Can these cards be used together? Discuss. I can see arguments for both sides.

I think probably "no" due to the wording of "declare second conflict"...however both cards reset the rules as stated, so which takes precedence and why?

Restrictions take precedence over other actions, if I recall correctly. If a game tells you to do something that you've explicitly not been allowed to do by another effect, you can't do that thing. Normally, Breakthrough Jade Rules the normal rules about how to take a turn, but you can't Jade Rule overrule Waning Hostilities.

It would make sense that you could NOT do that, but lately that hasn't mattered much. So, I'm going to focus on the word "opportunity" in Waning Hostilities. Because I've only had one opportunity to declare a conflict. I just happen to be declaring two within that one opportunity.

That's a fair distinction. I had only summarized the card in my head so far, but the wording is pretty particular. Once again, reading the card is pro. If it had said, "Players may only declare one conflict" it'd be a different story, but since it's only explicitly passing a step of the turn, I don't think it'd care what you do outside of that turn component.

8 hours ago, twinstarbmc said:

It would make sense that you could NOT do that, but lately that hasn't mattered much. So, I'm going to focus on the word "opportunity" in Waning Hostilities. Because I've only had one opportunity to declare a conflict. I just happen to be declaring two within that one opportunity.

When I searched through the RR looking specifically at the word Opportunity there is no hard definition of it. It is used to mean several things, and sadly that means context matters more which naturally exposes this card to more gray area than I think anyone would like.

3.2 states that each player has an opportunity to declare a mil conflict, and an opportunity to declare a pol conflict. Each player may declare their attack or pass the opportunity. The opportunity to declare passes between players until both opportunities have been declared or passed for both players.

At a glance this would support the idea that Waning Hostilities refers to the opportunity, and that each player still has both a pol and mil conflict even if they only have 1 opportunity.

Breakthrough states that a player may declare their second conflict, not that they get the next opportunity to declare a conflict.

The problem I see isn't with the cards, but more with the RR document. It doesn't say each player gets 1 mil conflict and 1 pol conflict, with 2 opportunities to declare a conflict.. Currently our "opportunity to declare or pass" is the only regulation on what conflict type, or how many conflicts you can pass.

Breakthrough uses the opportunity to declare the conflict or else that opportunity would still be there - its the opportunity that the RR tracks to determine whether a player can declare a conflict or not. If Breakthrough does not use up that opportunity (or require it) then it could be used to get 3 attacks in a turn, or to attack mil twice since the opportunity wouldn't be used.

Nothing states that we only get 1 mil and 1 pol conflict except that we get 1 opportunity to declare or pass for each.

In short I think the opportunity to declare an attack, and the ability to declare such an attack are the same thing in the RR, therefore Waning Hostility cuts off Breakthrough.

@shosuko I think you have made some very good points. I'm not sure that the argument is settled, though.

The big question is, do the devs feel that Breakthrough is capitalizing on a single "opportunity".

I don't think you can combine the ideas that 2 opportunities to attack is the same as declaring 2 attacks.

In the timing sequence there are some interesting things that may allow BREAKTHROUGH to play.

As per 3.3 in the RR:

3.3 Conflict Ends/ Conflict was passed. Return to the action window following step (3.1).

But you can't return to the Action Window because the Reaction from BREAKTHROUGH takes effect and the second conflict ensues (off of one opportunity).

The Conflict Action Window reads as follows:

ACTION WINDOW NOTE: After this action window, if no conflict opportunities remain, proceed to (3.4.).

BREAKTHROUGH skips this ACTION WINDOW and the need for a new opportunity, which is what WANING HOSTILITIES specifically eliminates. After BREAKTHROUGH, you would return to the ACTION WINDOW step and realize the opportunities have been used up and then continue on to step 3.4 [Determine Imperial Favor]

Honestly, after more digging and contemplation, I wholeheartedly think that BREAKTHROUGH can be used in conjunction with WANING HOSTILITIES. I only hope that the devs agree.

3 hours ago, shosuko said:

Breakthrough uses the opportunity to declare the conflict or else that opportunity would still be there - its the opportunity that the RR tracks to determine whether a player can declare a conflict or not. If Breakthrough does not use up that opportunity (or require it) then it could be used to get 3 attacks in a turn, or to attack mil twice since the opportunity wouldn't be used.

On a further note,

I still agree with this statement to a point, however the check to see if that "Opportunity" has been used happens in the ACTION WINDOW following 3.1, which is never gotten to due to BREAKTHROUGH being a reaction occurring in 3.3 (which in turn skips right to 3.2 in the CONFLICT WINDOW)

Also, BREAKTHROUGH specifically says "second conflict for this phase" which eliminates the chance for a third attack.

You only have the opportunity for 2 conflicts (as of now), so the question really is: Can 2 conflicts be performed on one opportunity?

So, here's the thing. The Conflict Phase Action Window only checks for additional opportunities to declare conflicts, it is not the framework step that you actually have the opportunity/declare a conflict. That would be step 3.2, which in all their wisdom FFG has decided is both 3.2 for the Conflict Phase and 3.2 for Conflict Resolution. Incidentally, this is also the step that Breakthrough would "jump" to when played as a reaction to framework step 3.3. However, if Waning Hostilities has already limited each player to 1 opportunity each, then when you get back to step 3.2, since it's also the Conflict Phase's step 3.2 you should still need an opportunity to declare a conflict in order to do so. If FFG had separated the "Declare Conflict" step 3.2 in the Conflict Resolution framework from the step 3.2 for conflict opportunities in the Conflict Phase framework, I could see Breakthrough "cheating" the Waning Hostilities restriction on opportunities, but as designed now it would seem you would play Breakthrough, skip the Action Window which checks for opportunities, go to step 3.2, and then fizzle because even though you didn't officially "check" for the opportunity, you still don't have one left to declare a second conflict.

I assume someone's already submitted a rules inquiry on this, I'll be interested to hear how the devs weigh in on this one.

ADD: I can also see the reason for a lot of confusion and mixed interpretations on this, because the RR really isn't consistent with the card wording to clearly define declaring conflicts and conflict opportunities.

Waning Hostilities could have been worded as " Reaction: After the conflict phase begins - each player may only declare one conflict this phase." This would have made the issue much clearer. But it's not. And I'm thinking that may have been deliberate (as opposed to Pit Trap which was just a whoops).

In light of full disclosure - I'm 0 for 4 for interpreting questionable rules once the devs have their say...LOL!

I'm under no real certainty that this won't go against my interpretation as well.

I just like the debate on clearly "grey" rules

11 hours ago, Zesu Shadaban said:

I assume someone's already submitted a rules inquiry on this, I'll be interested to hear how the devs weigh in on this one.

ADD: I can also see the reason for a lot of confusion and mixed interpretations on this, because the RR really isn't consistent with the card wording to clearly define declaring conflicts and conflict opportunities.

I can totally see your point as well and I agree completely on some of the loose RR consistencies with card wordings. But, this is the natural evolution of a new card game system. I remember when MTG had similar issues back in the day of 3rd Edition and Ice Age. (Yes, I'm old)

8 hours ago, twinstarbmc said:

(as opposed to Pit Trap which was just a whoops).

Honestly, I never even questioned PIT TRAP. Regardless of the ruling, No one would have purposefully made a 3-cost attachment coaster that immediately fell off after the character was no longer attacking.

Not even considering actual rulings, and just the actual utility:

This BREAKTHROUGH and WANING HOSTILITIES combo costs 1 fate to pull off, has two moments of cancellation and requires unbowed characters to utilize to any real potential. (might be a bit overpowered for only one cost)

Potent? Yes! Game Breaking? I don't believe so (especially when teamed to an underpowered clan).

Finally, BREAKTHROUGH is just not a good card without this kind of synergy...relegated to a "fill space" pick currently...at least this combo could give it some life and much needed utility. (I feel the game is too young to have too many coaster cards already)

i think the thing thats important here is that Breakthrough is giving you your second opportunity to take your second conflict before your opponent can declare their first. Its a reaction that says after your first so its not with in the first conflict at all any more.

2 hours ago, kraken78 said:

In light of full disclosure - I'm 0 for 4 for interpreting questionable rules once the devs have their say...LOL!

The only thing I'm certain of with this issue is that we will need a dev ruling. Many of the rules questions have real answers following the rules reference without involving a dev. The dev post serves mostly to quell those who refuse to accept the rules as written. This situation is different, the rules just aren't clear enough about the ability to declare conflicts, and the opportunities to do so.

I can see this working both ways posted in this thread legitimately, its going to take a dev and possibly a RR update to make this work one way or the other.

We have a ruling: http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/38206-ruling-waning-hostilities-breakthrough/

Waning Hostilities prevents Breakthrough from being played.

9 minutes ago, Horizonshard said:

We have a ruling: http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/38206-ruling-waning-hostilities-breakthrough/

Waning Hostilities prevents Breakthrough from being played.

Again until I see it on an official FAQ not cutting it. I get where they are going here and actually agree with this ruling so not arguing on that front but this stuff needs to get collated somewhere and up on the official FFG - L5R site, not an affiliated game board (even if FFG also owns it).

12 minutes ago, Schmoozies said:

Again until I see it on an official FAQ not cutting it. I get where they are going here and actually agree with this ruling so not arguing on that front but this stuff needs to get collated somewhere and up on the official FFG - L5R site, not an affiliated game board (even if FFG also owns it).

So until this FAQ comes out, how will you play this card interaction? If we don't follow the unofficial rulings until there is a FAQ out then we're probably enforcing bad habits for when it does come out. Especially when fiveringsdb is easy to search individual cards on and all the cards have any relevant rulings attached to them. I will personally follow the unofficial rules until a FAQ comes out with official rulings, then I will follow those rules, even if they are now different from the unofficial ones.

1 minute ago, Horizonshard said:

So until this FAQ comes out, how will you play this card interaction? If we don't follow the unofficial rulings until there is a FAQ out then we're probably enforcing bad habits for when it does come out. Especially when fiveringsdb is easy to search individual cards on and all the cards have any relevant rulings attached to them. I will personally follow the unofficial rules until a FAQ comes out with official rulings, then I will follow those rules, even if they are now different from the unofficial ones.

And what will you do when the official FAQ does come out and you learn that the rulings on Card Games DB may not be correct because when the whole team sat down to look over the questions for the FAQ they realized one of them made a mistake or an interaction was not the way they intended it so they were making a change to reflect the true intent. For now point to the reference in the RRG and you're good, anything else and that's some great information and yes we'll probably respect it if we can't agree otherwise but don't base your deck and play style around that ruling. As I said I'm not faulting this particular ruling as i do agree that the intent was pretty clear and I would likely have played it the same way if it came up in a game, but we need a better way of getting these out than the current mix of e-mailed and collected questions on various platforms. There needs to be a proper collated FAQ that any player and judge can point to and and easily find without having to print off pages of individual rulings.

15 minutes ago, Horizonshard said:

So until this FAQ comes out, how will you play this card interaction?

6 minutes ago, Schmoozies said:

And what will you do when the official FAQ does come out and you learn that the rulings on Card Games DB may not be correct ...

*blows whistle* Flag on the play, avoiding the question.

Personally, I will play it in accordance with the current unofficial ruling, because it's what we have. When we have something better, I'll use that. It's like science - it's the truth for now, until we find a better more accurate truth.

Just now, twinstarbmc said:

*blows whistle* Flag on the play, avoiding the question.

Answered in my whole statement, Point to the reference in the RRG and you're golden anything else is to be considered and would likely be agreed to as i don't question most of the rulings on their face that we've received so far as they all make sense in relation to the RRG (except the mulligan ruling I still fail to see how that came about given the current wording we have for the RRG).

1 minute ago, twinstarbmc said:

Personally, I will play it in accordance with the current unofficial ruling, because it's what we have. When we have something better, I'll use that. It's like science - it's the truth for now, until we find a better truth.

Except the "Truth" we know is the current RRG, anything else is just a hypothesis that is waiting to be proven by the posting of an FAQ. You can base a decision or an argument on a hypothesis, but until its proven and can be repeated (In an official FAQ) its not a true fact but a stated belief that this is the interaction to expect.

I think the point is that the RRG is flawed/incomplete. You say you are using the RRG, but there are ambiguities, and our question to you is "Are you just making up your own ruling, then?"

For example, are you playing Pit Trap as that it falls off when the conflict ends?

1 hour ago, Schmoozies said:

And what will you do when the official FAQ does come out and you learn that the rulings on Card Games DB may not be correct because when the whole team sat down to look over the questions for the FAQ they realized one of them made a mistake or an interaction was not the way they intended it so they were making a change to reflect the true intent. For now point to the reference in the RRG and you're good, anything else and that's some great information and yes we'll probably respect it if we can't agree otherwise but don't base your deck and play style around that ruling. As I said I'm not faulting this particular ruling as i do agree that the intent was pretty clear and I would likely have played it the same way if it came up in a game, but we need a better way of getting these out than the current mix of e-mailed and collected questions on various platforms. There needs to be a proper collated FAQ that any player and judge can point to and and easily find without having to print off pages of individual rulings.

As I mentioned in my reply: " I will personally follow the unofficial rules until a FAQ comes out with official rulings, then I will follow those rules, even if they are now different from the unofficial ones."

So when the RRG is unclear, that when we need these unofficial rulings from the developers. If a developer makes a ruling, that is all we have to go on right now.

If later, they all sit down and come up with a different ruling to put in a FAQ, once that ruling or FAQ is out, I'll follow that.

Currently some cards, like Pit Trap, are absolute garbage without the unofficial ruling or unofficial errata. Following the RRG rules as written on such cards would make them very different than they seem intended to play. The same argument extends to peculiar card interactions.

8 minutes ago, Mirith said:

I think the point is that the RRG is flawed/incomplete. You say you are using the RRG, but there are ambiguities, and our question to you is "Are you just making up your own ruling, then?"

For example, are you playing Pit Trap as that it falls off when the conflict ends?

At the moment I'm not playing it at all as I'm not playing Crab and my normal opponents who are Crab aren't touching it based on the cost. We know it doesn't work and have had a discussion in our play group about how to deal with it until we get the official errata we have been told it will be getting in the near future (and yes we are playing it as it sticks because the idea that a 3 cost attachment would fall off at the end of the battle and do nothing was ridiculous). The current system is only going to cut it for so long as developer e-mail rulings can get lost or are not available to the masses who don't constantly check the Card Game DB forum (the majority of players) everyday to see what the latest changes are. A perfect example of this problem is the Pax Kotei where you had a group of players making a fuss about judging because the "rulings" we have weren't being respected and a counter group saying if it's not in the RRG or published in an official FFG document than its a handy reference but does not necessarily trump the RRG.

I'll also point out the recent mulligan ruling again as an example of a ruling that based on the current rules set makes little sense and still to me seems like a developer who either misunderstood a question that was being asked or put out an answer without looking at the existing rules and has unintentionally contradicted himself. If the Rules Reference is being updated to reflect this intent than that's great lets get it out so we have it but that means again publishing it officially.

As to Pit Trap the funny thing is we are already seeing an example of how this shoddy ruling system is working out. Here is the card as published:
Pit Trap

Conflict Deck – Influence Cost: 3

Here is the image as uploaded with the QR Scan:

Can you spot the difference cause we very clearly have the errata'd version here. Good thing they have made a point of letting the general fan base know about this errata. Oh wait they didn't do that, they uploaded it with the QR codes and have a posting on an affiliated site that is never mentioned anywhere by them as hosting any sort of FAQ/Errata so that the fan base can find it. As it is now we are in a situation where we have to manually check every single card entry to see what the latest ruling is on each individual card. Sure would be great if that information were collected on one handy document and available to everyone. If only FFG had a spot on the product page for the game, the most likely place that a fan would go to look for such information, in question where such information could be made available.

Continuing in this manner is only going to make the problem worse which is why I'm still saying we need an OFFICIAL FAQ to be posted and hosted by FFG now.

34 minutes ago, Schmoozies said:

Continuing in this manner is only going to make the problem worse which is why I'm still saying we need an OFFICIAL FAQ to be posted and hosted by FFG now.

I completely agree with you that we need an Official FAQ. However, until we get that, it would be nice to figure out as a community what we're going to do in the meantime. I am open to ideas of how to resolve difficult card interactions. The only thing I can think to do in the meantime is to use the unofficial developer rulings that are collected at fiveringsdb by searching the individual cards.

This gets more difficult when you have topics like the mulligan. Since the RRG can be interpreted multiple ways for that, my local game store has decided, as a group, to allow you to look at the dynasty cards you mulligan. If I went to an event outside of my local game store, I would ask the TO or the head judge of that event how they are interpreting the mulligan situation. Until an official FAQ comes out that has the definitive answer to that problem in it, that's the only way I can think to handle rules stage problems that don't relate to specific cards.

I would love to hear anyone's other options or opinions about how to resolve those issues.

6 minutes ago, Horizonshard said:

I completely agree with you that we need an Official FAQ. However, until we get that, it would be nice to figure out as a community what we're going to do in the meantime. I am open to ideas of how to resolve difficult card interactions. The only thing I can think to do in the meantime is to use the unofficial developer rulings that are collected at fiveringsdb by searching the individual cards.

The problem is yes it is fine at the local level when we can all sit down and say yes we agree to do it this way. The problem is when you get to higher levels of play (Kotei, etc.) at which point you get the problem of how is the fact that we are using these rulings disseminated and how much lead time before one of them is considered valid.

I'll give you an example from another game. I have a friend who plays Warhammer 40k and recently went to a large organized event. He was planning to play a variant of an Eldar (Space Elves) Army and built a list using a sub set of the Eldar rules to take advantage of very strong army trait. He spent 6 months assembling and painting and practicing with his army. A week before the event there was a ruling made and an FAQ was released that said the army trait he was building his army around now did not work as he had been using it up to that point. He was left with the choice play the army he had built and go to the event and get beaten as his army was now under optimized or try and build a new list and work around the nerf to his army. He opted for the latter and managed to salvage a decent showing for it. Now imagine if he had showed up to that event and during his first game he was informed about the ruling that had come out on a single loosely affiliated website the week before and his army as built now did not work, how do you think he would have taken it. That is the issue with the developer ruling system we are using now. They are great if you know about them in advance and can plan for them, could be potentially devastating if you don't and are caught out by them. Its why at large events you need to draw a line and say these are the rules we are using and anything else may be considered by the judge but whatever their call that will be final. With Mulligan the ability to look at my dynasty characters after the Mulligan can have a huge impact on what I do with my conflict hand. Do I know I have 3 Yurts and digging for that Way of the Chrysanthemum could mean I win the game on turn 1. Or I have 1 really expensive character and even after the mulligan I still managed to top deck the other 3 holdings in my deck so I want as much bow and negation as possible to deal with whatever my opponent is throwing at me.

As I said, Pax earlier this year and the complaints that flooded this board and others that the judging was horrible and ill-informed almost always comes back to a player had an e-mail ruling and the judge went with the RRG ruling instead. Is the RRG perfect, no it isn't, and i can assure you it never will be, but until there is something more official than it you better be able to argue any ruling you want to contest in light of it cause otherwise you are taking the chance that the ruling you are depending on may not hold water, which goes back to my original point that started this, until its in an official FAQ this ruling is great for reference but doesn't mean anything if your opponent or the judge don't agree with it.

I'm glad Tyler Parrott made a ruling considering this issue. Thanks Tyler! (even though it makes me 0-5 on interpretations...think I'm just gonna go with the opposite of how I think things should work from now on.)

I was also happy that he indicated that it was not innately clear in this situation, and that interpretation did play into the final decision.

I think this was a valid and worthwhile discussion in the beginning and I'd like to thank all of you who participated with the truest intent of finding reasons for how this interaction would resolve.

I learned much and thank the community for this discussion!

I would also like to second the call for an updated FAQ. I really hope they are just waiting for the Imperial Cycle to be complete so they can cover the whole cycle and core in one grand gesture.