Oracle of the Void #rules

Home means you can use the ability on the card even if the card is in your home (as long as someone is present at the battle) Remote means you can use the ability on the card from anywhere (home or a different battlefield), again as long as you otherwise have presence

Remote was created for Oracle; we've been using it occasionally on Onyx cards where it seems relevant

It was just a Design choice at the time for balance. shrug

I assume you mean under CE Rules? I'm slightly thrown, because "declare Naval Invasion" is not a CE concept.

Ah, OBH. Let me check their Rules....

Ok, yes. The OBH Naval Engage says that the "first action" granted by it must be performed by a card in the the Naval unit, and one of the definitions of "performing" is being targeted in the constraints block, which does happen in Kurogane's action, so both Kurogane and Mokichi "perform" it, allowing you to use it. EDIT: Slight technical correction; overall answer unchanged.

It was initially, but when they changed Naval, that phrase isn't used anymore.

Well, the sampan you put on him is something of a red flag. 😛

Nope, doesn't look like it. Hrm... actually, now that I'm really looking at it.... oops, the OBH people worded it wrong? :/

Let me compare it against CE and EE Naval...

Ok, so in CE Naval Reaction, you needed to be the Attacker and have more Naval cards in your army than the other, then the targeted Naval Personality gets the first action which they must perform; otherwise, it's the same as OBH Engage. Let's see about Emperor....

Ok, and EE is exactly the same. The OBH one doesn't have any of that, so it's closer to the Ivory one, except it seems to lack the stipulation that you need to be the Attacker? Accidentally or not, I don't know.

The OBH Naval reads, "Engage: Once per battle, target your performing Naval Unit led by an unbowed Naval Personality at the current battlefield: You have the first opportunity to take a Battle action. This action must be performed by a card in that Naval Personality's unit." So, the whole unit has to be Naval, any card in it can perform the given first action, but you don't have to be the Attacker. What this last part means though, crucially, is if the Defender has any Naval units, he can basically "cancel" your Naval Engage by taking his own, and re-taking the "first" action of the battle. Maybe they intended this? I don't know.

EDIT: I misread CE and EE Naval; those two are exactly the same. I have altered the above for accuracy.

I'm not sure @saaam is correct. "May accept" and "is not accepted" do not strike me as directly equivalent to "may refuse" and "refused" respectively. I'm not sure if @kempy_nezumi can dig deep enough into his archives of the Rules Form to find any contemporary ruling, however; I think it only went back to Lotus or so, if memory serves (which it often doesn't). However, if it were me judging, I would say they are not the same thing; @Alex Jones , do you happen to recall and/or have an opinion on the matter?

Well, if it was ruled to do so contemporarily, I would be inclined to Rule the same way; things certainly weren't as rigid then. It would be nice if a literal reading of the cards supported that stance without ambiguity, however. 😦 Just from a language standpoint, "not accepting" something is not necessarilly equivalent to "refusing" it.

I know Ling had an accumlated list of rulings of his own, but I think that only went up through end of Jade, so even with meticulous archiving of the gaping blown-out internet craters, Gold/Diamond stuff is pretty much from memory at this point.

Oh, he did through mid-Samurai; he left right as I joined. I think I may have technically been his replacement? 😛

Now that I think about it more, I can see the argument the other way. Back in Diamond, all challenges were refusable by default; "refusable" didn't have to be explicit, "unrefusable" did. So, the Contest challenge would sort of have an implicit "may refuse" background noise to it that Kenshinzen would shut off? shrug I don't know; still doesn't seem like "not accept" should be the same thing as "refuse" to me. :/

Yeah, I can see the logic more. And as I said directly above, if the ability to refuse is implicit, then implicit refusals would certainly be more logically in line, wouldn't they?

"Not accepting" something would be an implicit "refusal" of it; I guess I'm just hung up on the fact that it's not an explicit refusal.

I think you have to accept.

English's use of "may" is always somewhat ambiguous.

I came around to that too... eventually. 😛 Thanks for chiming in too, of course.

I think "can accept" would be wording on Contest of Iaijutsu.

Alternatively, require the other player to target a Personality, then the Duelist challenges them refusably.

Yeah, but I wouldn't want to alter its current parameters by adding targeting. Might just try to get a note in the Onyx CR that not accepting an open challenge is equivalent to refusing. 😛

Shouldn't the other player's Personality be targeted?

When did all targetting become explicit?

I think targeting became explicit in Lotus along with default OPT, but I don't have a rulebook handy. I'll look it up later.

Thanks! Interesting similarities. I'm not sure it sets a 1 for 1 precedent, but it's food for further thought. 🙂

The latter.

Are you quoting Presence and Relevance? This is from the Presence and Location era, and the latter only governs cards in units.

OBH also uses Presence and Location, not the pre-Samurai Presence and Relevance.

If you have Presence, you can take it; Location Rule only governs cards in units.

Got it now? :/

No.

^Generally speaking. Specific examples may reveal an edge case.