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.
Relocating the Court:
Political Battle: Bow your target unbowed Courtier. Each other player targets a Personality he controls (if able). Move home all targets. A target player gains or loses 1 Honor.
Can I play Relocating the Court at a battle where my opponent controls no Personalities? If I can, does his inability to target cause the subsequent effects to fail?
Specifically, can I play Relocating the Court unopposed, bowing and sending home my Courtier, and cause the Honor gain/loss?
Can I play Relocating the Court at a battle where my opponent controls no Personalities?
Yes. The Good Faith Rule only checks to see if cards you target are there.
If I can, does his inability to target cause the subsequent effects to fail?
Specifically, can I play Relocating the Court unopposed, bowing and sending home my Courtier, and cause the Honor gain/loss?
Since all further effects and targeting fail once an action fails to find a non-optional target as per Step D of Taking Actions (CR, page 27), your Courtier would not move home and there would be no honor loss nor gain.
In regards to this reply.
This answer seems slightly at odds with one given for Desperate Mediation here (albeit from the last arc). Your courtier is clearly a required target for Relocating the Court, but the wording for the other player's targets seems almost identical to that of Desperate Mediation. Is there a subtle difference that I am missing or have the targeting rules been changed in some way?
Relocating the Court: "Political Battle: Bow your target unbowed Courtier. Each other player targets a Personality he controls (if able). Move home all targets. A target player gains or loses 1 Honor."
Desperate Mediation: "Battle: In turn order, starting with you, each player targets and moves home one of his Personalities at the current battlefield. Then, gain Honor equal to the number of Personalities this moved."
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=109242#p1434235
Political Battle: Bow your target unbowed Courtier. Each other player targets a Personality he controls (if able). Move home all targets. A target player gains or loses 1 Honor.
Surely the "(if able)" clause means it is NOT mandatory targeting?
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=109242#p1434235
Political Battle: Bow your target unbowed Courtier. Each other player targets a Personality he controls (if able). Move home all targets. A target player gains or loses 1 Honor.
Surely the "(if able)" clause means it is NOT mandatory targeting?
(If able) is in italics, and is reminder text, so has no rules bearing whatsoever.
If the targeting was optional, we would have used the "May target" wording.
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=109310
(If able) is in italics, and is reminder text, so has no rules bearing whatsoever.
If the targeting was optional, we would have used the "May target" wording.
It can't be "may target" because then it wouldn't work as send-home since your opponent would never choose to. While the italics seem to be out of place for rules text I also don't see what they're a reminder for in this instance. The ruling also kills this card in multiplayer (when it seems it should be at its best due to multiple targeting) because it would require every single player had a unit in the battle in order to function.
Perhaps the card needs to be given errata to have non-italic text instead of changing the ruling, but something seems out of place in intent versus execution on this one.
Also, Ryushi, I emailed you regarding another ruling and haven't heard back, do you check the address the board email function goes to? Thanks.
Card text: Political Battle: Bow your target unbowed Courtier. Each other player targets a Personality he controls (if able). Move home all targets. A target player gains or loses 1 Honor.
It can't be "may target" because then it wouldn't work as send-home since your opponent would never choose to. While the italics seem to be out of place for rules text I also don't see what they're a reminder for in this instance. The ruling also kills this card in multiplayer (when it seems it should be at its best due to multiple targeting) because it would require every single player had a unit in the battle in order to function.
Perhaps the card needs to be given errata to have non-italic text instead of changing the ruling, but something seems out of place in intent versus execution on this one.
Yes, the reminder text seems to imply a functionality that is not there under the rules, and for that, we apologize. Unfortunately, as reminder text, it should be ignored when critically reading the ability, and applying the rules too it.
As for the multiplayer application, you say ruin, and I would say it just makes it more situational. I agree that the cards currently has very limited application in tradition and War of Honor style multiplayer games, but I would counter that with saying I think it has much more application in Siege format multiplayer, as many of us will experience at Gen Con and soon after in our FLGS.
Also, Ryushi, I emailed you regarding another ruling and haven't heard back, do you check the address the board email function goes to? Thanks.
I'll go look for that, and reply back to you.