So, if I'm reading this correctly, there's absolutely nothing to say you have to resolve the ring effect against the player you attacked. Am I missing anything here?

Do you mean as opposed to resolving it against any opponent? I don't suppose there is. Fire, Water, and Void Rings both just require selecting a character, so they should be able to target anyone. Air and Earth though use the wording "his or her opponent" which isn't defined in the "Your opponent" vs. "An opponent" section of the Multiplayer rules. My inclination would be to simply convert this wording from 3rd person perspective to 2nd person (change "his or her" to "your") but there's honestly no reason that would be a more valid change than simply making it "an opponent".

Yep. But I agree that the intention should be the player that you attaker against.

On 5/28/2018 at 3:23 PM, Hannibal_pjv said:

Yep. But I agree that the intention should be the player that you attaker against.

I disagree! I like the sneakiness of declaring an attach against the one you know you can take out, and then using the ring against the other one. I see I was wrong about Air and Earth, but the other three are fair game.

It depends on how ring effect Are defined...

but as it has been worded. Air and earth both tales about opponent, other don`t. Because of reasons that They can Also affect the attaking player himself. So it could as well be any player or conflicting players.

if you only read cards, it is any player. If you read enlightment rules, I am not so sure anymore.

So some ruling in here would be nice!

On 5/29/2018 at 3:44 PM, twinstarbmc said:

I disagree! I like the sneakiness of declaring an attach against the one you know you can take out, and then using the ring against the other one. I see I was wrong about Air and Earth, but the other three are fair game.

So.... keep beating on the weak player because it's easy to farm ring effects and rings off them. That incentives people to gang up, a problem this format has a lot of trouble with already.