Oracle of the Void #rules

During Lotus Senseis had rulebook rule that can't bring you below -19FH. It's gone in 20F. It also means that in Legacy Shadowlands Horde players using -19FH Strongholds have autoloss when they use Senseis with negative modifeir of Family Honor?

Wait... that was scorpions...

Question is if with new rule of Sensei, Stronghold's "you cannot gain or lose honor" affects also modifiers.

As Modifiers aren't bonuses/penalties.

I don't think that wording exist. As you "cannot" lose a stat. You may have such stat modified, reduced/increased or set to value.

It's not exactly the same, but it might give insight

I know they should, but 20F Sensei definition about modifiers is weird comparing to older ones (like in Lotus when Sensei were previously card type). So "you do not lose honor" trait from Oracle MRP stops Sensei's modifiers, aye?

I've always loved, thematically, how a Goblin could issue a Iaijutsu Challenge.

I say that reminded by the second line there, around unconditional Honor losses.

Read 20F Sensei definition above (yesterdays post). It's different than Lotus one in image over Halls

Oracle MRP "you do not lose honor" on Stronghold just covers rulebook ruling for Shadowlands Horde of Lotus

Non rokugani players Strongholds from Siege expansions don't follow standard victory conditions while playing in Siege format.

guess it doesn't have any correlation then

stares in Yodatai

sorry. I'll see myself out.

maybe that's why they lost the Destroyer War.

😄

angery react

if only Burning Sands could have gotten the similar depth of story that L5R did

One of those is a Dark Wind, not Wind

And now I've looked at the word 'Wind' so much, now I'm pronouncing it Wind instead.

I get it. I admit I got Wind and Air backward in my head, then searched and saw Wind cards, and I was like... I'mma ask.

You should get some rest .<.<

This should put you to sleep, memory lane from 2004

It's more terrifying to look at older rulings archives, like from late 90s.

Is it Unstoppable?

Except the controller could react in this case, so Unstoppable might not apply.

Yeah, that's Yet Another Wording Thing™.

Your interpretation is correct, it's Unstoppable for others.

Close enough.

Split Second, IIRC.

They need to print a card with Split Second that just says "for this combat phase, play and resolve as if you can put combat damage on the stack".

The faster form of Split Second. :P

Jesus.

Niiice. Had a feeling the Un-sets would play with it.

You cant play Interrupts to Unstoppable action. It was part of Ivory ruleset. But you can still play Reactions in Legacy.

Interrupt isnt Reaction.

Which ya know, thematically, that could work for a kami intervention type card. Something where the ability is like, Discard this card from your hand to negate a personality's destruction. On your next turn, pay the gold cost of this card as an Attach action, or destroy your rightmost province.

Or Equip action. Whichever it's called.

First, making Kolat Assassin Open would be A Bad Idea™. Also, does this introduce a dependency where the Honour loss is a cost? Because that then makes it unplayable by a few boxes.

The "Lose 4 Honor." should be the last line, as the final effect, where it happens even if the destruction or other parts are cancelled/negated/don't happen.

I think of it as: <costs> <effects> <consequences>

Honestly, none of the Asami wordings are that great. They're good, but... off, somehow.

It's also ambiguous around the "Bow it." part, in the sense that is it the target player doing the bowing, or me/Asami, because there's card effects that would suddenly interfere now.

The current Oracle wording is pretty good. You can change the first part since it's now a Repeatable action, but the rest is "proper", and avoids unexpected issues.

Mmhmm. Well put.

Right, so address a few of the comments. There was an idea from someone that all strategy actions that are played during the action phase should be Open. Then you put the timing designator on it as "Limited" meaning only on your turn. I am not sold on it - as we are all comfortable with the "Limited" being shorthand for "Limited Open" essentially. As expressed by the player, it was easy to say now you can take your open actions. And then the new player looks at their cards that say open. Moving honor losses to a cost. I seem to recall, several of the negations actually saying a caveat that says but they lose honor still (investigation). So, this one was all mine, why would we not move the honor loss to a cost? Negating the effects of an action is the obvious answer. Is there any other ones? Can you explain the issue with Asami (agreed this is a weird card) It also plays havoc with when you bow it in a battle and does it only affect someone in the same battle as it. "because there's card effects that would suddenly interfere now"? Also, on the Asami, I likely picked a bad example to try and nail down formatting, it was the first card that came to mind, what I am really looking for is a definitive look at the phrasing. I will find another example and post it.

Asahina Naoki 1F 3C 6HR 5GC 3PH Artisan ● Crane Clan Your Market Holdings straighten during each player's Straighten Phase. Political Absent Battle: (3) and target an enemy Personality. Move it home and gain 2 Honor.

Asahina Naoki 1F 3C 6HR 5GC 3PH Artisan ● Crane Clan Your Market Holdings straighten during each player's Straighten Phase. Political Absent Battle, (3): Target an enemy Personality: move it home and gain 2 Honor.

Asahina Naoki 1F 3C 6HR 5GC 3PH Artisan ● Crane Clan Your Market Holdings straighten during each player's Straighten Phase. Political Absent Battle: Pay 3 gold and target an enemy Personality to move it home and gain 2 Honor.

So Asami needs to make it clear that it's the target player who is doing the targeting AND bowing.

The Honour loss as a cost is counter-intuitive, and needs up-to-date wording on Strongholds and other things.

Also, I would recommend not making everything Open, or confusing that. This isn't Rage.

For example, with Political Distraction, if I can't lose honor, does that mean I can't pay costs by doing so? It's not a reaction to cost, and costs are reduced by reactions.

Asami: Target a player. That player must perform: "Target your unbowed personality. Bow it."

That doesn't work because you're giving them an action to perform, and according to the rules of actions, Asami being Repeatable would have no purpose, because the other player can't perform the same action twice in a turn.

Political Distraction to me looks like a 2 honor loss cost to gain the ability to lower all your loss costs to zero until the next turn. Right... maybe if you do not explicitly pay a cost the action is negated? Actually no. Sorry worked through that in text.

Unless you want to target your opponent once and yourself once, I suppose.

Asami: Target a player. That player must perform (repeatable): "Target your unbowed personality. Bow it."

Asami is weird. moving on. 🙂

Repeatable Open, [bow]: Target a player: That player gains "Repeatable Reaction: Target your unbowed personality: Bow it." The player must perform this reaction in response to this usage of Asami's ability.

Too ugly, Scorpion. Back on the stack with you.

It should occur as part of the action

Not generate a new action even a reaction

The word 'perform' is pretty much used to describe taking an action, so the alternate wording on reply creates an action, as well.

Honestly, the existing Oracle wording is pretty decent.

What about the opposite side of honor? Can't remember the card, but: 'Battle: Target your unbowed Samurai: Move him home. Gain 5 honor.' Does that mean it's 'Battle, Gain 5 honor:, Target your unbowed Samurai: Move him home.'

If Honor were a cost, I could negate his movement and still gain the honor.

Which would mean to keep the card operating properly, it would have to be worded like... 'Battle, Gain 5 honor:, Target your unbowed Samurai: Move him home. If the personality is in the battle at the resolution phase, lose 5 Honor.'

Keyword Designator Modifier Designator Timing Designator : Costs [Bow this Card], (Pay X Gold), or some other cost and/or Play restrictions or play requirements (target your samurai, target an enemy personality etc.) . Effect(s) . Consequences {lose X Honor}

It's not always that, though. Sometimes the Honour gain is an effect. Sometimes it's a cost. It needs to be flexible.

I think it's always an effect, but Honour loss is sometimes a cost, other times an effect.

Loss as effect.

There's also second-order effects to consider. If something is a cost, and the paying of said cost is negated/cancelled/whatever, that nukes the rest of the action.

right that makes sense. I want to understand exactly where it makes a difference that it is a problem that an honor loss as a cost is an issue. Bringing a personality into play with an honor loss is a cost to bringing it into play correct? Some spells are costs. Animate Dead Spell 3 Repeatable Limited: Bow this Shugenja to target a Follower in any discard pile that has been in play this game, target your Personality, attach the Follower to him ignoring costs, lose 2 Honor, and permanently give the Follower Shadowlands and the ability, "Battle: Fear 3."

Plus there's card effects that move the Honour loss, like Goshiu Exp. or The Wind's Truth - all of a sudden you can do something like steal your opponent's 4 Honour loss cost from Kolat Assassin to you, so that the rest of it (Personality destruction) is cancelled.

Overall, the situation is basically that the RAW makes certain presumptions around when Honor gains and losses are made, and changing the wording of some cards has huge ramifications on other cards.

It would be rewriting every card that is about Honor, or at least reviewing them, or having to make spot judgments on a new situation.

Sorry for being dense on this, but the gain 5 honor one above, and the Dirty Politics one I do not see an issue.

The cancelation of effects by modifying an honor cost does not need to be a thing. If you bring in oni no akuma and redirect its 3 honor loss you do not all of a sudden cancel it coming into play.

This is why the modification of an honor loss should not work like this. Both if a cost or an effect.

Making lose or gain honor as a cost make all such cards unplayable for Shadowlands Horde.

You will not gain or lose Honor; this is not negation.

That's kind of an effect of mismatched wording. The real wording for Akuma No Oni should be: Reaction: After Akuma no Oni enters play: Lose 15 Honor. Destroy your rightmost Province.

I see no issues

Which is... a lot of them.

additionally all Spider stongholds with trait "you cannot lose honor from your fate/dynasty" will lose any possibilty to play cards with honor loss (and that was major reason behind such wording).

If Akuma's cost were a reaction you could choose to not take the reaction.

True.

If the Honour loss is a cost, and you no longer pay it, the action is cancelled, no?

All I was saying is to be careful with Honour losses and rewording things, especially where it changes something from an effect to a cost.

There are many cards that say: Interrupt: Target your Personality. After the action resolves, if it destroyed him, bring him into play in your home, ignoring costs and Honor Requirement, then bow him, dishonor him, and lose 2 Honor.

So, by lowering the cost to zero for akuma it cancels it coming into play. This makes no sense.

Ignoring a cost is not negating it, though.

Negating (or inability to play) directly prevents that thing from happening.

Ignoring cots and Honor, and Shiwan can tell me if I'm wrong, is basically 'whatever the cost is, apply a modifier that reduces that number to zero'.

You can't ignore costs unless directed to, in specific circumstances.

But if 'you can't lose Honor from your Ninja cards' is my Stronghold and Ninja Assassin has honor loss as a cost, I can't pay that cost, and the rules prevent me from playing it.

Let's say you have a card that says "Lose 5 Honour to destroy target Personality.". Clearly the first part is a cost, which must be paid. If I announce it, Lose 5 Honour, and then your opponent plays The Wind's Truth to move it to them, that cost is no longer paid by you, so the rest is cancelled.

No, because the honor loss is an effect of it coming into play, not a cost.

That's where I mistyped Akuma above.

It is a trait. The trait of a card that enters play with an honor loss says: "After Akaru enters play, lose 5 Honor. " These are costs of them entering play - unless something has changed.

No they're not.

Those are entering play effects.

Entering play effects can be negated, can be redirected, etc., without retconning and undoing the initial entering play.

Same with other "consequences".

I'd think it has to be worded 'Your Honor gain and losses are reduced to zero. Actions from you or your cards in or out of play cannot have their Honor gains and losses further modified.'

Nah. Because there's cards that negate the reduction of Honour losses, etc.

Again, unintended second-order effects.

Right. It's too complex that way.

And then you can all of a sudden nuke a Shadowlands player from orbit.

That's exactly how it worked. If you were paying, say, 8G for a card, and your opponent plays a Reaction that says "Increase <some card/name/whatever>'s cost by 2G", and you can no longer pay that extra 2G, the whole thing is cancelled, and you don't get a refund.

Although those types of cards were rare, they did show up.

And could royally screw someone over in the right circumstances.

A good example is that holding that had to change wording... from CoM I think...

Nope.

That's changing the cost, so 0G is paid.

Nope.

If it says "Lose 0 Honour to play xxx", it's fine, and you and your opponent can still play Reactions to that, like Doji Shizue.

Also, it's paid, just "transparently" unless reacted to and modified.

This is a lot of why the "current" rules are the way they are, because there's some nuance here, and a few almost behind-the-scenes mechanics that most people don't take into account.

Well, you can't really ignore something.

I don't believe that's a game term anywhere.

Though I could be wrong.

This is actually a debate about costs, paying costs, negating costs, and so on, which is covered in various rulebooks to far better detail, for inspiration.

Ignore is in Feign death and many other cards.

Oh, right, around ignoring entering-play effects and whatever.

But again, this isn't negating the honor cost. Just that under that one condition, it doesn't exist.

But I think the GP cost is the best example.

Also I think the shadowland strongholds that say you will not gain or lose honor; this is not negation. Is another way of saying the same thing. You ignore the cost.

If I pay 4 G for something, and you increase the cost by 2G, and I can't pay that, then the card is canceled.

So based on what you guys are saying because even if the text is on the card you're not paying the cost and so therefore it's canceled

I think the Horde strongholds state they are not negation specifically to avoid the fact that negation would cancel the action.

Right. And if an action actually had an Honour loss as a cost, as in, "Lose 5 Honour to ...", Horde wouldn't be able to pay it. You'd try to pay it/lose the 5 Honour an infinite amount of times, and it would then be negated an infinite about of times by the box, so the cost is never paid.

You need wording to add an exception for Horde, more or less.

And yeah, those actions would be super powerful depending on the arc of the game. Losing 5 Honour as a cost during the first 15 years of the game or whatever, if you were at -15 or lower, would be an instant loss, so you're prevented from playing it, while in the latter years when you could stay there during your turn, it just makes it an inconvenience. Again, unintended consequences.

I think the intent of the card is regardless of if it is a cost or an effect it is able to be played and they don't lose honor.

In fact, there's a RAW correction in that case: Dark Path of Shadow had to have 'this is not negation' added to its errata.

Right that is the secondary effect to this. Essentially if you are at -15 and you play ambush and lose -5 You would not be able to play it. But given the rules as written you would because you are going to gain honor from the ambush before the honor loss hits you.

Well, that's a timing of the loss condition.

The card doesn't care that it's going to make you lose.

That's kind of a dumb thing, but separate conversation.

I feel like that, and many other changes, were done just to make it so that people would play just the newest format(s), and further make older arcs and cards incompatible.

Imperial, yes, the instant that action successfully began, you would lose.

Oh wait.

They changed that again.

You lose regardless if you gain honor back

So you better break those provinces quick.

Fun.

this is Dishonor victory in 20F

Triggered Traits Triggered traits include a trigger – a timing reference such as “Before your turn ends,” or “After this Personality enters play.” Triggered traits happen every time that trigger occurs in the game, but only if the card they are on is (a) in play, (b) in the focusing area, (c) in a resolution or entering-play area, or (d) if they say they are triggered from an area not in play. Triggered traits are not optional – they must happen if the trigger occurs. Likewise, costs of triggered traits are not optional – they must be paid if the player can pay the cost. A triggered trait on a given card or stronghold happens once and only once each time that trigger occurs. The occurrence of a trait’s trigger, and the successful meeting of any other conditions or costs, means that the trait resolves and its effects are applied in order, even if the card leaves play during the effects’ application. Triggered Trait Costs and Targeting Traits may sometimes have costs which must be paid to generate their effects. Targeting in a trait must be carried out if possible. If non-optional targeting fails, any further effects and targeting in the trait do not happen.

?

Triggered traits aren't a cost, they're an effect. You're forced to suffer their consequences, but they can be negated, redirected, whatever.

That... varied a lot.

The first couple of arcs were all over the place. Then things got standardized and were, generally, a lot better. Then the last couple of arcs happened and that got cranked to the Nth degree.

Some of it comes down to personal preference. Some of it comes down to utility and avoiding arguments.

Honestly, I think the game needs two formats, and then a little guide on how to interoperate. Otherwise there's massive changes and rewordings to thousands upon thousands of cards, and however many dozens or hundreds of changed interactions.

For instance we are going to bring back reactions and not use interrupts.

No complaints so far!

Cavalry still neutered? 😄

Definitely a problem area in the game that needed some kind of tweak but Not as neutered as it was.

I'll think on it. I mean, that's not a terrible idea, and still provides mobility.

The other idea I had around it, which was only a micro-nerf™, was that during the Infantry Assignment Phase, you'd also have to declare which Cavalry Units would be assigned to attack (and defend), but not where, until the Cavalry Assignment Phase.

So, for example, against 'Corn, you'd know from the get-go how many Cavalry Units will be sent to attack you, vs "any number between 0 and total unbowed available Units". It doesn't really make it easier to play against Cav, though.

Your solution also adds in a layer where the Defender can react with various movement-negation cards/abilities, which makes it more interesting.

We had the same thought

Kamoko Exp2 all of a sudden becomes a railgun.

Now, doesn't making it an Engage Action force you to always pick to resolve the Battle where you assigned them, to then Engage-Move to another Battle? That has consequences not just for the Cavalry peeps, but any Infantry you've assigned, as you'll have to resolve their Battle now.

Calvary keyword gives the ability "Calvary absent engage: If this personality is in a cavalry unit and at an adjacent battlefield. move it to this battlefield."

Oh sweet. Not bad.

That takes care of that issue.

So keeps it versatile, and you know how many and which Units are attacking you.

Another thing that I'd like to try to do. Is put all of the rule book actions on cards. So rather than saying cavalry comes from the rulebook instead it comes from the cavalry unit. This one is tricky because we may be able to do this for all of the keywords that we will be using but it may not be backward compatible to all of the previous cards.

Hmm. Yeah, could be tricky. Not with all, anyway, or you'd end up with two pages of text on each card. Since, for example, Lobbying is a Rulebook Action or something similar.

Tactician isn't too bad.

So making keywords shorthand for a trait or ability.

The winds will have the lobbying ability on them. For instance.

I have tactician worked out

Sooo... forced to use Winds?

I miss the Old Favour.

Even tho' it was overpowered and broken.

And the old old old Lobbying Rules.

Old ring of the void!

No discard the favor to cycle. Just draw.

Tactician - gives the ability: "Tactical Battle: Target this personality and discard a card. The personality gains a force bonus equal to the discarded card’s FV. This personality may not use a tactical action again this turn.

The winds will be the exiled emperor Iweko I and the shadow emperor Hantei XL (Daigotsu II).

Selfbiased card frame designs. AI art.

Cool art. Interesting card templates, pretty decent.

Less sold on the "new costing".

But I've had that rant for a while.

Well. It ties in with the Proclaim thing, which I also loathed, and only being able to do it once a turn by default.

So it depends if that's kept. If it is, reasonably makes sense.

Relatedly we have +2GC to ignore honor requirements. I have some reservations about putting this in. But I do think something needs to be done about dishonor and locking certain clans out of being able to play personalities at all. I think in ivory edition there was something about if another player made you lose honor you just ignore all honor requirements.

Play testing will tell

Yeah, that was a thing, too.

If you use an "and" in there, if the destruction is negated, you wouldn't lose the Honour.

Maybe just dangle the fan icon on the end for consequences.

consequence is not an effect though?

look back at investigation

They've also been working on a Legend of the Burning Sands continuation project

I believe that was mentioned previously, just thought I'd give a shout out because it was relevant.

I believe in Ivory Edition text, the gold cost would go before the first colon, like,

Limited, (10): Destroy target Personality with 3 or lower Chi. {-4H}

That's pretty good, actually. I like that.

(I think that wording changed between Jade and Pearl, and then it was never printed again)

Kolat Assassin was 4 or lower Chi. Kolat Master was 3 or lower Chi.

I so hated playing against 'Corn, as it wasn't just the Cavalry Factor™, but also them popping Kolat Masters easily.

And Poisoned Weapon.

Yeah I don't think we're going to have kolat Assassin or Master in the ~400 card base set. I would like it to be about 100-200 of those cards to be new and the rest to be reprints. Then we're thinking of three 150 card expansions to complete an arc. These will be completely free to everyone as PDFs.

With unicorn you just breach of etiquette first turn and they lost.

Err. Hang on.

And to be honest I forgot about the retainer bit!

Yeah, okay. Obsidian Edition is when they changed it.

So MRP from then onward. The CE15th is a reprint of the Imperial Edition wording, with the Obsidian Edition art.

Kolat Assassin Limited, :GC10:: Destroy a Retainer or a Personality with 4 or lower Chi. :H04:.

the fan icon might be a bit small... but that's just Discord's compression shenanigans.

Does anyone have a link to the 'modern' ruleset? I haven't played anything but jade and gold in eons

And gencon has me very interested

Oh look, the slogan for the Kolat Information Network 😏

-Panda- You're in for a bit of a shock. It's practically a new game, as almost every rule or game mechanic has been changed since.

I tried to find it on play ccg but couldn't. I may just be derpy tho.

Still worth it to me ❤️

But yeah that isn't my favorite thing... but i will adapt.

I will have the time of my life coming in last haha

so... it needs some flavor text, but otherwise, thoughts on the text? I think the card frame itself is amazing.

also, we will not be putting that card in the set. Limited Kill like that is too much. But, you know... a preview and such.

as for Modern rules sets, I found a site that has a bunch of broken links, as well as this one that seems to have some text... https://www.facebook.com/groups/542077382595519/permalink/542077939262130

https://kolatinformant.wordpress.com/2014/12/19/an-introduction-to-modern/

I am try to correct those links. The problem is that I moved from a paid website (kolatinformant.com) to a free one (kolatinformat.wordpress.com) and that broke a lot of links.

understandable. Do you perhaps have the working links for that page?

if the link fails, just replace the address with http:\\kolatinformant.wordpress.com\ and then the rest of the link and it should pull up.

do you know if www.l5rmodern.com still exists somewhere?

(that's the one I was more concerned with)

No. You might try to pull that website up with the Wayback Machine https://archive.org/web/

thanks, I keep forgetting about that

If you cannot find it with that, @kempy_nezumi may have something archived that I don't

https://web.archive.org/web/20160805074232/http://l5rmodern.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2&sid=4638a21fee2a2ebe50aaabdc965f3e05

and the link for the 20Festivals rules: https://web.archive.org/web/20160516021803/http://rules.alderac.com/cr_for_20f

it does say here that proxies are allowed. Do you know if that will be the case for the tournament at GenCon?

That would be a question for them, but I know local events allow them.

https://www.playccg.com/news/list#L5R-CCG-formats

I've never been to gencon before... I'm concerned about going. I'm concerned it'll be like, $1000, and I just don't think I can spend that much. But at the same time, the first L5R tournament in nearly a decade? Like, yeah, I want to go.

Thank you to everyone for the links. Knowing proxies might be ok makes this a bit easier too thx

It depends. Hotel is always the big part, but the official forums often have room shares. The hotels generally don't mind 4-8 people in a room, as long as they're respectful and you're ready to sleep on the floor, or take turns on the bed.

You can do food really cheap, since there are water bubblers to refill and several groceries in walking distance. The ClusterTruck is pretty competitive and cheap. Just don't eat inside the hall itself. I live in town now, so I just do the half hour commute and drop the $20 for parking instead of paying for a hotel nowadays. Sometimes a friend from out of town comes in and pays for the hotel, but the valet is still really pricey.

Have some apps for your finances on your phone, keep an eye on it, and generally you'll be fine at around $500 or so. But... still a lot to fork.

Although, if you go, wear a mask. It has nothing to do with preferences on COVID or whatever, although there are protocols mandated. Every single dang year we got the con crud, because you get 50k people breathing the same air from all over the world, and you catch something. The only years we weren't sick when we were done, were since after lockdown and we just got used to the masks. Knock elbows or fists instead of shaking hands, and we didn't get anything at all.

If you want to go, start looking and buying tickets now. It's a lot better to spread that cost out over the 6-7 month lead up rather than dump it all at once. And like... you have a budget but... be ready to break it. You will probably see something you've been looking for years to find, and it'll be overpriced, and you don't want to drop your entire budget on it, but when might you see it again? :P

I guess if you're close enough, drive and park in a garage, and sleep in your car before using a one-day pass. :P

Do you have to use valet if you get a hotel room? I haven't been since it was in Milwaukee (I had family there as an adolescent and kinda lucked out one year) and don't really know the lay of the land so to speak, but am not in great health and will probably have to get a room. Not used to valets tho.

Thx for writing all that ❤️

You don't have to, but parking can be a beast sometimes. If you want access to your car, the valet is cheaper. Parking is flat rate during conventions, and you don't want to spend $24 every time you take the car out. But if you're just going to park and walk, parking is probably cheaper.

If you don't mind the drive, you can get hotels on the edge of town for much, much cheaper, especially an extended stay, and then drive the hour in for the convention. It might be quieter overall, if city noise is an issue.

I have a friend who stays in the Norwood Inn when he comes in, it's a good hour drive if there's no traffic, but it's like $52 a night.

I love driving actually; that may work. Really depends on energy levels. Just concerned I may need to rest during the day a couple times. Chronic conditions and stuff. $52 is... an appealing thought, NGL.

I'll see how it plays out. How early do close-by hotels sell out?

Instantly. The previous convention. You can't actually book them.

GenCon has a deal with the hotels, like other conventions do. You have to sign up for the housing block, and then there's options that open.

Lmao i don't know what I expected other than that

If you want one, you pretty much have to get one the previous year's gencon before the block is created. :P

https://www.gencon.com/gen-con-indy/hotelmap

Makes sense. So at this point its find a shared room with someone who already has it or make it a drive

Thx for the link too

This is where my DC friends stay:

(Holla from evansville BTW. Saw you say were an indy resident)

That's my alma! :D

Ue or usi?!

UE. I paid for my books one year with a Mox Jet. XD

AYE

Me too. 07

HI.

Is that little pizza place still there, the one with the unpronounceable pizza name?

There's a pizza place across from campus called The Slice. Not sure about its history. Next to where subway was and kinda near where the abyss was?

Soooorta near tke

Na, I'm looking at the area on google, different place. A few blocks north, but that's all no-business now.

Word. I remember a pizza place north on the other side of the Lloyd (not turonis) but it was gone by 2005. Could be a different one.

Not sure about your timeline but if you played L5R here we may have met.

I think I started when I went to Kokomo. I remember playing in a friend's basement, and I showed up with Shadowlands decks I got from the comic store behind the mall, and they were like Ooooooo

Lordy I don't remember a comic or game store behind the mall (although there is one now.) I started with shadowlands too at the tail end of jade. Comic Quest on Morgan before it moved. Or moved a second time.

I was young tho (ported over from battletech ccg) so I probably don't remember some of what you do 🙂

It is lost in a blur of vices and demons.

Sometimes details bubble up, like remembering a dungeon run in XIV. XD

I can remember very clearly learning that ranch dressing on curly fries was amazing, where the plasma center for booze money was, and literally nothing about my classes.

Hey I also know that plasma center hehe. Well, blur or not I'm happy to have had this coincidence.

Yeah!

:baro_peace:

Alternate Formats / Legacy / Modern https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vsabdrqgcqfqepp/AACNYaigHIRNTZvZVRq9K0joa?dl=0

In 20F all Events are discarded after you use any of their abilities.

Thanks!

in the meantime, since the original intent for SH boxes is to not lose via dishonor victory, can we have this reflected in their oracle text? (like Sepulcher of Bone w/ the trait 'You will not lose or be eliminated by Dishonor.')

The difference is, Bone doesn't prevent honor loss. Since the others do, there's no way to make them lose by dishonor.

The one that could be modernized is Citadel, though. Without the 'this is not negation' clause, it's theoretical that you could tag them with something that could not be negated.

, fair point w/ bone; however the trait 'You do not gain or lose Honor; this is not negation.' appears to be causing a confusion vs senseis w/ negative family honor modifiers.

That has its own rule, though.

I guess it might be cleaner, though.

it was previously covered in the rulebook that SH players don't lose via dishonor, but this has been removed on the latest CRs. here's the only entry of Shadowlands from the latest Legacy page before it was takendown

I think that was posted and answered a few weeks back by kempy or akodo...

That is something I'm not an expert on.

it was only confirmed by @Alex Jones that SH boxes can be used w/ the negative Family Honor senseis however, neither does the latest Legacy ruling page nor oracle reflect this. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vsabdrqgcqfqepp/AADlV7r-5IBvLO_fexSkr0hAa/Alternate%20Formats/Legacy?dl=0&preview=AEG+Legacy+Format+-+Legend+of+the+Five+Rings+Rules.pdf&subfolder_nav_tracking=1

since the former is likely not to be editable anymore, this is why I asked if the oracle can help with this

It doesn't need to, though. I don't think so, at least. From 20F:

Modifiers change the value as gains or losses, and Shadowlands outside of the one cannot gain or lose honor.

Kind of like a personality that cannot lose Chi or have their Personal Honor reduced can still equip an item that would cause that loss.

It just doesn't happen.

I had a similar trail of thought. this was the ruling i've cited when @kempy_nezumi brought this up with me as the modifiers doesn't alter the printed values on a box, the traits common to SH boxes in the oracle (You do not gain or lose Honor; this is not negation.) should continuously have the SH player not go below -19

for more context: https://www.facebook.com/groups/160842683946823/posts/6416640311700331/

Well, yes. Since they are modifiers, something that prevents the change that is not negation prevents the modification from happening (EDIT: With no other effects being prevented.)

since it was also brought up here afterwards, i thought that my answer wasn't sufficient there

this is also considering how the inquiry was wrapped up here

I think your understanding is sufficient.

Sensei are modifiers to a stronghold. Modifiers create gains and losses. Horde Strongholds other than one cannot gain or lose honor, which is not negation. Therefore, a negative honor Sensei on a Horde Stronghold cannot cause a dishonor loss.

Whatever the link there is, I can't see it, I don't use Facebook. :P

Aw dang, clicking on it reactivated my facebook. Stupid google.

But the group is private, so that didn't help either.

Are you sure Modifiers create gains and loses?

Ithink so. That’s why I said I’d defer if needed.

It probably shouldn't be a modifier. It should probably just be a honor loss or honor gain that happens before the game begins. This would clarify if it affects shadowlands strongholds or not.

Opinions on Open: equip vs. Limited: equip?

What does legacy/modern or whatever do? Ivory made it an open.

I prefer to stick with the wording in the books, which are picked for a reason. They said modify, I'm calling it a modifier. :)

If Attach is an Open, then weapons and spells manifest in the middle of battles?

No, open would be during either player's action phase.

The difference is you attach followers/spells/items during your opponent's turn after they have taken actions. For much of the game this was a limited action.

How do you ignore the rule of presence without it coming from another location?

Actually I think I have that wrong.

That's how it was played back in the day because I think movement got rid of the presents and location rules. However, now I think it is more of a current battlefield to another unresolved battlefield. So you have to be in that battle to move away not move to another battle from another location.

So it would simply be, Battle: Target your unbowed personality with 3C or more. Move them to an unresolved battlefield.

This one does not seem correctly worded.

It looks like you require presence but you need Remote added. Or is there a "Home"... Home Battle: Target your unbowed personality. Move them to the current battlefield if they would be opposed and if they are a Cavalry, Scout or Clan Champion you may take an additional action to use a printed ability on a card in their unit.

Home is like a specialized Remote.

This is a card you play from hand. It doesnt require Home.

Home is often used on cards in play like abilities on Personalities.

Battle: Target your unbowed personality at home. Move them to the current battlefield if they would be opposed and if they are a Cavalry, Scout or Clan Champion you may take an additional action to use a printed ability on a card in their unit.

So Home designator in ability means like old "Battle: Even if this card is in home..."

Where Absent means "Even if you do not control any Unit at current battlefield..."

So in short words, Home designator ignores Rule of Location and Absent ignores Rule of Presence.

You still needs Absent designator on Strategy card in hand, if you want to play it and you don't have any Unit at current battlefield.

in earlier, pre-Ivory editions, any action that could create Presence was legal to play, even if you didnt have anyone in battlefield. So Feinting Maneuver in Emperor or earlier would be worded just "Battle: If he would be opposed, move your target Tactician at home to the current battlefield".

That's also Oracle wording of card like Unwavering Assault is modified to keep same effect in Ivory environment. That's why in Oracle it says: Absent Battle: Straighten the unit of your target performing Samurai Personality in your home and move him to the current battlefield.

https://oracleofthevoid.com/#game=l5r,#cardid=9030

There are still Absent Home or Absent Battle abilities printed on cards in play.

As you see Rule of Location is for Units only. Abilities on Holdings don't require Home

But they still require Absent to satisfy Rule of Presence if you don't control any Unit at current battlefield

Yes, it is.

Remote Battle: ?

Why Remote?

Rule of Location is for Units only - read above.

Absent Battle means you may play this action even if you don't control any Units at current battlelfield.

Absent ignores Rule of Presence.

It just says Battle: Even if you don't control any Units in current battlefield move your..etc.

My only issue with equipment is that followers and items work differently from spells. They're all attachments, let them be attachments.

I'd be fine with them all being limited actions, perhaps with some specially mentioned exceptions. A few commander personalities that allow attaching followers as open, a few kensai that can attach weapons as open, and some shugenja who can attach spells as battle/open, plus a few exceptions on the equipment themselves, and a few strategy cards that allow for exceptions. Maybe make Farmland into an Open action?

I think that system is entirely reasonable. It feels like just trying to make it arbitrarily better to make it an open action to equip.

Open Equip was introduced in Ivory

So that's why Modern and Legacy uses it this way as well

It changed dynamic of the game. As a player you may a) spend whole gold on Dynasty or b) buy something and use left gold to Equip durin ops turn

It's a common choice in early game.

In late game there's enough gold, so an attachament you draw at end of the turn isn't dead card now

so also make such card more dangerous even in early game

It's more tricky than simple Retribution as you have to be at any battlefield to play it (and risk a movement in)

Yeah I think we will keep it the same as open: equip but maybe explore in play test moving it to limited.

Personally i am not fan of any changes. All i need is just cards with interesting abilities or traits. 😄

But L5R was changing every 2 years. 🙂

Sometimes even within an Edition shudders in Lotus

may i at beginning of my turn give poison token then straighten her?

"At the start of the Action Phase, the active player straightens all his or her bowed cards."

"after each time [...] your turn begins [...]"

I would argue that, yes. Your turn begins, the check happens if they're Shadowlands and if so they're given a -1F/-1C token, and then the straighten phase/step happens.

Well, yeah, honestly, it does need the or in there.

But we'll survive without it. Somehow.

What was the misprint?

:baro_dote:

I was told that his backstory had to be rewritten because of the Basic art

Ooooooo

What we need then is the story behind the samurai that art was supposed to be for

We have one piece of L5R art in the house:

I went looking for modern prints and found a whole ton of nipples. <.<

Sorry Rules people! Uh... does... Counterattack... work with... Rallying Cry?

Fine, I will remake them as Onyx cards, to trump you.

Although I will once again apologize for the fact that I stopped actually playing around the end of Time of the Void, so all my rules answers are me desperately trying to get past grey beard thoughts. :<

If, after she uses her ability, she loses to Clash of Blades and loses all abilities permanently, can she still remain bowed and still give poison tokens to the initial victim? I assume not because Clash makes her blank and therefore the ability no longer works in any future turn?

Thanks for the clarification!

JUDGE!

MRP of The Mikado reads: 🙇🏻‍♂️: Produce 2 Gold, plus 1 Gold for each Wealth token on this card. Limited: Name a number. Select a card at random from another player's hand. Show the card. If you correctly named its printed Focus Value, give this card a Wealth token.

Can I take this to mean that Wealth tokens that provide their own built-in Gold Production bonus are counted twice, like if another card adds them to this holding? Or is +1GP a quality that applies to all Wealth tokens, even when unwritten?

Not all Wealth tokens provide +1 GP; you can add the Wealth token to this card, but unless it's explicitly called out as a +1 GP Wealth token, It won't generate them.

If this card had its own token and a +1GP, it would generate 4 GP; the effect generates a modifier, and the token modifies the GP of the holding. They'd all be counted together.

If you mean, does the +1GP Wealth token generate +2GP, once because of its own effect and once because of the card's effect... probably yes. The +X GP effect modifies the production, which modify the '2' part of the effect. Then the effect of the card would count the Wealth tokens.

So this card with its own Wealth token and one borrowed from say, Questionable Merchant, should generate 5 GP

That’s indeed what I meant. I feel that in the deck that cares about Wealth tokens being distributed, this holding becomes very efficient.

Considering that would break the intent of this:

I don’t think Sennin would go weird; he doesn’t have a GP value since the field doesn’t exist on a Personality, right? So they’d be ‘dormant’ Wealth tokens that his card specifically says what to do with them.

Or Fire tokens. Didn’t they go weird on Mitsu?

That's what made old L5R so fun/cool.

All of a sudden a whole bunch of people became members of your Clan/Faction with a new box.

Well, one of the things.

The House of Tao + Shioda was so great.

Water Monk was a thing, too. Military, since you have RoWater out.

Enlightenment was easy if you didn't have to deal with one difficult Ring of your choice.

Didn't even need Finding the Harmony (pre-MRP).

ahhh k

Probably I shouldn't put TOO many kihos and tattoos in the deck. Pretty soon I'll have eighty if I'm not careful

It was. So was OG Ring of Fire.

Are you talking about one monk destroying 2-3 provinces same turn.

Yeah, or just starting the game with the OG Ring of Water. Which was so strong.

Getting cheap/free peeps, Kihos, etc.

Mmhmm.

It was funny watching 'Corn getting rekt by Water Monk.

Oh you mean the corny UniCorn 😄

And I don't think you could do it for 'Will not join Scorpion Clan", because it would be weird for flavor. Can't be Scorpion Disloyal unless you're talking about that traitor Aramasu; there are too many reasons why someone wouldn't join a Clan player to try to make a keyword that story players won't be like "Wait, no".

Having everything be a simple keyword leads to keyword overload, too, though.

Every new set doesn't need six new mechanics. It's okay to stick with evergreen and then have themes, not rewrites.

I liked the simplicity of the explanations and additional text on the old cards, where it was guaranteed on every card, vs the sporadic "ever other card" or whatever of the ones at the end of the run.

we used twenty festivals starters and some related boosters.

Conqueror is a keyword you can eg remove with VtD. Removing passive trait (or making whole text field blank) is harder,

you used 20f starters with pre-ivory cavalry? 🤔

The change to cavalry was an important step towards my Clan gaining acceptance by the Empire.

there are all keywords in 20F (pre-EP) that have some rulebook effect/restriction:

In Evil Portents they introduced Honor. In The Blackest Storm they were going to add Sincerity. In first Onyx expansion they were going to add Honesty.

No. They assigned everything as infantry and repeatedly forgot that if the unit was Cavalry that they could: "Absent Engage: Target your unbowed Personality in a Cavalry unit at any location. Move him to the current battlefield."

Could be like, "Dedicated • Scorpion Clan", and then "Dedicated" means it can only attach to a Personality who shares a keyword. Then you could use it more broadly like, "Dedicated • Samurai" Or if you don't want to spread keywords to things that shouldn't have them, it could be "Dedicated to Scorpion Clan" as a single keyword, and use it in the same way Magic uses Protection.

Should have hit reply: (link)

first time players having to know/learn those keywords along with basic turn structure, was tough.

I see. Anyway in new Cavalry it doesnt matter you leave unit home or assign as you can still move it to another province as engage.

Personality that copied this Kiho and use it goes on top of Dynasty deck? And if yes, you need to reshuffle it or not?

But in Legacy like TOH there's still Performing.

The action is on card itself

Ah, ok.

performing was changing through editions.

in ivory can i send home alone attacking shugenja with this spell to gain 2 honor?

Yup, he can. No opposition is necessary so he can send himself home alone if he's attacking.

Coronation Festival/Famous Bazaar/Hidden Bastion of the Spider: do the last two stack? I think the first one can stack with either of the last two because it says "may" but not sure about the last two, it seems they cannot stack with each other, only with Coronation Festival because it is optional?

Thunder is used like an elemental keyword, but it doesn't count as an element itself.

No. You cant pay cost of lose 1 honor.

^^ from 20F Comprehensive Rules

I think that if you buy Famous Bazaar as first thing during Dynasty then only Bastions' traits will be triggered and you will "loose" FB flip.

From Lotus rulebook:

So i've been playing the Strength card wrong, adding one more Force if there was a Thunder

Should note that despite lore, ‘Maho’ is not an element, either.

I’ve had that discussion before.

Maho is blood magic.

And not always evil; before the Kami messed everything up, blood magic is what humans used all the time. There’s a reason Isawa’s Blood is a spell.

Ah alright. I have played games where we have put our Kamis for our clans in our decks and have won a few of those.