After deck building and play testing Unicorn over the past week or so I've managed to stumble into two card effects that I need clarification for:

1. Can the reaction on Ide Trader be triggered by moving Ide Trader himself after he moves into a conflict?

Quote

Ide Trader

Reaction : After 1 or more characters move to a conflict in which this character is participating, select one - gain 1 fate or draw 1 card. (Limit once per conflict.)

A card in the Twenty Festivals Arc of the old version of L5R, Moto Yao-Tsu, had a trait that was worded similarly.

I've come to the conclusion that yes, Ide Trader can in fact trigger his reaction after he is moved into a conflict because of how his action is worded. Since his reaction triggers after Ide Trader has moved and is currently participating in a conflict at the time in which the reaction can be legally be triggered, he is allowed to resolve his own ability. Does anyone see any issues with this (Timing Window)? I have yet to resolve the reaction this way but should this prove to be a legal play it increases his utility. In my experience Ide Trader is one of the weaker Unicorn Dynasty cards and could use the help, though I don't think this is enough to make up for his cost to efficiency. I'd love to be wrong however!

2. What is the maximum Military Skill Bonus that Born in War can provide?

Quote

Born in War

+X Mil/+0 Pol

X is equal to the number of unclaimed rings.

After reviewing the rules within core book I'm unsure if X is a maximum of +5 or +4.

For starters I believe rings exist in 3 different states:

-Unclaimed

-Contested

-Claimed

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

During a Conflict, after a ring, conflict type, province, and attackers have been declared, the declared ring becomes Contested. Now the discussion ultimately comes down to this:

Is a Contested ring also/still Unclaimed ?

Why is it or why is it not? Does the Contested state remove the Unclaimed state from a ring?

Until now we've treated Contested rings as Unclaimed rings as they haven't been won yet. Again, if this isn't the case I won't be heartbroken as it's still a strong card.

1. This is how I played and my reasoning was exactly the same.

2. In the rulebook they say that each ring exists in one of three different states. So I assume when the ring becomes contested it isn't anymore unclaimed.

^ what he said. I agree with both 1 and 2. Once the triggering condition has occurred reactions can be played. At the time of the reaction ide trader has moved, and it is to a conflict in which he is participating. Two unclaimed is one of the three states. Contested rings are no longer unclaimed. The max bonus mil is +4.

1. Well, by a strict reading of the words, I would say no, Ide Trader can not activate its ability if it is the character moving. The condition is " After 1 or more characters move to a conflict in which this character is participating ", meaning that Ide Trader is participating in a conflict and then one or more characters are moved to this conflict; therefore Ide Trader needs to be already participating in a conflict where another or several other characters are moved.

(on a side note, I do not think it wise to look at Old5R rules as a reference, as they are from two different types of games)

2. Born in a War provides an extremely short +5 Mil bonus, just before the first conflict is declared. However, as soon as a conflict is declared, it loses potency. That is because the way conflicts are declared: by taking a Ring from the unclaimed Rings pool (therefore removing its unclaimed status) and placing it on the attacked province, with the type of the declared conflict showing up (therefore putting said Ring in a contested state).

Rules Reference page 14.

Thanks for the quick response! So, Born in War technically provides both a +5 and +4 Military Skill Bonus. Got it!

I'm starting to wish it said for each contested and unclaimed ring. It is "Born in War " after all. Though a +4 is still very strong in my opinion.

1 hour ago, Mirumoto Kuroniten said:

1. Well, by a strict reading of the words, I would say no, Ide Trader can not activate its ability if it is the character moving. The condition is " After 1 or more characters move to a conflict in which this character is participating ", meaning that Ide Trader is participating in a conflict and then one or more characters are moved to this conflict; therefore Ide Trader needs to be already participating in a conflict where another or several other characters are moved.

(on a side note, I do not think it wise to look at Old5R rules as a reference, as they are from two different types of games)

Just as a clarification I'm not using the Old5R rules as a rules reference, I was simply comparing the card to one with a similar effect from the old game.

Check it out:

His trait resolves in a similar fashion to Ide Trader which is what triggered the initial question.

Now back to the discussion...

Because of how Ide Trader is worded and how reactions are triggered does Ide Trader not meet it's reactions requirements after it is moved in?

For example:

1. You use Favored Mount's action to move Ide Trader into a conflict.

2. Ide Trader is now participating in the current conflict after Favored Mount's action has resolved.

3. Ide Trader's reaction becomes legal to trigger since both of it's requirements have been met:

3A. A character has moved into a conflict. (Ide Trader in this case)

3B. Ide Trader is currently participating in the conflict.

I know this is probably not how the card is/was intended to be used but to my understanding there's no reason why Ide Trader can't trigger it's own ability as it stands.

The key word in Ide Trader's reaction is after I think. This is because the reaction only checks to see if a character has moved into a conflict in which Ide Trader is participating and in this case Ide Trader is participating after the movement is resolved but before the reaction can be triggered. This is also why I brought up timing windows.

Sorry for being a pain.

This reasoning is indeed correct: "in which this character is participating" is checked at the time the ability is triggered and not before.

I interpret Ide Trader differently. When I read the reaction as a whole, it seems to me that it does not activate from Ide moving to a conflict itself. Ide is the 'Referential Target' that characters move to. Ide can't move to a referential target that is not there.

Edit: it also doesn't read to me that the intent or spirit would be for Ide Trader to get this effect from itself.

2 hours ago, LuceLineGames said:

I interpret Ide Trader differently. When I read the reaction as a whole, it seems to me that it does not activate from Ide moving to a conflict itself. Ide is the 'Referential Target' that characters move to. Ide can't move to a referential target that is not there.

Edit: it also doesn't read to me that the intent or spirit would be for Ide Trader to get this effect from itself.

I can read Ide Trader's reaction both ways is the problem.

Due to timing Ide Trader only checks if a character has moved and if it is present after the reaction is triggered. If the Ide himself is the 'Referential Target' he still meets his reactions requirements when resolving his reaction. As it is worded, Ide Trader only needs to be present in the conflict before his reaction is triggered, who's condition is only satisfied and legal after movement is resolved. Even if the ability were a trait I believe it would still trigger the same way because of how it is currently worded. To remove any ambiguity from it's text Ide Trader could've been worded like this:

11 hours ago, Shinjo Sousuke said:

Reaction : After 1 or more characters move to a conflict in which this character is participating before the movement , select one - gain 1 fate or draw 1 card. (Limit once per conflict.)

However this isn't the case despite the simple change to wording required. Also as it stands, should your opponent move a character to the conflict via Favorable Ground for example, it's reaction can legally be triggered since you don't have to control the moving character. In this case I believe that it was intentional.

The problem here isn't whether Ide Trader is in the battle when the reaction happens. The problem is whether the Ide Trader is in the battle at the point when the trigger is met.

When he moves into a battle, he does not move into a battle in which he is participating. At the point he is participating, he has already moved in. The two do not overlap at any point to meet the requirements for the trigger. He is not participating at the point the reaction could be triggered, even if he is participating at the point the reaction would usually be resolved. These are different things.

25 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

The problem here isn't whether Ide Trader is in the battle when the reaction happens. The problem is whether the Ide Trader is in the battle at the point when the trigger is met.

When he moves into a battle, he does not move into a battle in which he is participating. At the point he is participating, he has already moved in. The two do not overlap at any point to meet the requirements for the trigger. He is not participating at the point the reaction could be triggered, even if he is participating at the point the reaction would usually be resolved. These are different things.

This is probably the best worded counterpoint so far. So just for clarification:

When an action that would move Ide Trader into a conflict resolves, is Ide Trader not participating in the conflict at that same point in time? In order for the movement to resolve, Ide Trader must be present at the current conflict at resolution of the action. In order for Ide Trader to be present at the current conflict, the action that moved him must reach resolution. It's to my understanding that both of these happen simultaneously as one cannot happen without the other. So logically wouldn't this still legally trigger his reaction after both conditions are satisfied simultaneously?

Just playing devil's advocate at this point since I still won't be triggering his ability in this way.

I think we need to determine how the trigger is read. If it is read as "moved to where this card is" then he would not trigger if he moved, but if it was "moved to conflict + this card is at conflict" then it would.

We may have to wait for a ruling here because I don't think the semantics are developed enough to properly justify either side. Triggering Conditions and Reactions sections in the Rules Reference don't give any clarity here.

What I do see is this: RR page 11 - Participating and Cannot Participate

- If a non-participating character is moved into a conflict, it is considered participating on its controllers side.

From this I would say the act of moving to a conflict, and participating in a conflict are simultaneous so there is no way to say Ide Trader is NOT participating when he moves into the conflict, as they are in fact the same thing. There is no phrase on the card which specifically dictates that we look beyond the instance of a character moving.

If it was intended to specifically be that Ide Trader must be at the conflict before the move happens they could have done this using the Interrupt trigger instead of Reaction - as Interrupts don't allow the action to resolve before triggering, so you could say "Interrupt: When a character would move to a conflict this character is participating in - " and it would certainly be clear that Ide Trader must be there FIRST, and cannot be the one moving.

I still believe that he can trigger his reaction off of his own movement, as Reacton: After looks at the board state after the action has resolved and says 1) Did a character move to a conflict - yes, and 2) Is this one which this character is participating - yes.

Ide Trader remaining in rules limbo is probably the best course of action currently. I agree that the semantics for his reaction are ambiguous at best (hence this discussion) even if we're to assume that this is not how the reaction was originally intended to function.

I appreciate the input!

I did submit a question through the form, and tried to represent both points of views fairly.

Thanks! Didn't even know you could do that. Makes sense with how many LCGs FF owns.

This thread and its posed question sounds very similar to the Shinjo Tatsuo thread a few days back.

As some sort of consensus was reached in that thread, from what I recall, I hope that this thread follows a similar path.

IMO, reading the card with a strict interpretation of moving into a conflict, I would think that the Ide Trader needs to be in the conflict (declared as a Defender or Attacker) before other characters commit to the same conflict in order for the Trader's REACTION to kick in.

PS: What's up with all of these Unicorn cards? Was the design team having issues attempting to insert a number of movement buffs/supports/etc into the Unicorn Core cards and therefore didn't thoroughly 'proofread' their cards?

29 minutes ago, LordBlunt said:

This thread and its posed question sounds very similar to the Shinjo Tatsuo thread a few days back.

As some sort of consensus was reached in that thread, from what I recall, I hope that this thread follows a similar path.

IMO, reading the card with a strict interpretation of moving into a conflict, I would think that the Ide Trader needs to be in the conflict (declared as a Defender or Attacker) before other characters commit to the same conflict in order for the Trader's REACTION to kick in.

PS: What's up with all of these Unicorn cards? Was the design team having issues attempting to insert a number of movement buffs/supports/etc into the Unicorn Core cards and therefore didn't thoroughly 'proofread' their cards?

The question about Shinjo Tatsuo was about targeting. You must be able to find all required targets for an action to resolve - such as Shameful Display needs 2 characters who can be either honored or dishonored. Shinjo needs himself and at least 1 other character who can move to the conflict. Since he cannot move to the conflict, and he is a required target, he is unable to use his ability from within a conflict to move another character in.

The rules were fortunate enough to give us clarity there. I think this one will require a response from the developers - and whatever that response is, it will be taken as a precedent for any other cards which have a similar trigger.

idk whats up with Unicorn. I think they needed something more similar to Lion, where the dynasty cards are built to allow you to buy more than 4 characters a turn. They needed some actions to turn characters face up, and more cheap characters. What good are a dozen move actions if you only have 3 characters in play? All of the clans could use more cards, but the Unicorn really need them...

Cost - Effect

Part of the cost is that this card is participating.

2 hours ago, Toxium said:

Cost - Effect

Part of the cost is that this card is participating.

It's triggering condition, cost - effect. Once an action resolves we receive a reaction window where any actions allowed by the triggering condition are played. At that moment where we can react we know 1) a character has moved to a conflict, and 2) it is a conflict at which Ide Trader is participating.

I did receive a response from Nate French through the official submission form, happy gaming.

Quote

The trader can move into a conflict, and then, when the reaction triggers, it is itself participating in the conflict and can therefore respond to its own move in.

Thanks! I appreciate the help. This gives Ide Trader a little more value and adds another movement trick to my toolbox.

I'm still looking at replacing him with our new Magistrate when Tears of Amaterasu drops.

31 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

I did receive a response from Nate French through the official submission form, happy gaming.

I think it makes sense - because games don't really have a memory. If it cared that he was at the conflict before a character moved in, then it would have been an interrupt "when a character would move to a conflict this character is participating in..." Otherwise it just knows that "after a character moves to a conflict, and this person is in that conflict"

3 hours ago, LuceLineGames said:

I did receive a response from Nate French through the official submission form, happy gaming.

I'm sorry, but I vehemently DISagree with this ruling from French.

Going by what I read, I would now have to sigh and give in to my opponent when he/she decides to go against the printed Reaction and allow this card to be utilized in one of two ways, depending on whichever method furthers their (my opponent's) play.... Simply a mind-numbing response from French.

Unless, of course, I read his (French's) ruling incorrectly, I am losing the few remaining sanity points that I have left, due to my age and English grammar skills.

(The way I read "participating" and given that this character does not have any abilities or equivalent that allow it to "participate" in from 'outside' of the conflict, such as Sinister Soshi for example, then this character MUST BE in the conflict and then have 1 or more characters move into said conflict in order for the Trader's Reaction to kick in.... otherwise, any character, anywhere, can be "participating" in a conflict, given French's ruling. ??)

34 minutes ago, LordBlunt said:

I'm sorry, but I vehemently DISagree with this ruling from French.

Going by what I read, I would now have to sigh and give in to my opponent when he/she decides to go against the printed Reaction and allow this card to be utilized in one of two ways, depending on whichever method furthers their (my opponent's) play.... Simply a mind-numbing response from French.

Unless, of course, I read his (French's) ruling incorrectly, I am losing the few remaining sanity points that I have left, due to my age and English grammar skills.

(The way I read "participating" and given that this character does not have any abilities or equivalent that allow it to "participate" in from 'outside' of the conflict, such as Sinister Soshi for example, then this character MUST BE in the conflict and then have 1 or more characters move into said conflict in order for the Trader's Reaction to kick in.... otherwise, any character, anywhere, can be "participating" in a conflict, given French's ruling. ??)

I think it makes perfect sense. After a triggering condition resolves any "after" reaction can be done. As long as the "after" reaction qualifies at that point "after" the triggering condition then that is all the game needs to know. The game doesn't have a memory, or any stipulation that a reaction be present before the triggering condition, only that "after" it completes that it then qualifies. For this card we have two things 1) that a character move to a conflict and 2) that it be a conflict at which this character is participating. I see no problems checking both of these off the list "after" an effect which moves this card to the conflict resolves.

Sinister Soshi never participates in conflicts. All "participating" means is that the character is in the conflict.

2 hours ago, LordBlunt said:

Going by what I read, I would now have to sigh and give in to my opponent when he/she decides to go against the printed Reaction and allow this card to be utilized in one of two ways, depending on whichever method furthers their (my opponent's) play.... Simply a mind-numbing response from French.

Unless, of course, I read his (French's) ruling incorrectly, I am losing the few remaining sanity points that I have left, due to my age and English grammar skills.

The ruling by Nate French basically says that if any action successfully moves Ide Trader from home to the current conflict, the Trader is now considered participating and its controller can trigger the reaction.

Is there any other way to read this that I may be missing?

7 hours ago, Shinjo Sousuke said:

I'm still looking at replacing him with our new Magistrate when Tears of Amaterasu drops.

Hmph. We Ide are just trying to help, you know. If you don't want our help, well that's just FINE then!

That being said, the Swift Magistrate is Imperial, and if I read the article correctly that's going to mean something in the cycle.