Quote

Reaction: After this province is revealed – your opponent chooses and discards cards from his or her hand until that player has 4 or fewer cards in hand.

Sorry if it is a dumb question, but there was some argument in my community about the usefulness of this Province. What if, at the time of revelation, my oponent have 4 cards (or less) in hand?

My understanding is that the opponent will not discard, since s/he is already at "4 or fewer cards in hand". Some players here defend that there must be a "minimum discard of 1" - the player chooses the cards to discard, discard them and only then check if his/her hand is under the "4 or fewer" statement.

There is no minimum discard. So, if your opponent already has 4 or fewer cards in hand, you can't trigger the reaction, because it wouldn't change the game state.

2 minutes ago, Khudzlin said:

There is no minimum discard. So, if your opponent already has 4 or fewer cards in hand, you can't trigger the reaction, because it wouldn't change the game state.

I t was my first thought. The card would have a "to a minimum of 1" clause on it to work like my friends are arguing

2 hours ago, Khudzlin said:

There is no minimum discard. So, if your opponent already has 4 or fewer cards in hand, you can't trigger the reaction, because it wouldn't change the game state.

You can 'initiate' the reaction, however when carrying out the effect it would fizzle. This is due to the 'choose' located after the dash. Targeting located after the dash are not limited by the typical targeting/game state change requirements that are located prior to the dash for the ability to 'initiate'. When there is targeting located after the dash, and there are not enough targets, the effect then fails.

Quote

• The resolution of some effects (such as post-then effects, or delayed effects) requires that targets are chosen after the initiation of the effect. Such targets need not be verified when checking play restrictions and determining whether or not the entire ability may initiate. If there are no valid targets at the time such targets would be chosen, that aspect of the effect fails to resolve.

This would be an example where you can initiate an ability that has no effect on the game state, because targets located after the dash "need not be verified when checking play restrictions and determining whether or not the entire ability may initiate".

Thinking through this - because the effect allows for four or fewer, would the opponent be forced to discard to below 4 if they only had 4 cards, as there are eligible targets?

2 hours ago, LuceLineGames said:

You can 'initiate' the reaction, however when carrying out the effect it would fizzle. This is due to the 'choose' located after the dash. Targeting located after the dash are not limited by the typical targeting/game state change requirements that are located prior to the dash for the ability to 'initiate'. When there is targeting located after the dash, and there are not enough targets, the effect then fails.

No, you can't.

Quote

• 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.

34 minutes ago, GoblinGuide said:

No, you can't.

• 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.

You're probably right. Do you think the below reference is for if there is at least one other change in game state, a post dash 'choose' doesn't matter if there aren't enough targets?

Quote

Such targets need not be verified when checking play restrictions and determining whether or not the entire ability may initiate.

Also, what do you think about forcing an opponent to discard a card if they have 4 or less cards? To me it seems like the wording of the card makes it open to having eligible targets, and forcing an opponent to make a change in game state. The card would just not work if there were zero cards in the opponent's hand.

That section is more for delayed or post-then effects. Imagine an ability that said "Put an attachment into its controller's hand. Then its controller chooses and discards a card". Without that rule if the controller of the attachment you're returning had no hand you wouldn't be able to play that ability.

I'm pretty sure that Restoration of Balance doesn't force any discards if your opponent has 4 or fewer cards in hand, but I guess it's possible. In my mind "Do X until condition Y is true" means that if Y is already true you never do X.

I think the 4 or fewer bit instead of 4 being a hard minimum is to allow for your opponent to discard below that point if they want to for whatever reason. Right now there isn't much obvious benefit to it, but eventually there might be something that comes out that has some benefit to being in the discard over the hand, or there might be something that gains a bonus for all of a certain set of cards being in the discard (like possibly a Lion ancestor summoner thing that gains bonuses for every conflict character in the discard pile, or something).

If restoration says discard down to four or fewer, then that should make it a legal activation too (for whatever reason), right? Since it has potential to change the game state if the opponent has 1-4 cards in their hand. Who knows, they might choose to pitch something.

I actually don't think your opponent has the choice to keep discarding, I think they have to stop at 4. The or fewer bit is so that the game doesn't break if your opponent hits it when at 3 cards or fewer already.

I disagree Goblin, it clearly says 4 or fewer...they can go as low as they want to, but have to get down to at the most 4 cards...at the least it could be 0.

Not sure why they would but perhaps there would be an unforeseen benefit to going lower.

I know what Restoration of Balance says, I'm saying that "until that player has 4 or fewer cards in hand." isn't a choice, its a condition on when they stop discarding. Once they reach 4 cards in hand that condition is now true and they don't continue.

Dragon splash Unicorn for talisman

Attack into RoB, move them to Night Raid.......lols

13 hours ago, kraken78 said:

I disagree Goblin, it clearly says 4 or fewer...they can go as low as they want to, but have to get down to at the most 4 cards...at the least it could be 0.

Not sure why they would but perhaps there would be an unforeseen benefit to going lower.

You have six cards. You discard one. Do you have 4 or fewer? No, discard another. Do you have 4 or fewer? Yes, stop.

There is no opportunity to continue discarding, even if you wanted to.

I've got a question out through the FFG channel, I expect to hear back during the week.

56 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

Dragon splash Unicorn for talisman

Attack into RoB, move them to Night Raid.......lols

That isn't possible, RoB and Night Raid are both fire provinces, so we would need seeker of fire to run both, and the talisman is the uni keeper only card, so if we had seeker of fire we couldn't splash in the talisman.

27 minutes ago, psychie said:

That isn't possible, RoB and Night Raid are both fire provinces, so we would need seeker of fire to run both, and the talisman is the uni keeper only card, so if we had seeker of fire we couldn't splash in the talisman.

Good catch!

11 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

You have six cards. You discard one. Do you have 4 or fewer? No, discard another. Do you have 4 or fewer? Yes, stop.

There is no opportunity to continue discarding, even if you wanted to.

You are assuming that discarding cards as an action means discarding them all one at a time. No where is this a rule.

You have six cards, and you are told to discard to 4 or fewer. You discard 6 cards...and you have satisfied. No where does it say do one card at a time till it is satisfied.

I still disagree with both of you until you can show where it says I must discard one at a time, all the while checking for satisfaction of the consequence.

Unfortunately, there is no rule in the RR regarding discarding. And although I can't assume a direct correlation the rules for drawing cards are as follows:

As per RR "Drawing Cards"

- When a player draws 2 or more cards as the result of a single ability or game step, those cards are drawn simultaneously.

2 hours ago, kraken78 said:

You are assuming that discarding cards as an action means discarding them all one at a time. No where is this a rule.

It's literally written on the card: "discard cards until [...]"

That's one at a time until the requirement is satisfied. No RR rules are required because you just follow the card effect.

So this card's strength is solely dependent on the meta in which you play.

I don't know if anyone here has been following the Discord League Tournament ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHEuHeLZYiU&list=PLLEmbVqFpigzbTfPYg0_H8KiarJDqMV2- ), but the players in that tournament have created a meta that has revolved around "We'll both bid 4-5 on turn 1 and see where things go. Probably will bid 3 to 5 turn 2 as well."

That leads to a lot of games where you have an opponent with 10 cards in hand vs an opponent with 8 cards in hand.

In that environment, this province is outstanding.

In an environment where people actually worry about their honor total, and bid 1 to 3 on your typical turn, the province loses its value to an extent.

16 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

It's literally written on the card: "discard cards until [...]"

"Until" doesn't mean "one at a time". "Until" is a condition and has nothing to do with the process - "one at a time"

If a card says draw cards until you have the same number of cards in hand as your opponent. You would draw them simultaneously as per the RR, why would you discard differently?

The "or fewer" clearly shows that you can go below four...otherwise why would it be there.

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation InquisitorM

I would love to get others interpretation of the rule, as I know where InquisitorM stands.

Developer clarification on targeting during the effect:

Quote

Nate French: Normally, with targets, you have to verify during step one of the entire process.

However, targets that are chosen as part of the effect are an exception to this rule — in other words, you “choose” after the dash in the ability text — don’t prevent you from triggering the ability.

Instead, if you don’t have enough targets while resolving the effect, that aspect of the effect simply fails to resolve.

LuceLineGames: Applying this to 'Restoration of Balance', where the "choose" is located after the dash, can this ability be initiated if the opponent had zero cards in hand? Specifically regarding the rule to check for a potential change to game state for triggered effects?

Nate French: In your example, triggering this ability is not prevented by the targeting rules, but rather by the rules that an ability can only be initiated if the resolution of its effect has the potential to change the game state.

Under Triggered Ability:

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.

Nate French 10/16/17

What I take from this: As long as a triggered ability has a change to game state, you don't need to worry about not having enough targets when "choose" is located after the dash. But if there is no other change to game state, the ability could not be triggered.

Developer clarification on Restoration of Balance if opponent has 4 or fewer cards:

Quote

LuceLineGames: If an opponent had 1-4 cards in hand, would Restoration of Balance be allowed to resolve? Specifically regarding the wording "or fewer" seems to open the opportunity for legal targets to be chosen at those amounts, forcing the opponent to make a choice.

Nate French: If an opponent already has 4 (or fewer) cards in hand, the effect of Restoration of Balance has no potential to change the game state, and therefore cannot be triggered.

@mplain Would you consider this for an addition to FiveRingsDB? I think this second quote covers both rulings (4-0 cards).

@LuceLineGames

My discrepancy with the card is whether all discards are done simultaneously, as per "Drawing Cards" RR or discarded one at a time, as per InquisitorM interpretation.

6 hours ago, kraken78 said:

If a card says draw cards until you have the same number of cards in hand as your opponent. You would draw them simultaneously as per the RR, why would you discard differently?

No, you would not because the RR doesn't cover that eventuality. The RR says that when you draw X, you do so simultaneously. If you 'drew cards until you had the same number of cards as your opponent' then you would not be performing a draw X and thus the rule would not apply.

Do X until Y must be a process by virtue of the way it is written.

10 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

No, you would not because the RR doesn't cover that eventuality. The RR says that when you draw X, you do so simultaneously. If you 'drew cards until you had the same number of cards as your opponent' then you would not be performing a draw X and thus the rule would not apply.

Do X until Y must be a process by virtue of the way it is written.

Actually, that's not what the rules reference says. It states:

Quote

When a player draws 2 or more cards as the result of a single ability or game step, those cards are drawn simultaneously.

There is no mention of any "Draw X" limitation to this. Similarly, all the steps of declaring a conflict are considered performed simultaneously: selecting conflict type and ring, choosing a province to attack, declaring attackers, revealing the province. That is certainly a more involved process than drawing or discarding cards as a result of a single ability effect. It makes no sense to me that card draws of multiple cards would be considered simultaneous, the various steps of declaring a conflict are simultaneous, but discarding multiple cards to resolve a single effect from an ability would NOT be considered simultaneous.