6 hours ago, LuceLineGames said:

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

I haven't read this thread, would you please clarify what's under question there? Is it whether you can trigger Restoration when your opponent has no cards in hand (why would you do that?), or whether cards are discarded one by one or altogether (what difference does it make?), or whether you can willingly discard below having 4 cards in hand (why would you do that?). What is the relevance, the user case of all this?

11 hours ago, kraken78 said:

"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?

"Or fewer" would still be necessary because if you started with 3 cards and had to discard "until you have 4 cards in hand" you'd never be able to fulfil the condition (and it could be argued you'd have to keep discarding for all eternity).

That said, I can see both sides to the argument regarding whether you have to stop. It's not really clear if the discards are discrete or simultaneous, and it's not really clear what the designer intent might be either. If the intent was flexibility there are several ways they could have worded it unambiguously, but that's harder to do if the intent is a hard stop so 'until' does kind of imply process simply because it's not a different word instead. However, FFG do have a tendency to stick to particular wording templates even when different phrasing would be clearer for specific niche scenarios.

As for relevance, we've already seen that Crane card that penalises you for having lots of cards in hand so there could be perfectly sound game reasons (niche/edge plays, but still) for why you would want to discard cards from hand.

4 hours ago, mplain said:

I haven't read this thread, would you please clarify what's under question there? Is it whether you can trigger Restoration when your opponent has no cards in hand (why would you do that?), or whether cards are discarded one by one or altogether (what difference does it make?), or whether you can willingly discard below having 4 cards in hand (why would you do that?). What is the relevance, the user case of all this?

The issue is (I think) can you choose to discard down to fewer than four voluntarily? Relevance - none yet, but Crane card spoiler shows there is already one (and likely will be more) cards that penalise you for hand size so it's not inconceivable that someone would want to ditch cards in an edge case. There may also be reasons to seed your discard pile in future.

Also there was a debate over whether if you could voluntarily discard below 4 then there was a case that you could trigger it if the opponent had 4 or less cards and in order to change the game state they would be forced to discard at least one. This is the question I think lucaline asked, though I'll leave them to answer that. The answer still has bearing on the other issues though.

One at a time vs all together plays into the idea of whether you can voluntarily discard more than 4 if you start with say 7. If you discard them one at a time, then when you hit 4 you've fulfilled the top end of the until criteria (and one interpretation is you therefore must stop). If you discard all together you could just ditch all 7 at once. I'm not sure lucaline's Nate quote clears up that part of the argument actually since his example was when the 'until' criteria was already fulfiled before the process even begins.

Nate's rulings don't directly answer whether you can discard from 5+ down to 3- cards, do they?

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.

I'm looking at this ruling and i'm not sure what's safe to assume from it, and what would be too much extrapolation.

This does not say that you discard all cards simultaneously. This does not say that you cannot discard down to fewer than 4. This only states that the ability cannot be initiated if the opponent had 4- cards in hand. Very narrow.

4 hours ago, mplain said:

I haven't read this thread, would you please clarify what's under question there? Is it whether you can trigger Restoration when your opponent has no cards in hand (why would you do that?), or whether cards are discarded one by one or altogether (what difference does it make?), or whether you can willingly discard below having 4 cards in hand (why would you do that?). What is the relevance, the user case of all this?

What was under question was if you can initiate the card if the opponent has 4 cards in hand. Other cards work that if you initiate an ability and make an opponent 'choose', they are required to make a choice that results in a change of game state. With this card, the use of 'or fewer' made it read as though you could still initiate the ability if they had 1,2,3, or 4 card (eligible targets), and the opponent would be forced to discard at least one to make a change in game state, and ending up with '4 or fewer' cards.

The ruling clarified that if an opponent has 4 or fewer cards, they would not be required to discard anything more. This card could not be activated as there would be no change in game state.

Just now, LuceLineGames said:

Other cards work that if you initiate an ability and make an opponent 'choose', they are required to make a choice that results in a change of game state.

Cards like what?

You sure that you're not intermixing "choose" and "select"?

1 minute ago, mplain said:

You sure that you're not intermixing "choose" and "select"?

Both those words require decisions that change the game state.

3 minutes ago, mplain said:

Cards like what?

You sure that you're not intermixing "choose" and "select"?

See rules for targeting, a target is only an eligible target if it can change game state. Choose denotes targeting.

Court Games is a good example where an opponent must make a choice that results in a change in game state.

Quote

Effects

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."

Quote

Target

A card is not an eligible target for an ability if the resolution of that ability's effect could not affect the target at all.

These two RRG entries dictate that the opponent cannot choose an ineligible target, or fail to choose any targets (if there are any eligible target present). Neither entry says anything about the need to change of game state.

I guess their combined effect can be equated with the need to change the game state. I just got confused, thought that maybe you were misapplying the entry for Select.

30 minutes ago, mplain said:

These two RRG entries dictate that the opponent cannot choose an ineligible target, or fail to choose any targets (if there are any eligible target present). Neither entry says anything about the need to change of game state.

I guess their combined effect can be equated with the need to change the game state. I just got confused, thought that maybe you were misapplying the entry for Select.

Since it's not straight forward in RR, Nate French clarified the requirement to change game state (for triggered effects) in the Shameful Display ruling.

Well, I'm not using Shameful Display as a basis to make rulings for any other card interactions. Not until they update the RRG.

54 minutes ago, mplain said:

Well, I'm not using Shameful Display as a basis to make rulings for any other card interactions. Not until they update the RRG.

Not sure what led you to think that's what was asked if you here. The conversation went on a tangent, and you won't use that tangent to update Restoration of Balance? I was asking if you could add an update for Nate's ruling on the card itself. The ruling answers the original question that started this thread.

Speaking of the tangent, if you haven't figured out yet that you need to make a change in game state when carrying out the effect, that's likely to lead to more issues for your card interpretations.

So we still don't know if you can optionally discard down to below 4 if you started on 5 or above, correct? Might be worth also getting clarification on this as I suspect it might actually matter in the future.

24 minutes ago, GKZhukov said:

So we still don't know if you can optionally discard down to below 4 if you started on 5 or above, correct? Might be worth also getting clarification on this as I suspect it might actually matter in the future.

I don't see why you couldn't optionally discard to below 4. The inclusion of the words 'or fewer' seems to indicate as much. If the card were meant to stop at 4, it would have been much simpler to just state "your opponent chooses and discards cards from his or her hand until that player has 4 cards in hand", as you can't even initiate the ability if they have 4 or fewer cards in hand.

Did you guys ever determine why I cannot willingly discard down to fewer than three cards? Like, I have 5 cards, choose and discard 2 of them, end up with 3 left. Why is this illegal?

This is the part that interests me. The answer to this question would, I believe, cover the case of "can I trigger Restoration if the attacker only had 4 cards in hand", while not being so niche and specific, and while showing the underlying logic.

12 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

I don't see why you couldn't optionally discard to below 4. The inclusion of the words 'or fewer' seems to indicate as much. If the card were meant to stop at 4, it would have been much simpler to just state "your opponent chooses and discards cards from his or her hand until that player has 4 cards in hand", as you can't even initiate the ability if they have 4 or fewer cards in hand.

That or fewer is why you can't initiate it though. If it just said "discard until that player has 4 cards in hand" and they have 3 then they discard because they don't have 4 cards in hand. And they keep going until they either have 4 cards in hand or cannot discard anymore.

Just now, GoblinGuide said:

That or fewer is why you can't initiate it though. If it just said "discard until that player has 4 cards in hand" and they have 3 then they discard because they don't have 4 cards in hand. And they keep going until they either have 4 cards in hand or cannot discard anymore.

Giving someone 3 cards and telling them to discard until they have 4 cards is a great way to see if they are an android, as their head would explode. I see your point though.

18 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

I don't see why you couldn't optionally discard to below 4. The inclusion of the words 'or fewer' seems to indicate as much. If the card were meant to stop at 4, it would have been much simpler to just state "your opponent chooses and discards cards from his or her hand until that player has 4 cards in hand", as you can't even initiate the ability if they have 4 or fewer cards in hand.

The trouble is it can also be interpreted as being there for this reason:

6 minutes ago, GoblinGuide said:

That or fewer is why you can't initiate it though. If it just said "discard until that player has 4 cards in hand" and they have 3 then they discard because they don't have 4 cards in hand. And they keep going until they either have 4 cards in hand or cannot discard anymore.

Both are valid interpretations of the English language and the rules as we know them, and designer intent isn't really clear, so needs an official answer imho.

Edit: @lucaline - seems we posted simultaneously

non-problem thread...

the wording is not 'to 4 cards' to prevent anal rules lawyers claiming they can draw cards to make it 4 if they start with less and from some of the arguments on this thread you just know several people would do just that.

when you play with me feel free to randomly discard fate cards whenever you fancy. Until a card exists that allows you to get a fate card from discard cheaper or easier than playing from hand then who cares?

8 hours ago, Zesu Shadaban said:

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.

What you're missing is that it is not possible to get a simultaneous discard from the way the ability is worded. It's either sequential (physically discard cards until you have 4 or less) or the ability is incompatible with the rules. Anything else is to perform the ability in a way that is not written on the card. English grammar doesn't care what the rules meant – only what they say.

4 hours ago, Matrim said:

non-problem thread...

the wording is not 'to 4 cards' to prevent anal rules lawyers claiming they can draw cards to make it 4 if they start with less and from some of the arguments on this thread you just know several people would do just that.

when you play with me feel free to randomly discard fate cards whenever you fancy. Until a card exists that allows you to get a fate card from discard cheaper or easier than playing from hand then who cares?

I can't imagine anyone legitimately trying to argue that discard means draw, if the exact wording was "discard until you have 4 cards in hand," if you have 3 cards in hand there are two literal ways of interpreting that, one is that I don't discard any because I won't hit 4, the other is I discard my hand trying to hit 4, but run out of cards first. If presented with that wording any judge worth the title would rule it the former way because the latter would be ridiculous, too punishing, and obviously not what was intended (because if that nonsense is what was intended then it should have just said to discard your hand, as it is obviously supposed to leave you with cards still in hand if you have 3 cards in hand you don't discard). And for the record, as someone who could easily be considered a "rules layer," I don't appreciate you describing me as made of straw.

To put it in perspective, if I have a card that says "draw until you have 4 cards in hand" and I have 5 cards in hand, I don't discard a card, and I don't draw infinitely until I'm holding all my conflict cards not in play (and losing 10 honor while I'm at it), I just don't draw any cards.

Although frankly, whether it can trigger when there are already 4 or less cards in hand with the current wording shouldn't be what is being disputed (especially since we already got developer clarification on that point), because that interpretation is obvious cheese. What is really being debated here is whether or not if my opponent has 5 cards in hand when this triggers, can they deliberately discard to less than 4 because there is some benefit to them that is not currently released. This is potentially a very important distinction because there is not a rule allowing you to "randomly discard" cards, and there is ample design space for benefits to having a small handsize (like a character that is more powerful when you have an empty or a nearly empty hand) or benefits to having certain cards in the discard pile (like a lion spirit caller thing that gets you conflict characters from the discard pile on the cheap, or a powerful attachment that gives a bonus to skill value based on the number of weapons in the discard pile).

5 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

What you're missing is that it is not possible to get a simultaneous discard from the way the ability is worded. It's either sequential (physically discard cards until you have 4 or less) or the ability is incompatible with the rules. Anything else is to perform the ability in a way that is not written on the card. English grammar doesn't care what the rules meant – only what they say.

Why is it not possible? And how is it incompatible?

Just as it is possible and in the rules to draw as a simultaneous event - it is reasonable to think that discard would be the same. (Although completely conjecture, since it is not defined in the rulebook. Hence the issue)

Nothing about discarding as a simultaneous action would be game breaking and still satisfies the "4 or less" resultant condition on the card.

I agree doing it simultaneous is not written on the card, but neither is discarding one at a time. But I can't think of any situation where the "one at a time" situation is referenced.

Please, it has nothing to do with grammar. The rules reference even explains that cards discarded simultaneously are physically discarded one at a time in the order chosen by the player discarding. Simultaneous is a game mechanics reference (albeit one that isn't clearly defined). From the examples of simultaneous actions though, it seems pretty clear the point is that for timing and triggering, certain actions are considered simultaneous so only a single triggering condition occurs.