First let me begin by explaining that this has little to do with the state of the Lion Clan, or the Unicorn Clan as a whole. It has been brought up that the card combo Hisu Mori Toride [hereby referred to as "HMT"] and Waning Hostilities should work because Lion and Unicorn are in such bad places right now and need help. That statement; while not entirely inaccurate, is not the reason this combo, and the wording of the Cards themselves, and the rules reference need to be reversed to allow HMT to Waning and still declare 2 challenges.

So first things first, let's take a look at the wording of Waning Hostilities

Reaction: After the conflict phase begins – each player has only one opportunity to declare a conflict this phase.

seems simple, seems rather boring even. But we're going to take a deep look at the grammar and compare and contrast this card against 2 other cards in the meta. One being the Stronghold in question HMT and the card Pacifism. Both containing keywords that are specifically referenced in the Rules Reference while this card contains not a single iota of rules reference phrases. Something I hope will change soon.

let's break it down piece by peace. Reaction: After the Conflict Phase Begins. That's 3.1 in the rule book. Meaning nothing else has happened this is literally a reaction window for cards of this nature and literally nothing else. BUT what comes next is a nightmare of wording and grammar. 3.2...

During the conflict phase, each player is granted one opportunity to declare a military conflict and one opportunity to declare a political conflict. These conflict opportunities alternate between players with remaining conflict opportunities in player order until each player has declared a conflict or passed on each of his or her conflict opportunities. A player's military and political conflicts may be declared in either order during the round.

When a player has an opportunity to declare a conflict, that player may:

• Declare a military conflict.
• Declare a political conflict.
• Pass.

If a conflict opportunity is passed, the player forfeits his or her right to use that opportunity this phase.

Now this is a funny thing that I noticed first and foremost. Rules as Written both players can pass the opportunity to declare conflicts infinite times. Kneejerk reaction, "it's the last bold line, you loose the opportunity to declare if you pass", yes that's right but that wording directly contradicts the wording that is posed directly before it. "You are granted One Political Conflict and One Military Conflict" meaning players are either allowed to pass infinitely, OR when you pass you MUST declare whether you forfeit your military or political conflict.

Here's the argument... I am granted One Conflict of Each Type. I have the opportunity to pass or declare one of these conflicts. During the opportunity I decide to pass, I therefor lose one conflict opportunity, but I still have access to BOTH conflict types correct? Meaning the game state has not necessarily changed at all. I have not lost my "opportunity to declare One Military", and I have not lost "my opportunity to declare One Political" therefor I still have the opportunity to declare 2 conflicts. Either that or I MUST declare which conflict I chose to forfeit. THIS IS IMPORTANT...

Now On to HMT...

Reaction: After you win a [military] conflict with more participating characters than your opponent, bow this stronghold and sacrifice a (friendly) Cavalry character – you may declare an additional [military] conflict this phase.

Now it was Dev Ruled that this grants you 3 opportunities to declare conflicts. Meaning that it takes the "granted" [a word not mentioned in the Rules Reference] and grants "an additional [military] conflict this turn" ..now look a little bit above this text and tell me that this card, "grants me the opportunity to declare an additional military" because THAT is the proper wording of this card. You MUST give the Opportunity to declare or you are STILL only granted 1 military, and 1 political. This card giving you another Military, so [2 conflicts] 2 military, 1 political. The wording has failed, the Dev Ruling while seemingly necessary is a band aid over something much worse.

But all that is tangential, what I'm getting at is pretty simple.

Waning says, "each plays has One opportunity", and if you pass you forfeit that opportunity. Let's assume that's a given. Now when I use my One opportunity and trigger HMT I am not granted an "Additional Opportunity" meaning that the above text is true and Waning will Block the 2nd and the "3rd". However, because it does not grant me an "additional opportunity" the stronghold itself does not allow for 3 conflicts in the first place. However, if the card DID grant an additional opportunity to declare a conflict, aka a 3rd conflict than this should work directly against Waning as it reduces the number to 1 and then I am granted a 3rd by the Dev Ruling. This SHOULD work and only ONE of the statements above can be true as they both contradict eachother.

However if you wanted to word Waning Hostilities to be Not Contradictory AND block HMT from Triggering a simple ability is all you need...

CANNOT

It's on the card Pacifism and Shiba Peacekeeper, the game already has a rule that "CANNOT" be modified or circumvented, and its already printed on several cards. The "Proper" wording on Waning Hostilities Should be, "Each player CANNOT declare more than One conflict this turn." Period. Full Stop. But the RULES AS WRITTEN, this is not the case, nor is it in agreement with the Rules Reference. So from where I'm standing there needs to be an update to the Rules Reference, A] in order to clean up the wording on 3.2 because dear god is it bad, and B] in order to add the word "HAS" to the rules reference, and indicate that it is a HARD limiter much like Can Not.

I am hoping that this ruling was made by someone who was ill informed, but that is least likely the situation.

Anyway, sorry for the rant... what are your thoughts?

https://fiveringsdb.com/card/waning-hostilities

Quote

Waning Hostilities hard-sets the number of conflicts available to each player to 1, overriding any effects that allow initiating additional conflicts (e.g. Hisu Mori Toride ).

After Waning Hostilities is played, abilities that would increase the number of available conflicts cannot be initiated, because their effects have no potential to change the game state.

Case closed.

still not seeing it being played much, as a unicorn player I was worried it would be

1 hour ago, Ascarel said:

https://fiveringsdb.com/card/waning-hostilities

Case closed.

Then HMT doesnt give 3 conflicts

33 minutes ago, Foxtrot Four said:

Then HMT doesnt give 3 conflicts

If Waning Hostilities is played than as per the developer rulings each player has a hard cap of 1 conflict for the turn and nothing can override that.

1 hour ago, Foxtrot Four said:

Then HMT doesnt give 3 conflicts

It does, until it doesn't. Waning Hostilities work pretty much like Unleash the Djinn -- a set modifier that overrides every other.

On 8/15/2018 at 12:44 PM, Ascarel said:

It does, until it doesn't. Waning Hostilities work pretty much like Unleash the Djinn -- a set modifier that overrides every other.

Waning Hostilities is nothing like Unleash the Djinn. If it was, Waning Hostilities would have the word "set" in it. There is nothing in the rules reference to where "only" = "set".

Perhaps is bad wording or an oversight, but HMT should work with Waning Hostilities. Or they should errata Waning Hostilities to include the word "set".

The developer ruling says the following:

Quote

Waning Hostilities hard-sets the number of conflicts available to each player to 1, overriding any effects that allow initiating additional conflicts (e.g. Hisu Mori Toride ).

After Waning Hostilities is played, abilities that would increase the number of available conflicts cannot be initiated, because their effects have no potential to change the game state.

My problem with this is there is nothing i can find in the rules reference that states Waning Hostilities "sets" the number of challenges. The ruling appears to be "um... yeah so this is how we wanted this card to work so thats how it works". They set up a templating for their card game and then they poorly word cards by going off their template.

4 hours ago, C2K said:

My problem with this is there is nothing i can find in the rules reference that states Waning Hostilities "sets" the number of challenges. The ruling appears to be "um... yeah so this is how we wanted this card to work so thats how it works". They set up a templating for their card game and then they poorly word cards by going off their template.

Waning Hostilities says you only get one opportunity to declare a conflict. After you've had that conflict, or passed on it, that's it. HMT says you may declare an additional conflict, Waning Hostilities says (though perhaps not verbatim, but very much in flavor, spirit, and function) you may not . And "may not" always trumps "may".

1 hour ago, twinstarbmc said:

Waning Hostilities says you only get one opportunity to declare a conflict. After you've had that conflict, or passed on it, that's it. HMT says you may declare an additional conflict, Waning Hostilities says (though perhaps not verbatim, but very much in flavor, spirit, and function) you may not . And "may not" always trumps "may".

The card does not have the term "may not"... at all.. it's nothing close. The straws your looking for is "this phase". Very gently implying that the effect stays in play for the phase..

But it has none of the terms used in other cards like Djinn, which is "until the end of the phase". Which IS a hard cap limiter.

No "Until"

No "Can Not" or "Will Not"

My point is standing in my opinion.

Unleash the Djinn has the word "set" in it, which is defined in the reference to be absolute. What bothers me about this is there needed to be a ruling in the first place. Waning Hostilities was worded poorly and thats why we are where we are at.

In the same vein, I'm pretty sure Hawk Tattoo wasn't meant to be a harpoon, but here we are. ?

10 hours ago, C2K said:

Unleash the Djinn has the word "set" in it, which is defined in the reference to be absolute. What bothers me about this is there needed to be a ruling in the first place. Waning Hostilities was worded poorly and thats why we are where we are at.

I have to say though that the set-modifier thing was simply an analogy for me, because this wording is used specifically with skill modifiers. The number of conflicts you can declare is, well, a specific count indeed, but it's not a "hard stat" and is not treated as such in the wording. I agree that this is far from ideal.

That being said, I don't believe the ruling is so outlandish. It does hinge on "this phase" being equal to "until the end of this phase", but this is an unsurprising clarification, not a complete reversal.

On 8/16/2018 at 11:53 PM, Foxtrot Four said:

The card does not have the term "may not"... at all.. it's nothing close. The straws your looking for is "this phase". Very gently implying that the effect stays in play for the phase..

But it has none of the terms used in other cards like Djinn, which is "until the end of the phase". Which IS a hard cap limiter.

No "Until"

No "Can Not" or "Will Not"

My point is standing in my opinion.

I understand your frustration. However, it's already been ruled upon, and the majority of the community agrees. At an event -- heck, even in a friendly match -- I do hope you play based upon the accepted ruling, and not how you feel it should work.

So all I, the totally radical P'an Ku, see is that Opportunities and conflict numbers are separate. It would seem that Opportunities are derived from conflict allowances or numbers.

If HMT grants you may declare an additional [military] conflict this phase. You would gain the ability to declare an additional conflict because an Opportunity would be created as a result of gaining another conflict allowance/number. Since WH prevents more than one Opportunity it prevents the additional conflict from being usable.

The problem here is that Opportunity needs to be defined separate from the actual conflict declarations.

11 hours ago, twinstarbmc said:

I understand your frustration. However, it's already been ruled upon, and the majority of the community agrees. At an event -- heck, even in a friendly match -- I do hope you play based upon the accepted ruling, and not how you feel it should work.

I would never play a card how I feel it should work; I would play a card as the rules define it would work. What I am afraid of is if a developer feels that a card should work a way other than it is worded or if the majority of the community feels this is the way the card should work, abandoning the definitions of the rules.

If design wants to come out and say "hey we messed up on our templating", that would be upsetting, but at least accepting accountability and acknowledging they will get better at it. Heck, even if they throw something in the next faq that adds the word "set" to the card print, that would have the same effect.