Re: Absolution

With regard to this.

Wait, so "Negate" is a "change" effect now? I was pretty sure the comp rules refer to it as a "prevention" effect. Not a change.

Yup...

Negate: A word used to indicate a prevention effect (p. 24).

Change and Modify (since they are not an explicitly defined game term) would be using the normal English definitions, right.

1) make or become different. 2) take or use another instead of.

make partial or minor changes to (something), typically so as to improve it or to make it less extreme.

Thus examples of change/modify would be "-2 Ranged Attack Strength", "Increase the gain or loss by 1", or "destroy instead of bow". How does "Negate" fit the definition of "change"? Heck, is Final Sacrifice even a change? It only forces a choice. Which is why I indicated that the inconsistent use of articles was irrelevant for a lot of the cards I referenced in my initial post (I brought them up only to emphasize the apparent inconsistency of use and it's disconnect from the actual rules), because the rule for interrupts forces them to only be able to "change" the interrupted action. The inconsistency is annoying and potentially a bad thing in its own right as an added confusion for new players, but not something the rules junta are responsible for or can even fix at this point, and certainly not within the scope of my question.

IF the effect is not specifically directed at the interrupted action (like "Negate an Event's effects." appears to be since it does not even make mention of an action, let alone the one it interrupted; as opposed to "Negate the action's Effects if they come from an Event" would do), how does it not fall under the clause "it[referring to the interrupt] may also have effects of its own.", and thus NOT under the restriction that interrupt's effects "do not change actions other than the one it interrupted."? It can't fall under the later because the effect text does not refer to an action it refers to a set of effects which may or may not have come from an action! Those are different things (and always have been). Plus, the rules specifically allow for negation and suppression of ongoing effects like An End to Hostilities. Those two rules texts by their very nature cannot be applied to the same piece of effects text, without one of them becoming extraneous.

It is like that ruling is putting stuff in Absolution's text that just isn't there! Worse, if it does work this way, then the quoted text from the Rules Reference is irrelevant. In such a case, things like Deeds and Words' Interrupt's self destruct clause is also superfluous and irrelevant, because the only thing the interrupt can change is the action it interrupts, thus not able to change the game state of Deeds and Words, thus no destruction, and wow that got awesome as honor/dishonor meta, didn't it?

Yes, I know that last bit is silly, but it points out a very BAD flaw in the rule, and especially how it was applied in this instance, not to mention a logical disconnect between the rules and the actual text of the cards that depend on those rules for proper functioning. Again, I'm not saying the ruling is bad from an intent standpoint. I'm saying the card text and rules don't currently support that ruling logically. A technical errata for Absolution to make it work as intended is required to make this ruling valid. And probably the same is true for several other cards I mentioned to make them function as intended. The difference between using a definite article and an indefinite one is NOT a trivial matter.

"That all depends on what your definition of IS is." You have no idea how much it pains me to have to quote that man to point out how silly the logic of this ruling is.

Still, it is the Rules Team and not you who decides what "changing an action" is. And AFAIAC "negating an action" and "preventing an action" are both changing an action, in that the effects occur differently as they would if you hadn't played it. What *you* would define as "change" is irrelevant here, no matter how long an exposition you write around it.

We are aware that sometimes the wording of game terms and cards differs slightly of plain English. It is an unfortunate necessity because of the game's nature. The use of the indefinite article in this case was chosen because it's more intuitive to say that a card "negates an Event" that it "negates the Event". For someone who takes a L5R card for the first time ever, the second wording requires a previous knowledge of how Interrupts work. The first wording, however, can be understood even if you don't know how to use it. Therefore it's more friendly to new players and eases the learning curve and the barrier of entry for new players. You may disagree with our choice but it is still our call. We're prioritizing intuitiveness and simplification of wording over technical accuracy, even if sometimes that requires some effort from the rules-savvy players to assume that some cards simply work as intended, though the technical side of things could sometimes allow for alternative interpretations.

Your point is noted, but I suggest you reconsider your attittude before posting further questions. It is ok to argue and to refute answers with arguments, but do not try to give us lessons or to teach us how rules should be. I invite you to try a humbler approach next time you post a question, because your use of cynicism and sarcasm is borderline trolling.