20 minutes ago, shosuko said:

Please reference any card with play restrictions following a comma.

There aren't any because there aren't any reactions with play restrictions. However, without a comma or a full stop or somesuch, there would be no way to distinguish triggers from conditions. Without some kind of divider, it's just a trigger.

Kinda proves my point...

23 minutes ago, shosuko said:

There are 2 components prior to the comma. One is a triggering condition, the other is a play restriction.

As always, show don't tell. Show me where in the RR where is says that the latter part is a condition and not a trigger.

1 minute ago, InquisitorM said:

But it did not move to a conflict in which it is participating.

Yes, as I understand your point you are saying that prior to Ide Trader moving to the conflict in question, that conflict was not "a conflict in which Ide Trader is participating."

But the text does not require that Ide Trader already be participating in a conflict prior to any character(s) moving to that conflict. This is (probably) because a character moving to a conflict is participating in that conflict.

9 minutes ago, Manchu said:

(a) yes, once

(b) yes, once

(c) yes, once

(d) yes, once (when Ide Trader moves; this is equivalent to (a))

Hi!

I see we agreed on every one but B, where you said once and I said twice. My twice is based on the notion that Ide Trader triggers on its own move and that of the other character but I could be wrong. And yes D = A but needs to be there for completeness sake.

Can everyone reading this thread for the sake of clarity agree on these two things:

1. If Ide Traders reaction is meant to be triggered while he is already participating in a conflict BEFORE the resolution of the movement, his reaction would trigger when that condition is met and not after the Trader himself is moved.

2. IF Nate's response is indication that the card was designed to allow for Ide Trader to be able to trigger his reaction in response to his own movement into a conflict, then Ide Trader's reaction would trigger under any of the circumstances listed above by Joelist.

If you disagree then I would like to know your reasoning as to why. I think the card simply needs an errata and should set a precedent for all cards that follow it.

1 minute ago, Manchu said:

But the text does not require that Ide Trader already be participating in a conflict prior to any character(s) moving to that conflict.

Yes it does. That is exactly what the text requires. Specifically, that is what is necessitated by the language used.

1 minute ago, Joelist said:

My twice is based on the notion that Ide Trader triggers on its own move and that of the other character

I said once because the text reads (a) "1 or more Characters move" but you still only draw 1 card or get 1 fate and (b) "Limited once per conflict."

To clarify, it may be that there is simply no such things as a reaction with a restriction. So far, I think we have only seen restrictions on actions.

I think the language just needs to be clearer when it comes to intent/design to avoid lines of discussion like Toturi/Hotaru.

And Manchu is correct. You can only trigger the Trader's reaction once per conflict.

3 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

5 minutes ago, Manchu said:

But the text does not require that Ide Trader already be participating in a conflict prior to any character(s) moving to that conflict.

Yes it does. That is exactly what the text requires. Specifically, that is what is necessitated by the language used.

You are claiming the text means "a conflict in which this character is already participating."

The text actually reads "a conflict in which this character is participating."

• The reaction is to a character moving to the conflict where Ide Trader is participating.
• Ide Trader is a character.
• Ide Trader is participating in a conflict to which he moves.

Ide Trader may react to his own move because all of the conditions are met.

10 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

There aren't any because there aren't any reactions with play restrictions. However, without a comma or a full stop or somesuch, there would be no way to distinguish triggers from conditions. Without some kind of divider, it's just a trigger.

Kinda proves my point...

As always, show don't tell. Show me where in the RR where is says that the latter part is a condition and not a trigger.

Currently - there are 2 reactions with play restrictions. It is this card and Watch Commander. There are many other cards with play restrictions though and play restrictions ALWAYS proceed the comma. In a way, a triggering condition is nothing more than a play restriction. This card can only be played after a character moved to a conflict, and Ide Trader is participating in that conflict. There is no card containing a play restriction following a comma. Since the ruling is in my favor, and all other cards share the context design of type: trigger (and or) restriction , cost (and or) targeting - effect. the burden of proof is on you to disprove this design. Where is the play restriction that makes you feel it would be after a comma?

9 minutes ago, Shinjo Sousuke said:

Can everyone reading this thread for the sake of clarity agree on these two things:

1. If Ide Traders reaction is meant to be triggered while he is already participating in a conflict BEFORE the resolution of the movement, his reaction would trigger.

2. IF Nate's response is indication that the card was designed to allow for Ide Trader to be able to trigger his reaction in response to his own movement into a conflict, then Ide Trader's reaction would trigger under any of the circumstances listed above by Joelist.

If you disagree then I would like to know your reasoning as to why. I think the card simply needs an errata and should set a precedent for all cards that follow it.

1) If Ide Trader's reaction was meant to have him in the conflict before the move - then it would have been done differently. The intent of a reaction is always to look at the game state in paste tense. Did something happen? Yes. Now that it has happened we can do x. Did a character move to a conflict? Yes. Is Ide Trader there? Yes. Both restrictions are met so you can move to cost / targeting - effect resolution.

Here are 2 examples of how they would have designed the card to have it work otherwise:
Interrupt: When a character would move to a conflict in which Ide Trader is participating. This would check to see if Ide Trader is there before the move.
Reaction: After 1 or more other characters move to a conflict in which Ide Trader is participating. This would restrict Ide Trader from being able to trigger from his own ability.

These are the ways Ide Trader's ability would be worded if there were to either require his presence prior to the move, or exclude himself from his own effect.

2 minutes ago, Manchu said:

You are claiming the text means "a conflict in which this character is already participating."

The text actually reads "a conflict in which this character is participating."

Functionally identical.

Just now, shosuko said:

Currently - there is only 1 reaction with play restrictions. It is this card.

Not unless you can show me that in the RR. Unless you can do so, it is something you made up.

1 minute ago, InquisitorM said:

Functionally identical.

Clearly not.

If the card said "already participating" then there would be no question. Ide Trader was not already present at a conflict to which he just moved.

However, he is present at a conlfict to which he just moved.

Just now, Manchu said:

However, he is present at a conlfict to which he just moved.

And I already agreed with that. It just isn't what the card is asking. Seriously, there is nothing to be gained by saying the same thing again.

2 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

Not unless you can show me that in the RR. Unless you can do so, it is something you made up.

The ruling from the developers - as well as every other card in the game - conform to my description of Text: triggering condition / play restriction (comma) cost / targeting (dash) effect. The burden of proof is on you here. If you feel it works a different way - you must prove it. There are 2 cards with both a triggering condition and play restriction, and many more with play restrictions. Play restrictions always proceed the comma.

Once again, can we simply agree that the card is ambiguous enough to be read/interpreted both ways? Hence this discussion?

I know you agree that Ide Trader is participating in a conflict to which he just moved.

I believe you also agree that Ide Trader is a character and that we are talking about the case where Ide Trader moves.

Those are the three elements to which Ide Trader reacts:

• a character
• moving
• to conflict where Ide Trader is participating

If you agree that Ide Trader is a character, that we are talking about the case of him moving, and that he is participating in a conflict to which he moves then you must also agree that he can react to his own move.

But you don't agree with that. And I believe the reason is because you are inserting a fourth element not present on the card, that Ide Trader not only must be participating but must already be participating before any character(s) move. And the card does not say this. When you say that it does, it is because you are inserting it.

1 minute ago, Shinjo Sousuke said:

Once again, can we simply agree that the card is ambiguous enough to be read/interpreted both ways? Hence this discussion?

Yeah, I can see why there would be a discussion. It did not make sense to me either that Ide Trader would react to himself, just reading it as English. What made it totally clear for me was finding out that as a matter of game mechanics "moving to a conflict" = "participating in that conflict" at which point, just looking at the text of the card, it is obvious that Ide Trader can react to his own move.

1 minute ago, shosuko said:

The ruling from the developers - as well as every other card in the game - conform to my description of Text: triggering condition / play restriction (comma) cost / targeting (dash) effect. The burden of proof is on you here. If you feel it works a different way - you must prove it. There are 2 cards with both a triggering condition and play restriction, and many more with play restrictions. Play restrictions always proceed the comma.

Well that's obviously rubbish. Referring to the thing under dispute as your evidence only goes to show that you're you're wrong because it's obviously not in the RR. If you're not using the rules as the basis for your argument, then you don't have an argument.

3 minutes ago, Manchu said:

If you agree that Ide Trader is a character, that we are talking about the case of him moving, and that he is participating in a conflict to which he moves then you must also agree that he can react to his own move.

I literally just said this isn't the case. If your plan is to ignore what I say then there is really no point in responding to you.

Participating in the conflict he moves to is not synonymous with moving to a conflict in which he is participating.

5 minutes ago, Manchu said:

And the card does not say this. When you say that it does, it is because you are inserting it.

Yes, it does. In black and white for everyone to see. What you're essentially saying is that because you don't understand it, it cannot be true. I'm afraid life doesn't work like that.

After you get a ruling you disagree with, argue about it.

"No, we should have been arguing BEFORE we got a ruling we disagree with."

1 minute ago, InquisitorM said:

If your plan is to ignore

Not at all. But neither will I simply accept everything you claim. You claim the card means "where this character is already present" but the card does not say that. So you must have an argument as to why the card means something other than what it says.

For my part, I am arguing that the card means what it says: that Ide Trader needs to be participating. And since he is participating in a conflict he moved to, he may react to his movement to that conflict.

1 minute ago, Iuchi Toshimo said:

After you get a ruling you disagree with, argue about it.

Who disagrees with the ruling? I don't think anyone here has objected to the ruling.

2 minutes ago, Iuchi Toshimo said:

After you get a ruling you disagree with, argue about it.

"No, we should have been arguing BEFORE we got a ruling we disagree with."

For this analogy to work, RR must provide that "getting a ruling" = "disagreeing with a ruling."

Just now, Manchu said:

You claim the card means "where this character is already present" but the card does not say that.

Not quite. My claim is that him being already present is necessary by function. I never said the card makes reference to it. In fact, I have said multiple times that the card never checks where the Ide Trader is.

2 minutes ago, Manchu said:

And since he is participating in a conflict he moved to, he may react to his movement to that conflict.

But participating in the conflict he moved to is not mentioned on the card.