I don't believe "Akasha" was ever a full Clan. Just a Stronghold, from what I recall?
Hello, does anyone knows why I cant select Akasha in the clan filters ?
[attachment: image.png]
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.
Akasha Clan is the technical Onyx name of the faction of the Naga
I'm able to select it from the bottom of the drop-down, but it did take a firm click after a couple tries
You can also Type it into the search and hit Enter
I click it as hard as I can, but still wont select it hehe
it just closes the selection box without choosing selecting the akasha
well, I found what I require, so it probably doesn't matter anymore. Thanks for suggestions guys
The “Akasha” isn’t quite lined up with the click point. Try aiming for the top third of the word
does anyone knows where are the proxys for the pokemons the kitsune in onyx/she creates?
I remember seeying them once in a post, but cannot find them
I made one for the goose with icon for art.
My plan, if there is no official ones coming, to make a full set but that will take time
Nice, can you share with me the goose
(link)
have the question ...
what was the difference and what was the point of errating DRoW?
this into
[attachment: image.png]
this
[attachment: image.png]
The first wording made it unclear that the "resolved no actions" was supposed to be during the battle, not during the whole turn up to that point and could've been interpreted as the latter.
oh i guess i was always having no issue with it anw i was understanging it as it was intended
thanks!
but i have another question
If i will discard a ring to have an effect then i will take it back by any means possible will i be able to put that ring into play?
or maybe in case of another ring use it again discarding it
Not exactly sure what you're asking? But, if you discard a Ring for its ability and then somehow afterward get it back in your hand, there's nothing in general stopping you from putting it into play or using its ability again.
so it looses memory when put into my hand?
If it's also face-down, yes.
but even if someone will reveal it when it wace down the memory is already lost. I ged it right?
Card memory is lost as soon as it's both face-down and out of play.
In Gold - does Reaction also cancels Delayed Terrains like Ambush Pits?
[attachment: printing_7959_1_details.png]
[attachment: printing_347_1_details.png]
[attachment: image.png]
I would say yes, or at least it was always played that way.
Effectively the card is blank the moment the reaction takes place
you'd use the Reaction when the terrain was originally played, and it would negate the terrain's effects, which includes any that would happen with delayed resolution
Does having a wind override the basic favor actions?
Yep. "While you have a Wind in play, you may not take rulebook Favor actions, an effect which cannot be overcome by card effects."
Okay
does Ikikashi's Sensei "stronghold has a maximum gold production of 3" limitation apply to the Shugenja/Spell gold production from Sacred Temple of the Phoenix? Or just to the standard gold production?
I believe it affects only gold-production stat, not trait
that's what I assumed, but I wasn't entirely sure.
When bringing a card into play ignoring costs, are Invest costs ignored as well?
EDIT: Going to have to do some consulting on this and get back to you.
Hrm... waitaminute, though...
I'd argue that just the base card costs are ignored by the effect, but then you are not allowed to activate the Invest cost, even if you were to pay for it yourself separately. 😄
Keeps it fair.
Except Invest isn't paid separately. It adds to the total cost permanently.
Also, I had thought of the implicit "loophole", that if you're not paying, you don't have the opportunity to Invest, but that logic breaks down due to the fact Strategies with costless abilities have Invest.
I thought that they all had a cost in that case, and it was 0, it was just not printed as such for convenience.
Not since "what you see is what you get" Ivory Rules/mentality. There's no hidden implicit cost for anything. A Strategy ability is just like an ability on a card in play, just resolved differently; no coin, no cost.
Ugh.
Right. I keep forgetting that mess.
After some debate, the most consistent thing to Rule, considering that you can Invest Strategies with no costs, is that "ignoring costs" will let you get Invest traits for free. @kempy_nezumi , unless you can find any old Ruling for Iweko Seiken or Feign Death interacting with Invest that would contradict?
i guess my followup question to that would be:
Does ignoring costs permanently change the GC of a character? If you ignore costs on an invest character, what is its end GC? Or, probably more accurately, would it change the GC of the character for that turn, but not permanently?
Lets use the onyx spider ninja as an example- 5gc character, 10g invest. ignoring gold costs, would its invested GC be: a)0 b)10 c)15
I feel like b is right out normally, but its not a complete question without offering it as a solution.
"Ignoring cost" does not affect the GC stat of the Personality, it affects how much you have to pay to Recruit them within the effect that is doing so. So, the answers to your 1st and 3rd questions above are "no" and "no", and in your specific example (which correlates to your 2nd question), the answer is "c".
not to play devil's advocate here but,
Couldn't one simply make it unlimited, if we are ignoring costs? or does that break a good-faith rule?
Ninja example: Ignoring costs i meet the quota of 15, but make it 100G (for purposes of other cards that check gold cost)?
That's not how Invest works. You increase the GC stat permanently by the amount in the trait; that's it.
this guys text probably is written to avoid chain of ignoring-cost/invest to bring into play another 2x15GC guys
[attachment: image.png]
I don't think so. All the 10G Invest guys have the same "no-reduction" clause. I see that you're saying you could, by my ruling above, free-Invest them all to make them all 15G with all the protection that brings, but even though that is probably against intent, I don't think it was taken into consideration.
https://sites.google.com/view/the-onyx-lives-project/home/designer-diaries-yu-and-you
I'm just catching up with all the updates. So like... how, if at all, would this change to Yu affect legacy cards?
I guess it would be up to the specific legacy format committee to decide, and I expect that most of them are more interested in preserving the original effects of the cards where they can, which would probably lead them to say Yu the keyword is different from Yu the trait.
But, it does seem like if all instances of Yu were errata'd to work like they do in the update, they would probably become... "Yu: Melee Attack with strength equal to the Yu number." And then it would trigger whenever they die from battle resolution or from an enemy effect.
So, would that break it? I recall it was generally considered a miss in terms of impactful keywords, but it would be a substantial power boost.
It would really only come up in legacy games, where the power levels are already through the roof, so I guess it's not that big a deal.
[The Onyx Lives Project - Designer Diaries: Yu and You]
Both the addition and updating of mechanics for the Onyx Lives project are done with only the project itself in mind. While deck tech questions and discussions regarding legacy format impact are always interesting, having those discussions during design would only further delay the process, so are generally avoided. You can probably guess that the question did come up internally, and since we've gone ahead with the decision, you can also probably guess the result.
Furthermore, as you correctly guessed, it's up to each legacy format's rules committee how they want to rule it. As of now, to my knowledge, no digital-only cards are legal in any legacy format. If and when it changes, I wouldn't be surprised if the older cards would be ruled to work the same way they always have.
And if you'll allow me a bit of leeway by referring to a non-L5R card game:
For a recent example on why it's better to focus design of a card on the format of the set youre working on, I'd suggest a look at everything around Nadu, Winged Wisdom in MtG. Long story short, it was retooled from it's original version, which was suitable for the Modern format it was designed for, with the Commander format in mind. This led to a strong card that got banned from its originally intended format rather quickly, and now recently has been banned from Commander as well. Had the design team not reworked the card due to considering a separate format, I believe there's a good chance it would still be legal in both.
I've been slowly working on a legacy format that includes Onyx cards and I have been advised that it would be best to differentiate between Yu (trait) and Yu (keyword) rather than try to reconcile them
Thanks!
For Yoritomo Saika does Dockside Market count as a 4 if I am going 2nd as Mantis clan?
Answers on: Yoritomo Saika, Dockside Market
Yes, but of course, her Force bonus will cap out at +3 due to her own trait, so going first or second won't really matter.
Huh, i thought Saika said non variable.
it isn't variable? I assumed Variable was like Jade sculptor?
No, "variable" refers to having no set or base value, but the value is entirely dependent on another factor, and is usually represented by an asterisk absent of other numbers, such as the GP of Artisan Academy or Bandit Hideout. Dockside Market, or Holdings with Wealth tokens, do not have variable production. They have a known base production with bonuses.
ohh nice so she would get +3 from questionable market as well
Answers on: Questionable Market
(If it was Invested, of course. :P)
Right, i had incorrectly assumed "nonvariable" meant the base value before any tokens.
Also assuming she doesnt get in from the SH since its not a 'holding'?
Right. Stronghold =/= Holding.
cards used in a duel are not discarded correct?
I think that's too broad a question to answer generally. It would be more determined by the card effect that cares, if you can quote/cite that?
Wako was focused from top of deck during a duel
Answers on: Wako
I believe focused cards are discarded at the end of the duel
At least, that's what the 20F comprehensive says at the end of the section on duels
Yes, Rogi is correct. And Wako doesn't care how it enters the discard pile, so basically any time it does, by any means, its trait can activate.
Good to know, my doubt was because the text of ongoing division says "After you discard (not focus) this Strategy during a battle, draw a card." Wasn't sure if it was a clarrification about focus effects or just something specific to the card.
Answers on: Ongoing Division
I think the difference in the situation with Ongoing Division may be that the Rulebook is discarding it from the Focusing area, not "you".
under diamond rules, can Keen Eye be used to cancel redirection of a duel (like Shiba Danjuro or Turn of Fate)? In other words, is the targeting already part of the challenge or does the challenge start after targeting is done?
Unfortunately, since Diamond doesn't have stringently defined steps to resolving an action, it would come down to the exact wording of the action creating the challenge/duel. I think most of the era were probably worded so the targeting happens during the challenge, but there may be outliers.
The cards in question are Steel on Steel (RoB wording) and Doji Kurohito xp2. So it seems Keen Eye does work since the "targeting" is part of the challenge?
Yep to both. If they had said something like, "Target another player's Personality. Your Personality challenges him... etc" the targeting would've been outside the scope of the challenge, but those two don't. Also, sidenote, you meant "Twist" not "Turn" of Fate, above. 🙂
Actually i meant Turn of Fortune 😁. Thank for your help!
Answers on: Turn of Fortune
Oh, right. I was trying to correct from memory, and I forgot which word was wrong and which ended up being right; needless to say, it took me a bit to pin it down. 😛
Hello guys, question under modern format. Are cards without bug legal? like this one for example?
[attachment: printing_6366_2_details.png]
Not legal for Modern
If Togashi Shao uses his ability on a personality with Yamigatai, does Shao get the bonus until end of turn, or only during the Combat Segment?
Answers on: Togashi Shao, Yamigatai
End of turn. "Equal bonus" just means value, not duration.
Now, to clarify, Shao gets nothing from taking the action initially (if the only bonus the target has would be from Yamigatai's trait), because it's Open and the armor only gives its bonus during the Combat Segment. But the delayed effect of giving Shao an equal bonus kicks in when the target gets a "new" bonus from Yamigatai when the Combat Segment starts.
Also, fun fact, since every instance of the armor turning on and off again is a new bonus, so with each new Combat Segment in a single turn, Shao would get a new, additional +2F that lasts until the end of that turn. C-c-c-combo! 🙂
Does it count for combat segments the armor is not in?
Why wouldn't it?
But, y'know, yeah. If the guy wearing Yamigatai sits at home for 4 battles (1 at each starting Province, let's say), he's going to have +2F during each of those battles' Combat Segments. Nice if the other player has No Hiding Place, as one example.
that seems like a strong combo for Shao lol
for Modern, what are the rules for attaching stuff? I cannot find it on the pdfs or links
Modern = 20F ruleset + additional rules for pre Ivory keywords + some small modifications.
So like in Ivory theres Open Equip ability.
question with Plantation and Library of rebirth under emperor rules. Does the reaction ability would produce 1 more as well?
[attachment: printing_9953_1_details.png]
[attachment: printing_4724_1_details.png]
I don't think that's relevant to a player 's question. They're asking if Plantation's "produces 1 more Gold" trait applies not only to the Stronghold's normal Gold-coin production, but also to its Reaction production. I would think it does, since they both "produce", but can you find anything Archived on that? Or was that the only Plantation ruling you could find?
I've found one, without any answer
[attachment: image.png]
exactly I'm wondering if it pays 5 with the reaction for a spell and if I can use the other five for another spell when bowing the stronghold
As if LoR wasn’t OP enough
yeah, I think thats my favorite stronghold
for phoenix at least, sadly attaching spells during battle its only an EE, thing
[attachment: printing_1392_1_details.png]
yeah, close enough hehe, but those 4 gold are game changer I beleive
Well... that feels bad. 😦 But, yeah, I think the answer is that Plantation would boost the Reaction. I can't think of a reason it wouldn't.
Check to see if there are any holdings that reduce gold production and I think you will have your answer on the reaction
You have no idea how I miss that in currenty format
another question again for LoR but for Modern. If I'm attaching an spell using temple of serenity or elemental library? Would LoR produce 4 gold with the reaction? Or not because its an action?
[attachment: printing_4724_1_details.png] [attachment: printing_12070_1_details.png] [attachment: printing_11724_1_details.png]
Answers on: Temple of Serenity, Elemental Library
Paying for an action that Equips a thing is the same as paying for the thing.
Yep
You'll note that the Rules Forum question (that actually had an answer) that Kempy posted above noted that the distinction was merging post CoM.
nice, thanks
how does Money works in modern? is there gold pool? or holding per card?
is there cycle as in twenty? if going second it says you can put a legacy in play, but is there the rule to go look for a legacy holding if you didn't brought a holding
(link)
You follow 20F Rulebook (no clan discount, gold pooling, rulebook 1st turn Cycle, Legacy holding for card just like in 20F) .
Then you read "Amendments to the Rules" section of Modern Comprehensive Rules document from here: (link)
that describes additional rulings like "Going Second Legacy" (like it was in Samurai), Seppuku, Blood Money etc.
And finally you read Modern Format FAQ document that clarifies thing like Performing.
[attachment: image.png]
can this interruypt to an action that does not move personality? just to negate his penalties?
[attachment: image.png]
Yep. But, of course, only if he's a Berserker and you pay the extra 2G.
Question with Otomo Bureocrat and a proclaim. The proclaim rule for twenty. I am not sure if the proclaim is part of the action recruit. Can the holding reduce the proclaim gain by 2?
[attachment: image.png] [attachment: printing_11879_1_details.png]
Yes.
[attachment: image.png]
Btw as 20F rulebooks (basic and advanced) are small and handy, maybe they are good for beginners, but personally i suggest to use 20F Comprehensive Rules document for advanced players.
[attachment: image.png]
Also Otomo Bureaucrat reduces honor gain to 2, not by 2.
Can Kan'ol'ti'chek remove Rings from the game? Most cards that remove Fate cards can't target Rings
[attachment: GoT_020.png]
With the recent updates to ShE rules, banish immunity was added to Rings. So Kan’ol’ti’chek cannot banish Rings
oh really which rules?
[attachment: IMG_2006.jpg]
From the most recent Onyx data sheet
So you Kan banish your own Rings, but not other players’
Thank you, the game was literally decided by that rule
We announced the change in a Design Diary back at the start of September, but it was a small mention in a longer article
why not allow the banishment of rings? it's a viable strategy to force a potential loss.
Because it's a bad player interaction. Having some cost or something to overcome in order to meet your win condition is fine, but not outright eliminate it. It would be like printing a Stronghold that said "Your opponents may not win by Military Victory.".
(Which they nearly did with The Dark Path of Shadow, and people were salty about that for many years.)
For the half of L5R lifetime we had a faction that couldnt be defeated by dishonor. Yes, that was stupid but it was like this.
Yeah, but you'd run control and be able to win, still.
And you'd know in advance that it was going to be that kind of a fight.
Vs having an effect unexpectedly nuke your Ring and winning condition, possibly from any deck.
Yeah, in the same way, with Ring removal available, everyone also could adapt and make decks like enlightenment/other-win-condition switches.
Honestly i often saw decks like this, that could press opponent about rings and/or military
As Rings actions were just strong and helped to win battles.
Ring removal could eliminate combo enlightenment decks same way as Shadowlands Horde eliminated pure dishonor bombs (fate deck full of honor loss and province defending cards).
That is a fair point, but also consider how difficult a pure Enlightenment deck is vs how difficult a pure dishonor bomb is. It would take Rings from "Difficult" to "unviable"
Really depends on rings texts and cardpool. Eg check Emperor Era rings - all of them were just battle oriented (no requirements for favor or duels). Additionally we had battle equip for spells and any copy of Introspection in hand was "free" Ring of the Void after you played any Ring.
That being said, if you were in an environment like Jade Edition with pre-MRP Finding the Harmony, then it's reasonable, because effectively every Clan/Faction could run Enlightenment, either as main or switch. Shadowlands Enlightenment? Sure. Unicorn Enlightenment? Heck yeah, they have Shuggies on horses!
Yeah. My first enlightenment victory ever was during Celestial with Unicorn. I was so happy. 🙂
There was whole Death Priest theme so Unicorn got solid Cavalry Shugenja.
Very cool.
Haven't done it off of that platform.
Enlightment is so satisfying, feels like solving a very complex puzzle.
eh. i always built in a back up for an enlightenment victory. if i couldn't get it with enlightenment, i'd get it with honor/dishonor, military, or just plain forfeit. Enlightenment is not guaranteed. It's like a lottery draw to get all 5, especially when taking into account the different ways decks can interact.
I mean, i buy lotto tickets occassionally, but I don't expect to win at all, as the lottery is a "tax on the stupid".
if you build your deck for it to be a guaranteed win against every single deck composition, you are either very talented, or you are entitled.
most likely the latter rather than the former
to errata something that removes a potential win condition is the same things as making it against the rules for people to gain honor against a scorpion dishonor deck, or to defend against a lion speed deck
and no. i've never played ratlings
as for the shaming of a junzo deck, it is meant to be crushed militarily. just like a scorpion dishonor deck is meant to be taken down with a toturi's army deck or something equivelant.
what they don't expect is the scorpion dueling/honor run deck
talking legacy of course
cause those are the only rules that aren't Samurai MTG
I mean, i've taken 2nd place in two different tournaments (Onyx and Shattered Empire) now with pure Enlightenment, with no backup option. There were matchups where I did just acknowledge I can't win, but I've since built around those weaknesses. Now, there is technically a deck that will cause me to lose at deckbuilding, but I also can't see it winning much, either. Still supremely difficult.
The main concern wasn't a deck build, though, but a card effect found on multiple cards that could just shut off the win condition, that would escalate it from "supremely difficult" to "you physically can't win if your opponent runs one of these cards"
That last Gencon 20F tournament Landrum had a very capable deck built to beat the field. But he pulled the ONE scorpion player that turned off the parts of his combos to win. There are a lot of things you can't control and you just accept that.
all i'm saying is that winning by enlightenment is a crap shoot to begin with. If you know what you are doing, you already know that and are prepared to fail.
You might come up against a Crab or Crane turtle honor deck, where they won't be prepared to attack, so there goes your earth ring. Should the person be forced to attack so that you have a chance to play your earth ring?
Again, banning something just because it precludes you from obtaining one of several win conditions is near sighted, and can lead to a slippery slope
Well in ShE we have an option to play Earth ring even in that situation through Yamingatai (will note I'm just waking I believe that is name.) Which says we can play it if we break a province on the attack so that isn't as bad of a situation.
Turtle decks are designed to not allow the breaking of a province. They had the same mechanic in legacy with armor of osano-wo
First. Please move this to (link) if you want to talk about enligtenment in specific era, move to such channel.
we're still debating the errata of banning the banishment of rings, which is a rules thing
so one of the things we ran into during the playtest period is that we would forget to add "non-Ring" to a banish effect, and a playtester would inevitably come back and ask us if banishing Rings with this card was intended
since this was happening frequently, we felt it was easier in the long run to just add a rule about it, with the idea being that if we wanted an exception, we would make one
making it one-sided means opponents cannot arbitrarily lock out Enlightenment victories, but you could still choose to banish your own Ring if there was some advantage to you doing so
ok. i am going to put this forward with the fact that i have no statistics training whatsoever. ok? This is just the way the math makes sense to me.
A standard, minimum deck build is 40 cards dynasty, 40 cards fate. right? so, 100 into 40 gives .4. multiply .4 times itself 5 times, and you wind up with .01024. That translates to me as a 1 in 42010 chance of drawing the ring card you need at the right time, which seems reasonable as far as chance goes
does that seem reasonable?
that... is not proper statistics, but without a Google rabbit hole I could not correct you off the top of my head
err could you explain the maths?
100 is the 100 percent of a whole 40 card fate deck, which is the minimum. Drawing a particular card itself from the deck itself is 2.5% apparently. But there is the condition of it being useful at the right time for the conditions of it being played. There are 5 rings.
so, i took 100 and divided into 40, which gave me .4. i multiplied that by itself 5 times (once for each of the five rings), and came up with .01024
i just reversed the number, as that made sense to me, due to the name of pre decimal and post decimal naming schema
you can't reverse the number
ok. so, how would i denote that statistically? All I was aiming for was the fact that having the right ring at the right time with the right conditions is in and of itself a crapshoot
drawing one Ring at first draw is 1/40
which, ironically, has better odds than enlightenment victory, given all of the possible iterations of an opposing deck's potential construction and playstyle. You may or may not wind up with a chance to play one or more of your rings
yes
then the odds increase with the number of draws
until it's 100%
based on the smaller deck size
vs. what's left
so, how do you account for the ring playing conditions?
you can't without empirism
that's a variable, based on how your deck is constructed to take advantage of various situations
you will make the conditions happen to play the rings, not play them passively
as wella s the uncontrolled factor of the opponent's deckbuild
which, at times, forces some rings to actually be played passively
well L5R is a random game, not only from shuffling the decks but also because you don't know what the other guy plays
you just reduce the odds by playing against other decks and learning from them
therefore empirism
Well, I think what Doc is pointing out is that the "change" to the Rules is effectively nil, as in its absence, it would be something we would put on the cards themselves anyway. This just saves space and us having to remember to do it every time.
so, the rule in question is the banning of banishing a ring card.
I know of very few cards that allow a recovery of fate cards, as there were few in legacy.
However, there were some that allowed for card recovery.
So, here's the ultimate question. Given the recovery of a ring being a cornerstone of an enlightenment deck, is not a strategy card's recovery in a military only deck just as pivotal? should the card in question (some ratling), have strategy cards for banishment fodder ruled out as well? what is the empitus to have only Rings ruled as not banishable?
if it is flavor only, i can accept that
(1) Rings are Unique, thus 1x in deck construction, and are irreplaceable for Enlightenment (2) Strategies are generally non-Unique, so up to 3x (3) Strategies are fungible. If you play or lose a single Strategy, you could always be running cards on both the Dynasty and Fate side which replicate similar functions. (4) Individual Strategies are not critical to a victory in the way that Rings are for Enlightenment.
ok. i can understand this. reasoning. I will rebutt with the question of whether it is felt by the design team that enlightment decks are built as a potential actual win condition, or with a rule of cool win condition?
But your apparent stance begs the question: Does/did it bother you equally when an individual effect prior to the GoT set said, "Banish a non-Ring card"? Because this situation is wholly the same, from a Design perspective. We're just not putting it on the cards themselves anymore.
also, i would argue that there are a few strategies that are critical, but are limited by deck construction conditions. rallying cry, superior tactics, etc from legacy
Answers on: Rallying Cry, Superior Tactics
Enlightenment has always been designed as a "challenging" win condition (unlike certain Event-based victories which definitely are more "rule of cool"). With skilled deckbuilding and play, Enlightenment should be possible but never easy to pull off.
How easy an Enlightenment victory is has varied widely by arc; a player gave you testimont here for how his deck performs in the Onyx/ShE environment. (link)
never. i view ring wins as a "Rule of Cool" win. Like, "It would be cool if this got off, but i'm not building for it to be the primary main win condition"
You're talking about entirely different rulesets from the Onyx/ShE rules under which this rule change applies.
For one thing, other arcs had precious few "remove from the game"/banish effects. Onyx/ShE has leaned into the idea mechanically, so we felt the change was prudent.
i've admitted this from the start. i sort of stopped at jade/hidden emperor due to the fact that I felt L5R was becoming more Magic like and less L5R like
So, if you weren't bothered then, I fail to see why you are now, as these situations are effectively the same? Unless I'm misunderstanding you entirely? :/
i think my main contention has to do with the idea that an enlightenment victory is purely a thing of chance, rather than being set up to be a sure thing.
Furthermore, it may just be the grognard in me that goes "why shouldn't a ratling with enough power to destroy Fate, not be able to diminish the ability of an opponent to obtain enlightenment"
Ironic that your complaint is "for flavor reasons"
no. my main complaint is not for flavor reason
it has actual mechanical grounds, that are influenced by flavor
which, l5r as a game has always been
and it isn't even a complaint. it's a questioning.
Eh, I'd argue Enlightenment stopped being purely "a thing of chance" Victory condition in at least Crimson and Jade with the original Monk box, and arguably never was. If it was going to happen, it was going to be something a player had to actively pursue in construction. You don't just put all 5 Rings in your deck for lols; they are useful, but far from auto-includes.
never said they were auto-includes. However, if I was building an enlightenment deck, there was always a back up win condition. like, hugely.
Answers on: Ring of Earth
most likely military or honor
like, you aren't going to build a crab deck with anything other than a ring of earth. to do anything else is a waste
The odds of winning by Enlightenment are less than for other victory conditions because it is essentially pulling off several small but not insurmountable combos during the game.
Thinking about Enlightenment as a "thing of chance" ignores the deckbuilding finesse which goes into them: card tutoring, Ring recursion, and redundant effects which maximize the odds of being able to play a Ring at a specific time.
It's never so much "I happened to draw this Ring at exactly the right moment" as "I have the tools in place to be able to play the Ring, now I just need to engineer its conditions".
but drawing the ring at the correct time is actually part of the condition. a ring of the void in your beginning hand works against itself
Ring of Air for its straighten effects, Ring of Water for its move-in, Ring of the Void for card draw. (modern arcs)
this condition is not hard to create
[attachment: Onyx253.jpg]
REALLY?
ok. i admit i'm out of touch
sorry about the controversy
it also doesn't draw you five cards, so...
an image of kung fu hustle and the "instruction book salesman" for enlightenment just flashed through my head reading that
xD
just so you realize what Enlightenment looks like in the environment where we made this rule, here are the other four
[attachment: Onyx250.jpg] [attachment: Onyx251.jpg] [attachment: Onyx252.jpg] [attachment: Onyx254.jpg]
Fire is the least likely to be run casually unless you have a dueling-themed deck, but if you're running Enlightenment, you'll include the cards to make it possible
ok. question. and i mean no form of... insult. Are these the canon arc rings, or are these the Updated ShE rings?
these looks slightly different than the last canon rings I remember. Honestly better lol, kudos to design
these are specifically the Onyx/ShE rings, but the canon ones for all of the historic arcs can be found here: https://oracleofthevoid.com/#search=type_type%3Dselect%26field_type%3DRing%26table%3Dl5r%26sort%3D%255B%257B%2522title.keyword%2522%253A%257B%2522order%2522%253A%2522desc%2522%257D%257D%255D
Click through the various printings of each of the five main Rings, you'll find it... enlightening.
and, are they designed to make enlightenment more viable as a win option. like, bring it into line with military and political?
arguably that's been the case for roughly the back half of the original game's life... your perspective is radically skewed by not looking beyond the Imperial/Jade arcs
I can't recall the exact differences between those above and the last printed, 20F versions, but those are effectively unchanged from how they would've been printed way back in 2015/16 had Onyx gone forward and actually been printed.
i will admit fully that it is
Void is probably the most radical change, not sure about the others offhand
but you're right, that is exactly the Void ring that AEG was prepared to go to print with for Onyx
going to move to general
I know of at least two crab players who played Crab Enlightenment in most editions, so yeah, people did
As Shiono mentioned above he drop off during late Jade / early Gold so he's not really aware what was happening during other 15 years of L5R.
Does creating a raid attack cause an Attack step for House of High waters?
Answers on: House of High Waters
Yes.
https://oracleofthevoid.com/#game=l5r,#cardid=6905 : Does his reaction also trigger when playing himself?
Keep in mind, taking Reactions is a voluntary action, but yes, you can React with it to his own entering play because it is taken "after" that happens.
"Open: Target a Ring which did not last enter play by its own text:" - what does the last enter play mean? Is it required that the target Ring entered play last turn or should it be the latest Ring that entered play?
It means if the Ring most recently came into play via some effect other than its own text. Such as "Finding the Harmony", as an example.