it meant "attacking player resolves ring" regardless of the word "you"?

That does not answer my question - a question which you must answer. You have now asked the same question back to me, so I will answer.

If we have player A who is Attacker - because they declare a conflict against player B

Player B wins the conflict, and claims the ring and then resolves the ring effect - the ring effect states

"The attacking player draws a card, and discards a card at random from their opponents hand"

Who do you think is drawing a card? The attacking player is still player A because nothing has said otherwise.

I believe a key element of your confusion is that you mistakenly believe performing an action means you get to make all of the choices of that action. There are many actions that a player can play which do not give them any choice. Levy is a great example, it specifically gives your opponent a choice! The ring effects are worded to give the attacking player certain actions, regardless of who resolved it. Resolving a ring is nothing more than triggering the appropriate text from RR page 14.

I love a good back and forth as much as the next person, but I think you ought to consider what the words say, rather than what you want them to say.

Pffffffft

You call this an arguement?

They say it ain't a real debate unless you make it past page 8.

I'll get us there don't worry.....

I heard Manchu say a katana has a staight blade.

I'm also selling torches and pitchforks. 3 koku a piece or 5 koku for one of each.

The rules in question can be summarized as

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

Now, we can agree that if [circumstances] = "attacking player wins conflict" then both [player X] = "attacking player" and [player Y] = "attacking player."

But we disgaree when [circumstances] = "player who wins conflict claims ring" and [player X] = "Hotaru's player."

In that case, you say [player Y] =/= [player X]; regardless that [player X] = "Hotaru's player," you maintain that [player Y] neverthless must mean "attacking player."

Nate French apparently agrees. But why would the meaning of [player Y] not change when the meaning of [circumstances] and [player X] both change? I think it is at least reasonable that [player X] and [player Y] would, as in the normal case, be the same. This would be consistent, parallel logic.

Therefore, I find the contrary interpretation counterintuituve and believe it constitutes a potential trap.

I hope this clarifies that I am not merely assuming that X=Y, but rather that I think there is a fair reason (to wit, the [circumstances]) for someone to expect that X=Y.

25 minutes ago, shosuko said:

I think you ought to consider what the words say, rather than what you want them to say.

No need for aggression, honorable Scorpion! It's just a game of words, after all.

11 minutes ago, 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]

Now, we can agree that if [circumstances] = "attacking player wins conflict" then both [player X] = "attacking player" and [player Y] = "attacking player."

But we disgaree when [circumstances] = "player who wins conflict claims ring" and [player X] = "Hotaru's player."

In that case, you say [player Y] =/= [player X]; regardless that [player X] = "Hotaru's player," you maintain that [player Y] neverthless must mean "attacking player."

Nate French apparently agrees. But why would the meaning of [player Y] not change when the meaning of [circumstances] and [player X] both change? I think it is at least reasonable that [player X] and [player Y] would, as in the normal case, be the same. This would be consistent, parallel logic.

Therefore, I find the contrary interpretation counterintuituve and believe it constitutes a potential trap.

I hope this clarifies that I am not merely assuming that X=Y, but rather that I think there is a fair reason (to wit, the [circumstances]) for someone to expect that X=Y.

Ah - good old fashioned logical notation.

There are several designations which the game can use to refer to a player. It starts with the designation of First Player, and Their Opponent. First Player is the first player to be the active player in each phase during the round. Their Opponent is reused, and typically means "the other player" in relation to any other designation. Designations continue where we have The Active Player, as well as The Attacking Player, and The Defending Player.

If we have Player A as [first player, attacking player] and Player B as [second player, defending player] and defending player as the option to trigger an effect that states "attacking player draws a card, and discards a card at random from their opponent's hand" I think its pretty clear what happens... The "Attacking Player" designation does not go away just because The Defending Player triggers the ability. "Resolving" is not a special word that changes the ability. If I play Levy, I resolve Levy's ability, that doesn't mean I get to decide what is clearly "my opponent's" decision or part of the action.

Toturi and Hotaru are in fact missing "as attacking player" in their words. This causes the rules to not function properly. There is no deeper reading then that. Until there is an errata, they don't gain the benefit of the ring in defense.

12 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

Pffffffft

You call this an arguement?

It ain't a real debate unless you make it past page 8.

If you stick around we might have a battle

8 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

I heard Manchu say a katana has a staight blade.

First, we see Forged Edict played. Now Young Rumormonger? Truly, this is a Scorpion deck arrayed against me!

I'm laughing my a$$ off and my wife is just shaking her head and mumbling "fricken nerds."

But don't worry I got her back by reminding her that makes her Mrs. Nerd.

So ha!

7 minutes ago, Manchu said:

First, we see Forged Edict played. Now Young Rumormonger? Truly, this is a Scorpion deck arrayed against me!

Ha!

Shows how much you know.....I'm old as heck. I'm so old, when the Kami fell to Earth I was already there to tell them "It's about time you showed up"

As explained, I am not unknowingly assuming X=Y. I am noting that, within the defintion of Ring Effects and in 3.2.6, the player who resolves the ring effect corresponds to the player who gets to [do whatever] as a result. Put another way, "resolving" the ring appears, in the normal case contemplated in those sections of the rules, to mean [doing whatever] relative to the given element. And since neither of those sections explicitly cover the case of resolving a ring effect as a result of claiming a ring there is no necessary reason (other than "dev-ine" revelation) to presume that the conclusion remains the same despite the premises being different.

4 minutes ago, Manchu said:

No need for aggression, honorable Scorpion! It's just a game of words, after all.

There is no aggression. I've been wrong before - even on these forums - but when I find I am wrong, I learn from it. Its good to be stubborn, and to challenge established thought. Its also good to learn why something is right, whether you want it to be right or not.

The reason it is right is because the Ring Effect states "attacking player does x" Unless the ability tells the Ring you are "the attacking player" then you aren't. The attacking player is then the player who declared the conflict we are currently resolving. It doesn't matter which player resolves or initiates the ring effect, the text of the ability specifically says what the "attacking player" does.

16 minutes ago, Manchu said:

As explained, I am not unknowingly assuming X=Y. I am noting that, within the defintion of Ring Effects and in 3.2.6, the player who resolves the ring effect corresponds to the player who gets to [do whatever] as a result. Put another way, "resolving" the ring appears, in the normal case contemplated in those sections of the rules, to mean [doing whatever] relative to the given element. And since neither of those sections explicitly cover the case of resolving a ring effect as a result of claiming a ring there is no necessary reason (other than "dev-ine" revelation) to presume that the conclusion remains the same despite the premises being different.

So, the rulebook refers to the person resolving the ring effect. The reference card for the rings explicitly says "attacking player". Don't we have some sort of guidance on which takes precedence when a card explicitly contradicts a printed rule?

If the "attacking player" phrase were outside the ring effect (i.e. the rules just say that the attacking player resolves a ring, but the ring itself doesn't mention the attacking player), then Toturi and Hotaru would override that. However, because the ring effects themselves explicitly call out the attacking player, then as the game stands now, the attacking player gets to choose; regardless of who triggered the ring.

Just to be clear, I understand that you are in fact correct @shosuko

@JJ48 the Jade Rule says card text has precedence over rulebook when card text "directly contradicts" the rulebook - BUT in this case the card text does not directlt contradict the rulebook.

56 minutes ago, 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]

Now, we can agree that if [circumstances] = "attacking player wins conflict" then both [player X] = "attacking player" and [player Y] = "attacking player."

But we disgaree when [circumstances] = "player who wins conflict claims ring" and [player X] = "Hotaru's player."

In that case, you say [player Y] =/= [player X]; regardless that [player X] = "Hotaru's player," you maintain that [player Y] neverthless must mean "attacking player."

Nate French apparently agrees. But why would the meaning of [player Y] not change when the meaning of [circumstances] and [player X] both change? I think it is at least reasonable that [player X] and [player Y] would, as in the normal case, be the same. This would be consistent, parallel logic.

Therefore, I find the contrary interpretation counterintuituve and believe it constitutes a potential trap.

I hope this clarifies that I am not merely assuming that X=Y, but rather that I think there is a fair reason (to wit, the [circumstances]) for someone to expect that X=Y.

I disagree. The wording of the rings clearly defines [player Y] = "attacking player". Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that X=Y iff [player X] = "attacking player". If [player X] = "defending player", it is actually quite counter-intuitive to assume that X=Y.

7 minutes ago, Manchu said:

@JJ48 the Jade Rule says card text has precedence over rulebook when card text "directly contradicts" the rulebook - BUT in this case the card text does not directlt contradict the rulebook.

If it doesn't contradict the rulebook, one would think we would have even less reason to argue against the straightforward reading of the card...