And to be honest, I don't even think this qualifies as an argument, since no-one is against the ruling.

Unless someone states otherwise I think it's safe to assume that everyone is okay with Ide Trader being able to trigger it's own reaction.

I think that "IF" it can is the current point of contention. Nate's response supports the assumption that it can however the key point I want to make is that the wording of the card is ambiguous enough to cause a discussion.

It can be read that Ide Trader needs to be present before the movement OR that he simply needs to be present after the movement which happens simultaneously as the movement resolves.

The fact that we're still having this conversation is proof of this.

Relevant info:

Quote

Triggered Abilities

A boldface timing command followed by a colon indicates that an ability is a triggered ability. Triggered abilities fall into one of the following types: actions, interrupts, and reactions. Some interrupt and reaction abilities are also forced.

◊ Unless the timing command is prefaced by the word “Forced,” all triggered abilities are optional. They can be triggered (or not) by their controller at the ability’s appropriate timing point. Forced triggered abilities are triggered automatically by the game at the ability’s appropriate timing point. ◊ Unless otherwise specified by the ability itself, each triggered ability may be triggered once per round.

◊ Triggered abilities are written in a “ triggering condition (and/or) cost (and/or) targeting requirements – effect ” template. Ability text before the dash consists of triggering conditions (and/or) costs (and/or) targeting requirements. Ability text after the dash consists of effects. and may sometimes include targeting requirements that come into play as the effect is being resolved.

◊ If a triggered ability has no dash, the ability has no pre-dash content, and the entirety of the ability is considered an effect.

◊ A triggered ability can only be initiated if its effect has the potential to change the game state on its own. This potential is assessed without taking into account the consequences of the cost payment or any other ability interactions.

◊ A triggered ability can only be initiated if its cost (after modifiers) has the potential to be paid in full.

1

Quote

For Shame!

Action: During a conflict (trigger condition), if you control a participating Courtier character (restriction), choose a participating character controlled by your opponent [...]

One example of a restriction coming after the trigger condition with a comma separating them.

I'm done. Goodnight folks. I think we made great progress today!

1 hour ago, InquisitorM said:

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

Correct. We do not learn from the card that a character moving to a conflict is participating in that conflict; we know that from the RR. The card tells us the reaction is to a character moving to a conflict where Ide Trader is participating. Now, thanks to the RR, we know that characters like Ide Trader are participating in the conflicts to which they move, which is the relevant element specifiedby the card.

Since the involved parties are set in continuing this "non-argument" discussion about whether the modifying clause should be read "in which this character is already participating" or "in which this character is now participating", I shall play the Meddling Mediator and present these alternate interpretations of this vague wording (I've come to the conclusion that for common usage either could be considered an acceptable disambiguation of the specific verbiage and conjugation used) via the Rules Request form. I shall request for 1) Confirmation of the ruling for how this ability works, and 2) Clarification on how the ruling is determined based on the ability as written. Does this sound like an acceptable resolution? What say you?

12 minutes ago, Zesu Shadaban said:

Since the involved parties are set in continuing this "non-argument" discussion about whether the modifying clause should be read "in which this character is already participating" or "in which this character is now participating", I shall play the Meddling Mediator and present these alternate interpretations of this vague wording (I've come to the conclusion that for common usage either could be considered an acceptable disambiguation of the specific verbiage and conjugation used) via the Rules Request form. I shall request for 1) Confirmation of the ruling for how this ability works, and 2) Clarification on how the ruling is determined based on the ability as written. Does this sound like an acceptable resolution? What say you?

Since I started the thread to find the answer to this question, yes I approve.

I'm content with the response we got from Nate that stated Ide Trader can trigger it's own reaction after it is moved into a conflict.

I would simply like the card to receive an errata to it's wording in order to prevent confusion OR a clearly written explanation as to how the card reads and how it's text should be interpreted (in turn setting a precedent for future cards).

I think that would wrap this discussion up nicely. Unless anyone has anything else to add?

37 minutes ago, Zesu Shadaban said:

Does this sound like an acceptable resolution? What say you?

Sounds good - but since this is down to very specific interpretations, I would propose posting your draft here and letting people see if they think the alternatives are expressed clearly and accurately before submitting.

FWIW, I can see the potential for confusion without fully accepting that in game terms, as opposed to English more broadly, the character always moves to "a conflict where this character is present."

I don't have the specific wording right now, but this question has already been sent back via the Official Rules Form for clarification.

No harm in sending a second email, other than wasting dev's time.

Not that it matters much, but here goes... my previous reply was eaten up by the internet.

4 hours ago, Joelist said:

a) Ide Trader moves alone to a conflict.

b) Ide Trader and another character move to a conflict at the same time.

c) A character moves to a conflict where Ide Trader is already present.

d) Another character moves to a conflict. After this has occurred Ide Trader moves to that conflict.

In each case, does Ide Trader fire and how many times?

a) Going by the wording of the card - No . Zero Fate, Zero Conflict cards

b) Going by the wording of the card - YES! Unicorn player chooses a Fate or a Conflict card

c) Going by the wording of the card - YES! Unicorn player chooses a Fate or a Conflict card (this wasn't disputed by anyone on this thread)

d) Going by the wording of the card - No . Zero Fate, Zero Conflict cards However, upon reviewing the rules regarding Reactions and Move, the 'another character' is considered to have moved to a conflict that this character (Ide Trader) is participating; thus YES ! Unicorn player chooses a Fate or a Conflict card (this was a counter-argument that read like a trap to me when posted earlier by another member)

In each instance, from b) to C) to d), the Ide Trader's Reaction triggers only once.

And I'm not arguing any of what I just listed from a) to d) with regards to "who's on first," - the stated Rules Reference Version 1.0 should be doing the talking, so to speak.

6 hours ago, LordBlunt said:

a) Going by the wording of the card - No . Zero Fate, Zero Conflict cards

b) Going by the wording of the card - YES! Unicorn player chooses a Fate or a Conflict card

c) Going by the wording of the card - YES! Unicorn player chooses a Fate or a Conflict card (this wasn't disputed by anyone on this thread)

d) Going by the wording of the card - No . Zero Fate, Zero Conflict cards However, upon reviewing the rules regarding Reactions and Move, the 'another character' is considered to have moved to a conflict that this character (Ide Trader) is participating; thus YES ! Unicorn player chooses a Fate or a Conflict card (this was a counter-argument that read like a trap to me when posted earlier by another member)

In each instance, from b) to C) to d), the Ide Trader's Reaction triggers only once.

And I'm not arguing any of what I just listed from a) to d) with regards to "who's on first," - the stated Rules Reference Version 1.0 should be doing the talking, so to speak.

The reaction can only trigger once per conflict, so the answer is only going to be once or not at all. And Nate's email makes it clear that the correct answers are:

a) Yes . The Trader moved and he is at the conflict. Note that this is the exact situation that appears in Nate's email.

b) Yes . For either character (the once per conflict limit forbids triggering it twice).

c) Yes .

d) The other character is a red herring (once a reaction window closes, you can't react to its triggering condition anymore). But yes , as in a), because the Trader moved and he is at the conflict.

7 hours ago, LordBlunt said:

Not that it matters much, but here goes... my previous reply was eaten up by the internet.

11 hours ago, Joelist said:

Perhaps the best way to get clarity here is to list out the possible cases and then just say if Ide Trader can fire in them. The cases are:

a) Ide Trader moves alone to a conflict.

b) Ide Trader and another character move to a conflict at the same time.

c) A character moves to a conflict where Ide Trader is already present.

d) Another character moves to a conflict. After this has occurred Ide Trader moves to that conflict.

In each case, does Ide Trader fire and how many times?

(P.S: I'm pretty sure the answers are 1 for A, 2 for B, 1 for C and 1 for D)

a) Going by the wording of the card - No . Zero Fate, Zero Conflict cards

b) Going by the wording of the card - YES! Unicorn player chooses a Fate or a Conflict card

c) Going by the wording of the card - YES! Unicorn player chooses a Fate or a Conflict card (this wasn't disputed by anyone on this thread)

d) Going by the wording of the card - No . Zero Fate, Zero Conflict cards However, upon reviewing the rules regarding Reactions and Move, the 'another character' is considered to have moved to a conflict that this character (Ide Trader) is participating; thus YES ! Unicorn player chooses a Fate or a Conflict card (this was a counter-argument that read like a trap to me when posted earlier by another member)

In each instance, from b) to C) to d), the Ide Trader's Reaction triggers only once.

And I'm not arguing any of what I just listed from a) to d) with regards to "who's on first," - the stated Rules Reference Version 1.0 should be doing the talking, so to speak.

The only thing that could make A and B different is if Ide Trader's ability said "other characters." This is the syntax that excludes a character from triggering its own ability. Lacking this, any justification for B to trigger must also allow A to trigger as they both include the exact same timing for a character moving to a conflict, and when Ide Trader is considered to be participating.

As for D - if you do not believe A, then I could only assume that believing D can trigger is through a complete misunderstanding of the rules. Reactions to any triggering condition are only allowed for a brief moment after the triggering condition has resolved. The window closes before any other action can be taken. The only way D would trigger is because it is the same situation as A, which allows it to trigger for the same reason as B. Ide Trader is participating at the exact same point he moves to a conflict, and the reaction is "after" he moves.

As for this trigger - the conclusion I have come to is the same one that I have had before, and others also seem to understand. I've tried several different justifications for the sake of argument in this thread. The only thing that works is that this is a single trigger after a character has moved to where Ide Trader is. When a character moves to a conflict they are participating in that conflict at the exact same time. After Ide Trader moves he is most certainly participating.

Don't get down on people bickering over rules, its always going to happen. I've enjoyed the back and forth in this thread. Its allowed me to throw a lot of crazy stuff at the wall, and helped me refine my understanding of the rules. If you don't like that kind of banter, then just watch the FAQ and avoid the discussion. Right now we only have the UFAQ but FFG is very likely to release an official FAQ once the game actually releases. Anything on the official FAQ is official, and you can count on that!

I wonder why this card states "1 or more" though... That seems like wasted text. If it simply stated "After any character moves to a conflict in which Ide Trader is participating," it would have worked still whether it was just 1 character, or 100 right? Is there anything I'm missing here? I know that Display of Power has a bit of superfluous text "resolve that ring effect as if you had won the conflict as the attacking player" rather than simply "resolve that ring effect as the attacking player." Is this the same thing with Ide Trader?

Reading through this thread (mostly), I have realised that there are two legitimate ways to read the card, which is why there was a ruling required.

1. Reaction: ( After 1 or more characters move to a conflict) (in which this character is participating)
2. Reaction: ( After 1 or more characters move) (to a conflict in which this character is participating)

In normal English and, I believe, even in rules text, it is not possible to tell them apart without context. Unfortunately, there really is nothing you can use for context on a card ability, so there needed to be a ruling. As it turned out, the ruling was for what I labelled 1, but I think it would have been equally valid if they had chosen to rule for option 2.

Yes, this ended up being bad templating, but given the way various people had difficulty telling them apart, it is not unreasonable that no-one spotted it before printing. However, the ruling has been made, so why are we still arguing about it??!!??

8 minutes ago, Tonbo Karasu said:

Reading through this thread (mostly), I have realised that there are two legitimate ways to read the card, which is why there was a ruling required.

1. Reaction: ( After 1 or more characters move to a conflict) (in which this character is participating)
2. Reaction: ( After 1 or more characters move) (to a conflict in which this character is participating)

In normal English and, I believe, even in rules text, it is not possible to tell them apart without context. Unfortunately, there really is nothing you can use for context on a card ability, so there needed to be a ruling. As it turned out, the ruling was for what I labelled 1, but I think it would have been equally valid if they had chosen to rule for option 2.

Yes, this ended up being bad templating, but given the way various people had difficulty telling them apart, it is not unreasonable that no-one spotted it before printing. However, the ruling has been made, so why are we still arguing about it??!!??

Are 1 and 2 actually different? Moving to a conflict and participating in a conflict are identical, so Ide Trader is always participating in a conflict he moves to. After 1 or more characters move to a conflict in which this character is participating.

Why are we arguing? I assume for fun. I've enjoyed it, and even though it may appear as if we are arguing in circles, I've put several different perspectives to the test and we've burned them down. The core of the argument is the same, but there are some other thoughts on the rules I've cleared up for myself

11 minutes ago, shosuko said:

I wonder why this card states "one or more" though... That seems like wasted text. If it simply stated "After any character moves to a conflict in which Ide Trader is participating," it would have worked still whether it was just 1 character, or 100 right? Is there anything I'm missing here? I know that Display of Power has a bit of superfluous text "resolve that ring effect as if you had won the conflict as the attacking player" rather than simply "resolve that ring effect as the attacking player." Is this the same thing with Ide Trader?

It's so that you can trigger the Trader's reaction only once if multiple characters move in at the same time. If Yokuni copies Ide Trader's reaction and gets an additional use of it with Way of the Dragon, he could still react only once to a move like Tatsuo's, because several characters moving at the same time create only 1 occurence of the triggering condition.

6 minutes ago, Khudzlin said:

It's so that you can trigger the Trader's reaction only once if multiple characters move in at the same time. If Yokuni copies Ide Trader's reaction and gets an additional use of it with Way of the Dragon, he could still react only once to a move like Tatsuo's, because several characters moving at the same time create only 1 occurence of the triggering condition.

Okay, that makes sense... but that is an odd limitation lol. I wonder if that text will be important with future card releases. I've played a game I before where a certain card was banned, and we tried endlessly as a player community to find some way in which the card was problematic to justify being banned. It wasn't even used at that point, basically a coaster card. 3 sets later a card came out that would have been absolutely broken with the previously banned card lol.

Bear in mind that, for FFG, playtest deals with whole cycles, not individual packs. It might be something like that.

1 hour ago, shosuko said:

Are 1 and 2 actually different? Moving to a conflict and participating in a conflict are identical, so Ide Trader is always participating in a conflict he moves to. After 1 or more characters move to a conflict in which this character is participating.

Why are we arguing? I assume for fun. I've enjoyed it, and even though it may appear as if we are arguing in circles, I've put several different perspectives to the test and we've burned them down. The core of the argument is the same, but there are some other thoughts on the rules I've cleared up for myself

You notice how I bracketed the words up differently? In my mind it grants enough of a difference of interpretation to mean different things.

The Ide Trader will always be in the conflict once he has finished moving, I agree. If the phrasing could only be understood to say "the Ide Trader must be in the conflict when you activate the ability", there would be no problem. And that is what interpretation 1 does: someone was moving to this conflict, this conflict has the Ide Trader in it now.

But, i think the difference of opinion is whether the event being reacted to is (someone moving to a conflict) or (someone moving to a conflict with the Ide Trader in it). I realise that I'm going back to the tenses again, but I think that was useful. When you declare your action, what would you say: "I am going to move this Ide Trader to that conflict." or "I am going to move this Moto Horde to that conflict." You might even say "I am goint to move this Moto Horde to that conflict with the Ide Trader in it." but you'd never say "I am going to move this Ide Trader to that conflict with this Ide Trader in it". Which is why the Ide Trader not triggering itself is also a reasonable reading of the ability: it's being interpreted as if the trigger is (moving to a conflict with the Ide Trader in it).

2 hours ago, Tonbo Karasu said:

You notice how I bracketed the words up differently? In my mind it grants enough of a difference of interpretation to mean different things.

The Ide Trader will always be in the conflict once he has finished moving, I agree. If the phrasing could only be understood to say "the Ide Trader must be in the conflict when you activate the ability", there would be no problem. And that is what interpretation 1 does: someone was moving to this conflict, this conflict has the Ide Trader in it now.

But, i think the difference of opinion is whether the event being reacted to is (someone moving to a conflict) or (someone moving to a conflict with the Ide Trader in it). I realise that I'm going back to the tenses again, but I think that was useful. When you declare your action, what would you say: "I am going to move this Ide Trader to that conflict." or "I am going to move this Moto Horde to that conflict." You might even say "I am goint to move this Moto Horde to that conflict with the Ide Trader in it." but you'd never say "I am going to move this Ide Trader to that conflict with this Ide Trader in it". Which is why the Ide Trader not triggering itself is also a reasonable reading of the ability: it's being interpreted as if the trigger is (moving to a conflict with the Ide Trader in it).

I think it is important to understand that the game has specific ways of viewing triggering conditions. You can review the timing on page 17 of the RR and see that Interrupts check when a triggering condition is imminent while Reactions check after the triggering condition has resolved. Regardless of how the words are put together - in retrospect - the Trader moved to where it is now. Reactions deal with triggering conditions in retrospect. After Ide Trader moves, you could certainly say it moved to where it is, right?

If the game wanted to check that the Ide Trader was there before - or wanted to exclude it from triggering his own ability - it could have easily been done. If they wanted to ensure Ide Trader was already at the province prior to the move they could use an Interrupt "When 1 or more characters would move to a conflict in which this character is participating." This would check the board state prior to a move ensuring the Trader is there before the movement. If they wanted him excluded from his own ability the words common on so many other cards would be included "After 1 or more other characters move to a conflict in which this character is participating." Adding "other" specifically denotes that the Trader cannot trigger its own ability. I think the strongest argument that Ide Trader does trigger from its own movement is that the game doesn't use any of its available tools stop it. By deduction - checking after the move is complete - without common text to exclude him from triggering his ability - I think the argument for it triggering off its own movement is stronger than against.

I do understand why people are misunderstanding this card. The wording can be misconstrued if you simply read it at face value, with an understanding of English but without an understanding of game mechanics. Add the understanding that the game has mechanics which enforce the restrictions imagined here, logically - lacking these mechanics we can assume these restrictions aren't in place.

Is it possible to have more than one battle at a time? As far as I know, that's not possible at the moment. Ide Trader's wording appears to leave that option open for future development. After all, if his wording had been closer to "After a unit moves to the current battle..." we probably wouldn't be having this debate at all - it would be much clearer all around. That wording, however, wouldn't work if 'current battle' was not clearly defined.

Now, that might be leftover wording from an earlier iteration of the game when they did have multiple battles at once, I suppose. Or, it might be opening up space to run more than one battle at a time - and if any clan were to take advantage of that, Unicorn would be my choice. So, I wonder if that's a hint about future design space...

@agarrett Bear in mind that the LCG doesn't have the rules of relevance or location (though I don't remember whether they applied to all abilities or only battle abilities in the CCG). Only the fact that Ide Trader specificies "in which this character is participating" makes it a requirement for Ide Trader to be participating when the reaction is triggered. The biggest problem with your wording is that it allows to trigger Ide Trader's reaction while he is at home (which the actual card doesn't).

5 hours ago, shosuko said:

As for D - if you do not believe A, then I could only assume that believing D can trigger is through a complete misunderstanding of the rules. Reactions to any triggering condition are only allowed for a brief moment after the triggering condition has resolved. The window closes before any other action can be taken. The only way D would trigger is because it is the same situation as A, which allows it to trigger for the same reason as B. Ide Trader is participating at the exact same point he moves to a conflict, and the reaction is "after" he moves.

I do not believe ---> d) Another character moves to a conflict. After this has occurred Ide Trader moves to that conflict. <--- is allowed by the text on the Trader's card. Hence, I stated so and underlined it in my post when replying to Joelist's posed questions.

Let me state this again: d) Going by the wording of the card - No . Zero Fate, Zero Conflict cards

Having said that, I am willing to bend backwards, tweak the stated game rules (and not come off as a contrarian with regards to this question and this thread) and relent to those who are arguing that all movement occurs simultaneously (which is not supported by the rules) and must therefore allow the movement into a conflict to count as being in the conflict (which, again, is not supported by the rules)... for the purposes of not starting another squabble related to the Trader's abilities. I honestly do not care to spend another minute of my time reading the Rules Reference Version 1.0 and splitting hairs for the purpose of finding the Golden Goose that some members seem to have caged up. This is not an under-handed dig at anyone in particular or such; I think that I am out of steam in regards to the reading of the Ide Trader and its abilities, while my eyes and brain are in need of a vacation far away from any traders in the realm of Rokugan. (and for the record I do agree with everyone asking for clarification; yes - this card needs either an errata, or a FAQ reply, or some such....)

5 hours ago, shosuko said:

Are 1 and 2 actually different?

I don't think so. Here is how I would bracket the text:

• After (1 or more characters) (move) (to a conflict in which this character is participating)

These are the elements necessary for the reaction. The reaction is to

• any character
• moving
• to a conflict in which Ide Trader is participating

It is crucial that there is no difference between a conflict (to which Ide Trader is moving) and a conflict (in which Ide Trader is participating).

I understand the alternative view conceptually begins by looking over the board and finding a conflict where Ide Trader is already participating. But that is simply not what the text says. Approaching the text from that perspective is assuming something that is not part of the text.

In contrast to others posting ITT I think this card does not require errata .

31 minutes ago, LordBlunt said:

I do not believe ---> d) Another character moves to a conflict. After this has occurred Ide Trader moves to that conflict. <--- is allowed by the text on the Trader's card. Hence, I stated so and underlined it in my post when replying to Joelist's posed questions.

Let me state this again: d) Going by the wording of the card - No . Zero Fate, Zero Conflict cards

Having said that, I am willing to bend backwards, tweak the stated game rules (and not come off as a contrarian with regards to this question and this thread) and relent to those who are arguing that all movement occurs simultaneously (which is not supported by the rules) and must therefore allow the movement into a conflict to count as being in the conflict (which, again, is not supported by the rules)... for the purposes of not starting another squabble related to the Trader's abilities. I honestly do not care to spend another minute of my time reading the Rules Reference Version 1.0 and splitting hairs for the purpose of finding the Golden Goose that some members seem to have caged up. This is not an under-handed dig at anyone in particular or such; I think that I am out of steam in regards to the reading of the Ide Trader and its abilities, while my eyes and brain are in need of a vacation far away from any traders in the realm of Rokugan. (and for the record I do agree with everyone asking for clarification; yes - this card needs either an errata, or a FAQ reply, or some such....)

Shinja Tatsuo is a good example of potentially 2 characters (Tatsuo and Trader) moving to a conflict in the same ability. The move is done simultaneously. This is simply because the ability tells us to do them in the same command. Just as Ring of Earth has you draw a card and discard a card from your opponent at the same moment. It mentions the Ring of Earth specifically in the example on page 16, Triggering Conditions. We know they are done simultaneously because there is no opportunity to react between them. You get a shared react window after it is complete that can react to anything that just happened.

Then this section on page 11 goes over when a character is participating or not. If a non-participating character is moved into the conflict, it is considered participating.

The same thing is stated in the Move section as well. When a character moves to a conflict, it is also considered participating.

What this essentially means is that there is no point at which you've moved to a conflict, and are not participating. Just as there is no way for me to walk into a room, and not be in that room. Reactions all have a perspective of After whatever triggering condition has completed, which is the heart of the matter with Ide Trader's reaction. After the move happened you check the reaction text to see if it qualifies at that point.

I hope pointing out the areas in the rules helps you find what you're looking for. I know you've said you don't want to go on much about this, but you also insist that the rules don't support these things, and honestly I'd rather have the rules clearly understood on the two points you mention as they are pretty clear, important.