Thank you. That sounds reasonable to me!
Is Spirited Dispute simply a way to negate a duel that you would lose?
Answers on: Spirited Dispute
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.
Negate the effects of losing only, not the whole duel, but otherwise, yes. I suppose it is a bit redundant to "choose to lose" in a scenario where you'd proabably already be losing, or else you wouldn't choose that effect, but there's possibly some combo I'm not seeing where that's necessry. 😛
Is this saying that if he only has a peasant weapon equipped, I must destroy it to make the ranged attack?
[attachment: image0.jpg]
No. If it is a Peasant Weapon you have the additional option to destroy it instead of bowing it.
Thank you!
meaning you could bow the Peasant Weapon for whatever fun tricks it had, then throw it at the enemy
Hiya! Is Aramasu's Vigilance oracle wording for its tireless ability only limited to the player ability for equip and recruit? Or does this also cover actions that will result to equipping or recruiting?
[attachment: image.png] [attachment: image.png] [attachment: image.png]
Answers on: Aramasu's Vigilance
When AV was legal, actions that Equipped or Recruited didn't have their own Gold Cost; the paying for the attachment or Personality was a rulebook process, not a cost of the action itself, therefore it wouldn't have paid for them contemporarily and therefore does not. I should probably have added this clause to Luxurious Silk as well, but I was focused at the time on converting Holdings to only paying for just paying for a single cost because of Gold pooling, and now everyone is used to abusing the Holding at this point that it might be a bit late. Although, now that I'm looking at that, I should also probably add a similar non-pooling clause to AV. Eh, nobody's perfect. 😦
[attachment: image.png]
if both players have one copy of this in play - do they negate themselves out?
or is it a bonus only for the active players lobbying check?
Effectively mathematically, yes.
No.
thank you, that's what i thought but wanted to make sure
Can Ring of Fire (20F) destroy an opponent's ring?
No.
Okay. Can you explain why not?
In essence, if Rings aren't targetable with Ring of Fire, presumably because they are not at the current battle, how do their abilities work when they lack the Home or Absent keywords?
I think ring of water has absent. But it doesn't refer to the ring itself, it just means you don't need a unit in the battle to use the ring. Rings are part of your knowledge/enlightenment, they aren't something that physically exist.
Thank you. I'm still not sure why they don't count. There are cards which specifically target rings in play, so they must exist in some form.
Answers on: Ring of Fire
I'll dig through the CRD again and see what I can find. Since the consensus is that I can't destroy a ring with Ring of Fire, I assume I missed something
Easy, it's not an enemy card.
Rings exist in your fief.
Otherwise, you'd be able to use Ring of Fire (20F) as a low-orbit ion cannon.
To expand on the prior, they're not present in the battle, even if they have Absent. Absent just lets it use its ability in the battle without it having to be a part of your army.
Shiwan has it, but to reiterate and elaborate, "enemy" can only refer to an opponent themself on the opposide side during an attack (the Defender if you're attacking or vice-versa), or cards in units controlled by or allied with such a player (or an army that collectively contains such cards). Cards not in units, even if controlled by an enemy player and even if they're at the battlefield (such as their Terrains or Fortification Holdings) are not "enemy" cards.
Yeah, that's good nuance, and great point.
Thank you for the explanation.
Quick question: I'm talking with a friend and he claims you gain honor when you destroy card with a melee attack. Afaik you only gain honor for each card destroyed in battle resolution and that's it?
Yeah, unless there's some other effect on the table, there's nothing that would gain you Honor off a successful Melee.
You are correct that battle resolution destruction is the only thing that intrinsically gains you Honor.
Thanks I was sure of that but wanted to double-check
Also since Ivory edition attacker and defender gains 2 honor per card destroyed in case of tie (in previous editions it was 1 honor per card in tie)
"I'm talking with a friend and he claims you gain honor when you destroy card with a melee attack."
[attachment: printing_12419_1_details.png]
Theres the Lion Deathseeker sensei too, you gain whenever you kill somthing in battle.