6 hours ago, mplain said:

It would also make Kosori an eligible target for any abilities interacting with participating characters, which she is currently not.

I was thinking it might work like back alley, where you play as if it were in a province, but not considered played from a province. Or like the resolve the ring as if you were the attacking player, but you are not considered the attacking player. Invoking the rules, but not consider you participating.

You'd have to come up with some tricky wording then. "As if X were" and "considered to be X" work just like "is X" for the purpose of cards seeking X.

For Back-Alley Hideaway, the character is considered to be played from the province, and would trigger any interrupts/reactions to playing characters from provinces.

For Display of Power, resolving the ring effect as the attacker would trigger any relevant abilities as well.

In AGOT there are several characters that are "considered to be participating in a challenge" via their abilities, and they can be burned by Dracarys etc.

12 hours ago, Schmoozies said:

No you seem to be the one stuck in an incorrect loop. The Jade rule states:
"If the text of a card directly contradicts the text of either the Rules Reference or the Learn to play book, the text of the card takes precedence."

Nothing on this card says anything about a bowed state therefore it does not interact with that rule at all. The only rule that it addresses is the rule of participation as it allows her to contribute as participating as long as their is a friendly model present.

Nothing on her card states that she ignores the participation clause in skill checks either, it doesn't address the rule of participation at all in any "direct" manner, being home is a requirement to activate her ability which gives a flat statement of "it contributes its skill to your side".This matters because the logic required to get to overruling the Participation clause is important to note, because I think it is related to how to resolve her when she is bowed. You cannot have a rule that works only some of the time after all and the Jade rule should function consistently.

This is important, because the statement in the card text is flat out. It is not written as, "it contributes as long as it meets other conditions in the RR", otherwise it would contribute but not be counted due to the skill check rules. Its end result of "it contributes its skill to you side" is a seemingly closed statement in the case of this card. If you meet its requirements you get to contribute it's skill to your side.

These requirements on the card are:

1. It is an air conflict
2. You have a character participating
3. Kaito is in the home area

When these conditions are met, her ability is active and states that "It contributes its skill to your side". THIS is where all the contradictions need to be addressed and resolved with regards to the Jade rule. There is one thing to note, based on her card text and the requirements given for her ability it is possible to be in a situation where you have a bowed Kaito whose ability is actively telling the game state that she is contributing her skill to your side. Being unbowed is not a requirement to have her ability become active, if it was NONE of this would be a problem.

Lets say she is unbowed. Why do we say she can override the participation rule. She doesn't specify she can, infact she doesn't say she is participating at all. All she says is that if she is home and meets the other requirements she contributes.

So now we logically try to apply her active effect to the game state. The RRG comes up, saying that "participating characters contribute to conflicts", in response we then acknowledge that, because she tells us she is contributing and the rule book is showing her not meeting the condition that a contradiction now exists. This is a direct contradiction, the card says "yes, she is contributing" and the rule reference says "No, because she is not participating".

The Jade rule comes into play at this time. It looks at the game state and see Kaito's ability contradicting the Rules Reference and sides with the card effect over the RRG requirements. The Jade rule lets Kaito contribute despite her not participating as her ability overrules the requirement to be participating. Now that the contradiction is resolved logically the game continues.

So her ability, state and location are important to help us understand where a contradiction is coming from and logically work out what overrides what due to the Jade Rule. We end up with something like:

"Her ability is actively telling the board state she contributes, and she is home which should exclude her normally from contributing due to only participating characters being able to contribute skill, therefor she will overrule the participation clause in the skill check rules due to the Jade Rule specifying that card abilities override Rules Reference Rules."

So now we have a framework of what is happening here. Now lets make her bowed, all the other conditions the same, all requirements met, everything else the same. We are left with a bowed Kaito telling the game state that she is contributing to your side due to her ability.

Unlike the unbowed scenerio, where the only contradicting RRG rule is that participating characters contribute, this time we have that one and a new one, bowed characters do not contribute to conflicts.

So we logically try to apply her active effect to the game state. The RRG comes up, saying that "participating characters contribute to conflicts" and then saying that "Bowed characters do not contribute".

So first we can resolve the first contradiction the same way we did above. Her location and her ability tell the table what she is doing and the Jade rule is allowing her to overrule rules that would prevent it. We end up with the same conclusion.

"Her ability is actively telling the board state she contributes, and she is home which should exclude normally her from contributing due to only participating characters being able to contribute skill, therefor she will overrule the participation clause in the skill check rules due to the Jade Rule specifying that card abilities override Rules Reference Rules."

Ok NOW the bowed contradiction. We acknowledge that right now we have a bowed character who's ability is telling us she is contributing and the rule book is showing her not meeting the condition to contribute, her being bowed. The card says "yes, she is contributing" and the rule reference says "No, because she is bowed," showing us that a contradiction now exists. This is a direct contradiction, the card says "yes, she is contributing" and the rule reference says "No, because she is bowed".

Now, if rules are consistent in this game, the The Jade rule comes into play at this time. It looks at the game state and sees Kaito's ability contradicting the Rules Reference and sides with the card effect over the RRG requirements.The Jade rule lets Kaito contribute despite her bowed state as her ability overrules the rules stating that bowed characters do not contribute. Now that the contradiction is resolved logically the game continues.

So again her ability, state, and location are important to help us understand where a contradiction is coming from and logically work out what overrides what due to the Jade Rule. We end up with something like:

"Her ability is actively telling the board state she contributes, and she is bowed which should exclude her normally from contributing due to only ready characters being able to contribute skill, therefor she will overrule the readied clause in the skill check rules and the Bowed characters rules due to the Jade Rule specifying that card abilities override Rules Reference Rules."

The Reason why the answer by the developer is a problem is that both of these are contradictions that occur, with rules that the card itself does not directly reference, rather infir due to the state and location of the card in relation to its abilities being active. Both can be analyzed and worked out the same way using the same Jade Rule, yet in his response the developer states that it overrides one specific contradiction stated in the book and not others, but that isn't mentioned on the card, nor something that the Jade rule would seemingly differentiate against.

If this is to be errata to Kaito, them adding a "must be unbowed" requirement to activate her ability, then this problem goes away. But without that then the logic for why only applying the Jade Rule at one situation where the card contradicts the rules, but not at another isn't actually resolved. You have a rule being inconsistently applied.

THIS is what I am talking to them about.