Hiyas, there's a few things I'd please like to check with Ide Trader, so I'm playing him correctly

1. Ide Trader not declared in conflict, and moves himself into a conflict either with Favored Mount or Favorable Ground. Does he get the reaction on himself only?

2. Ide Trader is in a conflict. During the conflict I play a character (Ichi Wayfinder, or some other dropbear). Will that trigger his reaction?

3. Ide Trader is in a military conflict. I play Charge or Cavalry Reserves, to bring more characters into the conflict. Will that trigger his reaction?

1. Yes. A character just moved to the conflit Ide Trader is now in.
2. No. Playing a character in a conflict isn't moving it.
3. No. Putting a character into play in a conflict isn't moving it either.

Khudzlin, without revisiting that same thread related to the Ide Trader months ago, I have to disagree with your response to 1).

A given character can not be in 2 places at once. You are either out of the Conflict, or in the Conflict. If the Ide Trader is ‘participating’ (a word that FFG really, really needed to better define, such as in this instance) in a given Conflict, then he (the Ide Trader) is in the Conflict... he isn’t on the sidelines looking in, he isn’t home, etc., but he has declared to be taking part (either as an Attacker or a Defender) and is in the given Conflict. The Ide Trader can not be in a Conflict, while also moving into the same Conflict at the same time . Mind boggling!!!

Thusly, if additional characters are chosen to move (through an Action such as use of a Battlefield card) to a Conflict that the Ide Trader has already been declared to be in, then Ide Trader’s Reaction kicks in..... I read the Ide Trader to be equivalent/similar to the function of a Spyglass. (((Ex: Ide Trader declares as a Defender to an Opponent’s Military (let’s say a Lion player’s) attack against a Unicorn Province. Lion Player then plays Charge! and moves in another character... Unicorn player now moves in, through the use of Favored Mount, another character into the Military Conflict and thus triggering Ide Trader’s Reaction.))) ((there are many other examples, of course, this example is merely to state my understanding of Ide Trafer’s Reaction))

Additionally, Nate French’s reply to this question (wholly unsatisfactory to a sizable number of people) is perplexing to me as it can’t stand scrutiny. I’m not going to rehash this topic and attempt to beat it down again, but I just don’t get why the card’s Reaction wasn’t simply clearer than what it should have been. (comparing this card to Duel cards and their printed actions, I’m amazed why the editors let this card fly)

And yes, I fully agree with your reply to 2) and 3).

My apologies if my response, or it’s proper word usage/descriptors, or it’s tone don’t come off as levelheaded.

14 minutes ago, LordBlunt said:

Khudzlin, without revisiting that same thread related to the Ide Trader months ago, I have to disagree with your response to 1).

A given character can not be in 2 places at once. You are either out of the Conflict, or in the Conflict. If the Ide Trader is ‘participating’ (a word that FFG really, really needed to better define, such as in this instance) in a given Conflict, then he (the Ide Trader) is in the Conflict... he isn’t on the sidelines looking in, he isn’t home, etc., but he has declared to be taking part (either as an Attacker or a Defender) and is in the given Conflict. The Ide Trader can not be in a Conflict, while also moving into the same Conflict at the same time . Mind boggling!!!

Thusly, if additional characters are chosen to move (through an Action such as use of a Battlefield card) to a Conflict that the Ide Trader has already been declared to be in, then Ide Trader’s Reaction kicks in..... I read the Ide Trader to be equivalent/similar to the function of a Spyglass. (((Ex: Ide Trader declares as a Defender to an Opponent’s Military (let’s say a Lion player’s) attack against a Unicorn Province. Lion Player then plays Charge! and moves in another character... Unicorn player now moves in, through the use of Favored Mount, another character into the Military Conflict and thus triggering Ide Trader’s Reaction.))) ((there are many other examples, of course, this example is merely to state my understanding of Ide Trafer’s Reaction))

Additionally, Nate French’s reply to this question (wholly unsatisfactory to a sizable number of people) is perplexing to me as it can’t stand scrutiny. I’m not going to rehash this topic and attempt to beat it down again, but I just don’t get why the card’s Reaction wasn’t simply clearer than what it should have been. (comparing this card to Duel cards and their printed actions, I’m amazed why the editors let this card fly)

While I won't disagree with your logic on why if shouldn't work, at the moment we have a dev ruling that says yes it does work.

Unfortunately given the method that FFG has taken for their FAQ's and not addressing specific questions like this it means that we are in a grey area where these rulings may or may not be enforceable, but they are the only guidelines we have to go by (and I won't rehash one of my rants about why this is probably the worst method they could be taking to address these questions for the health of the game) and so should be considered in that light and so sadly yes it does work that way.

Per the rules...

Quote

A reaction is a triggered ability whose text is prefaced by a boldface " Reaction: " precursor. Always resolve a triggering condition before initiating any reactions to that triggering condition.

...

After a triggering condition resolves, a reaction window for that triggering condition opens.

Within the reaction window, the first player always has the first opportunity to initiate an eligible reaction (to the triggering condition that opened the window), or pass. Opportunities to initiate an eligible reaction, or pass, continue to alternate between the players until all players consecutively pass, at which point the reaction window closes. Passing does not prevent a player from initiating an eligible reaction later in that same reaction window.

The triggering condition, in this case, is someone (Ide Trader) moving to the conflict that Ide Trader is in. By the time the moving is complete, he is now at the conflict, and the triggering condition to his reaction has just completed.

This all works because it is a Reaction. Reactions happen immediately after the triggering condition.

Before you argue that Ide Trader doesn't trigger off of his own ability - realize that there are ways it could have worked in the current rules if they wanted to restrict him from triggering off of himself. Many cards use these methods to restrict how they are used. It could have included any of these to restrict it.

"While Ide Trader is participating" would have required he be at the province first.

"When another character moves" would have ensured it could never refer to himself.

Changing from Reaction to an Interrupt - Reactions look at the game state after a triggering condition has resolved, Interrupts look at it prior. There is no way to look at it during, it is either 1) Interrupt: A character is going to move into the conflict X character is at, or 2) Reaction: A character has already moved into the conflict X character is at.

These are all already used to restrict cards - in the absence of restrictions like this it makes sense that he does trigger off of himself.

2 minutes ago, shosuko said:

Before you argue that Ide Trader doesn't trigger off of his own ability - realize that there are ways it could have worked in the current rules if they wanted to restrict him from triggering off of himself. Many cards use these methods to restrict how they are used. It could have included any of these to restrict it.

"While Ide Trader is participating" would have required he be at the province first.

"When another character moves" would have ensured it could never refer to himself.

Changing from Reaction to an Interrupt - Reactions look at the game state after a triggering condition has resolved, Interrupts look at it prior. There is no way to look at it during, it is either 1) Interrupt: A character is going to move into the conflict X character is at, or 2) Reaction: A character has already moved into the conflict X character is at.

These are all already used to restrict cards - in the absence of restrictions like this it makes sense that he does trigger off of himself.

Aaah... I'm not sure that "the wording is deliberate" is a valid argument any more. *cough*pit trap*cough*. But I see where you're coming from.

1 minute ago, twinstarbmc said:

Aaah... I'm not sure that "the wording is deliberate" is a valid argument any more. *cough*pit trap*cough*. But I see where you're coming from.

And yet pit trap has already received errata, meanwhile Toturi/Hoturi - while possibly erroneously worded - are still ruled to be played as printed.

Until the wording changes it is only appropriate to play as worded.

Toturi/Hotaru are actually functioning as intended, so don’t hold your breath on functional errata. We’re only going to do functional errata on cards that need it to function properly (such as Pit Trap) or cards that are so unbalanced that errata is the best clean solution to make the game a good experience to play.

~Tyler Parrott

19 hours ago, twinstarbmc said:

Aaah... I'm not sure that "the wording is deliberate" is a valid argument any more. *cough*pit trap*cough*. But I see where you're coming from.

It is if you consider that the way the Devs have said Ide Trader works is exactly how the same wording works in the Game of Thrones LCG. There are multiple cards there with the "in which" clause that also treat it as a condition on when you can activate the ability, and not as part of the triggering event.

Yeah, it was the same in conquest too. This is how I expected it to work (given FFG).