19 minutes ago, Ide Yoshiya said:

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

My money is on either something that lets you use out of clan imperials or magistrates, or a nice Shadowlands baddie that takes control of opponents' imperials.

Very disappointing. Not even released yet and we already have a card that doesn't do what is written on it.

Brilliant.

37 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

Very disappointing. Not even released yet and we already have a card that doesn't do what is written on it.

Brilliant.

I don't think it's as cut and dry as all that. At the same moment the Trader moves into the conflict, he has indeed become a participant. It's not the way one would normally intuit the wording, but the language of games like this is often funny that way.

58 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

Very disappointing. Not even released yet and we already have a card that doesn't do what is written on it.

Brilliant.

It does exactly what was written on it. From all of my experience playing card games, this was ruled exactly as I expected. Reactions trigger after something happens, and until that point after their triggering condition the game and card do not care where they are. They only care that they are relevant at that point.

At that point - after the trader moves into the conflict - the trader is participating in the conflict, and a character just moved to that conflict. These are 2 separate requirements, they do not describe a timing or sequence of events, only a single point in the game that is considered the "triggering event" for it to react to.

6 hours ago, shosuko said:

It does exactly what was written on it. From all of my experience playing card games, this was ruled exactly as I expected. Reactions trigger after something happens, and until that point after their triggering condition the game and card do not care where they are. They only care that they are relevant at that point.

That quote a few words to say without every demonstrating why it is relevant.

6 hours ago, shosuko said:

These are 2 separate requirements

Show, don't tell. There is one trigger, a character moving into a battle in which the Unicorn is participating. Where the Unicorn is is less relevant than whether the trigger happened at all. That's the only thing in question.

53 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

Show, don't tell. There is one trigger, a character moving into a battle in which the Unicorn is participating. Where the Unicorn is is less relevant than whether the trigger happened at all. That's the only thing in question.

Looking only at the board state as it exists after the triggering condition has resolved - can you say that Ide Trader is not participating in the battle in which Ide Trader moved? Note - none of this cares what existed before that exact point, only at that point looking back.

9 hours ago, Ide Yoshiya said:

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.

Hey I love everything the Ide family does for the Unicorn! It's just that I find I use Trader's reaction less than any other ability on my characters (Altansarnai included)... *whistles* I like that his reaction does have flavor to it though.

At least with this ruling we can get more value out of his reaction with cards like Shinjo Tatsuo, Favored Mount, Favorable Grounds, and Ide Messenger. Honestly I'd run Ide Messenger over Ide Trader in my dynasty deck if I could though I think she costs 1 Fate too many for her effect. I'd rather play Cavalry Reserves for a total cost of 3 Fate.

7 hours ago, shosuko said:

Looking only at the board state as it exists after the triggering condition has resolved - can you say that Ide Trader is not participating in the battle in which Ide Trader moved? Note - none of this cares what existed before that exact point, only at that point looking back.

Of course it cares what existed before. If the trigger was never met, then there is nothing to respond to. Yes, he is participating in the conflict he moved to, but since that isn't the trigger on the card, it's functionally irrelevant.

Let me put it the other way: can I move to a room I am already in?

That's what this ruling is asking me to accept.

13 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

Of course it cares what existed before. If the trigger was never met, then there is nothing to respond to. Yes, he is participating in the conflict he moved to, but since this isn't the trigger on the card, it's functionally irrelevant.

Let me put it the other way: can I move to a room I am already in?

It doesn't care what existed before. When anything happens that is a "triggering event" we get a window that can react to whatever happened.

Remember - if they wanted it to require that the Ide Trader was at the conflict first, there is a way. They could have made it an interrupt: While participating in a conflict, if a character would move to this conflict... Interrupts look at a triggering condition from when it is eminent but not yet resolved, reactions look at a triggering condition from a perspective after they are resolved.

The question isn't "can I move into a room I am already in" but more "If I move into a room, did someone just enter a room I am now in." Yes. That someone is you. You are always in a room after you enter it.

7 hours ago, shosuko said:

It doesn't care what existed before. When anything happens that is a "triggering event" we get a window that can react to whatever happened.

Contradictory. If you get a window after the event, then the game cares what happened before.

7 hours ago, shosuko said:

Remember - if they wanted it to require that the Ide Trader was at the conflict first, there is a way.

Yeah, exactly as it is written now.

7 hours ago, shosuko said:

The question isn't "can I move into a room I am already in" but more "If I move into a room, did someone just enter a room I am now in." Yes. That someone is you. You are always in a room after you enter it.

That's not what the trigger is, though. Whether Ide Trader is participating at the point the ability is used is not relevant because the text doesn't ask it to be relevant. In fact, he could have been booted from the battle by another reaction and still play the ability. The trigger either happened or it didn't. Where the Trader is at the time is literally irrelevant.

Where the trader is means everything when you activate his ability, just as it means everything when you activate any other ability that states "while this character is participating in a conflict." Likewise it doesn't care if it was participating before that point in which it can be activated.

Note the last line of the first paragraph. "When" for interrupt, and "After" for reactions.

2 - Interrupt abilities reference when something "would" happen, and trigger before something completes. This is what they would use if they wanted the Ide Trader at the conflict before a character moves to it. The timing already exists. If it was their intent to require the Ide Trader to be present before a character moved to its location it would have been an Interrupt.

4 - The triggering condition occurs - the character moves to a conflict, and Ide Trader is at the conflict. These happen simultaneously. When a character moves to a conflict it is considered participating at that exact same time. There is no way for any character to move to a conflict, and not be participating in that conflict.

6 - You may now play a reaction to whatever has just happened. At this point a character (Ide Trader) has moved to a conflict which Ide Trader is at.

Reactions stand at point 6 looking back at the triggering condition. They don't follow any chain of events, they only see that a triggering condition has completed. A single thing. There is no point at which Ide Trader would move to a conflict, and also not become instantly participating in that conflict. Just as there is no way for me to walk into a room, and not also be in that room at that exact same moment. You're always in whatever room you walk into.

On 08/09/2017 at 9:51 AM, shosuko said:

Where the trader is means everything when you activate his ability, just as it means everything when you activate any other ability that states "while this character is participating in a conflict."

Totaly different things. One is a requirement, the other is the trigger condition for a reaction.

On 08/09/2017 at 9:51 AM, shosuko said:

Likewise it doesn't care if it was participating before that point in which it can be activated.

Yes it does. It says so on the card.

On 08/09/2017 at 9:51 AM, shosuko said:

Note the last line of the first paragraph. "When" for interrupt, and "After" for reactions.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether the trigger was met. It doesn't matter where he is. What matters is whether the trigger was met to play the ability. If Ide Trader was not already in the battle, then the trigger never gets met, and his 'participating' after the fact doesn't change history.

On 08/09/2017 at 9:51 AM, shosuko said:

2 - Interrupt abilities reference when something "would" happen, and trigger before something completes. This is what they would use if they wanted the Ide Trader at the conflict before a character moves to it. The timing already exists. If it was their intent to require the Ide Trader to be present before a character moved to its location it would have been an Interrupt.

As far as I can tell, this rule has zero relevance to Ide Trader.

On 08/09/2017 at 9:51 AM, shosuko said:

4 - The triggering condition occurs - the character moves to a conflict, and Ide Trader is at the conflict. These happen simultaneously. When a character moves to a conflict it is considered participating at that exact same time. There is no way for any character to move to a conflict, and not be participating in that conflict.

No, it doesn't. The Ide Trader didn't 'move to a conflict in which this character is participating'. I cannot move into a room I am already in. The very idea is an oxymoron.

On 08/09/2017 at 9:51 AM, shosuko said:

6 - You may now play a reaction to whatever has just happened. At this point a character (Ide Trader) has moved to a conflict which Ide Trader is at.

But that never happened. The trigger condition was never met because he didn't move to a conflict he was already in. If the wording was "After a character moves into a conflict, if this character is participating in that conflict, do X" then it would do as you suggest, but it is not possible based on the wording of the card as it is now.

On 08/09/2017 at 9:51 AM, shosuko said:

There is no point at which Ide Trader would move to a conflict, and also not become instantly participating in that conflict. Just as there is no way for me to walk into a room, and not also be in that room at that exact same moment. You're always in whatever room you walk into.

But that's not actually the issue. This is true and totally irrelevant. You are in the room you moved into, but you did not move into a room that you are in. That's the oxymoron. if he's only participating after he moves, then the trigger was never met.

3 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

But that's not actually the issue. This is true and totally irrelevant. You are in the room you moved into, but you did not move into a room that you are in. That's the oxymoron. if he's only participating after he moves, then the trigger was never met.

You are 100% correct. When you move into a room you are then in the room in which you moved to. However like you said this is not the same as moving into a room that you are already in. The second can't be done which is what you're still arguing I believe and is correct.

The silver bullet to this argument is now the wording of Ide Trader himself. With the ruling we've been given it is/was intended for Ide Trader to be able to activate his reaction in response to his own movement as his reaction only mechanically checks if anyone has moved to the conflict and that he is participating in the conflict after the movement has resolved even if semantically it requires him to be participating beforehand.

Activating this reaction in response to his own movement is completely legal because of the timing of action resolutions and initiating triggered abilities. This holds true regardless of the current semantics of Ide Trader's reaction. Again, with this new ruling it seems clear to me that it's reaction was designed with the option/potential for Trader himself to trigger it. It doesn't really come as much of a surprise when you consider Unicorn has access to Favorable Mount as a conflict card.

To avoid a situation like this again it would be easier to change the type of trigger to an "Interrupt" like the one Shosuko suggested previously I believe. Or you could even errata the current wording to match what you've proposed above for clarity.

@InquisitorM

With all respect buddy, I strongly advise you take a student mentality to this one. Reaction: AFTER doesn't watch the game state unfold. It looks at what happened AFTER something is done. It is impossible to state AFTER the fact that Ide Trader did not move into a conflict that Ide Trader is in at this point. This is exactly how the card really works. It isn't looking for Ide Trader to already be there, it is only looking at where he is when the move is done.

I understand the fun of throwing out arguments to challenge rules, but there also comes a point where you just have to accept the real meaning of these things. You believe this card doesn't do what is written on it - because you are misreading it. You are assuming it means something which it does not.

Interrupts watch the state of the game for "when" something would happen. Reactions only know the game state "after." This isn't an argument at this point but me simply explaining to you how the game works. Any time something says "Interrupt: When..." that means check the game state before something would happened to determine if you can play your action. This is what would be used to see if Ide Trader is participating before the character moves in. Ide Trader isn't an Interrupt: When, it is a Reaction: After. This specifically means looking at the situation from after it has completed.

In order to understand this you must accept the fact that the reaction looks at things from after it is completed. Again buddy, this isn't an argument, this is fact for how the game works.

AFTER you walk into a room, looking back, it is impossible that you did not walk into the room you are now in. This is what these words mean. There is no other meaning. The best evidence of that is simply that if they wanted it to work any other way they would have made it work any other way. Interrupt: When and Reaction: After are both specifically defined to allow these two points of view to be imposed when determining when a card can be played.

Being wrong is okay, I'm wrong a lot - whats important is that you learn what is right. There are going to be more cards that use the reaction and interrupt triggers, knowing how these work is essential to properly playing this game.

It doesn't matter that it's a reaction. There are two completely logical ways to interpret this card and they would both function just fine within the rules of the game. What matters is how the developers want it to be played, and for now that's it.

3 hours ago, shosuko said:

With all respect buddy, I strongly advise you take a student mentality to this one. Reaction: AFTER doesn't watch the game state unfold. It looks at what happened AFTER something is done.

With all due respect, if you do not understand what the issue is, you might consider not weighing in on it. The card looks to see if the trigger happened. It either did or it didn't, and when you look at that is irrelevant.

3 hours ago, shosuko said:

It is impossible to state AFTER the fact that Ide Trader did not move into a conflict that Ide Trader is in at this point.

And that's not what is in question. Thus, this is irrelevant.

3 hours ago, shosuko said:

I understand the fun of throwing out arguments to challenge rules, but there also comes a point where you just have to accept the real meaning of these things.

Then why don't you start by accepting the real meaning of these things?

3 hours ago, shosuko said:

You believe this card doesn't do what is written on it - because you are misreading it. You are assuming it means something which it does not.

That's the claim, and yet you have failed to make an argument for this at every turn. You say that you're correct and I'm not, but every time you try to explain it, you only demonstrate that you don't understand the problem to begin with. You keep bringing up how the effect happens 'after' the trigger, but nothing the card says makes this relevant. Thus, you are the one assuming it means something that it does not.

3 hours ago, shosuko said:

Interrupts watch the state of the game for "when" something would happen. Reactions only know the game state "after." This isn't an argument at this point but me simply explaining to you how the game works.

Well, I've never said otherwise, so again, you appear not to understand the issue well enough to address it.

3 hours ago, shosuko said:

Any time something says "Interrupt: When..." that means check the game state before something would happened to determine if you can play your action. Ide Trader isn't an Interrupt: When, it is a Reaction: After. This specifically means looking at the situation from after it has completed.

Again, yes, but this isn't in contention so it doesn't seem to be relevant.

3 hours ago, shosuko said:

In order to understand this you must accept the fact that the reaction looks at things from after it is completed. Again buddy, this isn't an argument, this is fact for how the game works.

And again, buddy , this has never been in question. This is how the game works and this is completely consistent with the reading I have explained.

3 hours ago, shosuko said:

AFTER you walk into a room, looking back, it is impossible that you did not walk into the room you are now in. This is what these words mean. There is no other meaning.

Correct. Also still not relevant as that does not contradict what I have said in any way.

3 hours ago, shosuko said:

The best evidence of that is simply that if they wanted it to work any other way they would have made it work any other way. Interrupt: When and Reaction: After are both specifically defined to allow these two points of view to be imposed when determining when a card can be played.

That's not evidence – like, in any way shape or form. The fact that you call it evidence only shows that you don't really understand what the word means.

3 hours ago, shosuko said:

Being wrong is okay, I'm wrong a lot - whats important is that you learn what is right. There are going to be more cards that use the reaction and interrupt triggers, knowing how these work is essential to properly playing this game.

Correct. Nothing wrong with being wrong. Problem is, that you have done exactly zero to show that I'm wrong and an awful lot to show that you have no idea what you're talking about. The basic art of refutation is that you have to establish concepts that contradict what your opponent is saying. You have not done this. You have argued against things that I have never claimed. You have made arguments as if they contradict what I have said, except that those concepts I completely agree with and do not contradict my position at all.

I have made this quite clear several times, but I will say it once again in the hope that you can understand what I am saying:

At no point does Ide Trader say that he needs to be in the conflict to play his ability. The trigger for his ability is 'when a character moves into a conflict in which this character is participating'. It does not ask if he is participating in it now – that's literally not on the card. It doesn't care where he is when the ability is played, it cares whether the trigger condition was met. Those are the rules of the game. As such, whether he is in the conflict after the trigger is utterly unconnected to whether the trigger condition ever happened. Those are two completely different things, and trying to add it in as relevant is inventing things that the card does not say. The question is not 'is the Ide Trader in the conflict to play the reaction' because we both know that he is. The question is 'does the trigger condition get met', remembering that the trigger condition is not merely 'after one or more characters moves into a conflict'.

58 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

With all due respect, if you do not understand what the issue is, you might consider not weighing in on it. The card looks to see if the trigger happened. It either did or it didn't, and when you look at that is irrelevant.

And that's not what is in question. Thus, this is irrelevant.

Then why don't you start by accepting the real meaning of these things?

That's the claim, and yet you have failed to make an argument for this at every turn. You say that you're correct and I'm not, but every time you try to explain it, you only demonstrate that you don't understand the problem to begin with. You keep bringing up how the effect happens 'after' the trigger, but nothing the card says makes this relevant. Thus, you are the one assuming it means something that it does not.

Well, I've never said otherwise, so again, you appear not to understand the issue well enough to address it.

Again, yes, but this isn't in contention so it doesn't seem to be relevant.

And again, buddy , this has never been in question. This is how the game works and this is completely consistent with the reading I have explained.

Correct. Also still not relevant as that does not contradict what I have said in any way.

That's not evidence – like, in any way shape or form. The fact that you call it evidence only shows that you don't really understand what the word means.

Correct. Nothing wrong with being wrong. Problem is, that you have done exactly zero to show that I'm wrong and an awful lot to show that you have no idea what you're talking about. The basic art of refutation is that you have to establish concepts that contradict what your opponent is saying. You have not done this. You have argued against things that I have never claimed. You have made arguments as if they contradict what I have said, except that those concepts I completely agree with and do not contradict my position at all.

I have made this quite clear several times, but I will say it once again in the hope that you can understand what I am saying:

At no point does Ide Trader say that he needs to be in the conflict to play his ability. The trigger for his ability is 'when a character moves into a conflict in which this character is participating'. It does not ask if he is participating in it now – that's literally not on the card. It doesn't care where he is when the ability is played, it cares whether the trigger condition was met. Those are the rules of the game. As such, whether he is in the conflict after the trigger is utterly unconnected to whether the trigger condition ever happened. Those are two completely different things, and trying to add it in as relevant is inventing things that the card does not say. The question is not 'is the Ide Trader in the conflict to play the reaction' because we both know that he is. The question is 'does the trigger condition get met', remembering that the trigger condition is not merely 'after one or more characters moves into a conflict'.

If this is wrong - then how do you reconcile your interpretation of the card and rules with the Dev ruling on this card specifically saying by the rules that it is allowed?

Do you believe the Dev's do not understand the rules they have written? Or that the rules mean something other than what they have defined?

FFG has been doing this for a long time, and as far as reactions go there has often been debate about whether you consider the action you are responding to have occurred already or not. This is essential to this debate because tense is everything. In other games Reactions have used the words "When" and "After" to help denote the tense, in L5R they have made the brilliant decision to use Interrupt and Reaction instead to more clearly denote whether we are looking at something from the perspective that it is about to happen, or that it has already happened.

In a tense that a character has not entered a conflict yet, it cannot be in the conflict it is about to enter. In a tense that the card has already entered the conflict it is always in the conflict it has moved to. Moving to a conflict, and participating in the conflict are the exact same thing, so the instant you can say "this character moved to this conflict" you can also say "this character is participating in this conflict." Reactions only look at things after the fact. They aren't tracking the game state across multiple actions, they are only looking at what just happened from the point in time it completed resolving.

Now you can say yet again that I am simply wrong - but my interpretation fits exactly with this card ruling, and every other card mechanic for this game. Yours does not. Care to justify your position as to why this card works any differently? Do you have any examples of other cards who's reactions follow a chain of events, or refer to a game state prior to the triggering condition?

1 hour ago, shosuko said:

If this is wrong - then how do you reconcile your interpretation of the card and rules with the Dev ruling on this card specifically saying by the rules that it is allowed?

I don't. I look for ways to understand why the dev rules the way he did. If the ruling is irrelevant of the actual text, that helps me. If the ruling actually follows the text, then I clearly need to understand why.

1 hour ago, shosuko said:

Do you believe the Dev's do not understand the rules they have written? Or that the rules mean something other than what they have defined?

I don't know and I don't care. There is a card and there is a ruling. The two do not appear to match up. I want to know why, otherwise it casts all future card interpretations into doubt.

1 hour ago, shosuko said:

FFG has been doing this for a long time, and as far as reactions go there has often been debate about whether you consider the action you are responding to have occurred already or not. This is essential to this debate because tense is everything. In other games Reactions have used the words "When" and "After" to help denote the tense, in L5R they have made the brilliant decision to use Interrupt and Reaction instead to more clearly denote whether we are looking at something from the perspective that it is about to happen, or that it has already happened.

Again, you say that without ever explaining why it is relevant at all. the terms reaction and interrupt are quite clear in L5R, but both are utterly irrelevant to the question here.

As I explained before, you need to make points that actually contradict me in order to imply that I might be wrong. Since my position is based on the idea of playing the reaction 'after' the trigger event, by position is also completely consistent with the point you're bringing up here. After the trigger events happens, you play the reaction. The question is whether the trigger event happened at all. When you play the ability has zero effect on that.

1 hour ago, shosuko said:

In a tense that a character has not entered a conflict yet, it cannot be in the conflict it is about to enter. In a tense that the card has already entered the conflict it is always in the conflict it has moved to. Moving to a conflict, and participating in the conflict are the exact same thing, so the instant you can say "this character moved to this conflict" you can also say "this character is participating in this conflict." Reactions only look at things after the fact. They aren't tracking the game state across multiple actions, they are only looking at what just happened from the point in time it completed resolving.

3

But you're playing the card effect you have in your head. You're not playing the card effect as it is written. The character did move to the conflict and the character is participating in the conflict. This still isn't relevant to whether the trigger was met. You still have not explained why his participation has any relevance to playing the reaction. The reaction does not specify that he has to be in the conflict to play it. If you believe it does say that, feel free to point out where, but I'll tell you again, it never says it.

1 hour ago, shosuko said:

Now you can say yet again that I am simply wrong - but my interpretation fits exactly with this card ruling, and every other card mechanic for this game. Yours does not. Care to justify your position as to why this card works any differently?

1

Works any differently from what? What I have said is that the card does not align with the ruling. Anything more than that is a claim that you have invented that I never made. I have never said 'It works this way', I have said 'the wording means this'.

1 hour ago, shosuko said:

Do you have any examples of other cards who's reactions follow a chain of events, or refer to a game state prior to the triggering condition?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I have said absolutely nothing about referring to a game state prior to the triggering condition. That is something you have made up whole cloth. I do not believe Ide Trader cares one jot for the game state before the trigger happens, and my case is not contingent on it. In fact, I'm the one who keeps saying the reaction doesn't care about anything outside of the trigger condition. I feel like this is a convenient scapegoat you keep slaughtering to avoid having to understand what I'm actually saying.

I have only said that reactions can be played when their trigger conditions are met, and in this case, the trigger condition is not met. This is how absolutely every single reaction ability works.

You, on the other hand, have still not explained how you play a reaction whose trigger condition never happened.

If this is going to become a common method of ascertaining what is actually meant on a given card's text with regards to the interaction(s) of keywords and rules, then I don't think that this is going to be a game for me.

I liked L5R a lot when I played it back in the day, with this inception of the game being fully engaging with its card art, game mechanics, level of thought that goes into putting a deck together, the various, wonderful aspects of having Provinces, characters, actions and a bunch of other neat cards working together during a single match only heightening my eagerness to play. However, I'm confused a great deal and somewhat wounded with the many rules questions/clarifications that keep coming up and being argued to death while, in my limited gaming opinion, the text written on a card should be absolutely clear, concise and consistent; and on the whole the released cards have met that threshold. This card (Ide Trader) has as well, but is now being lawyered to death on this thread and I'm being asked to accept a ruling that is beyond the pale.

Maybe this game isn't for me. Maybe I need to involve myself with other gaming adventures during gaming night with my group.

I stated everything above with all sincerity.

9 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

You, on the other hand, have still not explained how you play a reaction whose trigger condition never happened.

A triggering condition is viewed from after an effect resolves. Post tense. From this view, how does Ide Trader NOT work when it moves to a conflict?

The text from Ide Trader is "Reaction: After 1 or more characters move to a conflict in which this character is participating..."

Did a character move - and is this character participating there. 2 simple elements that qualify the triggering condition.

If it helps, from the Unicorn Mechanics Article, Wandering Warriors

Quote

The Ide Messenger ( Core Set , 191) is a conflict character that costs two fate and boasts one military and one political skill. The Messenger has the ability to move a character you control to a conflict for the cost of one fate. If that character has a Spyglass ( Core Set , 193) attached to them, you may draw a card with its ability. If an Ide Trader ( Core Set , 116) is in the conflict, you can use his ability to draw an additional card or to gain a fate when he meets his reinforcements. All three of these cards combine exceptionally together well and give a political and resource boost to the Unicorn that can be essential to winning these integral conflicts.

Boldface by me.

The reaction in question happens (1) after a character has moved and (2) to a conflict where the Ide Trader is participating. Since the Ide Trader is participating in a conflict as soon as he has moved to it, of course he triggers his own reaction.

This one seems obvious to me - and is even supported by art and flavor. Have not seen an argument ITT that casts any doubt on it.

I'd say we should just vote to ban the card and be done with it, but knowing this lot we'd end up having its ability taught to Imperials and then everyone would be running around with this heresy...I mean nonsense.

The flavor seems to support the opposite of how Nate rules this card. The theme of a 'trader' is meant to give you a buff when he meets another character in a conflict to trade with, "when he meets his reinforcements". I don't get how he would move to himself in a conflict then trade with himself to get the bonus. And since it's only limited to once per conflict, you'll mostly reach the limit by himself moving to the conflict and not anyone else 'moving to' this card. Not much collaboration between characters with this effect given the current ruling, which takes the flavor away.

29 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

The flavor seems to support the opposite of how Nate rules this card. The theme of a 'trader' is meant to give you a buff when he meets another character in a conflict to trade with, "when he meets his reinforcements". I don't get how he would move to himself in a conflict then trade with himself to get the bonus. And since it's only limited to once per conflict, you'll mostly reach the limit by himself moving to the conflict and not anyone else 'moving to' this card. Not much collaboration between characters with this effect given the current ruling, which takes the flavor away.

I would say flavorwise - whether a warrior appears to use the Trader's weapons it brought with it, or whether the Trader appears with weapons for the warrior that is fighting, they are both equally effective. Even a Trader on its own, when it needs to fight, may take a weapon it was transporting and draw it for combat.

Because this character does not have any move option, the way Unicorn play it would likely be a character who is assigned to combat. I don't see much value in using another action just to move it into combat when there are characters with that action built in. You have to have a character assigned to attack, and Unicorn definitely want to attack haha. This is relevant for fringe cases where you may need to move it in, but that is certainly not its primary function.