Sun and Moon #rules-questions

Right. Only "destroy" in the literal, game-definition sense.

Yeah, I've been reluctant to make a similar fix since LS in its broken form is so ubiquitous.

Maybe one day when the Oracle is fully converted to 20F oriented wordings, rather than the partially 20F partially Emperor state it's in now.

Kakita's answer is more or less correct, but to fully clarify: You don't trigger the Mempo's Reaction if you substitute doing something else besides discarding the Favor. Kakita didn't understand that, as I suspect went unstated in your question, you never had the Favor in the first place and said you "still have" it, but either way, substituting discarding the Favor for a different effect means that the Mempo ability has no trigger.

I think the Deadly Ground and Hida Yakamo (Oni version) Samurai-era promos are not considered MRPs (and thus have never been marked as such in the Oracle) either because they weren't ever officially released, or if they were officially released, they were considered "just for fun" releases, being non-legal to the current environment, like the CE15 non-legal promos.

Well, it was certainly a conscious decision, probably by Reese at the time of the Oracle's inception, not to consider them MRPs, so I'm hesitant to rescind that. Even though it seems they did get an official release, the "CE15 reasoning" is not unsound, as well as considering that the far-more readily available printings of Deadly aren't worded like that.

Even if the promo text was the current text, "removing the trait" =/= destroy or discard.

Yep. No changes have been made to the brokeness of Luxurious Silk.

Yes, Reactions and Interrupts are actions.

Per a literal reading of the Yu Rules, it would seem pretty clear that the card with the "Yu" keyword is what is doing the destroying:

"If one or more cards with the Yu keyword are in a losing army during Battle Resolution, each may destroy an enemy Follower, or an enemy Personality without Followers, that has Force less than or equal to the losing card’s Yu value. Multiple cards may also combine their Yu values to destroy a single card, but one card may not split its Yu to destroy multiple cards."

Thus, the Celestial would indeed negate that effect.

Yeah, I think that's a relic of the old "global limitation" on any/all players' Events resolving, and I'm 99% sure OBH did not reinstate that.

That became "Shadowlands Horde", just like "Yoritomo's Alliance" became Mantis.

Oh, you mean literal card, not the Faction in general? Well, yeah, the Junzo's Army Stronghold was also literally MRP'd as Shadowlands Horde box in Jade Edition.

So, you found it by looking under prior printings of "The Shadowlands Horde" card, then?

Well, that's a problem with Sun and Moon then, not the Oracle. 😛 Can't help you there.

Yes, you do.

The originating thought was using it as a counter to Dark Path of Shadow, not in conjunction with. But it can't, as noted above.

No, you needn't read it so strictly. If the action targeted more than one of your Personalities, it also targeted "one"; it is not implicitly "exactly one".

Hrm. That does appear to be an odd oversight. :/ For some reason, just looking at the Jade era ones, I did put it on Toturi, but not on Kaede or Tsuko. Then, looking also at Diamond, all of those seem to be correct except Jigoku Sensei. :/ @kempy_nezumi, can you please confirm if I'm missing/forgetting some OPT errata on those 3 cards, or do they need fixing? :/

I don't quite understand the question? Are you asking if Hikarou Sensei allows you to take Okui's Open action during battle as an additional? No. The same would be true for any Fire Spell with an Open action.

Yep, I'll fix it, Tsuko, and Jigoku in Oracle when I can.

I'm fairly sure they go away immediately. Yokuni Sensei was the "stick Events around" Sensei.

"Do not resolve" would effectively be read as "effects do not happen/are negated".

Discarding an Event is not contingent upon its effects successfully resolving. It would still discard if its effects were negated, which is effectively what Norikazu does.

Talking about pre-Ivory Events, of course. Newer ones don't discard until their abilities are used, as you said.

That's not effectively different. If it does't resolve, it has no effect. It still gets discarded regardless.

Actions work like that. Traits don't.

You can prevent someone from having the option/ability to take a (Spell, in your example) action. You can negate/prevent a Spell's effects. You can't "stop a trait" before it starts; triggered traits are involuntary. It either happens or it doesn't.

Ah. I see. The OBH Rule to workaround Ivory Event Rules is a bit unclear/misleading if you read it completely literally. But, the intent of that Rule is not that an old-style Event being discarded is contingent upon it resolving, just that discarding occurs after the point where it would resolve. If it doesn't for whatever reason (such as being negated), it's still discarded. "Resolve" does not have a different meaning than "its effects resolve". So, by your arguement, the OBH Rules would strictly prevent an Event being discarded for any number of reasons, including "Whispered Rumors" and the like, but that clearly isn't/shouldn't be the case.

Yes. I'm saying there is no functional difference between an Event "resolving" and "an Events effects resolving".

No, that's not the case.

You JUST used the word "resolving" to describe effects occurring. How can you say it doesn't mean the same thing? 😛

There's no difference any longer between canceling and negation. The distinctions were unclear and minute.

Ok, but my point is, whether an Event resolves or not doesn't determine whether it's discarded or not. You're reading the the OBH Rule too stictly/literally. The "after it resolves" in the Rules is not meant to be triggered by resolving, it's just meant to state a point in time.

Well, I've conceded it's unclear, but again, if all effects are negated, nothing "resolved", so by a strict reading, any full negation of an Event would prevent its discarding, but we know that shouldn't be the case.

Yeah, I don't follow that logic? How does my arguement prevent some of Bushido but not all of it?

Well, no, there aren't.

And even if there were, my argument wouldn't say "some do resolve and some don't". If the Event creates a new VC, all of it resolves, not just the part of it that creates the new VC.

I'm just saying there's no difference between "An Event [does/does not] resolve" and "An Event's triggered trait's(') effects [do/don't] resolve".

That doesn't prove a difference between my two equivalences. I'm saying "I ate the pie" is equivalent to "I ate all of the pie", and you're saying that "I ate some of the pie" proves they're different, but in the absence of further clarifying words/statements, "I ate the pie" and "I ate all of the pie" ARE equivalent, especially if all the pie is gone afterward.

A more accurate analogy to my equivalences would then be "I didn't eat the pie" and "I didn't eat any piece of the pie".

Well, as I said, I can concede the point that the OBH workaround Rule for old Events is unclear that it is not intended for the resolving (some or any) of the effects to be a trigger to discarding it afterward. Regardless, it is the case that if even if none of the Event's traits' effects occur (equivalent to its/their not "resolving"), it should still be discarded directly after they would have done.

I mean, it could be made clearer/more uniform with other such effects, but that wouldn't really solve the issue of the OBH Rule. An Event that has had all its effects negated has also not technically "resolved" either.

There's no such thing as "cancel" anymore.

Well any Event can resolve any number of times as long as it gets shuffled back in and pops up again. Or are you talking about old "one Event per game Rules" that don't exist anymore?

Then it would resolve at the start of your turn, if it's there, yep.

The word "cancel" is not present in any Oracle text.