A topic from AEG's L5R CCG Rules forum, copied for Oracle of the Void from a copy of the forum saved in October 2015, so pages it didn't save are missing. Players' names are left out; the rules officials are named. Rulings are as they stood on these dates; later rulings, the rulebooks and the Rules Archive may differ.
A player, 1 June 2014
So I got to thinking about this due to hellbeast, and then read the ruling here viewtopic.php?f=59&t=106530&p=1403842&hilit=unsettling#p1403842 and am still a bit unclear on what exactly happens.
If you unsettling an item that causes honor loss when it is attached, like say hellbeast, does that then make you ignore honor requirements for the rest of the game (this is of course assuming that it is not a hellbeast that came out of your deck to begin with). What I've read points to yes, that it indeed does make you ignore honor requirements, as the honor requirement specifically states that if any honor loss comes from a card you don't own (or the rulebook) that you ignore HR for the rest of the game. And card ownership in the rules states:
A card is owned by the player whose play deck it was originally in, or the player who brought it into play if the card was created or brought in from outside the play deck. A card’s ownership can not change.
So even though it is now the sometimes ambiguous "your" attachment as per the ruling cited above, as hellbeast is not a card that you "own" and it is causing honor loss, that means you can circumvent honor requirements in this instance after losing the honor for attaching hellbeast?
If this is correct as I believe it to be, while a somewhat isolated case, it really does feel like it flies in the face of the intent of the honor requirements rules (which seem to be geared towards the idea that as long as you aren't directly responsible for your honor loss then you can ignore HR) and should possibly be looked at for accommodation? Though that is just my opinion of course
Edit (post-answer): Whelp, that's what I get for not actually reading unsettling gathering and basing my question on hellbeast
Brook Cunningham (rules official), 1 June 2014
So I got to thinking about this due to hellbeast, and then read the ruling here viewtopic.php?f=59&t=106530&p=1403842&hilit=unsettling#p1403842 and am still a bit unclear on what exactly happens.
If you unsettling an item that causes honor loss when it is attached, like say hellbeast, does that then make you ignore honor requirements for the rest of the game (this is of course assuming that it is not a hellbeast that came out of your deck to begin with). What I've read points to yes, that it indeed does make you ignore honor requirements, as the honor requirement specifically states that if any honor loss comes from a card you don't own (or the rulebook) that you ignore HR for the rest of the game. And card ownership in the rules states:
A card is owned by the player whose play deck it was originally in, or the player who brought it into play if the card was created or brought in from outside the play deck. A card’s ownership can not change.
So even though it is now the sometimes ambiguous "your" attachment as per the ruling cited above, as hellbeast is not a card that you "own" and it is causing honor loss, that means you can circumvent honor requirements in this instance after losing the honor for attaching hellbeast?
If this is correct as I believe it to be, while a somewhat isolated case, it really does feel like it flies in the face of the intent of the honor requirements rules (which seem to be geared towards the idea that as long as you aren't directly responsible for your honor loss then you can ignore HR) and should possibly be looked at for accommodation? Though that is just my opinion of course
Edit (post-answer): Whelp, that's what I get for not actually reading unsettling gathering and basing my question on hellbeast
You don't lose Honor for stealing someone's Hellbeast.
Transferring =/= Equipping.