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.
in regards to a previous thread : viewtopic.php?f=59&t=109417
The player here asked if he can announce an equip action and choose to let it fail. If the "Essentially, yes." response given by the judge here is in regards to announcing an action and choosing to let it fail, does that mean that i can announce the rulebook repeatable equip action, pay 0 gold, and allow it to fail instead of passing during any limited phase?
in regards to a previous thread : viewtopic.php?f=59&t=109417
The player here asked if he can announce an equip action and choose to let it fail. If the "Essentially, yes." response given by the judge here is in regards to announcing an action and choosing to let it fail, does that mean that i can announce the rulebook repeatable equip action, pay 0 gold, and allow it to fail instead of passing during any limited phase?
As of Ivory Edition, you can indeed.
Be aware however, that this use of the referenced ruling could be considered an infraction under the Floor Rules if abused over the course of the game/tournament, btu that is up to the discretion of the Head Judge
Ben Higgins wrote:As of Ivory Edition, you can indeed.
Be aware however, that this use of the referenced ruling could be considered an infraction under the Floor Rules if abused over the course of the game/tournament, btu that is up to the discretion of the Head Judge
Ben, per usual, nails this ruling. Though I just want to make sure the following is clear...
Please be aware that if a player is determined by the Head Judge to be intentionally abusing this rule (or similar rules loop holes), they can be ruled to be intentionally stalling and thus subject to the penalties in the Floor Rules.
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=111376
At what point does taking a legal action become "Abusing a rule"?
If I am, for example, playing against a control deck that I know plays open phase bowing, it would be to my advantage to take "less useful" actions first before doing things like equipping or giving force bonuses. I can do this legally with cards (for ex: I might straighten a ring or draw a card). Now, I can do it legally with this action. At what point does this become an abuse that could lose me a tournament?
If no one at AEG is willing to give an exact answer, and it will instead be left up to the judges at individual tournaments (which will be neither standardized nor objective), perhaps the better course of action would be to simply fix the rule so that it works correctly - like it has for the last 19 years. Let's not pretend that this loophole is a reasonable thing to allow to exist.
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=111376
At what point does taking a legal action become "Abusing a rule"?
If I am, for example, playing against a control deck that I know plays open phase bowing, it would be to my advantage to take "less useful" actions first before doing things like equipping or giving force bonuses. I can do this legally with cards (for ex: I might straighten a ring or draw a card). Now, I can do it legally with this action. At what point does this become an abuse that could lose me a tournament?
If no one at AEG is willing to give an exact answer, and it will instead be left up to the judges at individual tournaments (which will be neither standardized nor objective), perhaps the better course of action would be to simply fix the rule so that it works correctly - like it has for the last 19 years. Let's not pretend that this loophole is a reasonable thing to allow to exist.
Using the referenced ruling to effectively "pass without passing" should take about 2 seconds.
A player announces the Equip action, add Gold to the Gold Pool if desired, then resolve the action to fail.
If it takes any longer than this, the player is likely looking to obtain for an advantage, likely to draw the game out to achieve the result they wish at time.
If that player's opponent is taking and resolving actions that advance the game state, then it would be very hard for a Head Judge to reasonably rule a player was Stalling using this tactic; Slow Play however might be a consideration, depending on the game state.
However, if their opponent has passed consecutively, and the player in question is using this ruling to continue the Action Phase with no change in the game state, then a Head Judge could very well look at more severe infractions than Slow Play, again at their own discretion.