That was during the summer of 1997.
When did deck sizes go from 30/30 to 40/40
Sun and Moon #rules-questions
Messages from the Sun and Moon #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.
Any idea which set that was
That was during one of the Scorpion Clan Coups. They came out like a month apart, so I can't really tell you which. But it was after TotV, and definitely before Jade.
Gotcha, thanks!
You're welcome.
Interestingly, the first tournament I ever took part in was right after that decision was made. So I asked someone there, who very loudly told me that "Decks are now 40/40, as voted by the Imperial Assembly!".
Lol
@Brook Cunningham about this Mitsu https://oracleofthevoid.com/?fbclid=IwAR3XSfeNKJ21ydYOGUn8y0fIa8Y7DQ2sIRp4uQL4qHzhvtPEIg5iZ_gVvfc#game=l5r,#cardid=8555,#cnprintingid=1
Oracle trait is missing part he can't straighten if he has any Fire token
2000 FAQ
[attachment: image.png]
Blimey, that's a massive change.
I don't think adding the text to tokens is a good idea: cf Sympathetic Energies.
Yeah, that could blow up in unexpected and spectacular ways.
Yeah, I think that wording I have on Mitsu in the Oracle currently was written from a perspective of what was going on in Emperor Edition at the time, wherein we were embroiled in debating whether -1C from Poison tokens was coming from the token or the action that gave it, and we settled on the former (I think? Do you remember exactly? :/) so that sort of translated to informing how I tried to write Mitsu, rather than making Mitsu work 100% exactly as he used to. Doing the rewrites during an extended peroid of time, and while the game was changing too at the same time, meant I didn't always come at these rewrites from the same perspective. I'll see if I can't revisit him with some better text at some point soon.
but main problem is that Oracle Mitsu now can be straightened any time, while original could straighten only by removing all tokens.
Well, yeah, that was just a straight mistake. "Better text soon" would also include fixing that. 😛
Also, if you put a Fire token on Mitsu from another source, he doesn't distinguish between them.
Ugh. There's no Straighten Phase in Ivory, right?
Anyway, I'd move most of the text to traits on Mitsu, and make has ability just:
Repeatable Battle/Open: Give Mitsu one or more +1/+1 Fire tokens.
Yes. It's just Action Phase where all cards straighten at the beginning
[attachment: image.png]
So...
Hm.
Just answered a question. 🙂 "Before this Personality straightens during the Straighten Phase..." should probably replaced by "Before this Personality straightens as the start of the Action Phase..."
Also, he shouldn't bow if he's moved home from a defending army.
Ugh
but it's deafult
😉
except in multiplayer
And Ivory changed battles so that defenders go home after each battle, rather than at the end of the last one, right?
Or did we manage to dissuade Reese of that stupidity?
need to check it later.
defenders go home after last battle
[attachment: image.png]
It will be nice if/when Don is able to start hostin Rules docs on the Oracle, so maybe we can make our own definative Comprehensive Ruleset that restores some crucial aspects that Ivory broke, like the Straighten Phase, non-Gold/Bow costs, and such (Events phase too, maybe?), so that the Oracle rewrites can all go by that Ruleset instead of having to be smushed into Ivory where a lot of them don't fit just because it's the "last/latest" CR.
Such ruleset exists. Check The Obsidian Hand. It mixes two worlds - pre and post Ivory. All phases exists, you can even play with old Cavalry if you want (you just choose before a game you want use old Cavalry or Ivory Engage one).
Well, yes, but I mean one to serve as a companion piece to the Oracle and available in the same location. BTW, also, I just fixed Mitsu.
There's no compiled document of Obsidian Hand. Personally i just copied all posts from their Facebook page into one PDF few years ago. But it's still missing some parts.
Anyway - personally - i don't think it's required to create another ruleset. First, people who play pre-Ivory editions use just rulesets of that era. On other hand Legacy guys have Obsidian Hand and are trying to use Oracle wordings for some older cards. There's no chacne to create ultimate ruleset. Eg some people play cards Imperial - Gold only. Why they should use some Emperor based ruleset? ATM if someone start with L5R he probably got Ivory/20F stuff as its still easiest way to get sealed product.
Well, I was thinking maybe we could put the constraints block back or something like that, and address that Templating in a "Final Rules" of some kind. But no, I suppose it's not all that needed. shrug
Only (Legacy) ruleset i know that is focused on Emperor as a core is Big Deck. But i don't know anyone who plays it.
Well, Emperor was good templating beyond its own unique "Rules", for determining where non-Gold/Bowing costs and required targeting where, which are concepts that go well beyond it exclusively, you know?
See that for me is the challenge. L5R doesn't have a unified legacy format. Players usually tend to gravitate towards a particular arc. That's why it's so hard to match or find games.
@Brook Cunningham I don't think you need "returns home from a defending army after the resolution of the last battle of an Attack Phase": "moving home" is for movement during a battle, but "returning home" is only used after the battles, right?
So you just need "returns home from a defending army", or maybe "returns (not moves) home from a defending army"
Excellent point!
"Return Home" is actually a defined game term in the final Comprehensive Rules. 🙂
Yes
Also, "ignoring" should be "notwithstanding"
Curious why?
Because it's the right word for that usage - more accurate than "ignoring".
Grammatically, perhaps, but "ignore" is an actual game term and we need actual game terms/mechanics to make things work properly. In the hierarchy of timing conflicts, the negation from the first trait would cause the second trait's substitution effect to never happen, so the first trait has to be ignored in that specfic circumstance.
Right. And that's exactly the scenario that what the word "notwithstanding" was invented for.
Sorry, I'm just failing to follow your logic/argument. "Ignore" may be less precise/accurate grammatically, but it's actually a defined game term in the CR (and "notwithstanding" isn't), so I'm using it to better indicate a mechanical interaction.