If the result of a duel has zero effect on a character, is it a game state change?
The only change to the game being the potential dial change, but are the characters legal targets as they are not being effected?
Examples of 'dead' duels:
Prudent Challenger where neither character has an attachment.
Duelist Training where both characters are bowed.
Just now, Bayushi Shunsuke said:If the result of a duel has zero effect on a character, is it a game state change?
The only change to the game being the potential dial change, but are the characters legal targets as they are not being effected?Examples of 'dead' duels:
Prudent Challenger where neither character has an attachment.Duelist Training where both characters are bowed.
The character being involved in the duel is enough of a game state change that a character may be chosen even if it doesn’t directly affect them. (After all, card effects care about whether a character was involved in a duel regardless of the outcome.)
[Tyler Parrott, Feb 15 2019]
I understand that officially, 'initiating a duel' is considered a game state change, but does his reasoning here in parentheses bother anyone else?
" (After all, card effects care about whether a character was involved in a duel regardless of the outcome.)" - If this logic were consistent and correct, we'd be able to Supernatural Storm a Shiba Tetsu with no shugenja in play, just for Tetsu's reaction. The actuality is that it has never mattered if other things 'care about' something in terms of a reaction.
Again, I can understand that 'Initiate a Duel' is sufficient enough of an outcome to trigger an action with that effect. His parenthetical statement just seems to be giving bad guidelines.
1 hour ago, AradonTemplar said:" (After all, card effects care about whether a character was involved in a duel regardless of the outcome.)" - If this logic were consistent and correct, we'd be able to Supernatural Storm a Shiba Tetsu with no shugenja in play, just for Tetsu's reaction. The actuality is that it has never mattered if other things 'care about' something in terms of a reaction.
Not quite. To trigger an ability the effects have to be able to change the game state without taking into consideration other card abilities. Duels intrinsically changing the game state is consistant with storm/Tetsu becuase Tetsu's ability doesnt trigger of an effect of storm but things like insult to injury do trigger off an effect of duels. Since there are cards that trigger from the effects of duels we know that dueling itself intrinsically involves a possible state change.
Edited by GoblinGuide9 hours ago, GoblinGuide said:Not quite. To trigger an ability the effects have to be able to change the game state without taking into consideration other card abilities. Duels intrinsically changing the game state is consistant with storm/Tetsu becuase Tetsu's ability doesnt trigger of an effect of storm but things like insult to injury do trigger off an effect of duels. Since there are cards that trigger from the effects of duels we know that dueling itself intrinsically involves a possible state change.
Ok fair, that's an incredibly slim distinction between effect and the playing of, but that was where my misunderstanding lay.
If Tyler simply removed the parentheses we would have a clearer understanding of his ruling in this situation.
On 5/9/2019 at 9:53 PM, LordBlunt said:If Tyler simply removed the parentheses we would have a clearer understanding of his ruling in this situation.
Yeah I think he was trying to give an example of how just having a duel was a change in game state as you could have a duel winner and a duel loser. But example wasn't really necessary.
If the concept of Game State was actually defined in the rules I believe the answers to questions like this would be much clearer.
8 hours ago, Evilgm said:If the concept of Game State was actually defined in the rules I believe the answers to questions like this would be much clearer.
You might think so, but that's the kind of thing that's really hard to define technically without creating weird corner cases where your intentions break down.
If you can't write down a rules concept, how can you expect people to make rulings based on that rules concept? As it stands we already have " weird corner cases where your intentions break down " rulings because people have to guess at what is or isn't the Game State and what is or isn't a change.
The mechanic of "changing the games state" is at the heart of all card interactions in the game, but isn't even roughly explained in the rules. That is bad rules design. It's not the fault of Tyler, as he inherited the issue, but it is something he can rectify.
On 5/11/2019 at 7:44 AM, Evilgm said:If the concept of Game State was actually defined in the rules I believe the answers to questions like this would be much clearer.
This. !!!!