Apologies for any clickbaitiness in the title.

I have just spent the last 30 minutes looking through the rulebook for the answer and can find nothing so I am naturally turning to you wise elders.

I have looked through the Rules Reference in both the Glossary and Framework Steps and can find no prohibition on attacking my opponent’s stronghold province. You would think this would be an important stipulation they may wish to explain.

In the Learn to Play guide it says:

“During the game, players declare attacks against one another’s provinces, and successful attacks can result in a province breaking.

If three of a player’s four non-stronghold provinces are broken, attacks may be declared against that player’s stronghold province. As soon as a player’s stronghold province is broken, that player loses the game.”

Stronghold Provinces and Non-stronghold Provinces have no entry in the RR and the Province entry doesn’t help either.

But I will take it that I can’t DECLARE an attack against the Stronghold province (still undefined) until three non-stronghold provinces (also still undefined in the RR) have been broken.

So now we have Chasing the Sun (Unicorn Event) that allows me to change the province I am attacking to another eligible one. It doesn’t say cancel and re-declare the conflict. It’s says move. Naturally eligible is not defined anywhere either.

It’s all a bit woolly, and I for one would welcome some red text in the next RR that makes this clearer than clear.

Lest one assume that this has become the world’s most eligible splash card and games have got a lot shorter.

I think the key phrase there is "another eligible one". The Stronghold Province is not eligible for attack until at least others are broken, therefore it cannot be targeted.

NVM

21 minutes ago, Shiryo no Otaku said:

Apologies for any clickbaitiness in the title.

I have just spent the last 30 minutes looking through the rulebook for the answer and can find nothing so I am naturally turning to you wise elders.

I have looked through the Rules Reference in both the Glossary and Framework Steps and can find no prohibition on attacking my opponent’s stronghold province. You would think this would be an important stipulation they may wish to explain.

In the Learn to Play guide it says:

“During the game, players declare attacks against one another’s provinces, and successful attacks can result in a province breaking.

If three of a player’s four non-stronghold provinces are broken, attacks may be declared against that player’s stronghold province. As soon as a player’s stronghold province is broken, that player loses the game.”

Stronghold Provinces and Non-stronghold Provinces have no entry in the RR and the Province entry doesn’t help either.

But I will take it that I can’t DECLARE an attack against the Stronghold province (still undefined) until three non-stronghold provinces (also still undefined in the RR) have been broken.

So now we have Chasing the Sun (Unicorn Event) that allows me to change the province I am attacking to another eligible one. It doesn’t say cancel and re-declare the conflict. It’s says move. Naturally eligible is not defined anywhere either.

It’s all a bit woolly, and I for one would welcome some red text in the next RR that makes this clearer than clear.

Lest one assume that this has become the world’s most eligible splash card and games have got a lot shorter.

I think you're just being a little pedantic. If you asked 1,000 random players to point at the "Stronghold province", they'd point at the province under the Stronghold. There doesn't seem to be much ambiguity here. I don't think we need an errata or FAQ on this.

27 minutes ago, Shiryo no Otaku said:

It’s all a bit woolly, and I for one would welcome some red text in the next RR that makes this clearer than clear.

this:

3 minutes ago, KrisWall said:

I think you're just being a little pedantic.

If you're going to be pedantic, it feels like bad form to have a user name with the incorrect syntax from the start of Old5R, too

I feel like pedantic could be a positive thing if used differently in a sentence.

I'm excited to feel pedantic today!

Would you like some pedantic on your ice cream?

12 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

I feel like pedantic could be a positive thing if used differently in a sentence.

I'm excited to feel pedantic today!

Would you like some pedantic on your ice cream?

What does pedantic on ice cream taste like?

50 minutes ago, Shiryo no Otaku said:

But I will take it that I can’t DECLARE an attack against the Stronghold province (still undefined) until three non-stronghold provinces (also still undefined in the RR) have been broken.

So now we have Chasing the Sun (Unicorn Event) that allows me to change the province I am attacking to another eligible one. It doesn’t say cancel and re-declare the conflict. It’s says move. Naturally eligible is not defined anywhere either.

There's only one stronghold. It sits on top of a province. What's the problem?

Furthermore, if the rules state you can't declare an attack on X before Y happens, then by implication X is ineligible to be attacked until Y happens.

57 minutes ago, Shiryo no Otaku said:

" If three of a player’s four non-stronghold provinces are broken, attacks may be declared against that player’s stronghold province. As soon as a player’s stronghold province is broken, that player loses the game.”

.....

But I will take it that I can’t DECLARE an attack against the Stronghold province (still undefined) until three non-stronghold provinces (also still undefined in the RR) have been broken.

So now we have Chasing the Sun (Unicorn Event) that allows me to change the province I am attacking to another eligible one. It doesn’t say cancel and re-declare the conflict. It’s says move. Naturally eligible is not defined anywhere either.

I'm confident the intent is that three non-Stronghold provinces must be broken before one can attack the Stronghold province in any manner. But this is actually interesting, and assuming it is the only reference to Stronghold province conflict restrictions in the game (I have not verified OPs claim), it probably could use some clarification.

I find it interesting because Talisman of the Sun has the same effect on defense. Most have assumed that if Endless Plains is the new province the conflict is moved to, that its ability cannot trigger since the attack was not declared on Endless Plains itself - it was declared elsewhere and then moved to Endless Plains. Assuming this is the correct interpretation, then moving the conflict to the Stronghold province would be 'valid' with Chasing the Sun, provided that the only restriction on attacking the Stronghold is that an attack cannot be 'declared' until three non-stronghold provinces are broken, as cited by OP. This would require a slight alteration of the RRG.

Alternatively, it opens up the possibility that these moves, both Chasing and the Talisman, do count as declared conflicts, which would then allow Endless Plains to trigger off of said movement. I'm personally hoping this is the case.

7 minutes ago, selderane said:

There's only one stronghold. It sits on top of a province. What's the problem?

Furthermore, if the rules state you can't declare an attack on X before Y happens, then by implication X is ineligible to be attacked until Y happens.

I think the second part is more what OP is contesting. As somewhat of a parallel, Aggressive Moto cannot be declared as a defender, but it can be moved in to defend a conflict. Similarly, Hiruma Yojimbo cannot be declared as an attacker, but she can be put into an attacking conflict via Charge!.

Again, I think intent is clear. I'm certain this will not allow players to attack strongholds before 3 non-stronghold provinces are broken. But given that FFG clearly makes distinctions between words such as declare, move, etc., it probably wouldn't hurt to add a line for clarity.

Sorry I clicked on this topic.

1 hour ago, Shiryo no Otaku said:

So now we have Chasing the Sun (Unicorn Event) that allows me to change the province I am attacking to another eligible one. It doesn’t say cancel and re-declare the conflict. It’s says move. Naturally eligible is not defined anywhere either.

Tell me if i'm wrong but i think the other eligible province that you select has to be legal and respect the "break three non-stronghold before stronghold" rule. This means that you would be forced to select another non-stronghold province if you still haven't broke three of it.

Not sure, never played with Unicorn yet.

1 hour ago, DavidFairbanks said:

If you're going to be pedantic, it feels like bad form to have a user name with the incorrect syntax from the start of Old5R, too

Aww, personal attacks.

Now I feel like a real community member. Cheers dude.

Let’s have a big hug!

My username is older than these forums and saw no reason to change it when the game changed publishers.

And coincidentally the card it refers to has a similar effect to the one I posted about. Spooky eh?

1 hour ago, the eigensheep said:

I think the second part is more what OP is contesting. As somewhat of a parallel, Aggressive Moto cannot be declared as a defender, but it can be moved in to defend a conflict. Similarly, Hiruma Yojimbo cannot be declared as an attacker, but she can be put into an attacking conflict via Charge!.

Again, I think intent is clear. I'm certain this will not allow players to attack strongholds before 3 non-stronghold provinces are broken. But given that FFG clearly makes distinctions between words such as declare, move, etc., it probably wouldn't hurt to add a line for clarity.

Exactly.

My point was I am not DECLARING an attack but moving a ring. It is just like cannot be declared as a defender and then being moved to into conflict as a defender.

“If three of a player’s four non-stronghold provinces are broken, attacks may be declared against that player’s stronghold province.”

It doesn’t say you can’t change the location of the conflict to the stronghold province merely you cannot declare one there. And it doesn’t say that very well.

I just found the lack of clarity surprising for such a fundamental tenet and was wondering if I missed it.

Happy internetting.

1 hour ago, DavidFairbanks said:

If you're going to be pedantic, it feels like bad form to have a user name with the incorrect syntax from the start of Old5R, too

Pedantic, never heard or even read that word before. English is not my primary language but the french translation of this word is not even commonly used in french, except maybe for fancy literature or showing off.

Is it an insult or some form of mockery?

16 minutes ago, Shirys said:

Is it an insult or some form of mockery?

Bonjour Shirys

It’s probably both. But this is just the internet. DavidFairbanks doesn’t actually see me as a real person. I am just a screen name. He saw someone else be obnoxious to me and just decided to jump on the bandwagon. Maybe he is having a bad day. That’s why I offered him a hug. Do you think he could use a hug? I think he could use a hug.

Merci

15 minutes ago, Shirys said:

Pedantic, never heard or even read that word before. English is not my primary language but the french translation of this word is not even commonly used in french, except maybe for fancy literature or showing off.

Is it an insult or some form of mockery?

Well, the meaning is much the same in English as in French: going to much into details to show off your superior knowledge.

My bigger concern - had the Unicorns blood magic been banned, would they have a different card with the same effect?

15 minutes ago, Shu2jack said:

My bigger concern - had the Unicorns blood magic been banned, would they have a different card with the same effect?

Probably not. The first cycle had probably completed development by Gen Con already.

1 hour ago, Shirys said:

Pedantic, never heard or even read that word before. English is not my primary language but the french translation of this word is not even commonly used in french, except maybe for fancy literature or showing off.

Is it an insult or some form of mockery?

Depends on the situation. In this instance, it wasn't an insult... merely a statement of fact. I don't think these rules require the level of concern and minute scrutiny that the original poster was displaying. Sometimes, being pedantic is a good thing. Commonly, it's not.

Is using the word Pedantic also being pedantic with the English language?

2 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

Is using the word Pedantic also being pedantic with the English language?

No.

I know a tax preparer, she has what she likes to call the laugh rule. It's a very simple rule, she will be willing to make a change on a form only if after you explain the reason she feels that she would be able to argue the correctness of why you made that change to a member of the IRS on the phone for more than 5 minutes without laughing because of how silly it is. This wouldn't even make it 30 seconds before a Judge or TO so I'm not too worried.

1 hour ago, LuceLineGames said:

Is using the word Pedantic also being pedantic with the English language?

Only if your a pedant.

Chasing the Sun is not a printed card in the current environment so there is no issue.

Pedantic: overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching.

8 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

Only if your a pedant.

I find this offensive as my ancestors were pedants. I challenge you to a duel, bow the loser of the duel.