I think it's flavor goes both ways actually. When the Trader moves into a conflict he is bringing your army supplies in the form of fate or conflict cards he has earned during his time trading. When a character you control moves into the conflict he shares the supplies/resources he has acquired with them.

What I thought added to this flavor was the fact that you do not need to own the character that moves into the conflict in order to trigger the Trader's reaction. Even when your enemy moves to oppose you, our favorite Ide doesn't let that get in the way of his job and finds a way to acquire resources for the Unicorn. Love it!

Yes, the art depicts him trading with a non-Unicorn after all.

8 hours ago, shosuko said:

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?

It's 'past tense', not 'post tense'. And that doesn't matter. There is no such thing. Looking at it past tense has no effect on whether the trigger happened.

8 hours ago, shosuko said:

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.

This is the distinction. The card does not say this. This is the version of the card you have made up in your head. There is not 1 and 2 here. there is 1: did thing X happen.

Al already explicitly told you that 'did a character move' is not the trigger for the reaction. There is a single trigger of ' after one or more characters move to a conflict in which this character is participating'. That's a single trigger defining what is moving and what it needs to be moving to. It does not ask if the Ide Trader is participating. Your 'did X happen + qualifier' scenario is a figment of your imagination as it is not worded that way.

What you're suggesting would look like this:

Quote

Raction: 'After one or more characters move to a conflict, if this character is participating , select one – gain 1 fate or draw 1 card. (Limit once per conflict.)

But that is not the wording we have. These are not two separate things to check. And yes, if we were looking at a card wording in the way you describe, you would be absolutely correct. However, that is not how the card is worded. The Ide Trader participating is part of the timing trigger , not a situational requirement for playing the effect. And the point is that I want to understand how so many people have read it as a situational requirement when it follows the same format as all the other triggers:

Quote

Hiruma Tomonatsu

Reaction: After this character wins a conflict as a defender, sacrifice it. Choose a non-unique attacking character – return that character to the top of its owner's deck.

|<----------------------Timing----------------------------->|

See how that the part before the comma is the timing trigger, and the part after the comma is a direct cost. This is universal, as far as I can see.

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.)

|<-----------------------------------------------Timing---------------------------------------------------->|

See where the comma is? Everything befoe that is a timing trigger, and whether or not that trigger happens is unaffected by whether you look at it from before, after, or as it is happening. The only other cost here is to 'choose one'. There is no question that says Ide Trader must be in the conflict 'now' (when the ability is played'. Sure, it is virtually axiomatic that the Ide Trade will be in the battle because of the timing trigger, but that is an incidental truth not actually referenced by the card effect. Hence, the only logical way to look at whether you can play this is 'did the trigger happen' and 'does your choice have the potential to change the game state'. Since drawing or gaining fate will always change the game state, the latter is irrelevant in this situation.

So, can I walk into a room I am already in?

No. I will be in that room once I walk in, but that is not relevant to the card effect in front of us because it never references that information.

2 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

So, can I walk into a room I am already in?

No. I will be in that room once I walk in, but that is not relevant to the card effect in front of us because it never references that information.

Simply put - if you believe it is read that way, why do you believe the developer ruled it is read the other way?

Since y'all clearly aren't going to come to a consensus on this one, and keep repeating the same things over and over talking in circles around each other, how about you just agree to disagree?

Just now, shosuko said:

Simply put - if you believe it is read that way, why do you believe the developer ruled it is read the other way?

Loaded question. I do not have a belief on this.

Also, he did not rule that it is 'read that way'. That is another thing you have made up. He made a ruling on whether or not something works; I don't believe the said anything about how to read the card.

12 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

Loaded question. I do not have a belief on this.

Also, he did not rule that it is 'read that way'. That is another thing you have made up. He made a ruling on whether or not something works; I don't believe the said anything about how to read the card.

How do you explain that it works that way, as the devs have ruled, without it working as I've described it?

Do you have any examples of gameplay that actually contradicts this explaination?

At a point you must realize you are actually reading it incorrectly...

The ruling is:

" 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."

According to this ruling, the trigger is a character moving to a conflict in which Ide Trader is participating.

As the RR and the ruling makes clear, Ide Trader is participating in the conflict as soon as he moves there.

You don't have to think of moving and participating as separate things, if you don't want to, precisely because they are simultaneous. Which is why the ruling concludes that Ide Trader moving may trigger its own reaction.

To use the "move to a room" idiom, the analog here would be "after moving to a room that you are in ..." which could be shortened to "after moving" except that the reaction is triggered by any character moving, not just theIde Trader moving, so it works out to, "after anyone moves to a room you are in" where "anyone" obviously also includes "you."

46 minutes ago, shosuko said:

How do you explain that it works that way, as the devs have ruled, except that this is how it is read?

It works that way because a dev ruled it. Case closed.

46 minutes ago, shosuko said:

Do you have any examples of gameplay that actually contradicts this ruling?

I have no idea what sort of example you're looking for. It's a ruling on a single card. Gameplay can't contradict rulings – it can only be incorrect gameplay.

46 minutes ago, shosuko said:

At a point you must realize you are actually reading it incorrectly...

No. If I were reading it incorrectly, I would like to think that someone could point out the flaw in my thinking. I have pointed out the flaw in your thinking but you have not pointed out any flaws in mine. Logically, how would this not make me seem like I am the one reading it correctly?

46 minutes ago, shosuko said:

If my opponent played a (fictional card) that has the effect "target an opponent's character and move them to the conflict" and they used this to move my character with attached Watch Commander into the conflict, I could then trigger Watch Commander because it is in the conflict during the reaction window for my opponent playing a card. It did not need to be there before they played the card, only at the reaction window to resolution.

No. There are two ways that this is flawed.

1. The trigger was never met. The trigger is 'After an opponent plays a card during a conflict in which attached character is participating', which didn't happen.

2. The reaction occurs before the effect resolves:

Quote

1. Check play restrictions and verify the existence of eligible targets: can the card be played, or the ability initiated, at this time? If the play restrictions are not met, or there are no eligible targets for the ability, the process cannot proceed.
2. Determine the cost (or costs, if multiple costs are required) to play the card or initiate the ability. If it is established that the cost (taking modifiers into account) can be paid, proceed with the remaining steps of this sequence.
Once each of the preliminary confirmations has been made, follow these steps, in order:
3. Apply any modifiers to the cost(s).
4. Pay the cost(s).
5. Choose target(s), if applicable. Any pre-effect instructions to “select” among multiple options in the ability are made at this time as well.
6. The card attempts to enter play, or the effects of the ability attempt to initiate. An interrupt ability that cancels this initiation may be used at this time.
7. The effects of the ability (if not canceled in step 6) complete their initiation, and resolve.

2

Your fictional card would count as played at step 6, before the effect resolves. Watch Commander is not yet participating in the conflict. Even using your interpretation of the wording, he could not use his ability. In step 7 he is moved into the battle, but then it is too late to trigger his reaction as the window has closed.

17 minutes ago, Manchu said:

To use the "move to a room" idiom, the analog here would be "after moving to a room that you are in ..." which could be shortened to "after moving" except that the reaction is triggered by any character moving, not just theIde Trader moving, so it works out to, "after anyone moves to a room you are in" where "anyone" obviously also includes "you."

That is an interesting point. I will give this significant consideration.

My initial thought is that no, I would still not have moved to a room I am in. I moved to a room and I am in that room, but I do not see that I moved to a room that I was in.

On 9/6/2017 at 6:44 PM, LuceLineGames said:

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.

On 9/7/2017 at 6:55 PM, 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 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.

On 9/7/2017 at 7:04 PM, 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.

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.

38 minutes ago, Manchu said:

To use the "move to a room" idiom, the analog here would be "after moving to a room that you are in ..." which could be shortened to "after moving" except that the reaction is triggered by any character moving, not just theIde Trader moving, so it works out to, "after anyone moves to a room you are in" where "anyone" obviously also includes "you."

15 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

That is an interesting point. I will give this significant consideration.

My initial thought is that no, I would still not have moved to a room I am in. I moved to a room and I am in that room, but I do not see that I moved to a room that I was in.

Yes, please give this significant consideration. Thank you.

Moving and becoming a participant in a conflict are not separate things. There is no "in transit" where it has moved and has not yet arrived. There is only at home, and then moved + participating in a conflict. Since you react after this point, after the effect has resolved and the Ide Trader has already moved, you can only see it has moved to the conflict where it is a participant.

53 minutes ago, shosuko said:

Moving and becoming a participant in a conflict are not separate things. There is no "in transit" where it has moved and has not yet arrived.

You still haven't explained why this is relevant. I have never said anything about there being an 'in transit' state.
Please stop arguing against things that no-one is saying.

53 minutes ago, shosuko said:

There is only at home, and then moved + participating in a conflict.

Again, no-one is disputing this. It is not relevant.

53 minutes ago, shosuko said:

Since you react after this point, after the effect has resolved and the Ide Trader has already moved, you can only see it has moved to the conflict where it is a participant.

Unless you can explain why it is relevant that he is a participant when you trigger the ability, then this continues to be irrelevant. You keep raising the fact that he is participating when you trigger the reaction, but you have yet to point to the part of the ability that requires this.

6 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

You still haven't explained why this is relevant. I have never said anything about there being an 'in transit' state.
Please stop arguing against things that no-one is saying.

Again, no-one is disputing this. It is not relevant.

Unless you can explain why it is relevant that he is a participant when you trigger the ability, then this continues to be irrelevant. You keep raising the fact that he is participating when you trigger the reaction, but you have yet to point to the part of the ability that requires this.

If you go back to where i quoted Nate's reply he stated pretty clearly

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.

Nate French

Weren't you going to seriously consider this?

1 hour ago, shosuko said:

If you go back to where i quoted Nate's reply he stated pretty clearly

No. he did not state anything on the matter at all . He stated the ruling on what the card did, and why he was ruling it that way. What he said goes against how the card is written. He has said nothing to explain this discrepancy.

1 hour ago, shosuko said:

Weren't you going to seriously consider this?

No. That is not what was under consideration. Again, you clearly don't understand the problem. Commenting repeatedly about things that aren't in contention isn't helping anyone. I am seriously considering Mancu said because he actually addressed the problem that you have not. He knows how to make an argument and you, it seems, do not.

Nate can make a ruling, but that does not mean that it is a correct interpretation of the card. That would be the logical fallacy knows an 'argument from authority'. I know how it has been ruled to play; I want to understand why it has been ruled that way when it is not supported by the wording. The explanation he has given when the ruling was expressed is not logically consistent with the card. Repeating the claim that is being disputed isn't presenting an argument. What needs to be addressed is why it matters that he is in the conflict after he moves, when the ability does not reference that.

So, has anybody who disagrees with the ruling by Nate actually followed up with another email?
Or is all the time and energy being spent in this forum going in circles?

As it stands, if something is not clearly covered in the Rules Reference or the official FAQ, a response from a developer is the next best thing. It is the law.
Anyone who intends to use the community-built Unofficial FAQ will take Nate's current ruling as official, until he or another dev correct, or confirm, this ruling.

If the UFAQ is not for you, then I guess you're at the whim of your tournament judges as to how they interpret Ide Trader's wording.

9 hours ago, Shinjo Sousuke said:

I think it's flavor goes both ways actually. When the Trader moves into a conflict he is bringing your army supplies in the form of fate or conflict cards he has earned during his time trading. When a character you control moves into the conflict he shares the supplies/resources he has acquired with them.

What I thought added to this flavor was the fact that you do not need to own the character that moves into the conflict in order to trigger the Trader's reaction. Even when your enemy moves to oppose you, our favorite Ide doesn't let that get in the way of his job and finds a way to acquire resources for the Unicorn. Love it!

My understanding is that you can't use an opponent's card to meet the cost requirements of a card, (except for when it says choose)

9 hours ago, shosuko said:

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.

So declaring an attacker/defender doesn't count as "moving" a character to the conflict?

50 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

My understanding is that you can't use an opponent's card to meet the cost requirements of a card, (except for when it says choose)

That is true, but Ide Trader is a reaction. There's no cost involved. Specifically, " 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.) " No cost, just react to 1 or more characters moving to a conflict in which the trader is participating. Whether they're your characters or your opponent's doesn't matter.

6 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

That is an interesting point. I will give this significant consideration.

Cheees, I think we're on the right track there.

6 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

My initial thought is that no, I would still not have moved to a room I am in. I moved to a room and I am in that room, but I do not see that I moved to a room that I was in.

I think I understand what you mean. That would work out to, "after someone moves into a room that you are already in," in which case the somone cannot be you, since you cannot be simultaneously already in the room that you are moving into, where "moving into the room" entails first being outside of it and then being inside of it.

But the card is missing that key word "already" - it only requires that somone move to the room you are in. Once someone moves to that room, they are in it, That also applies if the "someone" is you. We know this is true because the RR states that as soon as a character moves to a conflict, she is participating in it.

3 hours ago, LuceLineGames said:

So declaring an attacker/defender doesn't count as "moving" a character to the conflict?

No, it doesn't. Which is why Spyglass specifies " After attached character commits to a conflict or moves to a conflict " to cover both situations.

4 hours ago, agarrett said:

That is true, but Ide Trader is a reaction. There's no cost involved. Specifically, " 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.) " No cost, just react to 1 or more characters moving to a conflict in which the trader is participating. Whether they're your characters or your opponent's doesn't matter.

I think I'm understanding this correctly now, but just to clarify your post - it's not that it's a reaction. Reactions are triggered abilities and follow the same structure (cost, target - dash, effect). It's that it has no cost, which you mentioned. But a reaction could have a cost built in too, right? More of a hypothetical.

1 minute ago, LuceLineGames said:

I think I'm understanding this correctly now, but just to clarify your post - it's not that it's a reaction. Reactions are triggered abilities and follow the same structure (cost, target - dash, effect). It's that it has no cost, which you mentioned. But a reaction could have a cost built in too, right? More of a hypothetical.

The pattern for most abilities is Action: cost - effect. For reactions and interrupts it is Reaction: Triggering Condition, Cost - Effect. The Triggering condition isn't a cost, but just what needs to have just happened for the ability to be activated. Ide Trader doesn't specifies who's character has to move, only that a character did move. So any time any character moves to a conflict in which this character is participating you can trigger his effect.

4 hours ago, Manchu said:

But the card is missing that key word "already" - it only requires that somone move to the room you are in.

Yes, it requires someone to move to the room that I am in. If I am the one moving, I am quantifiably not in the room I'm moving to . Again, the ability doesn't separate moving from being in the room. I do not believe the 'but you are in the room as soon as you move' argument is valid because the ability never asks where the Ide Trader is. It only sets a trigger condition. hence why Nate's explanation is unsatisfactory because it does not explain why being in the conflict after it has moved is relevant. This is what I've been asking for that no-one seems able to offer an explanation for. That he is in the room (conflict, whatever) when he moves is not in question. That much is undeniable. I just want to know why it matters.

So far I have consulted with another three people today, and none of them can understand how this ruling makes sense either. Given the nature of in-groups and such, that means very little in and of itself, but it does show that I'm certainly not the only one struggling to understand how it makes sense.

8 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

Yes, it requires someone to move to the room that I am in. If I am the one moving, I am quantifiably not in the room I'm moving to . Again, the ability doesn't separate moving from being in the room. I do not believe the 'but you are in the room as soon as you move' argument is valid because the ability never asks where the Ide Trader is. It only sets a trigger condition. hence why Nate's explanation is unsatisfactory because it does not explain why being in the conflict after it has moved is relevant. This is what I've been asking for that no-one seems able to offer an explanation for. That he is in the room (conflict, whatever) when he moves is not in question. That much is undeniable. I just want to know why it matters.

So far I have consulted with another three people today, and none of them can understand how this ruling makes sense either. Given the nature of in-groups and such, that means very little in and of itself, but it does show that I'm certainly not the only one struggling to understand how it makes sense.

So ask Nate by submitting a rules request for clarification. Problem solved.