1 minute 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.

Again - mechanically the move is past tense. It isn't asking if a character "is moving to" the conflict where Ide Trader was already participating, it is asking "if they moved to.. where Ide Trader is" Moved is past tense, where the trader "is" is present tense. There is no in-transit state where you can say a character "is moving" where you could react to it while the Trader is not present. There is also no qualifier adding that the Trader must be there prior to the move. It is a binary state of "not moved" where the reaction doesn't know and doesn't care, and then "has moved" at which point the character is fully moved and present, and by rules also participating, thus if Ide Trader moves it is both moved and participating at the same moment qualifying both aspects of the trigger.

Like Zesu suggested, maybe by contacting Nate personally for an explanation will help sort things out for you?

I'd like to personally apologize if this thread has upset/frustrated anyone over rules discussion. I assure you my original intent was to understand if Ide Trader could mechanically trigger his own reaction and not to cause tension/dissent.

I now have that answer but wouldn't object to seeing a more in depth clarification as to why the card works this way. This would be useful in order to explain during gameplay to my opponent if questioned and also for any future cards that may share similar triggers/wordings.

35 minutes ago, shosuko said:

It isn't asking if a character "is moving to" the conflict where Ide Trader was already participating, it is asking "if they moved to.. where Ide Trader is" Moved is past tense, where the trader "is" is present tense.

Except this is literally what the card says. It is asking exactly that. 'Moved' has to be past tense because reactions always come after the trigger. A trigger has to have happened in order to react. Otherwise, it'd be an interrupt.

41 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

Except this is literally what the card says. It is asking exactly that. 'Moved' has to be past tense because reactions always come after the trigger . A trigger has to have happened in order to react. Otherwise, it'd be an interrupt.

Exactly - and after the trigger Ide Trader is participating in any conflict he has moved to - thus the reaction can happen.

1 hour ago, shosuko said:

Exactly - and after the trigger Ide Trader is participating in any conflict he has moved to - thus the reaction can happen.

Look, I've already said this a dozen times, so it's clearly not going to sink in. The ability does not ask whether the Ide Trader is participating in the conflict when the reaction is played. Stating it the first time wasn't valid. Stating for the tenth time is no more valid. the very fact that you said 'after the trigger' is exactly why it doesn't work based on the wording, but you're not actually listening.

1 hour ago, InquisitorM said:

Look, I've already said this a dozen times, so it's clearly not going to sink in. The ability does not ask whether the Ide Trader is participating in the conflict when the reaction is played. Stating it the first time wasn't valid. Stating for the tenth time is no more valid. the very fact that you said 'after the trigger' is exactly why it doesn't work based on the wording, but you're not actually listening.

Reactions aren't watching and waiting for something that triggers them. Think about it more as permission. For example - Spies at Court ability is Reaction: After you win a POL conflict... This card is not in play. It isn't watching anything. It only has permission telling you when you are allowed to play it. These are able to be used only in that specific timing window where you can play reactions after winning a POL conflict. Spies at Court is a conflict card, it doesn't have to be in play for it to work - the timing just tells you when it is allowed to be used.

Ide Trader is a character and thus needs to be in play to use his ability, but the ability is still activated when it has permission. It isn't watching for when a character moves from point a to point b relative to where the card is. It is waiting for when you can say 1) a character has moved to a conflict 2) where this card is, thus allowing you to activate its ability. It it were somehow not in play during the move, but were injected into play after the move, still during this reaction window it could still trigger its ability.

You are reading far to deeply, giving context to an ability where there isn't any. Reactions don't use a complex recording of game state changes. They are simply qualifiers. The card doesn't care what the game state was prior to when a card moved. When a card does move the game basically takes a snapshot of that moment and opens a timing window for reactions that are allowed by that. Since Ide Trader is participating the instant the move completes and we check for reactions, it qualifies.

Trust me, if they wanted this to be more limited in scope it would be. If Ide Trader was meant to work the way you feel it should work then it would be worded like this:

Interrupt : When 1 or more characters would move to a conflict in which this character is participating
This would mean that the game pauses after the move effect is imminent but not resolved - with this the Ide Trader would need to be at the conflict first because the requirements are checked before the move action actually completes. This is the only way the game could ask if Ide Trader was there before the move in allowing the ability to be activated.

Reaction : After 1 or more other characters move to a conflict in which this character is participating
Stating "other characters" specifically sets the character activating the ability apart from their ability. In this example the Ide Trader could move WITH another character (like Shinjo Tatsuo) and still trigger it while moving into the conflict, but it would need another character to allow it to be activated.

As a side note - I don't believe the game has any mechanic for "while this character was already participating." It would need to be done via interrupt or a more narrowly triggered reaction as listed above.

4 hours ago, Shinjo Sousuke said:

Like Zesu suggested, maybe by contacting Nate personally for an explanation will help sort things out for you?

Maybe I'm reading in between the lines, but I hope this isn't some sort of passive-aggressive patronization on your part. If it is, there is no need for it. (if your intention was not to be condescending in any fashion, then I am wrong to have colored it so and so much the better)

4 hours ago, Shinjo Sousuke said:

..... I assure you my original intent was to understand if Ide Trader could mechanically trigger his own reaction and not to cause tension/dissent.

If a card could have mechanically triggered its own reaction, then it would have said so on its print.

This card does not. It should be clear as day to anyone reading it. (however, we still have theatrical acrobats contending that it should read in a more loose, much exaggerated manner, under the premise of "intentions" of the card designers)

This card, like so many other LCG cards (I would argue the great, vast majority of cards), should not have to subject the reader to a wild Easter Egg hunt as to its meaning and its intent..... Yet, here we are; page 4 and counting.....

4 hours ago, Shinjo Sousuke said:

I now have that answer but wouldn't object to seeing a more in depth clarification as to why the card works this way. This would be useful in order to explain during gameplay to my opponent if questioned and also for any future cards that may share similar triggers/wordings.

Wait, huh???

Tell you what - If I was sitting across you in a game, and you tried to pull this **** on me, I would first call over a judge/tournament organizer/official/etc and pose to them the exact meaning and usage of the Ide Trader. If said person also felt to judge in your behalf, through the prism of "intent" or some other hyperbole that mirrors what a few posters have exercised in this thread, then I'm done. I'll walk out and put this game behind me for good .

But please feel free to explain to me, your opponent, who has dared to question your reading of this card and its "intent."

1 hour ago, LordBlunt said:

Maybe I'm reading in between the lines, but I hope this isn't some sort of passive-aggressive patronization on your part. If it is, there is no need for it. (if your intention was not to be condescending in any fashion, then I am wrong to have colored it so and so much the better)

Sorry for any misunderstanding caused by what I wrote earlier. I assure you when I wrote that and as I write this now I'm being 100% sincere with you or anyone reading this. If I could shake your hand and buy you a drink to prove it I would but I can't exactly do that over the internet.

Again what I said wasn't meant to sound or come across as condescending in any way. I genuinely thought (and still think) that by contacting a designer or a rules offical of your choice that you would be better able to have an actual conversation about the rules of the game and wording of cards by talking directly to the person/people who designed them. That way I believe there would be fewer misunderstandings and an opportunity for less "heated" discussion. I hope there's no hard feelings between us at least!

1 hour ago, LordBlunt said:

If a card could have mechanically triggered its own reaction, then it would have said so on its print.

This card does not. It should be clear as day to anyone reading it. (however, we still have theatrical acrobats contending that it should read in a more loose, much exaggerated manner, under the premise of "intentions" of the card designers)

Remember that in my original post I said that I have never used Ide Trader's ability in the way I originally brought up because I thought that it wasn't intended to be used that way but wondered if it was possible to because of game mechanics (movement and action resolution). Just trying to get the most value out of my least used Dynasty card you know?

We actually got input back from Nate and I simply thought that was enough to go by until the game was released and an official ruling was made. It's good enough for our playgroup but I understand Nate's feedback isn't the same as "rules as written" or justification for using a card in a way that it was not intended or designed.

1 hour ago, LordBlunt said:

Tell you what - If I was sitting across you in a game, and you tried to pull this **** on me, I would first call over a judge/tournament organizer/official/etc and pose to them the exact meaning and usage of the Ide Trader. If said person also felt to judge in your behalf, through the prism of "intent" or some other hyperbole that mirrors what a few posters have exercised in this thread, then I'm done. I'll walk out and put this game behind me for good .

But please feel free to explain to me, your opponent, who has dared to question your reading of this card and its "intent."

Realistically if you were sitting across from me in a game and I attempted to use Ide Trader in the way I proposed at the beginning of the thread and you disagreed I'd be more than willing to default to a judge and go along with whatever ruling they settled on. It's their job so who am I to argue? It hasn't come up in tournament play yet which is why I chose to ask my question here in order to avoid the exact scenario you proposed.

The last thing I want is to be the reason another player quit the game, especially over a card ruling before the game even officially launched. I enjoy this version of L5R significantly more than its predecessor and I would like to see, meet, and play with more people who enjoy the game like I do.

As far as an explanation as to how Ide Trader reads or is "intended"/designed to function I don't think any explanation I could give you would prove sufficient enough to bring you around to my point of view. We'd just be retreading what has already been discussed previously in this thread. Though I'm still open to discussion if you are?

Just don't quit the game over this!

*sigh*

What I wouldn't give for an actual Ide right now... ha ha

7 hours ago, shosuko said:

Reactions don't use a complex recording of game state changes.

You are the only person in the conversation saying anything about using a complex recording of game state changes. You have made this up. I am not suggesting this and I have never suggested it. It is literally as simple as whether the trigger happened or not.

7 hours ago, shosuko said:

The card doesn't care what the game state was prior to when a card moved.

No. And nor have I claimed it does. This is not necessary for my literal reading of the card. This is still a problem that you have invented. Please stop bringing it up as we are not in disagreement over this.

7 hours ago, shosuko said:

Trust me, if they wanted this to be more limited in scope it would be.

What they want is irrelevant. I'm asking about what they printed .

7 hours ago, shosuko said:

If Ide Trader was meant to work the way you feel it should work then it would be worded like this:

Yes, they would both do it, but they're functionally no different from the existing wording. Again, actually explain it or show it rather than make the same empty claim for the nineteenth time. If they wanted it to work as it is ruled, they should have worded it in in a way that actually said that. See how pointlessly vapid it is just to say that? That's what you're doing.

13 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

Yes, they would both do it, but they're functionally no different from the existing wording. Again, actually explain it or show it rather than make the same empty claim for the nineteenth time. If they wanted it to work as it is ruled, they should have worded it in in a way that actually said that. See how pointlessly vapid it is just to say that? That's what you're doing.

The differences between these and the ability in question illustrate pretty clearly the two points that make the ability work the way it does. First it is not an interrupt ability. An interrupt ability is the only way to check whether Ide Trader was at the conflict prior to the move. The ability doesn't specify "other characters," so it doesn't omit its self from its ability.

7 hours ago, LordBlunt said:

If a card could have mechanically triggered its own reaction, then it would have said so on its print.

Actually, it's the reverse: what needs to be specified is the case where a card cannot mechanically trigger its own reaction (by using the word "other", usually).

This card is from AGoT2's Core Set, so there's no debate about it anymore. And it's perfectly legal to use the reaction after you marshal (AGoT makes a distinction between "marshal", which applies to characters, attachments and locations, and "play", which applies only to events; both are also distinct from "put into play"), because the character is in play when the time comes to trigger the reaction and you just marshalled a R'hllor card.

6 hours ago, shosuko said:

First it is not an interrupt ability.

Which would not change what the overall effect was, thus they are functionally identical despite being mechanically different. My comment stands.

6 hours ago, shosuko said:

An interrupt ability is the only way to check whether Ide Trader was at the conflict prior to the move.

Claimed without evidence or explanation. Not true.

6 hours ago, shosuko said:

The ability doesn't specify "other characters," so it doesn't omit its self from its ability.

No, it doesn't, but as always, that doesn't actually matter. You're still addressing issues that aren't in contention.

6 hours ago, Khudzlin said:

Actually, it's the reverse: what needs to be specified is the case where a card cannot mechanically trigger its own reaction (by using the word "other", usually).

This card is from AGoT2's Core Set, so there's no debate about it anymore. And it's perfectly legal to use the reaction after you marshal (AGoT makes a distinction between "marshal", which applies to characters, attachments and locations, and "play", which applies only to events; both are also distinct from "put into play"), because the character is in play when the time comes to trigger the reaction and you just marshalled a R'hllor card.

Khudzlin,

Of the card you cited (the Melisandre character card above), most in my gaming circle would argue is quite possibly the weakest example of a card mechanically triggering its own reaction. I state this specifically due to the history of this very card that, if I'm not mistaken, was a card which was debated to death on many a board, ever since it was first previewed in the summer (?) of 2015.... And if my memory holds, it took nearly 8 months of debate, conjecture, theorizing and the like on the part of AGoT players, all the while a single statement (was it a 'clarification by the designers'?) was made prior to a tournament by FFG, then a reversal of that very statement through an FAQ . !!! (let me add: Can you see why I would have trouble understanding French's ruling/reply regarding the Ide Trader?)

Since I never played AGoT, I don't have much memory of this card's history, but I do believe that it was a rollercoaster of player thoughts, game interaction questions, developer input, a ruling, and then a reversal of that very ruling at the end of the year..... Mind you, I believe that it was this very card that caused so much uproar, but of course I can be certainly wrong as I never played the game and while it's true that our group dabbled with the cards, none of us jumped on board the AGoT gaming community. Thus, it could have been another AGoT card, though I hope that I'm correct that it is this very example. (which is why I'm spending so much time on a lengthy, redundant, circular response)

Lastly, IMO, this is not a good example to tie in to the Ide Trader. In fact, I would argue that it is the opposite.

(it highlights for me how a large sector of the FFG gaming population were split into various camps of thought concerning the actual wording of a card, followed by consternation of how that specific card can be judged to work - a narrow application of its description, a broad application of its description or somewhere in between.... And while, yes, someone can pose an argument that, "hey, FFG ruled a card in AGoT in a similar manner to this card in L5R, then we must apply the same relief to the Ide Trader as well, because, precedent!"... I wouldn't and couldn't understand in that aspect. AGoT and L5R are 2 different games, even if they are produced from the same company.)

4 minutes ago, LordBlunt said:

Khudzlin,

Of the card you cited (the Melisandre character card above), most in my gaming circle would argue is quite possibly the weakest example of a card mechanically triggering its own reaction. I state this specifically due to the history of this very card that, if I'm not mistaken, was a card that was debated to death on many a board, ever since it was first previewed in the summer (?) of 2015.... And if my memory holds, it took nearly 8 months of debate, conjecture, theorizing and the like on the part of AGoT players, all the while a single statement (was it a 'clarification by the designers'?) that was made prior to a tournament by FFG, then a reversal of that very statement through an FAQ . !!!

The only entry in AGoT's FAQ about Melisandre (Core Set) is about the timing of "after you play an event" (as in "when can you react to an event being played"), not about cards possibly referring to themselves in generic terms (there is an entry in the RR about cards referring to themselves by name, but that's another situation). There are only 3 entries in the FAQ (version 1.0) that can have been made after 8 months of debate: this one, the previous one and the next one (the ones after that involve cards from the first cycle). I think you're thinking of "what abilities exactly does Catelyn Stark (Core Set) prevent?" (because the next one looks to cheesy for anyone to have seriously considered it, least of all FFG).

Khudzlin,

Fair enough and I totally understand your reply. All I remember was that players were doing somersaults in order to justify their reading of the given card, while a clear reply concerning the application of the rules/text/whatever of the card was made and then reversed a few months afterwards.

It was rather befuddling to read the goings on amongst the players who were attempting to comprehend the meaning of the official replies, peppered with a continual and steady stream of sarcasm and digs at others who felt the ruling(s) did NOT match the rules.... the word 'intent' of the actual rules of the card was thrown around as well. ?

I hope that game and this game don't share too many commonalities in that respect.

19 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

If I am the one moving, I am quantifiably not in the room I'm moving to .

But after you move to it, you are in it. That's all the card requires.

19 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

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.

I freely admit, I don't understand what you mean by "why it matters." In what terms? I mean, it's simply the way the card works. "After 1 or more characters move to a conflict in which this character is participating" - it has to be written this way because it is a reaction to any character(s) moving to a conflict where Ide Trader is participating and Ide Trader definitely is included in the set of "any character(s)."

4 hours ago, Manchu said:

But after you move to it, you are in it. That's all the card requires.

The reaction does not ask whether the Ide is there afterward. That isn't part of the ability. It only cares whether the trigger happened, and if I can't move to a room I'm already in then the trigger never happened. No-one has yet to explain why being in the room after the trigger point matters. As Shosuko has said repeatedly, the game is not tracking everything that happened everywhere. Where the card is when the reaction is played is not important unless the card says it's important – such as 'if this character is participating in a conflict' – but Ide Trader doesn't reference this in the ability.

That's why I am trying to understand. How have people come to this assumption that the 'after' thing has any bearing on the matter?

4 hours ago, Manchu said:

I freely admit, I don't understand what you mean by "why it matters." In what terms? I mean, it's simply the way the card works.

Now that is a level of arrogance I find astounding. The entire conversation is about whether it works that way.

4 hours ago, Manchu said:

"After 1 or more characters move to a conflict in which this character is participating" - it has to be written this way because it is a reaction to any character(s) moving to a conflict where Ide Trader is participating and Ide Trader definitely is included in the set of "any character(s)."

Yes, and the Ide Trader does not move to a conflict where the Ide Trader is participating because that's a contradiction. Whether the Ide Trader is included in 'any character' – which it absolutely is – has no bearing on the question at hand.

This is why such conversations are so frustrating. It's all well and good to have disagreements, but conversing about it is pointless if the points people are addressing aren't the points actually in contention. There comes a point where you may as well argue that it works because truckles are round (not gonna lie: I just wanted to write 'truckles') because that's exactly as relevant to the discussion as the points being made here. I totally get that you don't mean it that way, but please understand that you're not addressing the issue.

And I genuinely did spend a day considering what you said, but the five other people I sat and discussed the matter at length with all said that the Ide Trader can't move to a conflict he's participating in because it's a self-contradiction. It violates the laws of logic and is nonsensical.

Do you understand that what I see in your explanation is an ability more like this:

Quote

Reaction: After 1 or more characters move to a conflict, if this character is participating in that conflict, choose one – [...]

You're saying that because he's there when the reaction happens, then he can react to himself. But that only works if the trigger and the participation are considered separately. In the actual wording, they are not, so his participation is basically irrelevant. As it is written, he could play his reaction if he wasn't in the conflict, so long as the trigger was met.

Does that make any sense?

On 9/10/2017 at 2:36 PM, 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.

It matters because the trigger condition is checked when you are activating the ability, not when the move happens. Ide Trader's ability asks the question "Did a character just move into a conflict that I am participating in?". If Ide Trader moves in himself the answer to that question is yes because of the timing of when you ask it.

That's why the past/present tense argument people were making matters: "In which Ide Trader is participating" is asking "Where is Ide Trader now, at the moment of activation?".

5 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

How have people come to this assumption that the 'after' thing has any bearing on the matter?

For my part, nothing I've posted assumes "after" has any bearing. Ide Trader can react when a character moves to a conflict where he is participating. As soon as he moves he is participating, satisfying all requirements for him to react. So far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with "after," other than being a reaction.

Is it possible that you are the one stuck on "after"? as in, Ide Trader cannot be participating in a conflict until after he has moved there? Is that why you think him moving to a conflict contradicts him participating in that conflict?

Again, we know there is no time distinction in this matter. Moving to and participating in happen simultaneously. I agree these are not separate conditions.

25 minutes ago, GoblinGuide said:

That's why the past/present tense argument people were making matters: "In which Ide Trader is participating" is asking "Where is Ide Trader now, at the moment of activation?".

But that's exactly what it doesn't ask. That does not appear in the card's text anywhere.

24 minutes ago, Manchu said:

Is it possible that you are the one stuck on "after"? as in, Ide Trader cannot be participating in a conflict until after he has moved there? Is that why you think him moving to a conflict contradicts him participating in that conflict?

No, because I don't see that it is relevant. The only thing that I can see is relevant is whether the trigger happens at all, which is asking if a character moved to a conflict the Ide is in. If the Ide is the one moving, then no, he didn't. the fact that he is there 'after', and is participating when the ability would be played, is neither here nor there. Equally, the fact that he is participating the instant he moves is also not relevant. That is not sufficient to justify 'moving to a conflict he is participating in'. It is not possible for that to happen – or at least, I cannot see how it isn't a logical contradiction and no-one has yet been able to explain it.

I'm trying to use Socratic reasoning, but no-one seems able to provide and reasonable counter-argument and all of my usual verbal sparring partners (yes, I keep political opponents on hand to try and prove me wrong on things) came to the same conclusion as me.

4 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

The only thing that I can see is relevant is whether the trigger happens at all, which is asking if a character moved to a conflict the Ide is in.

Yes, the trigger is any character moving to a conflict in which Ide Trader is participating . The character Ide Trader is participating in a conflict as soon as he moves to that conflict. Therefore the reaction may be triggered.

8 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

But that's exactly what it doesn't ask. That does not appear in the card's text anywhere.

It does. Go reread my post, you check the triggering condition at the time of activation, not when the event happens. "In which this character is participating" is present tense and meant to be checked at the time you check the triggering condition, it's not asking about the game state at the time of the event (or it would be worded, "In which this character was participating").

2 minutes ago, Manchu said:

Yes, the trigger is any character moving to a conflict in which Ide Trader is participating . The character Ide Trader is participating in a conflict as soon as he moves to that conflict. Therefore the reaction may be triggered.

And now we're just back to going in circles. The very fact that he is not participating until he moves is why he shouldn't be able to trigger his ability because the trigger didn't happen. The instant moving/participating does not mean that he moved to a conflict that he is participating in.

If I live in town A and I move to live in town B, on the day of moving, I am not moving to a town I live in. I am not living there until I have moved. The instant I move I can be said to be living in town B, but I did not move to my home town because it wasn't my home town when I moved there.

5 minutes ago, GoblinGuide said:

Go reread my post, you check the triggering condition at the time of activation, not when the event happens.

There is no such thing as checking the triggering condition at the time of activation. That's not a thing. That would be working backward through time. The trigger condition is why you can play the ability in the first place.