Tsuruchi Etsui Exp and Daidoji Kikaze Exp

My opponent has Daidoji Kikaze Exp and several other Crane personalities in play. I buy Tsuruchi Etsui Exp and target Kikaze with his trait. On the next turn, I declare an attack, and my opponent assigns a defender, not Kikaze. He has the first opportunity for a battle action, and attempts to use Kikaze's action, targeting Kikaze and at least one other of his personalities at his home.

Etsui: "Once per game, after Etsui enters play or overlays: You may target a Personality. If you did, until the game ends, he may not assign, and will not move, to battlefields unless Etsui is bowed or out of play."

Kikaze: "Battle: If you are the Defender, target one or more of your Personalities: Straighten them. Move them to the current battlefield. You may take an additional Battle action."

Now, there's a question about the interaction of Etsui's trait, the exception to the Rule of Location, and the Good Faith rule.

Location: "EXCEPTION: As with the Rule of Presence, a Battle action can target, be performed by, or be taken by a card in a unit at another location if its costs or effects say they are able to move, or otherwise relocate, that unit to the current battlefield. The player who is taking the action must take choices within the action, if possible, such that they do move that unit there."

Good Faith: "Good Faith Rule: When an action is announced, the player must be able to choose all its explicit performers, target all required targets, meet all conditions of the action, and pay all mandatory costs, to the best of his or her knowledge." "Aspects of the game state are taken into account in determining legality under the Good Faith Rule, such as effects that reduce costs, prevent costs from being paid, or relax requirements."

Kikaze's action has no explicit performers, and itself has no conditions or costs, only required targeting, of "one or more of your Personalities". Location says an action "can target...a card in a unit at another location if its costs or effects say they are able to move...that unit to the current battlefield. The player who is taking the action must take choices within the action, if possible, such that they do move that unit there." However, Good Faith also says that "Aspects of the game state are taken into account in determining legality".

So, my opponent attempts to announce Kikaze's action, targeting himself and one other personality in his home. The action can move Kikaze there, so would normally be a legal action under the exception to Location, as long as he includes Kikaze as one of the targets, which he is attempting to do.

Does the fact that Good Faith takes the game state into account, and he knows Kikaze will not move due to Etsui's trait prevent him from "target(ing) all required targets" make the action illegal to even announce, since due to the Rule of Location and its exception, Kikaze must be one of the required targets, as Etsui does not interfere with the targeting directly, but will prevent the movement?

Good Faith Rule isn't about effects, or interacting with another rules or cards (or, in general, about cards working as originally intended as opposed to being innovative). It's a common misconception that Good Faith Rule should stop an action that you know will fail, but every time Good Faith Rule is brought up this way, the Jade Dragon kills a kitten.

Daidoji Kikaze XP's ability is legal to take even though you know in advance that his own movement will fail because of another active effect. That is completely irrelevant because of Blind Cards Rule: When a rule or card text needs to know what an action does or will do, it only takes into account the current text of the action. It does not consider any continuous, ongoing or triggered effects that change the action's effects or cause them to fail.

There's even a specific example: Example 2: Exceptions to the Rule of Location follow the blind cards rule. Because of this, it is still legal to take a Battle action that says it can move a target unit to the current battlefield, even if that movement is prevented by an ongoing negation effect.

When Good Faith Rule refers to "Aspects of the game state are taken into account in determining legality", it still refers to a) performing, b) targeting, c) paying costs and d) effects that bring cards into play. Not just any effects. It doesn't take into account that a continuous movement negation will later clash with the Rule of Location. See that the Good Faith Rule specifically states: The intent of the Good Faith Rule is to prevent players from abusively attempting actions whose costs and requirements they know they cannot fulfill (for example, in order to exploit a Reaction to announcing the action), while at the same time allowing players to take actions whose costs and requirements they know they can fulfill. The rule should be interpreted in this spirit, and not as a way to block legal actions because of a technicality. (The bolded part is just a technical way of saying "Think of kittens")

Etsui XP won't prevent an opponent using his Kikaze XP to move the rest of the Crane armies into the province you're attacking.