There was sure alot of noise on the posting over this? They don't need to revise the rules in red, it's right here on Page 5 of the learning to play rules.

Key Concepts:

Provinces and Strongholds

A player’s province cards represent a variety of circumstances and occurrences in the lands under the control of the Great Clans of Rokugan. 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.

1 hour ago, Fu Leng said:

There was sure alot of noise on the posting over this? They don't need to revise the rules in red, it's right here on Page 5 of the learning to play rules.

Key Concepts:

Provinces and Strongholds

A player’s province cards represent a variety of circumstances and occurrences in the lands under the control of the Great Clans of Rokugan. 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.

The argument was that this, by strict readings, means no attack can be declared against Strongholds, but that the Unicorn seeker/keeper cards move an attack, which isn't a declaration, predicated on the fact that the world eligible isn't defined in the RR.

Pedantic argument, but at least it wasn't completely baseless.

9 minutes ago, Network57 said:

Pedantic

Pedantic, Pedant, Pedantry, we will all be using this on a daily basis.

48 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

Pedantic, Pedant, Pedantry, we will all be using this on a daily basis.

Using a valid English word with meaning appropriate to the situation? Sure, I have no problem with that.

Pedant. Ped+ant. Stepping on ants? What kind of monster would perpetuate such a thing?

So instead of posting in the relevant thread, you started another one? That should keep the noise down.

6 minutes ago, DarwinsDog said:

So instead of posting in the relevant thread, you started another one? That should keep the noise down.

The pedantricks continue...

Who let the Magic players onto this forum?

12 hours ago, Network57 said:

The argument was that this, by strict readings, means no attack can be declared against Strongholds, but that the Unicorn seeker/keeper cards move an attack, which isn't a declaration, predicated on the fact that the world eligible isn't defined in the RR.

Pedantic argument, but at least it wasn't completely baseless.

I would think the dictionary is a good place to look up the word eligible.

You can't declare an attack at a place, means those places aren't eligible. Only someone trying to play the game on bad faith would try and make the argument you can.

You cannot declare Hiruma Yojimbo as an attacker, but you can Charge her or move her to the conflict when you're attacking.

Cannot be declared as an attacker != not eligible to participate as an attacker

So why is this different with attacking the stronghold province?

9 minutes ago, mplain said:

You cannot declare Hiruma Yojimbo as an attacker, but you can Charge her or move her to the conflict when you're attacking.

Cannot be declared as an attacker != not eligible to participate as an attacker

So why is this different with attacking the stronghold province?

Declare is different than Move, and yeah there's a gap in the rules reference covering how this cards works. But I think the use of the word 'eligible' makes it clear that the movement is restricted. It's good enough for me, though I can see how some official clarification on this wouldn't hurt.

51 minutes ago, mplain said:

You cannot declare Hiruma Yojimbo as an attacker, but you can Charge her or move her to the conflict when you're attacking.

Cannot be declared as an attacker != not eligible to participate as an attacker

So why is this different with attacking the stronghold province?

Because Charge doesn't say Eligible? You can charge in non-eligible attackers. Like Shiba Peacmaker, or Otomo/Seppun against someone with the favor. Or even dash characters into the opposite conflict. There is no such restriction on Charge. You can move any character into that combat.

Chasing the sun specifically says eligible, and Stronghold province isn't eligible for attack. We don't need to define eligible, we're all adults here. Any argument about the semantics of this is in bad faith meant to be in bad faith. It isn't a good or healthy argument, it's one that is meant to twist and break the rules to harm other players.

Can also point out that declaring attackers and declaring an attack is two different things, so trying to compare the two is wrong.

2 hours ago, mplain said:

Cannot be declared as an attacker != not eligible to participate as an attacker

This is an irrelevant post. You did not quote the rulebook, you just decided arbitrarily to use the word "eligible" to attempt to prove your point about the word in question.

You cannot create comparisons that don't exist just because you think they should.

Also the card says that you move the token...then that province becomes the attacked province.

Sadly, there is precedence in the difference between "attacking" and "declaring an attack" so a clarification should be warranted.

The only change that needs to happen in the RR is to state - The Stronghold may not be "attacked" until 3 of the controlling player's provinces have been broken. Rather than "a player may not declare an attack"

If this is the intent of the dev's - which I feel all reasonable players agree upon, otherwise you end up with a broken game

1 hour ago, RandomJC said:

Because Charge doesn't say Eligible? You can charge in non-eligible attackers. Like Shiba Peacmaker, or Otomo/Seppun against someone with the favor. Or even dash characters into the opposite conflict. There is no such restriction on Charge. You can move any character into that combat.

This is incorrect, none of these cases can be charged.

Quote

Chasing the sun specifically says eligible, and Stronghold province isn't eligible for attack. We don't need to define eligible, we're all adults here. Any argument about the semantics of this is in bad faith meant to be in bad faith. It isn't a good or healthy argument, it's one that is meant to twist and break the rules to harm other players.

This isn't a helpful statement. Trying to make the rules less ambiguous is never a bad thing, especially since this is a game where Hand-Yokuni exists in defiance of all card game common sense.

@mplain

It looks like there's an incorrect ruling on FiveRingsDB regarding Charge!. You can add fate to characters 'put' into play by using other card effects, you just can't add fate to them during the opportunity given to cards that have been 'played'.

Just to note, I think FiveRingsDB is a great resource, and think the developer references are a great feature. I've been meaning to review the site to see if there are any discrepancies to help out. Haven't done it yet, but I appreciate the effort you've made on this!

3 hours ago, RandomJC said:

Because Charge doesn't say Eligible? You can charge in non-eligible attackers. Like Shiba Peacmaker, or Otomo/Seppun against someone with the favor. Or even dash characters into the opposite conflict. There is no such restriction on Charge. You can move any character into that combat.

While you could move someone with - Military into a Military conflict, I have no idea why you'd want to - as per the Rules Reference (page 5), they would immediately be removed from the conflict, and return home bowed.

Interestingly, "Eligible" is a term not defined in the Rules Reference document.

16 minutes ago, dysartes said:

While you could move someone with - Military into a Military conflict, I have no idea why you'd want to - as per the Rules Reference (page 5), they would immediately be removed from the conflict, and return home bowed.

Interestingly, "Eligible" is a term not defined in the Rules Reference document.

Quote

Should a character with a dash skill value somehow end up participating in a conflict of the corresponding type, that character is immediately removed from the conflict, and placed in its controller’s home area in a bowed state.

You can't "move" a military dash into a military conflict. What the RR is referring to is if the character 'somehow' ends up participating, like when the conflict type changed (see Captive Audience).

4 hours ago, kraken78 said:

This is an irrelevant post. You did not quote the rulebook, you just decided arbitrarily to use the word "eligible" to attempt to prove your point about the word in question.

You cannot create comparisons that don't exist just because you think they should.

I'm pointing out that we have a precedent illustrating that "cannot be declared as an attacker" does not automatically mean "cannot be an attacker". Thus, the fact that you cannot declare an attack against stronghold province unless you break three other provinces, does not automatically mean that you cannot attack the stronghold province.

How is that irrelevant? How is that not a valid comparison? Explain yourself.

3 hours ago, LuceLineGames said:

@mplain

It looks like there's an incorrect ruling on FiveRingsDB regarding Charge!. You can add fate to characters 'put' into play by using other card effects, you just can't add fate to them during the opportunity given to cards that have been 'played'.

Well, not sure if "incorrect" is the right word here, but it might be misleading, yes. I've clarified the ruling entry. Thanks.

I imagine this will go something more along the lines of the previous stronghold clarification for switching the stronghold with the Crab holding. A "oops, thanks for pointing that out, here's some more shiny red text to close that loophole."

1 hour ago, Zesu Shadaban said:

I imagine this will go something more along the lines of the previous stronghold clarification for switching the stronghold with the Crab holding. A "oops, thanks for pointing that out, here's some more shiny red text to close that loophole."

I think a simple FAQ or RR Erratum that "eligible" in this case means "eligible to have conflicts declared there".

5 hours ago, dysartes said:

While you could move someone with - Military into a Military conflict, I have no idea why you'd want to - as per the Rules Reference (page 5), they would immediately be removed from the conflict, and return home bowed.

Interestingly, "Eligible" is a term not defined in the Rules Reference document.

(Well, actually you can't move a dash into the opposite conflict, nor can you actually put into play so my extended example was wrong)

My point was eligible doesn't need to be defined. It's pretty obvious and this all seems like hand wringing pointless pedantism for the point of trying to sound smart or clever.

5 hours ago, RandomJC said:

My point was eligible doesn't need to be defined. It's pretty obvious and this all seems like hand wringing pointless pedantism for the point of trying to sound smart or clever.

Give some of the terms defined in the RR (Against, Cannot, Choose, Give, etc), defining Eligible in there doesn't seem out of line.

7 hours ago, RandomJC said:

My point was eligible doesn't need to be defined. It's pretty obvious and this all seems like hand wringing pointless pedantism for the point of trying to sound smart or clever.

If there was an ability that said "move an eligible character to the conflict", could you use it to move Hiruma Yojimbo to the conflict in which you're the attacker?

17 hours ago, mplain said:

If there was an ability that said "move an eligible character to the conflict", could you use it to move Hiruma Yojimbo to the conflict in which you're the attacker?

You're right mplain. In your example, "yes" Hiruma Yojimbo could move into the conflict since it is a move effect and not a declaration. But your example does show the "murkiness" of the word "eligible".

Please answer this question though. "Does attacking the stronghold first turn with a card effect break the game?"

On ‎10‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 11:48 AM, kraken78 said:

The only change that needs to happen in the RR is to state - The Stronghold may not be "attacked" until 3 of the controlling player's provinces have been broken. Rather than "a player may not declare an attack"

I'm not really sure that defining the word "eligible " would help clarify anything or muddy things up more.