The situation is this: a political void conflict is declared as player 1's first conflict. The void ring has one fate on it. Player 1 selects Otomo Courtier (-, 2) as the attacker. Player 2 turns the province face up, which is Rally to the Cause. The reaction on this card causes the conflict to switch type to military void. This causes a problem because the attacker has a '-' in military and cannot participate in the conflict.

Reading the rules carefully, the conflict is initiated and player 1 gains the fate token because the declaration, gaining of the fate token, and selection of the attacking character happen simultaneously. Then the province is turned face up and the conflict type changes to military.

So what happens next?

Does Otomo Courtier return to the home area because they cannot participate in the conflict? Or does the character remain in the conflict counting as a ready character?

Does play continue with player 2 declaring defenders and allowing player 1 to attempt to place a character into play during the Conflict Action phase?

Or did the conflict end at some point in time?

As soon as the conflict changes to military, Otomo Courtier is sent home bowed. However, the defending player would still declare defenders, if any. The conflict would continue playing out as normal until both players have passed. The attacking player might have conflict characters to put into play, our cards such as charge to bring new attackers into play. Or not. At the very least the conflict still needs to be resolved to determine who, if anyone, claims the ring.

Thanks. I missed that first bullet point under Dash. Makes sense.

1 hour ago, Zesu Shadaban said:

As soon as the conflict changes to military, Otomo Courtier is sent home bowed. However, the defending player would still declare defenders, if any. The conflict would continue playing out as normal until both players have passed. The attacking player might have conflict characters to put into play, our cards such as charge to bring new attackers into play. Or not. At the very least the conflict still needs to be resolved to determine who, if anyone, claims the ring.

I know this is a different topic, but throwing this out there because I have seen it come up several times and it ties in with your comment. Always resolve conflicts unless something says otherwise. If a Unicorn player uses Endless Plains to break his province and kill an attacker, remember the conflict is not over, you still play it out and resolve as normal until both players pass. This also does not count as the attacker breaking the province (for card effects for instance).

45 minutes ago, Daigotsu Kai'Sen said:

I know this is a different topic, but throwing this out there because I have seen it come up several times and it ties in with your comment. Always resolve conflicts unless something says otherwise. If a Unicorn player uses Endless Plains to break his province and kill an attacker, remember the conflict is not over, you still play it out and resolve as normal until both players pass. This also does not count as the attacker breaking the province (for card effects for instance).

But still counts towards the three necessary to attack the stronghold, yes?

9 minutes ago, Doji Hana said:

But still counts towards the three necessary to attack the stronghold, yes?

Yes

On 8/28/2017 at 10:59 PM, Daigotsu Kai'Sen said:

I know this is a different topic, but throwing this out there because I have seen it come up several times and it ties in with your comment. Always resolve conflicts unless something says otherwise. If a Unicorn player uses Endless Plains to break his province and kill an attacker, remember the conflict is not over, you still play it out and resolve as normal until both players pass. This also does not count as the attacker breaking the province (for card effects for instance).

I actually had heard the opposite ruling from someone on discord, vai email from Nate French. Basically, it was "if a province breaks, the opponent of the owner of the province is considered to have broken it". So you can trigger Altansarnai off endless plains.

Dare got it in an email.

32 minutes ago, Mirith said:

I actually had heard the opposite ruling from someone on discord, vai email from Nate French. Basically, it was "if a province breaks, the opponent of the owner of the province is considered to have broken it". So you can trigger Altansarnai off endless plains.

Dare got it in an email.

So bloody stupid. Breaking Endless Plains shouldn't trigger FGG or Altansarnai. *grumbleannoyedgrumble*

30 minutes ago, Mirith said:

I actually had heard the opposite ruling from someone on discord, vai email from Nate French. Basically, it was "if a province breaks, the opponent of the owner of the province is considered to have broken it". So you can trigger Altansarnai off endless plains.

Dare got it in an email.

your conclusion seems incorrect. The unicorn champ says 'if you break a province', if the opponent is considered to have broken the province then you have not and that ability cannot fire. On the other hand if the defender is considered to have broken it (jade rule needed for this as only attackers break provinces according to the rules) then the defender is the attacker and can choose to discard etc.

the first option seems more logical.

Just now, Matrim said:

your conclusion seems incorrect. The unicorn champ says 'if you break a province', if the opponent is considered to have broken the province then you have not and that ability cannot fire. On the other hand if the defender is considered to have broken it (jade rule needed for this as only attackers break provinces according to the rules) then the defender is the attacker and can choose to discard etc.

the first option seems more logical.

The example works, if it's a Unicorn Mirror match. Endless plains breaks before defenders are assigned, so you can't even have Altansarnai in the match as a defender to use her ability.

ouch that hurts my head. So is the op claiming that if both defender and attacker send the champ in then only the defender would get to trigger the ability?

that's probably not what your saying but if the attacker doesn't get to assign before the reaction then who gets targetted? ?

6 minutes ago, Matrim said:

ouch that hurts my head. So is the op claiming that if both defender and attacker send the champ in then only the defender would get to trigger the ability?

that's probably not what your saying but if the attacker doesn't get to assign before the reaction then who gets targetted? ?

Unicorn Mirror match. Attacker declares Altansarnai and other chud. Province flip, it's Endless Plains. Defender breaks it (chud dies). Any province break acts as if the Attacker broke it, so the attacker's Altansarnai triggers her ability to kill character. Now Attacker can also play For Greater Glory, if they have it, to add fate.

Yup thats what I would expect to happen. If the op is correct though and the defender gets to fire the reaction and there are just two Altansarnai's on both sides and the attacker sends his Altansarnai against Endless Plains and the defender defends with Altansarnai then what happens?

They both die?
The defender triggers first and kills the attacker altansarnai before they can trigger their reaction?
The defender doesn't get to trigger as the attacker is assumed to have broken the province (as in the email ref above) so the attacker fires altensarnai and kills the defending Altansarnai
Some other situation

Thanks for attempting to explain this...

1 hour ago, Mirith said:

I actually had heard the opposite ruling from someone on discord, vai email from Nate French. Basically, it was "if a province breaks, the opponent of the owner of the province is considered to have broken it". So you can trigger Altansarnai off endless plains.

Dare got it in an email.

This seems ridiculous, and a good example of why the AEG rulings forum worked better than relying on private emails to designers.

If I'm a defending Unicorn player and I use the reaction on Endless Plains, surely by any logic I am the one breaking the province, not my opponent.

14 minutes ago, Matrim said:

Yup thats what I would expect to happen. If the op is correct though and the defender gets to fire the reaction and there are just two Altansarnai's on both sides and the attacker sends his Altansarnai against Endless Plains and the defender defends with Altansarnai then what happens?

They both die?
The defender triggers first and kills the attacker altansarnai before they can trigger their reaction?
The defender doesn't get to trigger as the attacker is assumed to have broken the province (as in the email ref above) so the attacker fires altensarnai and kills the defending Altansarnai
Some other situation

Thanks for attempting to explain this...

When the ability breaks Endless Plains it occurs at attack declaration, which occurs before Defenders are assigned.

The way rules are stated, the defender isn't able to use any abilities when Endless Plains breaks, because they are not the one who breaks it. So the Attacker is treated as breaking the province. Endless Plain would kill Altansarnai before Altansarnai triggers her ability, so they couldn't use the ability. (They'd need a second attacker to discard when attacking.)

K got it! thanks...

17 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

The way rules are stated, the defender isn't able to use any abilities when Endless Plains breaks, because they are not the one who breaks it. So the Attacker is treated as breaking the province.

Could you expand on this bit? Why isn't it the defender that breaks the province? I can't see anything in the rules that precludes a defender breaking their own province (the Jade Rule actually seems to support the argument that they can ).

8 minutes ago, Fumo said:

Could you expand on this bit? Why isn't it the defender that breaks the province? I can't see anything in the rules that precludes a defender breaking their own province (the Jade Rule actually seems to support the argument that they can ).

An email from one of the designers.

1 hour ago, Mirith said:

I actually had heard the opposite ruling from someone on discord, vai email from Nate French. Basically, it was "if a province breaks, the opponent of the owner of the province is considered to have broken it". So you can trigger Altansarnai off endless plains.

Dare got it in an email.

This has been a thing much discussed in the Unicorn channel on the Discord.

54 minutes ago, Fumo said:

This seems ridiculous, and a good example of why the AEG rulings forum worked better than relying on private emails to designers.

I'm hoping at some point that they put out some sort of living FAQ document collecting important questions and answers from the e-mails they get.

Edit: oops, wrong post. But reading post, a conflict change would send a dash character home bowed.

Edit again: (looks like I was in the right forum, two conversations going on) This was specifically asked at the Kiku Matsuri tournament. Brad said you breaking your province with a card effect does not count as your opponent breaking it.

This also seems like the logical conclusion. Unless there is new information to the contrary (excluding an old email), this should be a safe ruling to go by.

1 hour ago, Suzume Tomonori said:

I'm hoping at some point that they put out some sort of living FAQ document collecting important questions and answers from the e-mails they get.

That was also stated in the email, that they intend to do some form for FAQ soon. Whether or not it is a "Living document" is up to debate.

But the statement was basically, if a province breaks, the opponent of the breaking province is considered the breaker, regardless of what caused it to happen.

If you search for "Endless Plains" in Discord, look for a post with a picture from IMABUNNEH and you can see the email. That is Dare's email.

30 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

Edit again: (looks like I was in the right forum, two conversations going on) This was specifically asked at the Kiku Matsuri tournament. Brad said you breaking your province with a card effect does not count as your opponent breaking it.

This also seems like the logical conclusion.

I agree that this seems to be the logical conclusion, but slightly worrying that two designers have given the opposite answer to this question.

If the final decision is that triggering Endless Plains counts as your opponent breaking the province then fine, but it's a bit worrying that that the ruling doesn't follow any clear logic or seem to be based on the rules as written...

8 hours ago, Mirith said:

I actually had heard the opposite ruling from someone on discord, vai email from Nate French. Basically, it was "if a province breaks, the opponent of the owner of the province is considered to have broken it". So you can trigger Altansarnai off endless plains.

Dare got it in an email.

You are actually right. This was answered by Nate. Its weird because I asked someone at gencon that same question and got the complete opposite answer. Found out after I had posted my answer. Here is the quote from Nate:

"Whether its a card ability or the game rules of winning a conflict by the requisite amount that causes a province to break, the opponent of the player controlling the just-broken province is considered to be the agent who broke the province.

This question has come up a few times, we’ll add a clarification on the matter to the FAQ.

Nate French"

I didn't want to run Endless Plains when the answer was "the opponent isn't considered to have broken the province", because of its low strength and highly conditional effect. This answer gives me even more reason not to run it.