So I played my first game against a Crane player last weekend and finally got to see Duelist Training in action. It was a very interesting turn but in the resolution my opponent had bid 5 to my 1 and was at 4 honor with 4 cards. Obviously he couldn't pay the honor or he would lose but instead he paid 2 honor and dropped 2 cards. Seemed fairly logical to me but now that I'm thinking of adding the card to my own deck I noticed the wording says nothing about being able to split the payment. So is there a ruling somewhere or do you have to either pay all honor or discard enough cards to make the difference?

No, you can't split it. It is either one choice or the other, but not both. Thanks @mplain .

12 minutes ago, Klawtu said:

So I played my first game against a Crane player last weekend and finally got to see Duelist Training in action. It was a very interesting turn but in the resolution my opponent had bid 5 to my 1 and was at 4 honor with 4 cards. Obviously he couldn't pay the honor or he would lose but instead he paid 2 honor and dropped 2 cards. Seemed fairly logical to me but now that I'm thinking of adding the card to my own deck I noticed the wording says nothing about being able to split the payment. So is there a ruling somewhere or do you have to either pay all honor or discard enough cards to make the difference?

They would give up 4 honor and lose immediately.

Just now, caseycheesecake said:

They would give up 4 honor and lose immediately.

Well they did have 4 cards in hand so they could have just pitched those but yeah the point does stand that they couldn't split the payment. This actually works well for me as I don't plan on using it to pick off smaller characters but to threaten bigger ones and play some mind games. Sure I could only have bid 1 but what if I bid 5 with my huge hand of cards, maybe some of them are dead to me. Or maybe making you pitch 2-3 cards or lose 2-3 honor helps me more. Guess we'll have to find out.

On 10/12/2017 at 3:27 PM, caseycheesecake said:

They would give up 4 honor and lose immediately.

The Duelist Training attachment states, "Instead of giving honor for this duel's bid, a player may choose and discard the required number of cards from hand."

Back to the previous question, Rules Reference: "Replacement Effects" states this:

I'm fairly confident this applies due to the prominent use of "instead" so the card discard option would fully replace paying honor. Interestingly enough, it really just implies the number of cards to be discarded is the same as the amount of honor that would be paid, rather than explicitly state this. Also to consider is that this is part of the effect of the card, and effects only have to be carried out as much as possible. So in the OP's example, I'm pretty sure if the player initiating the duel only had 3, 2, or even 1 card in hand, they would simply discard their hand, despite not actually having enough cards to pay the full cost.

8 minutes ago, Zesu Shadaban said:

I'm fairly confident this applies due to the prominent use of "instead" so the card discard option would fully replace paying honor. Interestingly enough, it really just implies the number of cards to be discarded is the same as the amount of honor that would be paid, rather than explicitly state this. Also to consider is that this is part of the effect of the card, and effects only have to be carried out as much as possible. So in the OP's example, I'm pretty sure if the player initiating the duel only had 3, 2, or even 1 card in hand, they would simply discard their hand, despite not actually having enough cards to pay the full cost.

Correct, you would discard as many as you are able. This would also not trigger a re-shuffle until they attempted to draw at a later point, which would then make them lose 5 honor.

https://fiveringsdb.com/cards/search?q=duelist

Quote

You can only choose and discard cards if you actually have enough cards.

You need to have enough to discard.

11 minutes ago, Mirith said:

https://fiveringsdb.com/cards/search?q=duelist

You need to have enough to discard.

Discarding the cards or getting rid of fate honor is not a cost, but a consequence of the ability. My opinion is that it would fall under the "as much as you are able" rule. I don't see a reference in Five Rings, so it looks like that may have been someone else's opinion.

7 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

Discarding the cards or getting rid of fate is not a cost, but a consequence of the ability. My opinion is that it would fall under the "as much as you are able" rule. I don't see a reference in Five Rings, so it looks like that may have been someone else's opinion.

Though that would go against the general philosophy of the game, where you can't choose an option that you can't "pay". If you can't pay with 4 cards, you need to choose the other option.

7 minutes ago, Mirith said:

Though that would go against the general philosophy of the game, where you can't choose an option that you can't "pay". If you can't pay with 4 cards, you need to choose the other option.

If you can't pay with 4 honor you need to go with the cards? I don't think so.

The philosophy of the game is you have to pay for the costs. Any costs are listed on the card. This is not a cost IMO but a consequence of the ability.

The philosophy of effects is to carry out as much as you are able. An example from Eric Dahlman is that if a card says "look at the top 5 cards of your deck", he said if you only have 4 cards you would do "as much as you are able". This is in the RR as well.

Edit:

Quote

Attached character gains: " Action: While this character is participating in a conflict, choose a participating character controlled by your opponent – challenge that character to a duel. Instead of giving honor for this duel's bid, a player may choose and discard the required number of cards from hand. Bow the loser of the duel."

This is clearly after the dash and would be considered part of the effect, which the "as much as you are able" would kick in.

Another edit: We've already established that as part of an effect, you don't need to make choices to maximize the change to game state, only that the change occurs. See Shameful Display, you can make choices resulting in some of the effect failing.

@ Zesu Shadaban I do not believe the entry for Replacement Effects applies to things like Duelist Training. The way this entry is worded, I think it pnly applies to interrupts. The "instead" in Duelist Training is more like the "instead" in the Dragon Stronghold. I think it's actually more clear if you read it as is without trying to apply the entry for Replacement Effects, At the very least I think the devs didn't word these cards with that entry in mind.

@mplain Can we get this changed on fiveringsdb? Or do you have other information on why there's a quote that you need the cards?

I don't think it will be changed on FiveRingsDB since:

http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/37082-duelist-training/

19 minutes ago, mplain said:

@ Zesu Shadaban I do not believe the entry for Replacement Effects applies to things like Duelist Training. The way this entry is worded, I think it pnly applies to interrupts. The "instead" in Duelist Training is more like the "instead" in the Dragon Stronghold. I think it's actually more clear if you read it as is without trying to apply the entry for Replacement Effects, At the very least I think the devs didn't word these cards with that entry in mind.

To me, it reads as an interrupt to step D.5 of the duel timing window, interrupting the normal step of paying honor with discarding cards instead. I suppose the argument could be made then that since this is part of a bid rather than a duel, the usual effects rules don't apply. I would feel much better on this with with an official ruling because tbh duels are weird to begin with.

4 minutes ago, KerenRhys said:

I don't think it will be changed on FiveRingsDB since:

http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/37082-duelist-training/

This was Mplain's interpretation, which I don't think is valid based on the rules. I can send an request for clarification out.

@ Zesu Shadaban If it doesn't say " Interrupt: ", it doesn't interrupt.

@ LuceLineGames Change what to what? You think you can mix discarding cards with paying honor? Well if you get a ruling for that i'll change it, sure. Such a ruling seems unlikely to me though.

2 minutes ago, mplain said:

@ LuceLineGames Change what to what?

LuceLineGames is arguing that you can use the "discard cards instead of paying honor" part of Duelist Training even if you don't have enough cards in hand to pay the full cost.

Just now, mplain said:

@ Zesu Shadaban If it doesn't say " Interrupt: ", it doesn't interrupt.

@ LuceLineGames Change what to what?

Fair enough, but at the same time the RR even says replacement effects are only usually interrupts, not always. So not being an interrupt doesn't by default mean it can't be a replacement effect. In any case, some clarification on why standard effect resolution rules don't apply would be appreciated.

Just now, KerenRhys said:

LuceLineGames is arguing that you can use the "discard cards instead of paying honor" part of Duelist training even if you don't have enough cards in hand to pay the full cost.

I highly doubt that. I suggest that the person going against the consensus should take the trouble to email to the devs. If they rule that way, sure I'll change the entry right away.

1 minute ago, mplain said:

I highly doubt that. I suggest that the person going against the consensus should take the trouble to email to the devs. If they rule that way, sure I'll change the entry right away.

I did send an email out, so I'll share as soon as I'm able.

I can see an argument that paying for a duel is 'special' and could be treated differently. Though, there definitely isn't a consensus that you need to complete everything after a dash, in fact the rules say otherwise.

3 minutes ago, mplain said:

I highly doubt that. I suggest that the person going against the consensus should take the trouble to email to the devs. If they rule that way, sure I'll change the entry right away.

Is there a previous discussion on this I can look up? I'm not trying to be rude, just trying to understand where this consensus was derived and the previous links seem to lead back to one person answering another person's question... nothing to support why that answer is definitively correct or what group discussion led to that conclusion.

Me, Myself, and I are all in agreement. Consensus reached!

That helps, glad Nate was able to give such a quick response. Thanks for submitting the question, @LuceLineGames .

The rules reference can also be read as:

"If there are no not enough valid targets at the time targets would be chosen, that aspect of the effect fails to resolve."