That was my expectation, but wanted to make sure.
What happens if you use this on your own turn?
[attachment: RtR_108_details.png]
Onyx Lives #rules-questions
Messages from the Onyx Lives #rules-questions Discord channel, copied for Oracle of the Void. Players' names are left out; the rules officials are named. Rulings are as they stood on these dates; later rulings and the rulebooks may differ.
You target a Personality. Nothing in the second sentence happens (unless the action's target has an effect allowing them to opt to attack you globally known to the game state). Then, you lose 2 Honor, Banish the Spell, and the target straightens when the Action Phase ends.
If the opponent uses this, and destroys the spell, if I Tide from Beyond, can I choose only 1 target?
[attachment: image.png]
Answers on: Tide from Beyond
Tide can only change 1 target, not both.
The thing was this: Kitsu had 4 personalities (A, B, C, and D), and I targeted B and C. So, Kitsu used Tide (attached to personality D) and tried to redirect the range attack toward B to C, making both range attacks target C... Is that possible?
Yeah. Unfortunately, there's nothing prohibiting you targeting the same card with two consecutive RAs (this would be different if the RAs were simultaneous, which would require all the targets be different). Therefore, there's nothing illegal about redirecting the second RA to the first target; it would then just fail when it failed to find it if the first RA already killed it.
Ok, got it. Thanks
Ok... lets say I have a strat that costs 2, can I combine these to have it cost 0? or does aohama override ejiro in that regard?
[attachment: image.png] [attachment: GS_018_details.png]
The minimum won't allow its reduction to lower it below that value at all. If you add an additional reduction that would reduce it below, the Aohoma reduction readjusts.
So if you had a 2-cost, with Aohoma -1 reduction it's 1, with a separate additional -1, it's still 1 because Aohoma readjusts to -0 to prevent itself lowering the cost below the minimum. If you add a second unrestricted -1, then the cost would be 0. Aohoma will not raise or prevent other reductions, only its own.
BOOoooooooo
bad change
booooooo
aohama is usless outside of crane... in crane its a 2 for 3 so not as bad
lol
just kidding of course, but no free routes
[ShE] can I interrupt a response? Eg: playing Turtle's Shell to interrupt Hardayal's response
No. Interrupts and Responses cannot be Interrupted or Responded to.
Follow up question. Let's say I declare a RA, the opponent does nothing, then I interrupt with the strategy that allows to compare the RA against printed force. Does the opponent still have the chance to interrupt/response to the RA with something like Turtle Shell? Or since he previously passed it's considered that he missed the window?
The opponent can still Interrupt also. Like any action round, it isn't over until both players pass consecutively.
Got it. Thanks!
ShE Shatterd Stormfront Mantis Stronghold and gold pooling. If I spend 4 gold and only use 2 of it before the raid and have "2 floating" can I use the "2 floating" during the raid?
Under discussion
ShE Die is cast: When do I count as discarded a card for the purposes of using it? Example: Black powder tactics, I use it, its a ranged 4, and then the die is cast would cause the person to go to force 5, does my black bowder tactics "fizzle" or does the personality not get the bonus force from the die is cast until black powder tactics "completes"
Answers on: Black Powder Tactics, The Die is Cast
Gold drains from the pool at the end of the phase in which it is pooled. Creating an Attack Phase in the middle of the Action Phase does not end the latter, therefore Gold pooled in the Action Phase would still be available through the Raid until the Action Phase ends. Note however that any Gold created and pooled during the Raid would drain at the end of the Raid Attack Phase.
Your example is missing a lot of important details, but assuming the Die Event is your opponent's and you have equal cards in your hands before you play BPT, yes, your RA 4 targeting a 4F Personality would fail, as Die would make him go to 5F before the RA resolves. Strategies leave your hand as soon as you announce their action, into a temporary "resolution area".
If zaiberu goes to use his ability, and the opponent wants to target 2... if I have Tide From Beyond, can I have him only target the 1?
[attachment: image.png]
Answers on: Tide from Beyond
No. "Choose targets" step is before Interrupts. You could only change 1 of the chosen targets to something else instead with Tide.
I know there is something that I could redirect multiple things to one target
why is there a variation?
You're thinking of a situation with consecutive Ranged Attacks, which happen one after the other and can therefore be the same target. Simultaneous targeting ("Target two Samurai", "Target your Samurai and your Courtier", etc) happens at the same time and by the Rules must each be different targets. In the second example in the parentheses, it would be illegal to target one card that is both a Samurai and a Courtier.
why must they be?
zaiberu is one or two
Are those two different questions? :/
no
they apply to the same thing
zaiberu is "one or two"
so why would that not be a legal target to change it to just one?
Because the original announcer already established that two were being targeted in the "Choose targets" step. With Tide, you can change one of those targets to another legal card instead, but you can't alter the number of targets chosen. If it were just one target in total with two legal options (Target one Samurai or one Courtier), then you could change it, but the second target is already "locked in" as it were, constraining what is legal for the second target to be.
Im not following
sorry
Announce: I'm taking Zaiberu's action. Pay Costs: I bow him. Choose targets: I'm targeting your 2F Kitsu Joe and your 3F Kitsu Schmo. Interrupts: I pass; you use "Tide". Tide says, "If it would be legal, the action targets one of your unbowed Personalities of your choice instead of another card." So, the new target has to be "instead" of Joe or "instead" of Schmo; "instead of another card", "card" being singular. The new target ("one" of your unbowed Personalities, also singular) cannot be "instead" of both targets, and it cannot be changed to Joe being targeted twice in lieu of Schmo being targeted at all because that would be illegal under Simultaneous Targeting Rules.
yeah I understand the text. and it would still be legal to only target one.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure how to tell you it would not be legal any more plainly.
You cant
because we disagree
😉
I'm beginning to think that the Tide card needs an errata
sounds to me that Zaiberu is providing the user a choice to pick one or two, and that then sets the number of choices.
Tide let's you re-select one of the targets, not the entire targeting clause.
I guess I'm kinda used to not taking card text literally though...
If card text isnt to be taken literally, thats when you get these card clarification issues.
Nue's indicated that he and I have reached an empass, but to yours and a player 's points: All the references in "Tide" are singular, changing one thing to one other thing. I don't see how it could be more literal.
It says choose a new target if it would be legal
it is legal to only have one target
"...instead of another card.", emphasis mine, "card" singular. There are currently two other targets when you Interrupt Zaiberu; you cannot have Tide target something else "instead" of them both.
its when targeting is happening
and one becomes legal
because its legal
Sorry, I really thought that last point might have been what you were missing. I apologize for continuing to debate the issue after the declared empass. You're welcome to disagree, but the arbiters of the Rules have said all that can be said.
Yep!
Also, just as a curiosity...
If someone has a personality at a battlefield, and they use a card effect that is listed as Absent, is the action considered absent for purposes of negating it with something like "From Your Friend"
In example... if someone has 1 personality at a province, and they then attempt to "The Unicorn Expedition" to move someone else in, can From Your Friend stop it because it has printed absent? Or is it no longer considered absent because they have presence?
From Your Friend checks if the action is Absent. That’s it
Yeah... I know... I was asking for clarification of absent in general.
Is the action still absent if the player using the action has presence? Or is it no longer absent?
Absent with a capital A. From Your Friend checks if the word “Absent” is in the action
Ah, so from your friend is specifically talking about the printed term "Absent" ?
Yes
Thanks.
Zaiberu's player has the choice of 1 or 2 targets, chooses the mode of 2 targets, then targets A and B. Tide is used. A is no longer targeted. B is not legal az a target for the redirect because it's already targeted AND because of the chosen mode of 2 targets, the action has to resolve with 2 different Personalities targeted. As a result, C, D, etc are the legal targets, and following, if there are only A and B on the board, Tide cannot be played.
Consider how this parallels with targeting wording in MtG: any time the phrasing "up to X targets" is used, the card can be used on X or fewer targets. However, when you drop the "up to", then X has to be the amount of legal targets existing, otherwise it is illegal to cast the spell. The same applies to redirecting.
Yeah... thanks for trying, I don't agree.
Its still a legal choice to only have one target, and the interrupt happens at/before the targeting step.
So I disagree. But accept the ruling.
When you activate Zaiberu, you choose “one” or “two” targets. If you choose two, this becomes a locked in mandatory targeting effect. There’s no rewinding the effect back to the original choice. Redirecting the second target to the first can’t work because “1 does not equal 2.”
I have an issue with something a player said, and I would appreciate some clarification on the matter from @Brook Cunningham Does the interrupt truly happen before the targeting step or it happens after the targets have been declared?
There's a "choose targets" step before Interrupts, then after Interrupts, targeting as chosen in that step and/or affected by Interrupts actually "happens" during effects resolution (just for the purpose of tying the effects to the actual final targets and/or things that are triggered by "being targeted").
I disagree, it's still a legal choice based on the text of Zaiberu. Just like choosing one of my people is a legal choice when they try to use the Chasing Osano-Wo...
Its pointless, I disagree with the ruling... thats that.
Its fine. I see how it has been ruled and accept that.
Then you are handicapping yourself by not seeing the reasoning behind Macbeth’s description of the ruling.
Chasing Osano-Wo is a different card with different wording. It is not just like that.
It is exactly like that.
Also, just because someone sees something differently than you doesn't mean they are stupid or handicapped. You are a playtester for onyx lives, and have a bias toward their rulings.
I am literally a game designer with published games, who has played competitive TCGs for the better part of my whole life.
My feedback/opinion is not without merit.
Clarity of rules has never been L5R's strong suit tbh
I want to add that I've played some games in person with a player and a player, (I'd encourage them to comment here if they feel inclined), and I find myself unable to properly explain why certain effects work the way they do.
For instance, being unable to interrupt or respond to an interrupt or response is quite frustrating. The fact that interrupts and responses can't be used without presence (or absent) makes some very frustrating situations. Such as, Ring of Earth can't be used to prevent someone harpooning your personality into combat, and The Turtle's Shell can't be used to save someone from No Hiding Place. Both of these would have been possible with Reactions, so for people who played before Ivory, the fact that you can't is rather frustrating and unintuitive.
I feel as if there's a lot of room for improvement on card wordings, and it may require revisiting some standard wording choices. I would be happy to help. I'm currently unemployed and have lots of time to delve into it. But, I'm mostly just trying to express that frustration here.
This is a perfect reason to aim for more clarity in the future.
Getting rid of Reactions was supposed to help with clarity, not make things unintuitive.
Another issue we came across was specifically to do with Interrupts referring to "The Action". I know this refers to the action it's interrupting, but that wording makes cards hard to interpret as you're reading through them.
The Line Must Be Drawn Here is another example of a card with overly specific restrictions that make them seem like they can't be used on more cards than they actually can be. And there are many other actions not specified that they can't be used on. So it feels very overburdened.
A lot of this was from before Onyx Lives was making their own cards. But that doesn't make them less of an issue.
I wish I was better at pulling up examples... I need to go through the decks I was just playing and find the pain points we had.
I have stated this before several times. The replacement of Reactions with Interrupts and Responses was done for reasons outside of the scope of actual mechanical necessity. I disagreed with them at the time, I disagree with it now, and we are reexamining that during 3D. I have never made it a secret that change and others made to accommodate an "Arena like" online L5R client that was ultimate an unfulfilled promise by AEG are things I personally don't care for.
That being said, for continuity of rules it is necessary for them to carry through black and white bugged arcs. 3D will not have any of these.
As for this specific issue, it has been asked and answered. This stance of 'I disagree but accept this ruling" is a perfectly valid stance to take.
I would ask if we could try to limit this channel to rules questions and move things that are not questions or discussions of those specific questions to general discussion or private DMs
The wording salad required to accommodate Interrupts and Responses is something that, I assure you, I am VERY well accquainted with.
I didn't realize you disagreed with interrupt and response. Thank you for the insight.
For what it's worth, I actually do think that treating Reactions differently from Battle actions regarding presence was always frustrating for me. I think the solution is just to print Absent on more things.
I also think that it would make sense to put keyword modifiers in the keywords box on Action cards. The Keyword inheritance rule enables those keywords to propagate on a card anyway.
I would also like to see the return of the double colon, or perhaps using a dash or something as a way to separate costs from effects. The word "to" can have multiple meanings, and I recall having some confusion over what counts as a cost and requires targeting to play and what counts as an effect, and can happen or not.
This might lead to scenarios where you get actions like, Absent Remote Battle: (bow): do a thing. But I think that's fine. Putting the (bow) part behind the first colon was always weird to me, because the action designator isn't part of the cost. That's telling you when you can play it.
Speaking of... I find it strange that things that look like costs aren't.
Like Overwhelmed has "destroy your dude" after the colon, meaning that if I negate it... the cost of destroying your own guy is negated as well since that's an effect of the ability rather than a cost.
I guess that's so that you can trigger responses to things being destroyed by actions?
I dunno... its just a little janky.
Overwhelmed is a pretty janky card in general...
I'd like to see a scenario in which this card could be errata'd just to make it less confusing, even if that means altering its effect. (Not like AEG had any issues doing that) And if there's a goal of keeping the original in tact, it could just be a new card. Or, perhaps an Experienced version of that card.
Once again, please let's keep this area to specifically asking rules questions. This kind of stuff is better suited in general discussion
[ShE] Kharmic Lamentation. This only applies to 'destroy' wording on cards right? So if someone does a ranged or melee attack, that is the rulebook doing the killing not the card so Kharmic Lamentation doesn't apply. At least that is my assumption?
i don't think so, seems like because the RA/MA is sourced from the card, the card is the source of the killing. obviously, not the rules expert here though
You may be correct because the rulebook says that a ranged attack is shorthand for a longer sentence as follows, so maybe the 'destroy' part of the effect is part of any ranged attack: "A Ranged Attack represents a military effect that destroys at a distance, such as archers’ arrows or a magical fiery bolt. “Ranged X Attack”, where X stands for a number, is shorthand for the text “Target a Follower or a Personality without Followers in the current enemy army. If its Force is equal to or less than X, destroy it.” A Ranged Attack action is one with a Ranged Attack effect."
is correct. More than just what you cited, there is a specific exemption under the definition of "From" indicating that RA destruction is from the card the RA is on, not the Rulebook.
Timing question: Lets say I play dull tanto, I go to destroy dull tanto. Before I draw from expendable I would meet the requirements to play RoV, can I play it before I draw from expendable?
[attachment: ShE_252_details.png] [attachment: RtR_095_details.png]
Answers on: Dull Tanto
Yes. 🙂
How does that work with timing?
Card draw for Expendable is "after" the card is destroyed. The "if ever" of the Void Ring trait is equivalent to "when". "When" comes before "after", so there you go.
But... is there not a timing window like everything else?
Yes? The timing windows are typically, "before", "when", and "after", though we do try to avoid the middle one as much as we can.
I am so lost now
You have timing windows like... "interrupt steps"
Im talking about actual timing
I'm talking about triggers, most frequently seen in such things as triggered traits or delayed effects.
As a side note... im not trying to argue against what you are saying, Im just trying to understand how the framework of L5R timing works
this was a scenario I just found while playing a solo game on snm lol
The Ring of the Void trait is a uniquely (and admittedly somewhat unfortunately) worded triggered trait.
right, like I get that its a trait... but is it because its a trait that it can ignore normal timing limitations?
or is there some timing beat I am missing?
Triggered traits happen whenever their trigger happens.
Most of them are not optional, but some are; this one is (special Ring rules for all their "play" traits being optional).
Did you play the game when Reactions were a thing? Triggered traits work pretty much the same as Reactions, only they're not actions and therefore not OPT, and as I mentioned usually not voluntary (like all actions are).
Maybe the next RoV should have an explicit Interrupt or Reaction or Response to the condition
Mayhaps it shall, though I find that generally, most people are comfortable with the implementation of triggered traits.
there are two different timing methods in L5R. There's the timing in which you're allowed to play actions, and the timing in which any triggered effects can happen.
You can't just eliminate triggered effects, because there are way too many things that just wouldn't work anymore.
Ivory did make it so that you can't play cards during all of the trigger windows. Reactions have had all kinds of timing windows, and it created problems when two people are reacting to the same window. One person playing a card might make the other one not want to play a card, but waiting for someone to take an action without giving away that you have a reaction to play can be construed as ceding your window to play it.
Interrupts and Responses were the answer to this, but at the cost of severely reducing the possible number of potential windows of interaction.
So, Interrupts and Responses can only be played during the before or after an Action has resolved. But, if you have a Trait with a timing effect, that bypasses the normal action window, and can take place before, during, or after anything. A card being played, a step moving forward, etc.
This is not unique to L5R. Many games have kind of a two-tiered approach when it comes to activated and triggered effects. For instance, Magic can have triggers happen during the Untap step, but it never gives you priority to do things during that step.
What does "if possible" mean in this text:
Like... what if the action they are trying to take can't target/affect the personality this is targeting?
What if they have other options in their hand, but since those options are face down the opponent won't know that.
[attachment: RoJ_132_select.png]
[attachment: RoJ_132_details.png]
The "if possible" just means that when the other condition of the circumstance is met, that it's another player's next Battle action that may target any of your cards, but for whatever reason it can't target a card in the Berserker/5+F guy's unit (for instance, if there are other "must" or "can't" targeting-choice-restricting effects that would prevent it), those other restrictions take precedence.
As for your two suggested scenarios:
1. "What if the action they are trying to take can't target/affect the personality this is targeting?"
Then the delayed effect of FYD constraining the targeting choice will wait around for the next other player's action that can target any of your cards.
2. "What if they have other options in their hand, but since those options are face down the opponent won't know that."
The constraining effects of FYD will wait until such an action is played and then force the targeting constraint. It doesn't obligate the other players to ever take such an action, but the next time they do, whammo.
I hope that all explains it sufficiently?
No you just confused me more...
The way your response reads basically indicates they can take actions that can target other people (but not them) in example... if they aren't dishonored, and the card text indicates that the target must be dishonored, it seems you are saying they CAN play that card basically completely ignoring the text of face your destruction.
But face your destruction effectively implies that they MUST take an action that CAN target the person if they have the means to do so.
not quite. If the played card does not target opponent's cards, the FYD card's effect doesn't trigger. If the played card targets opponent's cards WITH additional caveats (such as dishonored, and FYD's target hasn't been dishonored), then FYD doesn't trigger and any legally targetable card can be chosen instead. If the action is a non-Battle action (such as Hardayal's Response Ranged Attack), FYD does not trigger.
No matter how many of the above actions are taken, as soon as a Battle action is taken that can legally target FYD's target, FYD triggers and forces targeting to its target, even if the action would fail as a result (such as a Fear with a lower value than the target's Force)
Ok, so they can just ignore it if they don't have an action that can legally target them? even if their hand is full of them?
You can pass, or only target your own guys (such as force pumps, move homes and Overwhelmed)
So it effectively just waits until it can effect the opponent's battle action, and doesn't force them to actually play into it.
Yes. It does not force such actions to be played. Your inference at the end of your previous post was incorrect.
No. I was saying how it reads, not how it is ruled.
no. It only forces targeting IF a) it's a Battle action and b) FYD's target is in the list of legal targets
It doesn't read that way either. 😛
It does.
What you might miss is that if the targeting of FYD's target is inside of a "may" clause, then it becomes "must"
(though I can't recall off the top of my head if there's a card that does that in the pool)
Anyway... ok so it effectively just directs any effect that CAN target it, to it, rather than forcing them to play into it.
I'm actually trying to get a bit of Design clarification on the scope of actions it affects when it does trigger, so Marcus may be incorrect about that, but yes, he and I both agree that it does not force you to play into it.
(it's good against fear/melee/ranged 👍 )
I am glad it works that way and not what I was thinking. Because in my head it would be forcing opponents to show their hands and negate that player taking any actions if they can't target it or effect them and such.
like... hey bud... got any actions in your hand that CAN target this guy? lets see your hand bud lol
that seemed a bit much
Yep. None of that.
Think of it more like a telegraphed redirect
Yeah, I think thats the better result than how I was interpreting it. Its far more balanced.
The wording is "if it may[...], then it must [...]."
If you use this to pump another card in a unit's melee, and not it's melee, it doesn't get destroyed right?
[attachment: image.png]
The Comprehensive Rules are frustratingly unclear on this matter, and we've been meaning to rewrite them with greater specificity, but our current ruling is that all "special/additional" effects of combined Ranged/Melee/Fear carry through and are a part of the combined attack
Got halfway through typing a response when I realised you meant combining. I want to say it still triggers, since if I recall correctly, the way combining works is transforming the action into an Interrupt, including any and all clauses and secondary effects of that action, IF it can target the same card
I could see this ruling if it were a cost, but ive never run it this way even in ivory/20F
But... for something like ronin blade, it seems fair
Ivory/20F RA/MAs didn't generally have additional effects, hence the ambiguity.
not sure if anything else has a caveat like this.
As another example, "Burn the Mind". You can combine its RA4 with anything, but the resulting RA will only bow, not destroy, the target.
Hmmmm... I think that probably needs clarification either to the rules or to the cards themselves.
I said as much regarding the former, yep.
Because I dont know if anyone is actually considering that
but I dont know if anyone else is actually playing stuff like that either lol
What's the concept of the wording on this being "banished or discarded" if it returns to your hand why would you opt to "discard" it?
[attachment: RtR_084_details.png]
You can only Banish it for Courage in conjunction with certain effects like the Crab Sensei, Masatari. Otherwise, discard is your only option.
ah, ok I see
Wellllllll, but yes
[attachment: image0.png]
Oh. Right, I forgot about that one. 😛
https://tenor.com/view/edp-i-mean-its-all-right-gif-26702511
Hi,
Just to clarify: i need to have a holding destroyed as it enters play in order to get the +1 Gold Production token, correct?
[attachment: RoJ_014_details.png]
No. Both triggers are independent. It will get a token after it enters, and after each time one of your Farms is destroyed.
oh my god. that changes everything
thank you
When targeting, do all targets have to have the same keyword, or can it be 1 paragon and 1 samurai?
[attachment: image.png]
They can be different
Does the +1 always apply, or only when in an army with someone else, question is due to the placement of the comma.
[attachment: image.png]
@Brook Cunningham tournie game
Both the +1 and ability are only while in army with other targets.
thank you