@mplain That's all the questions I had, that wasn't so painful

A few comments:

• I think it would be beneficial to add the developer rulings on attachments. Attachments that say "attach to" are a constant check, and attachments that say "play on" are a one-time play restriction. So if a card says "attach to a character you control" and the control of the character changes, the attachment would be discarded. If it says "play on a character you control" and the control of the character changes, the attachment would not be discarded. I can provide the rulings if needed. The RR don't actually make this clear, so the ruling would be beneficial to others.
• You have references for a 'required change in game state' for cards with "select", however the change in game state is required for all 'triggered abilities'. I have developer correspondence with this.

It is not my plan to add every possible clarification to every possible card. I can add one and the same entry to maybe max. 5 cards, if it's more then it's a general rule and it should be in the official/unofficial FAQ, not in the Individual Card Rulings section.

I have the entry for Blackmail explaining how "attach to" cards work. Blackmail is currently the only card that allows taking control of an opponent's character with attachments. There will probably be more new "attach to" cards than "take control" cards in the future.

I already have more general rules in there than i'd like to. I decided that while the game is new and most players are newbies not acquainted with the LCG mechanics, it might be worth it to spell out the most common questions for each applicable card. But as we move on further from the release date, as more packs are released and players become more familiar with basic concepts of the rules, i plan to tone down on adding general rules, and maybe remove some of the existing ones. Like, whicle there are only 3 cards that switch rings, it's okay to explain gaining fate from rings on each one. When we get more, maybe it won't make that much sense anymore.

Same for "select", there are currently but a handful cards that use that word, some giving the choice to the opponent, and newcomers often ask whether you can select something that will do nothing. They don't ask about triggering abilities for no benefit, unless it's in the context of Kisada. Plus, as I said, I refuse to acknowledge any rule about ethe resolution of effects having to change the game state, unless it is added to the RRG. Shameful Display should be Nate's headache, not mine. I'm not gonna put words in his mouth. Let him formulate it.

36 minutes ago, mplain said:

You do what you do best. Like I've said, I really like this site. Sure, people give feedback on your posts at CardGameDB, but that's not what gets written on the site. There should be someone checking your work . I'm a lot more comfortable with the rulings on the site, and maybe given you a little ammo as well.

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
we've been interpreting it as the rulebook being right and the reference card being wrong
however
then Nate ruled that Display of Power cancels the ring effect in a way that doesn't give the attacking player an opportunity to choose whether to resolve it or not ( Source )
now Nate says you don't need to resolve each ring effect for Kaede if you don't want to (even tho kaede says "resolve" and not "may resolve") ( Source )
this kinda gives me a feeling that it is actually the reference card that is right and the rulebook is wrong
like, when the attacking player resolves the ring effect, he may choose to remove fate from a character, or not
does it apply to all other ring effects?
what happens when Hotaru instructs your to resolve the ring effect, but your opponent is the attacking player -- who gets to choose whether to do something meaningful or not?
if Hotaru's ability is triggered, can the attacking player choose not to remove fate from [his own] character?
if he can, would that be contradictory to the ruling on Shameful Display, which seems to imply that effects must resolve in a meaningful manner, their resolution must change the game state?

9 hours ago, 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
we've been interpreting it as the rulebook being right and the reference card being wrong
however
then Nate ruled that Display of Power cancels the ring effect in a way that doesn't give the attacking player an opportunity to choose whether to resolve it or not ( Source )
now Nate says you don't need to resolve each ring effect for Kaede if you don't want to (even tho kaede says "resolve" and not "may resolve") ( Source )
this kinda gives me a feeling that it is actually the reference card that is right and the rulebook is wrong
like, when the attacking player resolves the ring effect, he may choose to remove fate from a character, or not
does it apply to all other ring effects?
what happens when Hotaru instructs your to resolve the ring effect, but your opponent is the attacking player -- who gets to choose whether to do something meaningful or not?
if Hotaru's ability is triggered, can the attacking player choose not to remove fate from [his own] character?
if he can, would that be contradictory to the ruling on Shameful Display, which seems to imply that effects must resolve in a meaningful manner, their resolution must change the game state?

I didn't know the ring effect text doesn't match the RR? I'm going to assume the RR is correct for the sake of an example.

.................

I'm getting stuck on how Display of Power can cancel a ring. In the Initiating Abilities section of RR, "resolve" is steps 5-7. Cancelling an initiation of an ability is step 6. If you decide not to resolve a ring's effect, you would not start step 5, and therefore step 6 would not exist to cancel.... Per Nate, it sounds like rings automatically go to step 6 even if you choose not to resolve? Maybe the "may" is supposed to be part of the ability itself, so the choice to not resolve is nested in the ability, therefore step 6 has to happen?

Isawa Kaede is a constant ability with a replacement effect. Because it does not have the word 'Forced', the replacement effect is optional. So you could simply decide not to resolve Isawa Kaede's ability and just resolve one ring. Nate takes this a step further and says even if a card instructs you to "resolve" a ring, rings always inherently have "may", so the choice to resolve or not is always there.

That's as far as I got, didn't get to your last examples, but it looks like the intention might be for 'may' to be printed on the card as part of the ability, to stop the resolution after it's started, and not some rules choice that gets to be made before hand.

You're applying the sequence for Initiating Abilities to ring effects. You shouldn't do that. Ring effects are not triggered abilities.

Instead, you should apply the sequence for Triggering Condition to ring effects. In it, cancels trigger in step 2.

There is no such thing as a Forced constant ability, or a Forced replacement effect. There are only Forced Reactions and Forced Interrupts. Isawa Kaede's ability is neither a reaction nor an interrupt, it's a constant ability that creates a replacement effect under certain circumstances. The application of constant abilities is not optional. Unless a constant ability says "you may", its application is mandatory.

Going back to your original question, I think the answer is that "may" should be part of the ability text for rings, as "may resolve". Initiation occurs in step 2, and the "may" decision to resolve would occur in step 3. A cancel ability by Display of Power would occur in step 2, before a choice to resolve can be made; which falls in line with Nate's ruling.

does it apply to all other ring effects? Yes, per rules reference Ring Effects, each ring contains "may"
what happens when Hotaru instructs your to resolve the ring effect, but your opponent is the attacking player -- who gets to choose whether to do something meaningful or not? Opponent gets to choose, as you initiate the ability, but the opponent gets to carry out the resolution, and the "may" is in the effect.
if Hotaru's ability is triggered, can the attacking player choose not to remove fate from [his own] character? Sure, per this line of reasoning.
if he can, would that be contradictory to the ruling on Shameful Display, which seems to imply that effects must resolve in a meaningful manner, their resolution must change the game state? No, Shameful Display does not include a "may". Per the Rules Reference, "may" is an exception to the rule to resolve as much of the effect as they are able.

Quote

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.”

This RR entry also supports that "may" is after the initiation.

14 hours ago, LuceLineGames said:

Going back to your original question, I think the answer is that "may" should be part of the ability text for rings, as "may resolve".

I feel like this sentence is contradicting itself. First, ring effects are not abilities. Second, the description of ring effects does not include the word "resolve". You cannot put "may resolve" inside the description of ring effects . Third, "may resolve" is exactly what the RRG currently says. Referring to the winning attacker having the option to resolve the normal ring effect. But when a card ability instructs a player to "resolve the ring effect", it would seem to be an obligatory instruction.

So, I assume, you meant that "may" should be part of the description for individual ring effects, as in "may remove fate", "may bow or ready (or do neither)", "may take 1 honor or gain 2 (or do neither)". Is that the case?

14 hours ago, LuceLineGames said:

Initiation occurs in step 2, and the "may" decision to resolve would occur in step 3. A cancel ability by Display of Power would occur in step 2, before a choice to resolve can be made; which falls in line with Nate's ruling.

Steps in what sequence are you referring to? I don't thing either Initiating Abilities or Triggering Condition has initiation occuring in step 2 and "may" desicisions resolving in step 3. Could you clarify what steps you mean, and why you think these processes occur within them?

Alright, let's try again. Ring effects are framework effects (not card effects) because they're step 3.2.6 of the framework. Framework effects are mandatory. Step 3.2.6 says "Resolve ring effects", so it is mandatory to resolve the ring. As you said, I think "may" should be part of the descriptions for individual rings. The "may" would act as a hard stop to the effect after initiation and after the resolution started.

Even though the ring isn't a card ability, I still think some of the 'ability' steps in the rules reference would apply, if at least on a referential basis. For instance, I think we could infer that we use steps 5-7 in Initiating Abilities for resolving rings. Also, these entries relating to abilities:

Quote

The word “may” also incorporates a player option into the resolution of an ability.

Quote

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.”

So it seems to make sense, given Nate's rulings, that the "may" on the ring effects is incorporated into the effect itself, and in the resolution itself. The initiation occurs, the effect starts to resolve, then the "may" puts an optional hard stop to the resolution.

I also think it doesn't matter what the "may" said after it in this case. Even if the "may" said "may resolve", that would still be a choice 'inside' of the resolution, acting as "may (continue to) resolve". My bold answers to your questions in my previous post remain the same.

It looks like the RR probably isn't as clean as it should be regarding ring effects.

How close am I this time?

On 10/16/2017 at 1:28 PM, AradonTemplar said:

The card specifically says it returns to hand 'when attached card leaves play.' It doesn't refer to the Daisho leaving play at all.

Edit: Unless I am misinterpreting the plain text on the card. I understand this to mean when the card Daisho is attached to leaves play, but it could refer to 'when this attached card leaves play' I suppose. The Rules Reference on Ancestral says:

"Ancestral is a keyword ability that appears on attachments. If the card or game element to which an ancestral attachment is attached leaves play, the ancestral attachment is returned to its owner’s hand instead of being discarded." This seems to support it refers to the card the attachment is attached to being the key.

So here's something funny about the rulebook and the definition of Ancestral on the two cards its on: they're somewhat at odds with each other (SURPRISE).

You can see the rulebook definition above, but the Daisho and Kitsuki's Evidence both define Ancestral to care about when the attached card leaves play -- currently there are only two characters than can be "attached cards" (Tattooed Wanderer and Togashi Kazue), neither of which can themselves gain attachments. This plus the wording on other cards that define keywords (like Sincerity or Covert), suggests the Ancestral cards are referring to themselves as the "attached card." By the card text, someone playing Let Go on your Ancestral Daisho bounces it back to your hand; a setback, but nowhere near the setback of sending it to the discard. Killing the person the Daisho is on would also send the card back to your hand, because it is still leaving play.

The RRG glossary defines Ancestral in the way that I think most of us have been playing it: Let Go sends the Daisho to the discard, but killing the person it's on sends the Daisho back to the hand. And pointing to the rulebook as the standard is my instinct, except that the rulebook also establishes the jade rule: card text trumps rulebook.

Since people seem to throw a fit when I mention wording inconsistencies like this (see: glossary definition of passing vs the RRG turn order that implies you say which conflict you're passing), I think the RRG definition of Ancestral is the one that's probably what is intended and what is best for the game, but right now the rulebook explicitly tells you to prioritize the card text over the rulebook.

tl;dr: we should probably ask for a ruling on Ancestral because of wording inconsistencies even though it seems clear what the intent is.

When a card refers to itself, it uses "this"; "attached card" refers to the game element the card is attached to, not the attachment itself. I know it's weird, but that's how FFG rolls.

Also, the text for keywords on cards is reminder text rather than game text, so it's not authoritative.

Agreed, the reminder text isn't worded that great, but it is only reminder text so doesn't count for anything. The Rules Reference is clear on how Ancestral is to be used, so no ruling needed.

The conflict steps are poorly worded as well. It should have given 3 options 1) declare military, 2) declare political, 3) pass.

3 hours ago, LuceLineGames said:

Alright, let's try again. Ring effects are framework effects (not card effects) because they're step 3.2.6 of the framework. Framework effects are mandatory. Step 3.2.6 says "Resolve ring effects", so it is mandatory to resolve the ring.

Even though step 3.2.6 is called "Resolve ring effects" what actually happens in this step is: "If the attacking player won the conflict (in step 3.2.3), that player may resolve the ring effect of the contested ring". The entry for "Ring Effects" says the same thing. So it's not mondatory to resolve the ring effects.

3 hours ago, LuceLineGames said:

Even though the ring isn't a card ability, I still think some of the 'ability' steps in the rules reference would apply, if at least on a referential basis. For instance, I think we could infer that we use steps 5-7 in Initiating Abilities for resolving rings.

I don't agree that ring effects use steps 5-7 of the Initiating Abilities sequence. Targets don't necessarily have to be chosen in step 5, there's a rules entry for mid-resolution targeting. And step 6 is specifically the initiation of effects as a "package", this is the step in which effects are canceled. Display of Power and Pilgrimage don't cancel the initiation of ring effects, they cancel ring effects themselves (i.e. their resolution). There is no evidence that ring effects use steps 5-7, and there is no need - both the targeting and the cancellation can happen during resolution - so i'd say Occam's Razor.

3 hours ago, LuceLineGames said:

My bold answers to your questions in my previous post remain the same.

Well, except the RRG does not say that each ring effect contains "may", they're strict imperatives, so why would the opponent get to choose not to do anything? Same with Hotaru's ability that says "Resolve" as an imperative, thus bypassing the "may resolve" that applies for framework resolution. The point on Shameful Display is good though.

I mean, everything you said can become true if Nate amends the RRG to say "may remove fate", "may bow", etc. But with the RRG as we currently have it, there are no grounds.

6 minutes ago, mplain said:

Even though step 3.2.6 is called "Resolve ring effects" what actually happens in this step is: "If the attacking player won the conflict (in step 3.2.3), that player may resolve the ring effect of the contested ring". The entry for "Ring Effects" says the same thing. So it's not mondatory to resolve the ring effects.

Perhaps, or perhaps it is mandatory to resolve the rings, and the "may" is in the resolution.

7 minutes ago, mplain said:

I don't agree that ring effects use steps 5-7 of the Initiating Abilities sequence. Targets don't necessarily have to be chosen in step 5, there's a rules entry for mid-resolution targeting. And step 6 is specifically the initiation of effects as a "package", this is the step in which effects are canceled.

Agree, rings use the mid resolution target rule. Did you have to wait so long to share your opinion on this and make me throw out so many wrong ideas?

9 minutes ago, mplain said:

Display of Power and Pilgrimage don't cancel the initiation of ring effects, they cancel ring effects themselves (i.e. their resolution). There is no evidence that ring effects use steps 5-7, and there is no need - both the targeting and the cancellation can happen during resolution - so i'd say Occam's Razor.

I disagree, and there's nothing in the rules to support 'cancel' as cancelling a resolution and not an initiation. The rules are clear that a 'cancel' cancels the initiation of the effect. All other references to 'cancel' in the RR canceling an effect or ability are general statements, but do not preclude the 'cancel' rule.

Constant abilities with cancel (Pilgrimage, Hida Kisada) cancel the initiation. The developer ruling is moot and probably made up

Also, constant abilities with "if" are interrupts (Isawa Kaede).

20 minutes ago, mplain said:

I mean, everything you said can become true if Nate amends the RRG to say "may remove fate", "may bow", etc. But with the RRG as we currently have it, there are no grounds.

If the rings work the way I am proposing it, then I agree, the RR if read strictly does not support it.

23 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

Did you have to wait so long to share your opinion on this and make me throw out so many wrong ideas?

Honestly, by the way you started criticizing my wording in the ruling entries, I assumed you were already a developed rules guru!

23 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

I disagree, and there's nothing in the rules to support 'cancel' as cancelling a resolution and not an initiation. The rules are clear that a 'cancel' cancels the initiation of the effect. All other references to 'cancel' in the RR canceling an effect or ability are general statements, but do not preclude the 'cancel' rule.

Well, I will not defend this point. The RRG entries for Cancel and Triggering Condition were most probably written with Interrupt abilities in mind. Constant ability cancels are an aberration that was introduces to the game without thinking it through. Nate should be the one scratching his head over how they work, not me.

23 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

Also, constant abilities with "if" are interrupts (Isawa Kaede).

This is plain incorrect. Only triggered abilities that say " Interrupt: " are interrupts. "If" would normally be a delayed effect, if it was a part of a triggered ability. In a constant ability, I don't know what it is.

10 minutes ago, mplain said:

Honestly, by the way you started criticizing my wording in the ruling entries, I assumed you were already a developed rules guru!

Hahaha, I knew I had to go through the ringer for making this thread. I'm no guru, I've been wrong on these forums more times than right, but it has led to some needed clarifications.

13 minutes ago, mplain said:

This is plain incorrect. Only triggered abilities that say " Interrupt: " are interrupts. "If" would normally be a delayed effect, if it was a part of a triggered ability. In a constant ability, I don't know what it is.

Sorry, I meant "instead". So when Kaede says instead, though not technically an interrupt, it would function as such and have the same timing.

Have there been clarifications on priority of timing of constant abilities and keywords?

..

57 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

Sorry, I meant "instead". So when Kaede says instead, though not technically an interrupt, it would function as such and have the same timing.

This is also not true. Kaede's ability is not an interrupt, it does not function as such, and it does not use the same timing. Where are you getting this from??

Look at the Dragon Stronghold, it also uses "instead". Does it use the timing of interrupts?

57 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

Have there been clarifications on priority of timing of constant abilities and keywords?

What's the situation where constant abilities and keywords have conflicting timing?

1 minute ago, mplain said:

This is also not true. Kaede's ability is not an interrupt, it does not function as such, and it does not use the same timing. Where are you getting this from??

Kaede's ability would "interrupt" the choosing of an element to resolve and replace it with 'resolve each of that ring's effects'. Though I don't know the exact timing, as my question below points out.

5 minutes ago, mplain said:

What's the situation where constant abilities and keywords have conflicting timing?

How does Kaede's "instead" ability (nested inside a constant ability) compare in timing to "interrupts", "would interrupts", "forced interrupts", or keywords on the same triggering condition? The triggering condition being "If this character wins the conflict as an attacker".

The funny part is almost every problematic "ruling" has come from Nate French. He gave the counter intuitive rulings on Way of the Lion (which both redefines the word "Base" in a weird way and makes Way of the Lion OP) and his Doji Hotaru ruling was also counter intuitive and severely nerfed her card .

Just now, Joelist said:

The funny part is almost every problematic "ruling" has come from Nate French. He gave the counter intuitive rulings on Way of the Lion (which both redefines the word "Base" in a weird way and makes Way of the Lion OP) and his Doji Hotaru ruling was also counter intuitive and severely nerfed her card .

To his defense, I think it gets shared and discussed with all developers prior to response, and he seems to be the one to send out their decision. I'm hoping they are collecting all of our submitted questions and developing a FAQ to share soon.

On 10/18/2017 at 5:30 PM, LuceLineGames said:

I'm getting stuck on how Display of Power can cancel a ring. In the Initiating Abilities section of RR, "resolve" is steps 5-7. Cancelling an initiation of an ability is step 6. If you decide not to resolve a ring's effect, you would not start step 5, and therefore step 6 would not exist to cancel.... Per Nate, it sounds like rings automatically go to step 6 even if you choose not to resolve? Maybe the "may" is supposed to be part of the ability itself, so the choice to not resolve is nested in the ability, therefore step 6 has to happen? that gets to be made before hand.

Sorry if this was already answered, there's just so much discussion text going on.

Display of Power is a Reaction card. The triggering condition for Display of Power is "After you lose an unopposed conflict". The moment you lose you do not follow anymore steps following that loss. The player can play Display of Power to initiate a reaction window before any other steps get resolved. Then if no other actions happen during this reaction window the following happens: Display of Power resolves which forces the defender to claim the ring and activate the ring effects as if he/she have won.

3 minutes ago, ElSuave said:

Sorry if this was already answered, there's just so much discussion text going on.

Display of Power is a Reaction card. The triggering condition for Display of Power is "After you lose an unopposed conflict". The moment you lose you do not follow anymore steps following that loss. The player can play Display of Power to initiate a reaction window before any other steps get resolved. Then if no other actions happen during this reaction window the following happens: Display of Power resolves which forces the defender to claim the ring and activate the ring effects as if he/she have won.

I forgot to take into consideration the triggering condition and 'delayed effect' it creates, as you point out.

9 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

Kaede's ability would "interrupt" the choosing of an element to resolve and replace it with 'resolve each of that ring's effects'. Though I don't know the exact timing, as my question below points out.

Kaede's ability just replaces something with something else. She doesn't need to interrupt anything. The game analyzes the board state and takes all relevant effects into account, automatically adjusting and replacing where needed. Interrupts are triggered abilities that allow certain effects to interject this process. Usually on a player's volition. Although the devs came up with the idea of forced interrupts, because it was easier to use an existing template and just add the word "forced", rather than create a whole new template and/or rules entry for "mandatory constant abilities what function very similar to interrupts"

13 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

How does Kaede's "instead" ability (nested inside a constant ability) compare in timing to "interrupts", "would interrupts", "forced interrupts", or keywords on the same triggering condition? The triggering condition being "If this character wins the conflict as an attacker".

I don't know how Kaede's ability functions. As I said, the closest thing would be a delayed effect. Although constant abilities that create delayed effect is something unprecedented. I think her ability would make more sense as a reaction to winning.

As for the timing on of delayed effects vs. Pride, we've got a recent ruling here . Of course, this would apply only in Nate rules that Kaede's ability is a delayed effect. But I don't really think it matters, since Kaede's ability creates an effect that would affect something even later into the conflict resolution. The earliest opportunity to resolve ring effects is triggering Defend The Wall as a reaction to step 3.2.3, but surely Kaede's "If you win" applies before that.

Ruling on playing restricted attachments:

Q: Can you "Play" a restricted attachment on a character who already has 2 restricted attachments? The rules reference do not state whether or not you can "play" a third restricted attachment on a character, the rules only state what you would do when you find yourself in that illegal game state.

Quote

You may play a third restricted attachment onto a character, forcing the character’s controller to immediately choose and discard one of its restricted attachments.

Nate French 10/20/17