Please, clear your mind of metaphors for a moment.

In this game, moving into a conflict is synonymous with participating in a conflict. It is not an issue of timing. It is an issue of how game mechanics are defined by rules.

This is a reaction to

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

When "character" = "Ide Trader," "conflict to which Ide Trader moves" = "a conflict where Ide Trader is participating."

4 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

The instant moving/participating does not mean that he moved to a conflict that he is participating in.

In fact, that is exactly what it means.

4 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

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.

You do.

Quote

[From Triggering Condition]

A triggering condition is a specific occurrence that takes place in the game. On card abilities, the triggering condition is the element of the ability that references such an occurrence, indicating the timing point at which the ability may be used. The description of an ability's triggering condition often follows the word "when" (for interrupt abilities) or the word "after" (for reaction abilities).

Quote

[From Initiating Abilities/Playing Cards]

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.

Triggering Condition is unfortunately used to mean two different things in the Rules: the restrictions on when you can activate an ability, as well as the actual event that occurs for reactions/interrupt windows. The former is what you check at the time of activation, otherwise how do you know if you can activate it or not?

1 hour ago, InquisitorM said:

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

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?

Very well said. I don't know why I didn't think of inserting an example for the sake of clarity.

This is the example that you have and it is precisely the manner that some are reading: "After 1 or more characters move to a conflict, if this character is participating in that conflict, choose one.... "

However, it does NOT say that on the current card. Period. I'm reading the card as written; no intentions presumed, no inferences from other games/rules, and as objectively (if I may use that word) as possible.

Ide Trader declares as attacker or defender. Full stop. (Trader is defending, per this example)

Ide Trader is now participating in that conflict as a Defender. Full stop.

Opponent had assigned only 1 attacker.

Ide Trader now has a friendly character move into said conflict through means of Favored Mount, as an Action... Ide Trader's Reaction kicks in - gain 1 Fate or 1 card. Full stop.

Same conflict, opponent moves in 1 additional character into the same conflict. trader's Reaction kicks in - gain 1 Fate or 1 card. Full stop.

Thus, as characters are moving into said conflict, Trader's Reaction kicks in and the Unicorn player gains either a Fate or a Conflict card.

Clear. Concise. Consistent.

Full stop.

This is my reading of what is written on the Ide Trader card.

1 hour ago, InquisitorM said:

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.

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.

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?

The reaction only asks that Ide Trader is there after . This must be the core of your argument, that you feel the triggering condition isn't a character moving, but specifically a character moving TO Ide Trader. To this I have to simply say that no, it isn't. The trigger is that a character moved to a conflict, it also requires Ide Trader to be at the conflict. If you try to combine these into a simple English sentence you can read into it as much as you want - but this isn't English. This is game mechanics, and they work a very specific way. This is 2 simple requirements that constitute the "triggering condition and play restrictions" part of the action. The first part is that a character moved to "a conflict." It doesn't matter if Ide Trader was there before, it just needs to be a conflict. "In which Ide Trader is participating" is not turning this into a movement relative to it, it is simply adding that as a play restriction. The same as many other actions have "action: while this character is participating, do x."

The problem is entirely based in your conflation of the two components into a single line which is not how it reads. This may not be natural to how you would wish to interpret it, but as I've stated before - there comes a time where you must switch to student mode. Learn how the game works, learn how its rules work, not the rules as you will them to be. Nate gave his ruling to clarify this and that it is two components. That is why he said "when the reaction triggers, it is itself participating in the conflict, and can therefore respond to its own move."

Rules are not always intuitive, this one isn't intuitive for you obviously. It may not be intuitive for everyone - but its gone on long enough that I must simply point out that at a point things are the way they are simply because they are designed to be that way. This reads the way it reads because the game is designed for it to be read this way. It is not a relative "did character move to ide trader" that triggers this card, but just "did a character move to a conflict, also is ide trader there."

@LordBlunt The reason there isn't a comma there is because comma have a different meaning in this game compared to standard use. They separate parts of the card mechanics. After the comma comes cost. This isn't English language rules, it is game mechanics rules. This is not always intuitive, but as long as people learn the way the game tells you things, and the way the game thinks, these things are very easy to follow. Before the comma are game play restrictions. The full format is Type: trigger / restrictions, costs / targeting - effect. Check out Lion's Pride Brawler Action: While this character is attacking, choose a character with equal or lower MIL skill than this character - bow that character.

43 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

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.

So to put your argument simply: You are arguing that you are not allowed to trigger Ide Trader's Reaction because the conditions to trigger the reaction have not been met to begin with?

Correct me if I'm wrong, I just trying to get this straight.

21 minutes ago, GoblinGuide said:

Triggering Condition is unfortunately used to mean two different things in the Rules: the restrictions on when you can activate an ability, as well as the actual event that occurs for reactions/interrupt windows. The former is what you check at the time of activation, otherwise how do you know if you can activate it or not?

Your quotations do not support your conclusion. From the RR:

Quote

Reactions

A reaction is a triggered ability whose text is prefaced by a boldface “Reaction:” precursor. Always resolve a triggering condition before initiating any reactions to that triggering condition. Unlike actions, which are resolved during action windows, a reaction may be initiated only if its specified triggering condition occurs, as described in the reaction ability’s text. After a triggering condition resolves, a reaction window for that triggering condition opens.

So the reaction window opens because the trigger occurs. This is entirely separate from whether you announce/check/play the ability. The 'trigger' is not checked when you play the ability. The trigger is something that happens that allows the ability to be played. When the ability is played the 'point 1.' that you quoted is about checking restrictions, such as 'if this character is participating in a conflict'. The trigger must happen and the restrictions on circumstance must both be met.

Ide Trader, however, does not have a restriction, so there is nothing to check. Ide Trader only has a trigger. When the trigger happens, an action window opens and you may then play the reaction. There is nothing left to check at this stage, so all you have to do is choose fate or card.

Trigger conditions and restrictions are different things. Ide Messenger has the former but does not have the latter. By saying that you 'check' when you play the trigger, you are treating the card as if it had a trigger and a condition. This is not how the card is worded and this is why I believe this is not how the card works as written. This is also why I have said repeatedly that it does not matter whether Ide Trader is in the conflict when you play the ability; that factor is never checked by the game.

Commas, two versus one component, tenses ... I don't understand how any of this is relevant. All that matters is that a character moving to a conflict exactly equals that character participating in that conflict for the purposes of L5R LCG rules.

15 minutes ago, shosuko said:

The trigger is that a character moved to a conflict, it also requires Ide Trader to be at the conflict.

See above post. This is literally the reverse of what the card and the RR say.

16 minutes ago, shosuko said:

@LordBlunt The reason there isn't a comma there is because comma have a different meaning in this game compared to standard use. They separate parts of the card mechanics. After the comma comes cost.

No. After comma comes restrictions, if any, and then cost. the comma is necessary for the card to function as ruled.

4 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

See above post. This is literally the reverse of what the card and the RR say.

For few sake of discussion could you in your own words explain what change in game state triggers Ide Trader' reaction?

(Not trying to be sarcastic, I would just like clarity.)

2 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

See above post. This is literally the reverse of what the card and the RR say.

No. After comma comes restrictions, if any, and then cost. the comma is necessary for the card to function as ruled.

Please quote a single card with play restrictions following a comma.

You will find every single card has the format Type: trigger / restriction, cost / targeting - effect. The , and - symbols are in very specific situations dividing these from each other. Costs and targeting share a space because they are similar - they indicate what must actually be done to play the card. The triggering conditions and play restrictions also share a space because they both qualify when it is appropriate to play the card. Ide Trader has a triggering condition "After 1 or more characters move to a conflict" and then a play restriction "in which this character is participating."

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)

4 minutes ago, Shinjo Sousuke said:

So to put your argument simply: You are arguing that you are not allowed to trigger Ide Trader's Reaction because the conditions to trigger the reaction have not been met?

Correct me if I'm wrong, I just trying to get this straight.

100% correct. As I said above, people are treating the card as if it had a separate trigger and restriction, but it does not. It only has a trigger and a choice. That trigger, as the card is worded , is never met when Ide Trader moves into a conflict.

The trigger for Ide Messenger is: "After 1 or more characters move to a conflict in which this character is participating."

If the ability checked to see if Ide Messenger was participating when you played the ability, it would have a separate trigger and condition, as per the Rules Reference entry on reactions and look like this:

Quote

"After 1 or more characters move to a conflict, if this character is participating in the conflict [...]"

|<------------------------Trigger------------------------>||<---------------------Restriction--------------------->|

Without that wording, the ability never checks to see if Ide Messenger is participating in the conflict. Either the trigger happened or it didn't.

6 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

If the ability checked to see if Ide Messenger was participating when you played the ability, it would have a separate trigger and condition, as per the Rules Reference entry on reactions and look like this:

Quote

"After 1 or more characters move to a conflict, if this character is participating in the conflict [...]"

|<------------------------Trigger------------------------>||<---------------------Restriction--------------------->|

Without that wording, the ability never checks to see if Ide Messenger is participating in the conflict. Either the trigger happened or it didn't.

Please reference any card with play restrictions following a comma.

The format is Type: trigger (and/or) restriction , cost (and/or) targeting - effect.

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

Okay. I think I completely understand where you're coming from!

I agree. As it is worded Ide Trader cannot trigger it's reaction if it is not currently participating in the conflict even if it is the card that moves.

I think the divide in opinions is due to how Nate French has responded. This response would indicate that the card was intended to be able to trigger it's reaction as if it had been worded like the example you gave above. However this isn't the case and not how the card is currently worded.

Because of this Ide Trader could not trigger his reaction in response to it's own movement even if that was the original intent behind it's design.

Can we simply chalk this up to a need for an errata to the cards text if this is in fact the intended use/trigger for the reaction?

Again, this is why I posed this question as a part of the original post in the first place.

13 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

people are treating the card as if it had a separate trigger and restriction

Not me.

Ide Trader may react when any character moves to a conflict in which Ide Trader is participating. Ide Trader moves to a conflict = Ide Trader is participating in that conflict. Ide Trader may therefore react to his own move.

I am struggling to understand why this is not clear. I think the confusion at this point is a matter of inapt metaphors and irrelevant questions of tense and grammar.

1 minute ago, Shinjo Sousuke said:

Can we simply chalk this up to a need for an errata to the cards text if this is in fact the original intent?

Well, that's what I want to know. If the ruling is not based on the wording, then no harm no foul – we just need to know that. Errata and 'clarifications' to make a card work as intended are nothing new and perfectly fine. The problem is that if a ruling and the text aren't aligned, then it throws all subsequent interpretations of similar cards into flux. I genuinely believe this is a chasm that needs to be understood before it widens.

2 minutes ago, Shinjo Sousuke said:

Ide Trader cannot trigger it's reaction if it is not currently participating in the conflict even if it is the card that moves.

But Ide Trader is participating in the conflict to which it moves.

1 minute ago, Manchu said:

I am struggling to understand why this is not clear.

And I'm struggling to understand how you can reach that conclusion. Clearly, there is no value to continuing in that vein.

2 minutes ago, Shinjo Sousuke said:

Okay. I think I completely understand where you're coming from!

I agree. As it is worded Ide Trader cannot trigger it's reaction if it is not currently participating in the conflict even if it is the card that moves.

I think the divide in opinions is due to how Nate French has responded. This response would indicate that the card was intended to be able to trigger it's reaction as if it had been worded like the example you gave above. However this isn't the case and not how the card is currently worded.

Because of this Ide Trader could not trigger his reaction in response to it's own movement even if that was the original intent behind it's design.

Can we simply chalk this up to a need for an errata to the cards text if this is in fact the original intent?

Again, this is why I posed this question as a part of the original post in the first place.

!!!Bingo!!!

You win a cookie.... ?

As soon as I get home, I'm gonna answer the posed questions from Joelist.

Just now, InquisitorM said:

Clearly, there is no value to continuing in that vein.

I have been waiting for your reply to this simple point:

(conflict to which Ide Trader moves) = (a conflict where Ide Trader is participating)

This is not only relevant but crucial because the reaction is to a character moving to a conflict where Ide Trader is participating. They work out to the same thing when the moving character is the Ide Trader.

You seem to be erroneously reading into the text that the Ide Trader must already be present at the conflict when a character moves to that conflict. But there is no such requirement.

20 minutes 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) yes, once

(b) yes, once

(c) yes, once

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

7 minutes ago, Manchu said:

But Ide Trader is participating in the conflict to which it moves.

Correct. But it did not move to a conflict in which it is participating. Both of these things are simultaneously true, but only one of them is relevant to the trigger.

11 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

Well, that's what I want to know. If the ruling is not based on the wording, then no harm no foul – we just need to know that. Errata and 'clarifications' to make a card work as intended are nothing new and perfectly fine. The problem is that if a ruling and the text aren't aligned, then it throws all subsequent interpretations of similar cards into flux. I genuinely believe this is a chasm that needs to be understood before it widens.

Realistically I think that's what this all boils down to. If this was in fact the original intent behind the design of the card then we simply need an errata instead of some Unicorn starting a thread which results in a 5 page argument. ha ha

I think this ultimately was a case of improper wording of the card for the intended effect.

11 minutes ago, Manchu said:

But Ide Trader is participating in the conflict to which it moves.

You are 100% correct as resolution kg movement and participation occur simultaneously. I just believe the card has not been worded in a way to be able to trigger in all cases where it may have been intended to (such as a movement which moves the Trader himself into the conflict).

10 minutes ago, LordBlunt said:

!!!Bingo!!!

You win a cookie.... ?

As soon as I get home, I'm gonna answer the posed questions from Joelist.

Seriously, I'm weak for cookies... I'm glad we could come so a conclusion about this and hopefully you don't want to quit the game?

2 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

Correct. But it did not move to a conflict in which it is participating. Both of these things are simultaneously true, but only one of them is relevant to the trigger.

The triggering condition is just that a character moved to the conflict. The Ide Trader participating is a play restriction.

Both of these are before the comma. It is Type: trigger / restriction (comma) cost / targeting (dash) effect