Jump to content
kpsmith

Doji Hotaru/Akodo Toturi Rules Clarification

Recommended Posts

2 hours 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 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.

More specifically, as I understand it?, Hotaru does not activate the ring on defense.  The ring resolves if Hotaru wins on defense, and it is the attacking player that gets to choose what to do with that resolution.

So...on Crane attack Dragon, Pol ring of air, Crane wins ring of air, gains 4 honor (as an example) or takes 2 from the Dragon player.
On Dragon attack Pol ring of air, Crane defends with Hotaru and wins, Crane wins the ring of air but it does nothing (since Crane is defender), but the ring of air resolves, so the Dragon gains 2 honor or takes 1 from the Crane player.

I could be wrong...but I don't see any 'may' in the resolve part of the ring.  The effect goes off automatically, whether the Crane player wants it to or not.

 

 

Edited by KakitaKaori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KakitaKaori said:

More specifically, as I understand it?, Hotaru does not activate the ring on defense.  The ring resolves if Hotaru wins on defense, and it is the attacking player that gets to choose what to do with that resolution.

So...on Crane attack Dragon, Pol ring of air, Crane wins ring of air, gains 4 honor (as an example) or takes 2 from the Dragon player.
On Dragon attack Pol ring of air, Crane defends with Hotaru and wins, Crane wins the ring of air but it does nothing (since Crane is defender), but the ring of air resolves, so the Dragon gains 2 honor or takes 1 from the Crane player.

I could be wrong...but I don't see any 'may' in the resolve part of the ring. 

Only if the Crane player foolishly activates her Reaction, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

The wording of the rings clearly defines [player Y] = "attacking player".  Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that X=Y iff [player X] = "attacking player".  If [player X] = "defending player", it is actually quite counter-intuitive to assume that X=Y.

You forgot the initial premise, "given [circumstances]." It's actually immaterial whether [player X] is attacking or defending player; rather the issue is that [player X] is the one resolving the ring.

14 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

If it doesn't contradict the rulebook, one would think we would have even less reason to argue against the straightforward reading of the card...

No, all this means is that the Jade Rule (and any reference to card text contradicting the rulebook) is irrelevant to the discussion.

Edited by Manchu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, shosuko said:

p14 and 3.2.6 do not say the same thing.  3.2.6 describes that the attacking player may resolve the ring effect of the contested ring.  It only lists the Ring Effects for simplicity, page 14 shows the ring effects.  There is no case where there is not an "attacking player" and a ring effect in resolution.  If there were, then it would simply fizzle as there is no attacking player.

In the case of all cards - except Hotaru and Toturi - it is clarified in the ability that you resolve the ability "as the attacking player" to allow the ring effect to be fulfilled.  In the case of Hotaru and Toturi - their abilities are only able to be triggered during a conflict, and without any text in the ability stating otherwise - the attacking player is still the person who declared the conflict currently resolving.

As you can see from the wording on page 14, Ring Effects - there is no case of resolving a ring without an attacker.  Either the effect gives it, or the game gives it.  If for any reason these don't give it, then it would fail to resolve.

Is it more important?  no.  I did not say it was more important.  What I did say was that it was possible to have very clear and consistent rules because a game is a controlled environment.  Nothing happens without it being in the rules to happen.  Every card is made with the rules in mind.  The process is not perfect - thus we have FAQS, Errata, and Rules Reference updates...  as we will with this situation to correct any issues where there is a lack of clarity, consistency, or if rules are not functioning as intended.  Until we receive any updates we play as the cards rules read.

That's rather messy. It looks more likely that we [may] have to sit through constantly seeing "as the attacking player" on any card that wants to produce a ring effect instead of just "resolve that ring's effect". It's as redundant as using "this creature is unaffected by summoning sickness" instead of using a keyword like Haste.

I think I'd actually like to see what the other designers would say about the issue and how they arrived at it. Has anyone actually tried that?

Edited by Kubernes

Share this post


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

If you can choose not to, that's good...I was worried you couldn't.

Fortunately, p. 2 in the RR states that "initiation of [...] reaction abilities is optional." Nate French's call just means you have a very high incentive to use your expensive Crane and Lion Clan champs to attack. This means they are less flexible/more straightforward - it's not contrary to theme. Just be ready to have them immediately neutralized.

Edited by Manchu

Share this post


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

You forgot the initial premise, "given [circumstances]."

I did not forget the initial premise; I declined to discuss it because it had absolutely no relevance to my point.  Given the wording of the rings, [player Y] will always equal "attacking player".  Period.  100% of the time.  If the defending player wants to resolve a ring effect, he needs to be treated as the attacking player.  Otherwise, it is impossible given the wordings we have at this time.

That being the case, [circumstances] only affects the definition of [player X], and is irrelevant to the definition of [player Y].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I understand the assumption that who "resolves" the ring has no bearing on who [does whatever] according to the ring effect. That was the point of the post you quoted (see the final sentence).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a funny feeling that we will see one or both of the following errata:

a) The  "attacking player" wording will get stricken from both the LTP and RRG references to the Ring Effects of the specific rings. 

b) The first paragraph of "Ring Effects" will be reworded probably something like:

Each time a player wins a conflict either as the attacking player or uses a card effect, he or she may resolve the ring effect associated with the contested ring’s element. 

The wording isn't perfect but it does seem to align with the developer intent as seen on TC and other places. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Joelist said:

I have a funny feeling that we will see one or both of the following errata:

a) The  "attacking player" wording will get stricken from both the LTP and RRG references to the Ring Effects of the specific rings. 

b) The first paragraph of "Ring Effects" will be reworded probably something like:

Each time a player wins a conflict either as the attacking player or uses a card effect, he or she may resolve the ring effect associated with the contested ring’s element. 

The wording isn't perfect but it does seem to align with the developer intent as seen on TC and other places. 

What is most likely to happen is they simply errata the cards to add "as the attacker" to them.  No other changes are needed.

The rules are working fine here, what is not working are just these 2 cards.

Edited by shosuko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that barb was meant for me, as the only poster who used the term ITT in the last few pages, why not just say so? I posted what I meant: "The rule per Nate French's call just means that defending with Crane and Lion Champions is (in most cases) sub-optimal." Defending with a 3/6/3 or 6/3/3 isn't bad - it's just not using the champs to their potential, which is important considering they cost 5.

Edited by Manchu

Share this post


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

If that barb was meant for me, as the only poster who used the term ITT in the last few pages, why not just say so? I posted what I meant: "The rule per Nate French's call just means that defending with Crane and Lion Champions is (in most cases) sub-optimal." Defending with a 3/6/3 or 6/3/3 isn't bad - it's just not using the champs to their potential, which is important considering they cost 5.

Because it wasn't meant for you, or I'd say so. It was meant as a general outburst of thought, not directed at anyone in particular, or I'd call you out specifically, I'm not shy about doing that. You aren't the only one who uses it, and I'm not particularly refrained to one thread or website to see the term used.

With that though, I do find it to be an incredibly unhelpful term, since deciding what is optimal is pretty impossible with the amount of unknown variables. Add in that what is or isn't optimal is down to personal preference and play style, as well as changing from moment to moment depending on context of hand and board state. Optimal isn't a static neutral existence that can be measured as a singular constant.

But no, I wasn't pointing out you particularly, just seeing the words brought that thought to mind. As you say, you weren't calling it a bad play, so obviously the barb wasn't meant for you.

Share this post


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

so obviously the barb wasn't meant for you

LOL I am the only person who has used the term "sub-optimal" in the entire thread so it didn't seem obvious to me.

In this case, I think it's more than fair to say defending with Hotaru and Toturi is sub-optimal. Spending 5+ fate on a single character - I better get everything out of it that I can! In the sense of getting less than everything possible out of them, using them to defend would still be "sub-optimal" is they did resolved claimed rings as if they were the attacker. But that would make them significantly more flexible against their cost.

Share this post


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

LOL I am the only person who has used the term "sub-optimal" in the entire thread so it didn't seem obvious to me.

In this case, I think it's more than fair to say defending with Hotaru and Toturi is sub-optimal. Spending 5+ fate on a single character - I better get everything out of it that I can! In the sense of getting less than everything possible out of them, using them to defend would still be "sub-optimal" is they did resolved claimed rings as if they were the attacker. But that would make them significantly more flexible against their cost.

It's fine to say it's sub-optimal since you're simply comparing the benefits of attacking to defending with them. 

One could say that something is sub-optimal if there's a better use of resources or cards.

Share this post


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

LOL I am the only person who has used the term "sub-optimal" in the entire thread so it didn't seem obvious to me.

In this case, I think it's more than fair to say defending with Hotaru and Toturi is sub-optimal. Spending 5+ fate on a single character - I better get everything out of it that I can! In the sense of getting less than everything possible out of them, using them to defend would still be "sub-optimal" is they did resolved claimed rings as if they were the attacker. But that would make them significantly more flexible against their cost.

Should have been obvious, since your comment in context didn't fit the usage I used in my barb.

I'll try to keep this short and simple. Sub-optimal has no meaning in a game where it is impossible to optimal. It's that simple. Sub-Optimal has no meaning here. Even if we except that it's possible to be optimal, Sub-optimal is still a useless phrase. All it's saying is "That wasn't perfect". That isn't useful in any conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is completely ridiculous. I have seen rules arguments on forums in a few games. But here there are a few real forum jocks that really go over 9000.

I don't appreciate that FFG put out two clan champs that don't work as advertised either. And whatever Nate french said, i don't buy that this is not just a simple mistake/misprint.

FFG just should errata/rerule the cards and done.

But it IS clear what Nate said, so we should just play the cards as like that until FFG does something about it. We have to...

Share this post


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

Eh....too many words don't hurt anyone unless they really want to read them.  Some of us are just incredibly long winded. It's OK.

 

I guess it's okay, but at this point it's really just... lamenting the obvious.

The criticism is imho justified, but there is just no point to continue this. If they just would do a /close thread sometimes in these forums ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, shosuko said:

What is most likely to happen is they simply errata the cards to add "as the attacker" to them.  No other changes are needed.

The rules are working fine here, what is not working are just these 2 cards.

I think we're working off of different assumptions here. I am assuming that the FFG judges and the developers (as seen on the TC video) are stating the intent. Nate (quite properly) ruled on the written text. Based on that, I am expecting them to errata things to get back to the intended situation, which seems to be that these two cards are meant to change the usual rules for Ring Effects. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Joelist said:

I think we're working off of different assumptions here. I am assuming that the FFG judges and the developers (as seen on the TC video) are stating the intent. Nate (quite properly) ruled on the written text. Based on that, I am expecting them to errata things to get back to the intended situation, which seems to be that these two cards are meant to change the usual rules for Ring Effects. 

How does Shosuko's suggested errata not fix things back to exactly the situation you suggest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I would prefer rewording the ring effects to say something along the lines of:

"When a player wins a conflict as the attacking player, that player may claim the ring and resolve its effects as the resolving player.  If a ring effect is resolved at any other time than upon resolution of a conflict, the player resolving the ring effect becomes the resolving player".

The ring effects would then say:

"Air:  The resolving player blah, blah .... "

I've now typed "resolving" far too many times.  The word has lost all meaning to me. 

To be honest, I'm extremely glad that they did not include the Rules Reference in the core set, as having an online document that can be updated as rules are clarified avoids specific card errata, which I find irritating.  I'd rather have the card text always be "correct", in a sense, and just clarify the rules, as opposed to vice versa.

Share this post


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

Sub-optimal has no meaning in a game where it is impossible to optimal. It's that simple. Sub-Optimal has no meaning here. Even if we except that it's possible to be optimal, Sub-optimal is still a useless phrase. All it's saying is "That wasn't perfect". That isn't useful in any conversation.

Nonsense. Under Nate French's call, the optimal use of the Crane and Lion Champions is attack because if they win the conflict their player may resolve the ring at stake twice in his own favor. If defending, they can, at best, merely claim the ring if they win (like any other character). This is clearly sub-optimal.

Worse yet, it's not unlikely that the player controlling them might not come to Nate French's arguably counter-intuitive interpretation of RAW - in which case, the player has the incredibly negative experience of his Clan champion "betraying" him. I personally favor Crane and Lion but avoiding this kind of extremely negative experience is the main reason I support Shosuko's suggestion that the words "as if you were the attacking player" be added to the Crane and Lion champion Reaction texts.

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...