Jump to content
kpsmith

Doji Hotaru/Akodo Toturi Rules Clarification

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, RandomJC said:

Then how do we explain Tsukune gaining the "as if you were the attacking player". Her ability doesn't even occur anywhere NEAR step 3.2.6. 

It doesn't ping off that step, it doesn't even check that step. It checks the ring abilities themselves, which requires an attacking player.

 

Sloppy development cycle? Printing mistakes(i.e. Rancor)? Inconsistent department communication? No communication?

There's still two articles that note the ability to use on the defense. Must be quite difficult to edit the sites' pages? Did FFG or the designers proof read the articles? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kubernes said:

Sloppy development cycle? Printing mistakes(i.e. Rancor)? Inconsistent department communication? No communication?

There's still two articles that note the ability to use on the defense. Must be quite difficult to edit the sites' pages? Did FFG or the designers proof read the articles? 

Considering the obvious mistakes that have appeared in them in the past, doubtful there were any designers proofing the articles. I've said before Hotaru/Toturi strike me as wording that was made before attackers was a word in the ring text, and through development it got changed, and no one noticed that they didn't work as rules are written because everyone was used to how they were used before. 

It can happen when editing things stories or articles, some things change or are removed so other things in the story don't make sense anymore, but the author doesn't notice because they know the connection in their head so it doesn't stand out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Manchu said:

3.2.6 is where resolve is explained, therefore Hotaru's reaction "calls up" that section. Reading in context, 3.2.6 defines what the resolving player does; the attacking player is normally the resolving player (the normal case being 3.2.6) but that is not necessarily the case with Hotaru's reaction.

Not saying this is the only and therefore necessarily correct interpretation; just that it is a reasonable one that supports a non-absurd result for the Crane and Lion champions.

Page 14, Ring Effects tells us what happens when we resolve a Ring Effect.  3.2.6 is just the step where an attacking player may resolve the effect due to game framework.  The Hotaru / Toturi abilities are not effected by 3.2.6 in any way, and they do not call up these framework steps.  They only refer to Ring Effects page 14, which dictates what the ring effect does.

Try looking at -only- page 14, Ring Effects, and try to build your argument from there.  When you are looking for what a Ring Effect is, you don't go to 3.2.6, you go to page 14.

note - unless Hoturi's ability states you are the attacker - the attacker is whoever declared the conflict that is currently being resolved.

32 minutes ago, Klawtu said:

Problem is number 2 went right out the window when a Dev specifically ruled that it does not work that way. There is still a possibility that this is an error and that future errata to either the cards or rules will change it but if you just decide that you're not going to play by how the people who made the game say it should be played then I don't know what to do for you. You can argue that the rule doesn't make any sense (I did my share of this about the stronghold moving issue) but when you get word on how a card is supposed to function just not following that is hard to justify. Even if you feel you are right it doesn't change what the riling was. Unless you want to argue that Nate French is not a valid authority as to how the rules of this game work I don't see how you can argue that the rules justify that interpretation.

Now that's a big difference from saying that the card always was intended to work that way or that it should work the way the rules as they are now direct it to. Fortunately we've got over a month before the wide release so if they want to fix it they'll have plenty of time.

I am only describing the mindsets that players are in - I am not saying they are all good, or valid.  Camp 2 is in denial, and I recommend people don't join that camp...  wait for the ruling...  Of course people are people...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, shosuko said:

 

I am only describing the mindsets that players are in - I am not saying they are all good, or valid.  Camp 2 is in denial, and I recommend people don't join that camp...  wait for the ruling...  Of course people are people...

I wasn't criticizing your mindset as you already mentioned that you were in camp 1 (same as myself) I was just pointing out that camp 1 and 2 can only really exist together until we get clarification from the Devs. That happened so I'm not seeing what the arguing is about now. You can totally believe that they were supposed to work on the defense but the rules as they are screwed that up but you can't reasonably argue that in anything other than you playing in a house-ruled environment that they work that way. We literally got a ruling on the issue. Now it's down to "I disagree with the ruling and hope they change it" or "I think the card should be more clear that it doesn't in fact work on the defense to prevent people from making an unfortunate mistake."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

Considering the obvious mistakes that have appeared in them in the past, doubtful there were any designers proofing the articles. I've said before Hotaru/Toturi strike me as wording that was made before attackers was a word in the ring text, and through development it got changed, and no one noticed that they didn't work as rules are written because everyone was used to how they were used before. 

It can happen when editing things stories or articles, some things change or are removed so other things in the story don't make sense anymore, but the author doesn't notice because they know the connection in their head so it doesn't stand out.

Yes, things can slip through, but considering the consistency of errors, I'd imagine they would have added another layer to try and prevent this? I suppose it has to get to a rather large error before upper management steps in to amend it.

I'm guessing the author to most of the articles is one of the marketing people for the game; they were given some images of cards, notes, and examples, then told to write something up. 

Even a Skullclamp or Arcbound Ravager can get through the most strenuous playtest groups at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit ridiculous. Even actual legal systems the world over have managed to figured out that always relying on profoundly literal interpretations of rules is both irresponsible and completely stupid, but apparently FFG (and some of the people defending this ruling) have not. 

Edited by Himoto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Himoto said:

Bit ridiculous. Even actual legal systems the world over have managed to figured out that always relying on profoundly literal interpretations of rules is both irresponsible and completely stupid, but apparently FFG (and some of the people defending this ruling) have not. 

Are you seriously trying to equivocate rules of government to rules of a card game?  A card game is a contained, and controlled system.  No card exists without being designed and released by FFG.  It is not unreasonable to expect a clear and consistent rule and mechanics process.  This is far different then a government system which must maintain relevancy across the entire spectrum of human behavior to establish civility.

I wouldn't say anyone is "defending" this ruling - if by defending you mean "believes this is what we have, and will always have."  The only "defense" of the ruling you see are people saying "Yes, the card is missing a key phrase to work properly, so by the rules it fails to work properly."  This indicates that the card needs an errata, and then it will work.

The process of FAQ, Errata, and Rules Reference updates is a continual one.  To expect things to be perfect is ridiculous, so is deciding to play against the rules just because you don't like how they work.  We can read into the "intended mechanic" of the card all we want, I'm certain we're all in agreement on the intended mechanic...  but that doesn't change the rules.  The rules in question here are not ambiguous, the card is the problem - it needs a few extra words - and until those words are officially added, they aren't there! and that is all the ruling confirms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is defending the ruling........because a ruling hasn't been made.

FFG has given us the impression that these cards work one way but the rules, as written, don't support them working the way they have been described.

When FFG does give an official response.......then we can do this all over again.

Can't wait!

Edited by Ishi Tonu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Kubernes said:

Yes, things can slip through, but considering the consistency of errors, I'd imagine they would have added another layer to try and prevent this? I suppose it has to get to a rather large error before upper management steps in to amend it.

I'm guessing the author to most of the articles is one of the marketing people for the game; they were given some images of cards, notes, and examples, then told to write something up. 

Even a Skullclamp or Arcbound Ravager can get through the most strenuous playtest groups at times.

I'm not trying to sound overly critical of the game, or designers, or even the rules as written. So I'll apologize if I am. most of it it's pretty spot on and they really just need a good copy editor to fix a majority of the small errors in the rules texts, or inconsistencies in them. Had a decent conversation about how the rules on playing action cards in dynasty can be a bit iffy since the conflict window specifically calls out event action abilities from hand, while the dynasty just says action abilities. (As in not worded the best if you start over thinking it.)

But I imagine the document will get cleaned up and better in the next few months so not going to worry about it too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Laughing Monk said:

Without having to read 7 pages . . .  What does Hotaru do as written?  Allow you to resolve ring effects twice if they participate and win a battle as an attacker?  

Ahhh but what does Hotaru not do as written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Laughing Monk said:

Without having to read 7 pages . . .  What does Hotaru do as written?  Allow you to resolve ring effects twice if they participate and win a battle as an attacker?  

When you claim a ring during a POL conflict you may resolve the ring effect.  However - it does not say to resolve it "as the attacker" so when the Ring says "The attacking player draws 1 card from their conflict deck and discards 1 random card from their opponent's hand" (page 14) it defers to who the game thinks is the attacking player which is the player who declared the conflict (page 3).

This means Hotaru can activate the ring if she claims it in defense - but its the same as if her opponent claimed it, since they are still the attacking player.

In offense it works as intended - double ring effect on win.

Edited by shosuko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you seriously trying to argue that rules clarity and consistency is more important in a game where all that's at stake is winning the occasional tournament than in law where even the lowest stakes often rank up in the thousands of dollars and months of life lost (and upward from there into the millions and billions and years or even entire lives)?

The law has FAR better reason to insist on "rules as written" so people can actually know what the rules are and avoid being on the aforesaid wrong side, and even it doesn't cling to literal interpretations, because, while they did try it (like FFG), they eventually realized literal ruling just

I mean, yeah, it's a simple approach in a "It works and we don't really need more for a game" sort of way. But it should be criticized when it lead to stupid results. 

Edited by Himoto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Manchu said:

@RandomJC

Tsukune arguably warrants specification because she is not resolving the ring at issue in the conflict - instead, unclaimed rings.

Eh, arguably it only needs specification because the rings ability text specifically call out an "Attacker". So an an attacker needs to exist. The problem of Hotaru is she doesn't give you attacker. and while the ring effects themselves say "attacker" she won't let you resolve them as the defender. You are not the attacker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Himoto said:

Bit ridiculous. Even actual legal systems the world over have managed to figured out that always relying on profoundly literal interpretations of rules is both irresponsible and completely stupid, but apparently FFG (and some of the people defending this ruling) have not. 

Pretty sure no one is actually defending the ruling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, shosuko said:

When you claim a ring during a POL conflict you may resolve the ring effect.  However - it does not say to resolve them "as the attacker" so when the Ring says "The attacking player draws 1 card from their conflict deck and discards 1 random card from their opponent's hand" it defers to who the game thinks is the attacking player which is the player who declared the conflict (page 3).

This means Hotaru can activate the ring if she claims it in defense - but its the same as if her opponent claimed it, since they are still the attacking player.

In offense it works as intended - double ring effect on win.

That's what I think is crazy about this whole discussion.  Double ring effect is good.  Just because people want it to work on defense doesn't mean that it should work that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

I don't think anyone is defending the ruling........because a ruling hasn't been made.

FFG has given us the impression that these cards work one way but the rules, as written, don't support them working the way they have been described.

When FFG does give an official response.......then we can do this all over again.

Can't wait!

You mean an official response like this?

On 8/29/2017 at 2:26 PM, Daigotsu Kai'Sen said:

So in case this was still at debate, I got this reply from Nate French today regarding Toturi/Hotarus abilities:

"Hello,

While they can be triggered on the defense, the resolution of each ring does explicitly refer to “the attacking player” performing the action. With that wording, in most cases, it would not be beneficial to trigger these abilities on the defense.

Nate French
Senior LCG Designer
Fantasy Flight Games
nfrench@fantasyflightgames.com"

 

So while you can trigger them on defense, the attacking player would still resolve the action as per the rulebook, making it unbeneficial to do so.  Sorry if this was posted elsewhere, I submitted this question a while ago and just got a response.

 

I mean you can argue that either Nate French is not an official source or that the poster in question was lying about getting that response but I'm not guessing that was what you meant. Doesn't help that this was middle of page 2 on a now 7 page thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shosuko said:

Try looking at -only- page 14, Ring Effects, and try to build your argument from there.  When you are looking for what a Ring Effect is, you don't go to 3.2.6, you go to page 14.

Because p. 14 and 3.2.6 say the same thing, the same issue of reading in context occurs. Both rules state the normal case, neither necessarily covers the special case wherein the resolving player is not necessarily also the attacking player. I think you have the heavier burden, honorable Scorpion, because you want to show your interpretations (and TBF apparently Nate French's) is the only one; whereas I only intend to show a reasonable (low threshold) alternative case.

The rule per Nate French's call just means that defending with Crane and Lion Champions is (in most cases) sub-optimal. Extremely so. Okay so these are very aggressive characters. I'm fine with that, although I would obviously prefer the other reading - not just because it makes Hotaru and Toturi more flexible but also because I think Nate French's call creates a bit of a trap. It's likely that many players will not unreasonably believe that their Clan champs are better than worse. But the Scorpion-chan will pull out his tablet and show screen shot of Nate French ruling the other way. "So sorry, friend Crane! It seems Doji Hotura has unwittingly betrayed you!"

Edited by Manchu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Manchu said:

Because p. 14 and 3.2.6 say the same thing, the same issue of reading in context occurs. Both rules state the normal case, neither necessarily covers the special case wherein the resolving player is not necessarily also the attacking player. I think you have the heavier burden, honorable Scorpion, because you want to show your interpretations (and TBF apparently Nate French's) is the only one; whereas I only intend to show a reasonable (low threshold) alternative case.

The rule per Nate French's call just means that defending with Crane and Lion Champions is (in most cases) sub-optimal. Extremely so. Okay so these are very aggressive characters. I'm fine with that, although I would obviously prefer the other reading - not just because it makes Hotaru and Toturi more flexible but also because I think Nate French's call creates a bit of a trap. It's likely that many players will not unreasonably believe that their Clan champs are better than worse. But the Scorpion-chan will pull out his tablet and show screen shot of Nate French ruling the other way. "So sorry, friend Crane! It seems Doji Hotura has unwittingly betrayed you!"

I'm now pondering how much it would cost to get the ruling printed on a overly ornate scroll for maximum hilarity. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Klawtu said:

I'm now pondering how much it would cost to get the ruling printed on a overly ornate scroll for maximum hilarity. :ph34r:

Just imagine poor Crane and Lion clan faces ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Klawtu said:

I'm now pondering how much it would cost to get the ruling printed on a overly ornate scroll for maximum hilarity. :ph34r:

How ornate are we talking? I kinda want one now too, maybe a group discount can be applied. ;)

ADD: Should it also be printed in Japanese with translation below?

Edited by Zesu Shadaban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...