14 minutes ago, Khift said:

Shosuko:

I agree with you on the Forged Edict vs. Steward of Law, but I must continue to point out that with regards to the Shameful Display situation you are continuing to apply a rule that does not actually impact the situation. Specifically, Shameful Display does not have the word select in its ability text , and therefore rules about selecting choices do not apply to it. This is a very cogent point; select is a term that is well defined in the Rules Reference and Shameful Display categorically is not a selection by that definition. As a result, yes, both parts can actually fizzle if the controller of the ability so desires them to, because there does not exist a rule that says otherwise.

I didn't say anything about page 6 Effects point 5 Select. I said page 6 Effect point 2 - Once an ability is initiated, players must resolve as much of each aspect of its effect as they are able, unless the effect uses the word "may."

Shameful display has 2 aspects of the effect. You must honor one character, and dishonor another. If "becoming honored" is not a separate thing but is an augment of the same thing* then you cannot apply the effect to dishonor a dishonored character, or honor an honored character because that is not resolving the effect - that is fizzling the effect. Since you must resolve as much of the effect as possible, you would have to paint yourself into a corner to where it fizzles such as when you select an ordinary status and dishonored status character and target the ordinary for honored - the dishonor then fizzles. If you have an honored character, and a dishonored character, and an effect to honor one and dishonor the other, you aren't painted into a corner. You must actually resolve what you can, which would mean dishonoring the honored character and honoring the dishonored character.

* The Forged Edict situations makes this clear. If any part of a cost payment is prevented, once all costs that can be paid are paid, the process of initiating the ability or playing the card immediately end without further resolution. Steward of Law prevents Forged Edict from being played without an honored target because an ordinary status target then cannot become dishonored, and thus you cannot use dishonor on it. They are the same thing. The entire "becoming dishonored" isn't separate and distinct, but simply an augment of status tracking. You cannot dishonor a character who cannot become dishonored.

1 minute ago, shosuko said:

I didn't say anything about page 6 Effects point 5 Select. I said page 6 Effect point 2 - Once an ability is initiated, players must resolve as much of each aspect of its effect as they are able, unless the effect uses the word "may."

Shameful display has 2 aspects of the effect. You must honor one character, and dishonor another. If "becoming honored" is not a separate thing but is an augment of the same thing* then you cannot apply the effect to dishonor a dishonored character, or honor an honored character because that is not resolving the effect - that is fizzling the effect. Since you must resolve as much of the effect as possible, you would have to paint yourself into a corner to where it fizzles. If you have an honored character, and a dishonored character, and an effect to honor one and dishonor the other, you aren't painted into a corner. You must actually resolve what you can, which would mean dishonoring the honored character and honoring the dishonored character.

* The Forged Edict situations makes this clear. If any part of a cost payment is prevented, once all costs that can be paid are paid, the process of initiating the ability or playing the card immediately end without further resolution. Steward of Law prevents Forged Edict from being played without an honored target because an ordinary status target then cannot become dishonored, and thus you cannot use dishonor on it. They are the same thing. The entire "becoming dishonored" isn't separate and distinct, but simply an augment of status tracking.

I feel like I am becoming a broken record; this will be the third time in this thread that I have disproven this point.

We already know by Nate French's email ruling on this topic that that line does not work the way you claim it works. By Nate French's ruling, if you target an honored character and an ordinary character, you can choose to honor the honored character and dishonor the ordinary character. This is confirmed legal, and directly disproves your statement. If that line meant that you had to do all of the effects that are possible then by that line you would be forced to honor the ordinary character and dishonor the honored character, but the simple fact that you can make choices that cause parts of the effect to not occur proves without a shadow of a doubt that that is not what that line means. What that line actually means is that you can't choose not to resolve a portion of a card's text (e.g., you can't choose not to do a portion of an effect), not that you can't make choices which cause portions of an effect to not accomplish anything.

So no. The rules reference and designers do not back you up on this point. You are overinterpreting a line of text.

6 minutes ago, Khift said:

I feel like I am becoming a broken record; this will be the third time in this thread that I have disproven this point.

We already know by Nate French's email ruling on this topic that that line does not work the way you claim it works. By Nate French's ruling, if you target an honored character and an ordinary character, you can choose to honor the honored character and dishonor the ordinary character. This is confirmed legal, and directly disproves your statement. If that line meant that you had to do all of the effects that are possible then by that line you would be forced to honor the ordinary character and dishonor the honored character, but the simple fact that you can make choices that cause parts of the effect to not occur proves without a shadow of a doubt that that is not what that line means. What that line actually means is that you can't choose not to resolve a portion of a card's text (e.g., you can't choose not to do a portion of an effect), not that you can't make choices which cause portions of an effect to not accomplish anything.

So no. The rules reference and designers do not back you up on this point. You are overinterpreting a line of text.

Did nate specifically say you could Honor and Honored character AND Dishonor a Dishonored character? Because this is a very different situation than Honoring an Honored character and Dishonoring an Ordinary Status character.

The difference is that, in resolving the effect I Dishonor the Ordinary Status character, and then my Honoring part fizzles. I painted myself into a corner and the rest of the ability does not resolve.

I strongly doubt you would consider that honoring an honored character is a "resolved" ability - but if you would argue that it is, I would love to see that argument.

As for Nate's ruling - I haven't seen it myself, and ironically its not linked here... but I'm fairly certain it was the honored + ordinary status situation he ruled on, not the honored + dishonored situation.

This thread is hard to follow, rules are being butchered. If you are just tuning in, beware. Most everything here is not correct for multiple cards mentioned. If someone wants to add anything valuable, then specific Q and A through the form would be great. I don't think we're doing a good job of hearing each other out. I've made mistakes on other threads, but it was a good opportunity to learn something.

1 hour ago, shosuko said:

Did nate specifically say you could Honor and Honored character AND Dishonor a Dishonored character? Because this is a very different situation than Honoring an Honored character and Dishonoring an Ordinary Status character.

The difference is that, in resolving the effect I Dishonor the Ordinary Status character, and then my Honoring part fizzles. I painted myself into a corner and the rest of the ability does not resolve.

I strongly doubt you would consider that honoring an honored character is a "resolved" ability - but if you would argue that it is, I would love to see that argument.

As for Nate's ruling - I haven't seen it myself, and ironically its not linked here... but I'm fairly certain it was the honored + ordinary status situation he ruled on, not the honored + dishonored situation.

It does not matter that he did not rule on that case. The ruling he made directly disproves the interpretation you're putting forward and what you've backpedaled to now is not a position that has any merit. If you can make one choice that causes part of the ability to not change the board state then you can make two. If "Once an ability is initiated, players must resolve as much of each aspect of its effect as they are able, unless the effect uses the word "may."" means you can't make choices that cause parts of the ability to not affect the board state then you must dishonor the honored character and honor the ordinary character. But we already know that we can make this choice, so it is possible to make choices that cause parts of abilities to not affect the board state, and if it's possible to do it once then it is possible to do it twice. And "painting yourself into a corner" doesn't matter; either you do the two actions simultaneously (in which case you have to make choices that affect both, if possible) or you do it in the order listed on the card (in which case you decide who to honor first, and guess what you have to honor the ordinary character in that case). So again, your argument does not hold water.

So again, the situation is one of four options:

- You make both decisions simultaneously and you have to affect the board state as much as possible, so you have to honor the ordinary character and dishonor the honored character.
- You make the decisions in the order they are presented on the card, so first you choose who to honor, and since you have to affect the board state as much as possible you must honor the ordinary character, leaving the other (honored) character to be dishonored.
- You make both decisions simultaneously and it doesn't matter if you cause effects to not affect the board state, so you can choose to honor or dishonor whomever you want.
- You make the decisions in the order they are presented on the card and it doesn't matter if you cause the effects to not affect the board state, so you can choose to honor or dishonor whomever you want.

By the ruling we have, those first two cannot be true. Therefore the correct interpretation is one of the latter two.

Finally, no, resolve does not equal affect the board state. It is very possible for portions of effects to resolve without affecting the board state. See Court Mask, for example.

2 hours ago, Khift said:

Finally, no, resolve does not equal affect the board state. It is very possible for portions of effects to resolve without affecting the board state. See Court Mask, for example.

For Court Mask you would not consider that you had resolved Dishonoring the character if the character was already dishonored. That part would not have resolved. If there were a reaction to "when a character you control is dishonored..." you would not be able to play it if Court Mask did not dishonor the character, because it did not resolve.

When the rules say "players must resolve each aspect of its effect as able" then I would presume this means you must actually do something. Being that we have the simultaneous honor one character and dishonor the other, the player can apply these in either order but they must both be applied. By the rules you cannot honor an honored character, and you cannot dishonor a dishonored character, neither of these would count as resolving any aspect of the effect. I do not see room to say "I honor my honored character which fails to resolve, and then dishonor your dishonored character which also fails to resolve." I do see room to say "I dishonor your ordinary character, and then would honor my honored character except that he cannot be, so that part is not resolved."

Resolve means whatever the card says to do happens. I am not convinced the ruling is being properly interpreted. Unfortunately no one has quoted the ruling here, and the rules question form is not working.

33 minutes ago, shosuko said:

For Court Mask you would not consider that you had resolved Dishonoring the character if the character was already dishonored. That part would not have resolved. If there were a reaction to "when a character you control is dishonored..." you would not be able to play it if Court Mask did not dishonor the character, because it did not resolve.

When the rules say "players must resolve each aspect of its effect as able" then I would presume this means you must actually do something. Being that we have the simultaneous honor one character and dishonor the other, the player can apply these in either order but they must both be applied. By the rules you cannot honor an honored character, and you cannot dishonor a dishonored character, neither of these would count as resolving any aspect of the effect. I do not see room to say "I honor my honored character which fails to resolve, and then dishonor your dishonored character which also fails to resolve." I do see room to say "I dishonor your ordinary character, and then would honor my honored character except that he cannot be, so that part is not resolved."

Resolve means whatever the card says to do happens. I am not convinced the ruling is being properly interpreted. Unfortunately no one has quoted the ruling here, and the rules question form is not working.

Again, you're ignoring my entire counterpoint. I've heard this argument repeatedly and all you or others in this thread have done is restate it and never actually address a single point I've made.

In the situation of targeting an honored character and an ordinary character then you are able to do both effects. That's just a fact. You can do both effects, therefore you are able to do them. And so, if that rule means what you're claiming it means, then you have to honor the ordinary character and dishonor the honored character.

If you can't disprove that, then the rest of your argument has no merit. So let's start there. Why are you allowed to not do something that you are very clearly able to do if the rules say you have to do all the things that you are able to do?

49 minutes ago, Khift said:

Again, you're ignoring my entire counterpoint. I've heard this argument repeatedly and all you or others in this thread have done is restate it and never actually address a single point I've made.

In the situation of targeting an honored character and an ordinary character then you are able to do both effects. That's just a fact. You can do both effects, therefore you are able to do them. And so, if that rule means what you're claiming it means, then you have to honor the ordinary character and dishonor the honored character.

If you can't disprove that, then the rest of your argument has no merit. So let's start there. Why are you allowed to not do something that you are very clearly able to do if the rules say you have to do all the things that you are able to do?

Easy answer, it doesn't change the game state. If you are questioning the game state rule then I suggest an inquiry to development team. Otherwise this thread is going nowhere.

1 minute ago, LuceLineGames said:

Easy answer, it doesn't change the game state. If you are questioning the game state rule then I suggest an inquiry to development team. Otherwise this thread is going nowhere.

If you aren't even going to bother reading the question then why did you respond? Go read my post for the first time and then ask yourself if your answer is even relevant to the question being asked.

Hint: it isn't.

14 minutes ago, Khift said:

If you aren't even going to bother reading the question then why did you respond? Go read my post for the first time and then ask yourself if your answer is even relevant to the question being asked.

Hint: it isn't.

Let's put it this way - I haven't seen you say one thing right about how shameful display works. The four options above, all are wrong. Game state change rule also disproves all posts you have made. If you are interested in learning how the card works, try asking. If you have no interest in learning from others, ask developers. You're using a lot of effort dissecting rules with no end.

1 minute ago, LuceLineGames said:

Let's put it this way - I haven't seen you say one thing right about how shameful display works. The four options above, all are wrong. Game state change rule also disproves all posts you have made. If you are interested in learning how the card works, try asking. If you have no interest in learning from others, ask developers. You're using a lot of effort dissecting rules with no end.

I'm sorry that I've disproven every argument you've put forward and that you aren't able to bring up a single counterargument to your points but that doesn't justify ad hominem.

Yes you win, you tell those developers that they are wrong, congrats!

27 minutes ago, Khift said:

If you aren't even going to bother reading the question then why did you respond? Go read my post for the first time and then ask yourself if your answer is even relevant to the question being asked.

Hint: it isn't.

4 minutes ago, Khift said:

I'm sorry that I've disproven every argument you've put forward and that you aren't able to bring up a single counterargument to your points but that doesn't justify ad hominem.

1 minute ago, LuceLineGames said:

Yes you win, you tell those developers that they are wrong, congrats!

Lets not get heated, aight?

I think we're at a valid interpretation of the rules. Maybe you can provide the quote of Nate's response. If Nate's response answers specifically about honoring an honored character while also dishonoring a dishonored character being okay - then we're good...

Otherwise I think Effects, pg 6 bullet 2 - Once an ability is initiated, players must resolve as much of each aspect as they are able, unless the effect uses the word "may." - insists that you have to resolve something if possible. You have 2 aspects of the effect pending, an honor and a dishonor. You cannot honor an honored character, or dishonor a dishonored character - so at first you must resolve one of them as you can. If you do this, and the other is unable to be resolved that is fine - but you can't simply say the ability fails to resolve when an aspect of it can be applied to the game.

The issue here is that you are not resolving the ability by honoring an honored character, or dishonoring a dishonored character. Trying to do something you cannot do is not resolving it.

5 minutes ago, shosuko said:

Lets not get heated, aight?

I think we're at a valid interpretation of the rules. Unless you can provide the quote of Nate's response. If Nate's response answers specifically about honoring an honored character while also dishonoring a dishonored character being okay - then we're good...

Otherwise I think Effects, pg 6 bullet 2 - Once an ability is initiated, players must resolve as much of each aspect as they are able, unless the effect uses the word "may." - insists that you have to resolve something if possible. You have 2 aspects of the effect pending, an honor and a dishonor. You cannot honor an honored character, or dishonor a dishonored character - so at first you must resolve one of them as you can. If you do this, and the other is unable to be resolved that is fine - but you can't simply say the ability fails to resolve when an aspect of it can be applied to the game.

The issue here is that you are not resolving the ability by honoring an honored character, or dishonoring a dishonored character. Trying to do something you cannot do is not resolving it.

You still haven't answered or even attempted to answer my question.

If effects pg 6 bullet 2 means that you have to make choices such that as much of the ability can resolve as you are able then why are you allowed to choose to honor and honored character and dishonor an ordinary character? You are very, very clearly able to resolve both the honor and dishonor effects. You could choose to honor the ordinary character and dishonor the honored character, causing 100% of the effects to resolve. Why are you allowed to make a choice that causes 50% of the effects to resolve if you must make choices such that as much of the effects resolve as possible and you could choose to resolve 100% of the effect?

21 minutes ago, Khift said:

You still haven't answered or even attempted to answer my question.

If effects pg 6 bullet 2 means that you have to make choices such that as much of the ability can resolve as you are able then why are you allowed to choose to honor and honored character and dishonor an ordinary character? You are very, very clearly able to resolve both the honor and dishonor effects. You could choose to honor the ordinary character and dishonor the honored character, causing 100% of the effects to resolve. Why are you allowed to make a choice that causes 50% of the effects to resolve if you must make choices such that as much of the effects resolve as possible and you could choose to resolve 100% of the effect?

Just for clarity's sake (not taking a stance either way); is your proposed question something someone said was allowed? Was that what Mr. French ruled on?

Just now, Isawa Kioshi said:

Just for clarity's sake (not taking a stance either way); is your proposed question something someone said was allowed? Was that what Mr. French ruled on?

Yes. That scenario (targeting an honored character and an ordinary character, honoring the honored character and dishonoring the ordinary character) was one of several Shameful Display scenarios proposed to Nate French which Nate said was legal.

And maybe he's wrong. Devs are only people. But I take it to mean that the line being cited doesn't mean that you can't make choices which cause parts of cards to not affect the board state but rather that you can't just stop mid-sentence when resolving a card.

I will get the full transcript of the exact question and answer as soon as I see Gaffa online again. Right now all I have is his paraphrase of the response and for that I apologize. I wish I'd bugged him for the full text, but at the time didn't think it was relevant as he's a pretty trustworthy guy.

Just now, Khift said:

You still haven't answered or even attempted to answer my question.

If effects pg 6 bullet 2 means that you have to make choices such that as much of the ability can resolve as you are able then why are you allowed to choose to honor and honored character and dishonor an ordinary character? You are very, very clearly able to resolve both the honor and dishonor effects. You could choose to honor the ordinary character and dishonor the honored character, causing 100% of the effects to resolve. Why are you allowed to make a choice that causes 50% of the effects to resolve if you must make choices such that as much of the effects resolve as possible?

Because you have 2 aspects. You have 1 aspect to honor a character, and 1 aspect to dishonor a character. If you resolve the aspect to dishonor the character that is ordinary, then the aspect to honor the character that is honored fails to resolve.

I've said this several times. Until a developer response clears this up, I don't know if it matters to argue to you. I've used your responses to refine my position, and see the rules as I've interpreted them. I'm not married to how Shameful Display works either way, I'm just calling it as I see it.

Just now, shosuko said:

Because you have 2 aspects. You have 1 aspect to honor a character, and 1 aspect to dishonor a character. If you resolve the aspect to dishonor the character that is ordinary, then the aspect to honor the character that is honored fails to resolve.

I've said this several times. Until a developer response clears this up, I don't know if it matters to argue to you. I've used your responses to refine my position, and see the rules as I've interpreted them. I'm not married to how Shameful Display works either way, I'm just calling it as I see it.

Read the card, man. You honor first. So either both choices are done simultaneously (in which case you could choose to resolve 100% of the effect) or the choices are done in the order of the card (in which case you must first honor the ordinary character).

And I've said this too in this thread. Your point has already been countered. There is no argument that has been put forward here which I have not already accounted for. Don't get snappy about me not reading your posts when your posts make it clear you haven't read mine.

Shameful Display indeed. Only three pages of arguing...... Pffft

Toturi/Hotaru went thrice as long and numbed the minds of many more. Y'all need to step your game up

2 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

Shameful Display indeed. Only three pages of arguing...... Pffft

Toturi/Hotaru went thrice as long and numbed the minds of many more. Y'all need to step your game up

There's a reason the rules channel on the L5R Discord calls this card "Shameful Wording". It's a bloody mess, to be honest. It was significantly worse before we got official confirmation by contacting the devs, the card was basically completely unknown with a dozen different ways to interpret it.

@Gaffa - Do you have the quote from Nate about Shameful Display? Everywhere I search, I'm not finding it. Not card cardgamedb rules forum, or reddit.

4 hours ago, Khift said:

And maybe he's wrong. Devs are only people.

Ok, hold on. Let's just sort out what we're saying here. If indeed this is how the devs want it to work (which is frankly up in the air considering Nate's responses to other rules questions), then that is how Shameful Display will work. What we're arguing here is "Should there be a clarification of the rules to allow this to work as it was intended". Personally, I'm not sure that there should be, and the text on Page 6, bullet point 2, under "Effects" is frankly ambiguous when it comes to resolving Shameful Display. "Resolving as much of an effect as possible" does not necessarily mean "You must choose the effect that has the most effect on the board state". I'm not even sure what "most effect" would mean in this instance anyways.

The way I read it, Shameful Display has one stipulation; there must be two targets present. To be honest, since it's choosing two targets, I can't really see why you can't choose an honored character to honor and a dishonored character to dishonor; all the targeting "costs" have been met prior to that point. The RR seems fairly specific on this point, you have to choose targets that could be affected, but once you do, you're essentially home free. Bullet point 5 under "Effects" says that when multiple selections are available, one that must effect the board state must be chosen, but SD does not say "select", so it doesn't seem to apply here.

19 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

Don't just claim it: show me it in the rules. It's already been well discussed as doable.

I passed it with a judge at L5R Honored yesterday.

You can see I've only made 4 posts here, so "well discussed" means nothing to me. Your tone is unnecessary.

I hadn't read/didn't remember that one line from the digital rules reference for a game that's not even out yet about the un-intuitive "-" interpreting.

I get it now though.

10 hours ago, Casanunda said:

Ok, hold on. Let's just sort out what we're saying here. If indeed this is how the devs want it to work (which is frankly up in the air considering Nate's responses to other rules questions), then that is how Shameful Display will work. What we're arguing here is "Should there be a clarification of the rules to allow this to work as it was intended". Personally, I'm not sure that there should be, and the text on Page 6, bullet point 2, under "Effects" is frankly ambiguous when it comes to resolving Shameful Display. "Resolving as much of an effect as possible" does not necessarily mean "You must choose the effect that has the most effect on the board state". I'm not even sure what "most effect" would mean in this instance anyways.

The way I read it, Shameful Display has one stipulation; there must be two targets present. To be honest, since it's choosing two targets, I can't really see why you can't choose an honored character to honor and a dishonored character to dishonor; all the targeting "costs" have been met prior to that point. The RR seems fairly specific on this point, you have to choose targets that could be affected, but once you do, you're essentially home free. Bullet point 5 under "Effects" says that when multiple selections are available, one that must effect the board state must be chosen, but SD does not say "select", so it doesn't seem to apply here.

Though your logic is sound, there's actually a requirement to change the game state, as specifically discussed for Shameful Display by developers at Gen Con. I don't think an interpretation with the RR as it is now will accomplish much at this point.

2 hours ago, LuceLineGames said:

Though your logic is sound, there's actually a requirement to change the game state, as specifically discussed for Shameful Display by developers at Gen Con.

Not unless they write it into the rules, there isn't. I don't care which way it goes, but I will take the actual rules over conversation pieces every time.