2 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

Ruling on playing restricted attachments:

Could you please provide the exact question you asked?

4 minutes ago, mplain said:

Could you please provide the exact question you asked?

Updated the post. Nate said he will also be updating the RR for this.

Thanks!

On ‎10‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 5:26 AM, mplain said:

Hey, if you guys want to talk rules, here's something to think about:

i get a feeling that Nate isn't sure how exactly the ring effects are optional
the rulebook says the attacking player *may* resolve the ring effect
the reference card says that the Void ring effect is that the attacking player *may* remove fate from a character

Pardon me if this was mentioned previously and I just missed it, but I always thought that "may" was specifically included for the Void Ring to prevent the attacking player from being forced to remove a Fate from one of their own characters (in the event they chose a Void conflict defensively, or if the defender somehow removed a Fate token, e.g. by sacrificing or a card effect like Wandering Ronan's). Without the "may", the attacker could be forced to remove their own Fate despite winning the conflict. That's what I thought they were trying to avoid. TY.

Just now, ZenClix said:

Pardon me if this was mentioned previously and I just missed it, but I always thought that "may" was specifically included for the Void Ring to prevent the attacking player from being forced to remove a Fate from one of their own characters (in the event they chose a Void conflict defensively, or if the defender somehow removed a Fate token, e.g. by sacrificing or a card effect like Wandering Ronan's). Without the "may", the attacker could be forced to remove their own Fate despite winning the conflict. That's what I thought they were trying to avoid. TY.

Quite possible. Thing is, this it not the way RRG is worded. Hopefully the next update will make rules as written work as intended.

http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/37548-are-ring-effects-optional-kaede-hotaru/

For card abilities that resolve rings in a context outside of “as if you won as the attacker” — such as Hotaru and Toturi — it’s the controller of the ability that chooses whether or not the ring gets to resolve — basically by triggering the ability, you establish that the ring resolves. These just say “resolve the ring effect,” so that’s what happens.

When the context of winning as the attacker is applied, the rules connected to that context apply, which makes the choice optional:
"Each time a player wins a conflict as the attacking player, he or she may resolve the ring effect associated with the contested ring’s element."

[Nate French, 20.10.2017]

31 minutes ago, mplain said:

http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/37548-are-ring-effects-optional-kaede-hotaru/

For card abilities that resolve rings in a context outside of “as if you won as the attacker” — such as Hotaru and Toturi — it’s the controller of the ability that chooses whether or not the ring gets to resolve — basically by triggering the ability, you establish that the ring resolves. These just say “resolve the ring effect,” so that’s what happens.

When the context of winning as the attacker is applied, the rules connected to that context apply, which makes the choice optional:
"Each time a player wins a conflict as the attacking player, he or she may resolve the ring effect associated with the contested ring’s element."

[Nate French, 20.10.2017]

Well, we can throw everything I theorized out the window. There is no 'may' built into the effect, it's a magical decision that gets made for the attacking player in normal ring resolution framework, and when an effect says 'as if you won as the attacker'.

So Hotaru and Toturi don't get the 'may' option at all. You choose to trigger the Reaction and the rest is mandatory.

Not sure how this fits with the ruling on Kaede, maybe because you're still going through the normal framework steps of ring resolution as the attacker?

This must mean the void card 'reminder text' is incorrect.

With Isawa Kaede, lets say the conflict was declared Fire and I won as attacker. Would I be able to choose triggering Fire and choose not to trigger void? Or, do I have to trigger both? Am I allowed to trigger non of the ring effects?

1 hour ago, OsramTaleka said:

With Isawa Kaede, lets say the conflict was declared Fire and I won as attacker. Would I be able to choose triggering Fire and choose not to trigger void? Or, do I have to trigger both? Am I allowed to trigger non of the ring effects?

With Kaede, you have the choice to resolve both, one, or none.

If a ring has multiple effects, the “may resolve the ring effect of that ring” applies to each effect individually. So the attacking player may choose to resolve one without the other.

[Nate French, 17.10.2017]

Can Borderlands Fortification only target another face-up holding in a province, because of the rule that cards can only target other cards that are in play unless it specifically says otherwise?

Facedown cards do not have card type. Bacisally a "card" is what's on the faceup side.

37 minutes ago, mplain said:

Facedown cards do not have card type. Bacisally a "card" is what's on the faceup side.

So it can only swap with a face-up card? Do you think it can target a face-up card that is either in play or out of play?

@mplain Seeker of Knowledge appears to be an underrated card, as it has a similar ability to two clan champions, and only one influence cost. It lets you resolve the ring at step 3.2.3 outside of the framework resolution.

1) A facedown card is still a card. Borderlands Fortifications can switch with a facedown card in another province. Or with a faceup card in a province, be it in play (holding) or out of play (character).

2) Seeker of Knowledge has bad templating. Its ability is redundant with the rule for resolving the effect of a ring with multiple elements. SoK was probably templated before that rule was added to the RRG. If you have a doubt about it, you could ask Nate how it works.

16 minutes ago, mplain said:

1) A facedown card is still a card. Borderlands Fortifications can switch with a facedown card in another province. Or with a faceup card in a province, be it in play (holding) or out of play (character).

2) Seeker of Knowledge has bad templating. Its ability is redundant with the rule for resolving the effect of a ring with multiple elements. SoK was probably templated before that rule was added to the RRG. If you have a doubt about it, you could ask Nate how it works.

You are quick to say it has bad templating when it follows the exact constant ability-if-triggering condition-effect template. You can ask Nate why it's not italicizes if you don't agree with the rules reference.

Man, you do as you like

1 hour ago, mplain said:

Man, you do as you like

I more of threw Seeker of Knowledge out there to see what your process is, and I still haven't figured it out. You're giving advice to others to treat the last sentence of an ability as blank, and your interpretation is in direct contradiction to the rules reference. If you think a card should be errata'ed I think you of all people would have gotten a ruling before telling others how to use it. Are there any other cards you think don't follow the RR where a developer ruling isn't needed?

1 hour ago, LuceLineGames said:

If you think a card should be errata'ed...

Speaking of this, has FFG listed any card erratas yet? Where will they be published? I've been expecting them to errata Hotaru and Toturi before the big tournaments, but that seems to be looking more and more like a bad bet. But as of yet, I haven't seen any, so was wondering if anyone knew where they'll make those announcements.

7 hours ago, LuceLineGames said:

I more of threw Seeker of Knowledge out there to see what your process is, and I still haven't figured it out. You're giving advice to others to treat the last sentence of an ability as blank, and your interpretation is in direct contradiction to the rules reference. If you think a card should be errata'ed I think you of all people would have gotten a ruling before telling others how to use it. Are there any other cards you think don't follow the RR where a developer ruling isn't needed?

I believe i have already invited you to the discord server rules channel. Here's the link again: https://discord.gg/3nFEbU

We have a consensus there about how Seeker of Knowledge works. You're welcome to join and discuss it. Just don't ask me personally to defend our interpretation before you. Look at your post: you're not asking me to tell you how i think it works, you're not asking me to explain why i think it works this way. You're telling me that it works this and that way according to the RRG. Well I don't agree with your interpretation, I think you're wrong, but I don't feel like engaging into that kind of discussion here on this board with you. You seem to be demanding something from me, and I don't like that. If you want to contribute, either come join our discussion on Discord, or write an email to the devs. But man, I don't want to be personally accountable to you here.

Seeker of Knowledge's ability creates a delayed effect that modifies how you can resolve the ring effect (except that this permission is redundant with the general rule). It does not make you resolve the ring effect.

" you may choose which of its ring effects to resolve " != "resolve the ring effect of your choice"

If you do not agree with this interpretation, you're welcome to come to Discord, or ask the devs. I will not argue about it here.

Yeah, maybe I could adjust my approach to asking questions a bit. I did download discord, but still trying to get the L5R part working. So it's telling you to choose a ring element, but not telling you to resolve? I can buy that. It's not completely redundant with the general rule. When you resolve a ring, you get the option to choose an element once or choose twice, or none. You may elect not to choose and resolve the ring's original element, or elect to choose from the RR, or elect to choose from the RR then use this card's ability to choose again.

It seems like the devs have future design space for this ability. Joking, this card is garbage.

11 hours ago, LuceLineGames said:

It seems like the devs have future design space for this ability. Joking, this card is garbage.

Them be fighting words. It's a decent enough conflict character that lets Phoenix trigger both shugenja and courtier cards. And getting a chance at an extra air resolve is nice for honor/ dishonor decks.

1 hour ago, Zesu Shadaban said:

Them be fighting words. It's a decent enough conflict character that lets Phoenix trigger both shugenja and courtier cards. And getting a chance at an extra air resolve is nice for honor/ dishonor decks.

Haha I misspoke, I meant this ability in the last line is worthless.