Is there a mechanical distinction defined in the rules here? I can find the rules around "reveal" but don't see anything talking about "looking at."
For instance, if one were to play an Iuchi Wayfinder and use it's reaction to look at a face-down province, does that province remain revealed or do you simply gain the knowledge of what it is and put it back face down?

Revealing is public, 'looking at' is not. Iuchi Wayfinder does not change the game state; you look at the province and then you put it back exactly as was.

3 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

Revealing is public, 'looking at' is not. Iuchi Wayfinder does not change the game state; you look at the province and then you put it back exactly as was.

Minor quibble or possibly a misunderstanding on my part. If "look at" doesn't change the game state, that would mean you can't use Iuchi Wayfinder's ability, since it's not making any change to the game state. From the rules reference, "An ability cannot initiate (and therefore its costs cannot be paid) if its effect on its own does not have the potential to change the game state."

Since it looks like you should be able to use that ability, I'd have to conclude that looking at a card is a change in the game state. I couldn't find any references in the rules either way on that specifically, but it looks like it must be true in order to use the Wayfinder's ability.

Right idea, but flawed reasoning. The justification of 'it should work so the rule can't be that' isn't valid. Sometimes the rules just have holes in them. According to the rules as currently written, neither Iuchi Wayfinder nor Meek Informant's abilities cause a game state change and thus cannot be played. This is not a failure of correctly interpret the rules; this is a problem with the rules.

In this case, I don't think anyone thinks you can't actually play Iuchi Wayfinder's ability, so there isn't really an issue.

Isn't playing the character changing the game state?

2 minutes ago, Silverfox13 said:

Isn't playing the character changing the game state?

Yes, but we're discussing using his reaction, which is separate from playing the character (unless it had the forced keyword, of course.)

I don't think it's an oversight per se. If all five provinces were revealed before playing the Wayfinder, then there would be nothing to look at and you couldn't use the reaction. Ergo, looking at a face-down province is considered a change in the game state.

19 minutes ago, Swordbreaker said:

I don't think it's an oversight per se. If all five provinces were revealed before playing the Wayfinder, then there would be nothing to look at and you couldn't use the reaction. Ergo, looking at a face-down province is considered a change in the game state.

What game state has changed when you look at a face down province? You haven't revealed the province, as it is face down.

Also, technically, the only requirement to trigger the ability is playing the character: " Reaction: After this character enters play – look at a facedown province." You aren't required to 'choose a facedown province', so you could use the ability despite there being no facedown provinces.

I agree its a flaw in the rules. It is an ability that does nothing to the game state.

19 minutes ago, Mirith said:

What game state has changed when you look at a face down province? You haven't revealed the province, as it is face down.

Also, technically, the only requirement to trigger the ability is playing the character: " Reaction: After this character enters play – look at a facedown province." You aren't required to 'choose a facedown province', so you could use the ability despite there being no facedown provinces.

I agree its a flaw in the rules. It is an ability that does nothing to the game state.

You can't look at a facedown province if none exist.

Change of the game state would be "I know what that province is now."

Also, 'game state' technically has no definition...

At best, the way Tyler described it, it was very vague.

The difference between "look at" and "reveal" is in who gets to look: only the player controlling the effect or all players. And gaining previously unavailable information (even temporarily) is a change of game state.

I know what common sense would dictate, and if that's the way it needs to be played then so be it.
I was really more curious if "look at" was actually defined in the rules anywhere (as "reveal" is).