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, 20 April 2015
Per this ruling, does this mean that are we supposed to be tracking all Fate cards in the game to determine if they were ever in a player's hand?
And are we expected to regularly utilise 18 year old rulings to justify cards not working as Design intended and thus ignoring their wording or the current rules of the game? I ask because I don't always have access to the archives of all out of date L5R rulings when judging events and tend to base my rulings on the current arc's Comprehensive Rules document and the wording of the cards involved.
Basically, please stop changing the rules to fit the cards and instead do the reverse. It has been an issue for a long time now, but it has become progressively worse since Ivory and we were informed at Worlds that the rules would have priority over cards.
Jon Palmer (rules official), 20 April 2015
Per this ruling, does this mean that are we supposed to be tracking all Fate cards in the game to determine if they were ever in a player's hand?
And are we expected to regularly utilise 18 year old rulings to justify cards not working as Design intended and thus ignoring their wording or the current rules of the game? I ask because I don't always have access to the archives of all out of date L5R rulings when judging events and tend to base my rulings on the current arc's Comprehensive Rules document and the wording of the cards involved.
Basically, please stop changing the rules to fit the cards and instead do the reverse. It has been an issue for a long time now, but it has become progressively worse since Ivory and we were informed at Worlds that the rules would have priority over cards.
I may have missed a statement of design intent on Diligent Care regarding another player's attachments being destroyed. If you have such a statement, please share (I know it takes another thread, but I'll merge them) and I can amend the rulings.
At present, I see no reason why the rulings on "return" should differ from that on Strike Without Striking, or that on Doji (found here). I see nothing involving design intent on Diligent Care, nothing going against the current rules of the game, and nothing going against the English meaning of "return", which is not otherwise defined in the rules. There are no special rules in the CR for "return", other than returning home after battle.
Again, if you can cite the rule that you believe I'm applying incorrectly, please let me know the specifics. Lord knows I'm only human and not infallible on these rulings, but I can't see where my mistake is here. Return has had a standard meaning for a long time, even if not codified in the CR, and its meaning matches its meaning in English.
Alex Jones (rules official), 19 May 2015
Errata has been issued to Diligent Care.
Alex