[attachment: unknown.jpeg]
Hello. Just want to seek clarification on the 1st win condition on The Darkest Magics. Is that a continuing condition or do you have to fulfill that condition before the event appears?
Answers on: The Darkest Magics
Oracle of the Void #rules
Messages from the Oracle of the Void #rules 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.
I'm asking since the phrase, and until the end of the game appears after the 1st win condition is stated.
Was there ever any stable Onyx ruleset leaked?
Why would it need to be leaked? It would basically be 20F.
And The Darkest Magics is oddly worded, but only works if you've already attached/used 7 Black Scrolls before it resolves. So you need to "rig" when it shows up, or get it to re-resolve.
Ok.
Nothing to do with TDM. Onyx would have included rules for the Akasha Clan, Response and maybe other tweaks. Some of these sets were leaked, and I was wondering if a rulebook did, too.
Yes, Shiwan is right; the "until the game ends" part only applies to using 12 and winning immediately, not the attaching 7 and winning at the start of your next turn.
Since we never got done proofreading Onyx, we also never got CR/Rulebooks to proofread either.
Wait, what is Akasha clan? Just curious
The Naga, with an actual "Clan" name.
Mantis was out, right? And naga back in?
Right.
Why was Mantis out? Story line reasons? Curious.
Yeah. The Shadowlands wrecked/took over the Islands.
Wooohhh. I gotta read the last fiction stories.
I'm not sure it happened in those? I think it was supposed to be told in The Blackest Storm expansion that was due to be out prior to Onyx, but also was never printed.
Some of the final CCG fictions, I don't consider "canon" to the continuing story, because they were written to just wrap things hastily and with the knowledge that FFG was rebooting. I think they killed like half the Champions, and some were due to be printed in Onyx, so that wouldn't have been the story had the game not been sold.
It wouldn't have been "Akasha Clan", just "the Akasha".
I really like the idea of having a different roster of clans per edition. It just adds some level of flavor. The downside is that the players of the phased out clans are forced to adopt another.
Yes, but in Onyx ex-Mantis players could focus on their favourite ex-Mantis family. As there were Senseis that allows eg Tsuruchi or Moshi Personalities play under other clans as Personalities with their Clan Alignment.
Nice. That's innovative. Kitsune please. hehehe
Images I saw did read "Akasha Clan". I remember specificly a Sensei with read exactly that in the trait line.
I guess it addressed confusion between alignment and the actual "naga" trait. For instance, this way you could have Mirumoto Daini XP to belong to the Naga faction but not be a Naga himself, and thus not keying Naga abilities. Or you could have off-faction Naga doing so.
Balash Sensei? Yeah, it says "Akasha Clan" on my PDF, but I think we'd have got that changed to just "Akasha" by the time it went to print.
Also, wasn't Akasha also like the sixth ring in the Onyx set? In any case, that (among other things) is why I was inquiring about an Onyx ruleset. Others included the use of attach/equip, "will not" and "can not", etc.
Yes theres sixth ring called Akasha.
anyway Ikako sensei from base onyx has "Akasha" only
I wouldn't read too much in to it, it seems more a style thing: When there is only one clan, it says "X Clan", but when there are more, it says "X · Y · Z"
question: will the honor gains stack? for example, if I bring a 3ph personality, will the gain be 8 honor?
[attachment: printing_12379_1_details.png] [attachment: printing_4772_1_details.png]
I play AHG first then LTC.
or can I choose first under LTG, interrupt with HG then SH takes effect once into play?
That's closer to what I'm thinking, yeah.
Choosing targets is before the Interrupt window. It always happens the second way.
so, these two do interact? I get the 8 honor?
Well, not so much interact, but their independent effects don't contradict or prevent each other. So, you get the Proclaim, and you get the Honor gain for the Stronghold trait, two separate gains of 4. IG2 Strongholds were both too powerful; often banned.
Does the phrase "even if he does not have your Clan Alignment" allow this card to be played from LTC?
Cool.
Oh, hrm, that's a good question. I didn't consider that rub. Hrm...
It's been raised that AHC could only be used under non-unaligned strongholds (sorry for weird phraseology)
Yeah, I think the exception doesn't explicitly require you TO have an Alignment. It just allows you to Proclaim if even if the Personality doesn't have yours, which he never could because you don't have one.
oh yeah. hehehe. new deck incoming.
Did you mean you "couldn't" use ANH with Unaligned? You said the opposite above.
yes.
the basis for that is the definition of Proclaim. Kempy was the one who raised that issue.
Yes, I think it's ok. But, as I said, the IG2 SHs are often banned for being too powerful.
alright.
well, it is being considered for a Legacy TOH build. so you know, brutal but balanced.
Well, let me look at Proclaim, see what he means. Kempy is good at knowing stuff....
I know right?
He just sees stuff that you wouldn't normally consider.
I am assuming he's a he.
Yeah, I think I'm still correct. "Even if he doesn't have your Clan Alignment" doesn' need to imply that you have to have one. All it does is check, "Does this Personality have your Clan Alignment, as required by Proclaim? No, he doesn't (because, in this case, you don't have one)? Well, you can do it anyway."
noice.
Happy to help. 🙂
Hm.
The definition of having "different" clan alignments does require that you have one.
Hmm...the question really is, does the phrase "even if he has a different clan alignment" require you to have a clan alignment to begin with. I submit that it doesn't limit the ability granted to Proclaim. The wording does not seem to be restrictive because of "even if". Not sure though. Hehehe
Answers on: An Honored Guest
Otherwise, you can't even use An Honored Guest to target unaligned personalities.
Sorry "does not have your clan alignment".
Well, an Unaligned Personality certainly doesn't have your clan alignment.
But AHG doesn't say "even if he has a different"; if it did, then I agree by the CR definition of "different" you would have to have one to compare it to (and so would he, thus making the card not work with Unaligned guys either, as TbT says above). However, the card actually says, "even if he does not have your". I say my ruling above is correct, as the card would have to explicitly say "different" or "not the same" to fall under that part of the CR.
While you're here...
Yes? 🙂
Unstoppable. How does the CR define it?
In particular, does it stop Reactions, or just Interrupts?
Can't be Interrupted. Reactions still technically are legal. Haha.
Cool.
So Responses would be, too.
(For those playing Onyx.)
Probably wouldn't have added it, if Onyx had ever come out either, since a Response generally wouldn't be something that would "Stop" something. Retroactive negation is ugly and bad.
Yeah
There could be an arguement for adding Legacy text about, like, Reactions before resolution or Reactions that change targeting/negate, but... eh... why complicate things? Reactions good, Interrupts bad, full stop? shrug Again, a discussion for once Rules docs are on Oracle.
_nods_
Wait, they were going to add "Response" as a card type/subtype? Wow.
No
As an ability type.
Reese had insisted on ditching Reactions in Ivory, replacing them with Interrupts.
Sigh. Yeah.
Reactions can be written to react before or after any trigger.
Interrupts have a specific window in the action sequence when they are taken.
IIRC, that was: Declare/Pay costs/Choose targets/Take Interrupt actions/Resolve effects/Cleanup
Although "Choose Targets" may have been merged into "Resolve Effects" in Ivory, I forget.
Anyway.
Cf Feign Death...
Emperor:
[attachment: printing_2503_1_details.png]
Twenty Festivals:
[attachment: printing_2503_7_details.png]
It's bad enough that you can no longer React to a Personality being destroyed by Battle Resolution, but now you have to decide before the action resolves whether or not to play Feign Death.
With Onyx, he finally agreed with me that Responses were also required.
Wow. That's messy.
You're telling me.
what was the motive behind ditching reactions?
Possibly, a computer version
Oh. Hrm.
brb
I remember playing w/ Gempukku back in 00 or 01 but I don't think there was anything automated about it so it probably had something to do with automation logic I guess
ok
I'm still salty that they changed from Actions to Strategies. The rest is just more icing on the cake, as it were.
agreed
Action cards became Strategy cards because we split the definitions of "action" and "ability"
If you play a kiho with its invest cost, and Blessings of Isawa is in play, will the invest effect also form part of the shugs' ability?
Answers on: Blessings of Isawa
[attachment: printing_12566_1_details.png]
if yes, do I have to pay 2 gold every time I trigger the ability?
No and not applicable.
You're copying the ability; the Invest effect comes from a trait on the card, not from the ability.
Okies. Thanks.
@Brook Cunningham Blessings of Isawa needs to say "permanently copy the ability" (rather than just "copy it").
Also, we need to revert to explicit performing.
Among other things. Again, probably something to consider after Oracle hosts Rules, along with bringing constraints back? I'm not sure how overall pressing it is in the meantime; performing is in the currently Legacy Rules covering most bases, but technically, no Ivory/20F Strategies are performed.
in Obsidian Hand there's another point under perforrming: "• the action uses "to" in between [targeting/change in game state] for a [change in game state] to happen."
[attachment: unknown.png]
So, that covers a few more Strategies, but not the one pictured above.
I think all Kihos need to be performed.
It doesn't make sense wrt the simulation for any not to be.
Ivory got rid of performing entirely, so it didn't matter whether an action was performed or not.
Ie, for Ivory and later cards, we should put performing back.
The tricky bit is Coils of Madness and the other late Emperor, pre-Ivory cards.
I quite agree. On another related note, the Ivory abolition of all costs other than Gold and bow-symbol, along with performing, really wrecked Spells and the many, many exceptions a lot of Shugenja have for bowing "to perform" or "as the cost" of a Spell. I think I converted a few to say "as the condition upon a Spell's effect", but that's ugly as heck, and I would not mind putting them back to how they were.
Yeah
Ivory eliminated performing as a concept, but, as you point out, there's a whole bunch of stuff that interacted with it (which is pretty much why we bullied Reese into making it explicit)
I have no problem with making stuff in Ivory that would have be performed, be performed.
The only issue is the cards in Coils of Madness, etc which were printed while performing did exist, but don't have a constraints block.
Hm
Urk.
Ivory also changed the order of the action sequence.
Pre Ivory, it was: Declare, Choose Targets, Pay Costs, Resolve Effects, Finish
With Ivory, it became: Declare, Pay Costs, Interrupts, Resolve Effects, Finish
But since 20F theres also required targeting when you declare.
Well, you have to be able to show that targets exist.
You don't have to pick them until the "Resolve Effects" step.
The point being that target validity may be dependent on a variable cost.
Pre Ivory, you declared the target, then paid a cost dependent on what you targetted.
In Ivory, you paid the cost, then declared the target depending on what you'd paid.
The more I hear and learn about Ivory/20F, the more I wish they never happened.
The wording changes weren't really a problem.
If you have nothing that interacts with performing, then you don't need to worry about whether an action is performed.
The changes to clan discount (ie you didn't get clan discount, you just paid 2g more for out of clan, but most Personalities cost 2g less - and you got one free Proclaim per turn) only really matter if you're trying to use the cards with pre-Ivory cards.
Reese and I had a lengthy chat in Barcelona, during which I think I suggested the above changes, but I'm pretty sure I said that the costing of Personalities shouldn't change.
As in, most Personalities being printed by the end of Emperor were undercosted compared to earlier arcs, so eliminating clan discount would slow the game down without making the new Personalities unbalanced with older ones.
But he then made them all cheaper, so that concept went out the window.
I forget where gold pooling came from.
I'm going to try a mix of old and new - the printed cost should be what is referenced most often, just making clan discount once per dynasty like proclaim (and remove the out of clan penalty)
The whole Proclaim thing is annoying, too. As is the "blood money" rule from a while back.
Would be better to have something like a split game, really. Maybe Emperor onward, or even with Celestial onward, one set of rules. Then the rest, keep the more legacy ones. It would help with wording, interactions, deck construction, and so on.
Because it's not just Personality costing that was impacted, but also PH, HR, and other values/abilities; the older arcs are not "calibrated" to really work with those rules and how they shape deck-building.
Why is Proclaim annoying?
And as a Lion player, the Blood Money rule made a lot of sense.
Scorpion getting a free win because they've cost me a couple of points of honour doesn't really make for a great game.
Well, Proclaim is annoying because for quite a few years the game worked, and Personalities were designed around, being able to buy 1+ a turn and gain their PH, if your economy was strong enough. That led to directly balancing PH along with cost and other stats, and same for requirements for Followers and a few Items. Once that stopped being a thing, you started to see tons of Personalities with massive PH values.
The Blood Money rule I can somewhat see being useful (and I say that as having played Lion through a good chunk of Clan Wars, Jade, and Gold) - yes, it was painful to play against Dishonour, and I had lost ample games to that first turn Breach.
I was conflating some of the other mechanical/wording changes with it, though, so I should clarify.
Things like Breach ending up saying that if your drop your opponent's FH below its starting value, they can ignore HRs for the rest of the game is asinine.
Blood Money can mitigate things and serve as a better balance.
Yeah, I preferred Blood Money to the blanket ignore HR's thing.
But wrt "Proclaim", you're complaining about the limit of one honour gain from buying a Personality per turn, which came in with Diamond.
I thought you meant the later changes - Proclaim became an action in Emperor, I think.
Well, that's also kinda structurally weird. But I didn't play EE or later, so I can't say too much.
Well, the honour gain is created by something.
Why is it weird to have an ability in the Rulebook: "Reaction: After you Recruit a Personality with your Clan Alignment during your Dynasty Phase, gain honour equal to their Personal Honour." ?
It'd be better to have it as an intrinsic effect, like bowing to produce Gold.
If the cost was paid in full, gain Honour.
Why is that better?
It's not restricted to once-per-turn?
It was once per turn long before it became an ability.
And abilities can be Repeatable anyway.
Is Discipline in-addition-to or in-replacement-of already existing gold costs?
[attachment: unknown.png]