Incense Mill clarification

Following the rush of SoD questions, I wanted to ask one that our group can't come to an agreement on.

Incense Mill obviously works against effects like Hotako, Nikaru, Hakuseki etc that say "may not perform actions". However does Incense Mill also work against effects like Denhei's Snake or Onchi that say "Base abilities may not be used"?

Relevant text:

Incense Mill Battle/Open: Target a Personality: Negate all current Force penalties on him. Negate any cards’ effects that say he may not perform actions (this turn).

Regarding this: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=100201

“May not” "May not" is a wording that prevents a choice, rather than a cost or effect - for example, taking an action, assigning a unit, declaring an attack, bringing a Personality into play, or targeting a certain card. “May not” works to prevent a choice, even if the choice is part of a required procedure.

Since may not only deny's you the choice wouldn't Denhei's Snake's ability just deny you the option of choosing his base abilities. Wouldn't a card specifically need to say "may not perform actions" to prevent a character from being chosen as the performer of an action?

Regarding viewtopic.php?f=59&t=100201

I apologize for not making the question clear about why we were having trouble with the card.

The argument is this: Incense Mill Bow this card: Produce 2 Gold. Battle/Open: Target a Personality: Negate all current Force penalties on him. Negate any cards’ effects that say he may not perform actions (this turn).

Emphasis mine. Locally, this we haven't been able to reach an agreement on the wording. We know it works for the following:

Daigotsu Hotako Fear Open: Target a Personality: He may not perform actions this turn.

Hiruma Nikaru Battle: Target an enemy Personality: Bow him. He may not perform actions.

Nerve Strike Text Kiho Battle: Bow your performing Monk and target an enemy Personality with equal of lower Chi: Reduce his Force and the Force of each of his Followers to 0. Cards in that unit may not perform actions until this battle ends.

Each of these cards say that the personality (or cards in the unit) may not perform any actions. However the argument has been made that Personalities targeted by Denhei's snake or Hakuseki (my original post was mistaken) are still able to perform actions.

Denhei's Snake Open: Target a Personality: He is bitten. His base abilities may not be used.

Doji Hakuseki Open: Target a Personality: Choose one of his abilities; it may not be used.

Personalities targeted by these effects are still able to perform actions, just not the ones targeted. So the argument is that Incense Mill wouldn't work because the personality is still free to perform other actions.

(related to viewtopic.php?f=59&t=100201#p1321279 )

Soshi Yoshihara xp: Political Open: Target a Holding or Personality: Its base abilities may not be used. Rugashi Bazaar: Revenge Battle/Open: If you have lost honor from another player's action during the Action Phase since your last turn ended, choose one to four of your performing Personalities: Give each of them a Force bonus equal to his base Personal Honor. Incense Mill: Battle/Open: Target a Personality: Negate all current Force penalties on him. Negate any cards’ effects that say he may not perform actions (this turn).

My opponent uses Yoshihara xp's ability on my Rugashi Bazaar. I use my Incense Mill on one of my personalities. Am I able to announce my Rugashi Bazaar's ability? If so, can I choose up to four of my personalities to perform its ability as long as one of them has my Incense Mill's effect, or am I limited to choosing performers who have been Incense Milled?

How does negating effects that say a personality may not perform actions allow a player to announce an ability that has an effect preventing it from being used at all?

viewtopic.php?f=59&t=100201#p1321450

Doesn't incense mill negate all effects preventing my personality from performing actions as soon as incense mill's effects resolve?

Subsequent to viewtopic.php?f=59&t=100201 and viewtopic.php?f=59&t=100238

Incense Mill Battle/Open: Target a Personality: Negate all current Force penalties on him. Negate any cards’ effects that say he may not perform actions (this turn).

Urgency Open: Each player may only take two more non-Reaction actions this phase.

Following the logic of the previous questions, I am playing Aramasu's Pride and have two magistrates and one Incense Mill in play.

I play Urgency as my first action. My opponent takes an Open action. I use Incense Mill on one magistrate. My opponent takes a second Open action. I use my stronghold to declare a Raid.

Both my magistrates may assign. The one with Incense Mill is able to perform actions freely, because even though I the player may not take any more actions, my magistrate negates that effect for actions he performs. This is legal as even though I am not allowed to take any more actions, under the Good Faith Rule I am allowed to announce a currently-illegal action which becomes legal as soon as I choose my Mill'd magistrate as a performer. My opponent decides not to stand in front of me so I win the raid and my magistrates come home unbowed.

My opponent then passes, since he is still unable to take actions.

I then announce Ambush, selecting the Incense Mill'd magistrate as a performer. This battle is rather one sided, as I can perform actions freely and my opponent can't. I kill his Personality with a (performed) action and use Fall Back to come home.

I then attach a weapon to him (another Performed action) and then swing to take a province. My opponent is finally able to take actions now... if he has any people left to assign.

All legit?

Thanks, -Donny

(wrt viewtopic.php?f=59&t=100201#p1321450)

Sorry, but the rulings so far have left me totally baffled.

Furthermore, to clarify my earlier answer, because he can never not perform his own abilities, the effects "He may not perform actions using his abilities" and "His abilities may not be used" are effectively equivalent.

Isn't this a logical deduction instead of an actual equivalence? And therefore dependent on the usual game "state" that a personality's abilities have to be performed by him? Imagine a personality comes out in the future (or in the past - I haven't exhaustively searched the Oracle) that says "This personality may perform abilities on other personalities as if they were printed on him." What happens to your alluded equivalence?

The Personality targeted by Incense Mill may perform the action from Rugashi Bazaar, but other Personalities may not, if the Rugashi Bazaar has been targeted by Soshi Yoshihara exp.

Even establishing the previous equivalence, and further establishing that Yoshihara's effect on the Bazaar directly "translates" into "the Bazaar's action performers may not perform the Bazaar's action", Incense Mill says "Negate any cards’ effects that say he may not perform actions"... it doesn't say "Negate any cards' effect on him". Wouldn't it then negate the entire effect from Yoshihara on the Rugashi Bazaar? How come it just negates its effect on the Milled personality?

I am not trying to discredit you Alex, but it seems to me that the equivalence you attempt to establish causes more loopholes and doubts than not establishing it. Hoping for a reversal on this one...

viewtopic.php?f=59&t=100201&view=unread#p1321684

So. Incense Mill will negate effects that specify that the targeted Personality may not perform actions, including effects that specify that abilities whose action he must necessarily perform may not be used.

Legion of Pain's trait: "Actions performed by Personalities with a Gold Cost of 7 or lower may not target this Personality. " If my opponent attacks me with a single personality with an equipped Leion of Pain, and I defend with Doji Yoshitada, who has a gold cost of 7 and has been targeted by incense mill earlier this turn, am I able to announce and perform Yoshitada's action? " Political Battle: Target an enemy Personality: Bow him. If he is dishonorable, choose a player who gains or loses 2 Honor. " Does the answer change if I want to play Steel on Steel instead of using Yoshitada's printed action?

Still confused on the ruling for Incense Mill. After reading through the rules questions here, reading the rules site, reading the rulebook, I see no clear indication of the word "say".

Unfortunately this word is not commonly used on L5R cards, so there's not much for me to reference for other cards that use "say".

Regardless, Incense Mill uses the following text: Battle/Open: Target a Personality: Negate all current Force penalties on him. Negate any cards' effects that say he may not perform actions (this turn). (emphasis mine)

When reading Incense Mill, it clearly states that it negates cards effects that actually have a specific wording on other effects. Why do I say this? Well, it should be obvious that Incense Mill uses the word, "say". That's why I don't understand any previous ruling that I've seen outside of turning off effects from Hotako, Nikaru.

Kitsune Denhei's snake, for example, does not anywhere "say" that 'he may not perform actions'. Sure, the snake turns off base abilities. But nowhere does that prevent him from performing actions. Regardless, the snake has an effect on a personality, but that effect is a general game limitation. Nowhere does Incense Mill state "negate effects that prevent him from performing actions". I see where the lines are drawn, I see the effort that the rules team puts forth making sense of these words, however, I really don't see how a card that uses the word "say" or "says" can be taken any other way than literally. When someone says "something", it's a quote, it's a literal word for word translation (especially in the land of games where wording is important).

That's why I suggest that Incense Mill works differently (and only negates Hotako, Nikaru, Munemori, and Kuon's Legacy for example). In other words, because the word "say" is apart of the phrase "Negate any cards' effects that say", you could simply do a literal search on Oracle for text on cards that have printed (say), 'he may not perform actions'.

Or is the rules team using a different definition of the word, "say"?