If this forum is going to replace the mailing list, will Marty still be doing a post with the day's answers?
I hope so, as it is much easierfor me to post that to our local players than it is to sift through all the threads.
Thanks
Rusty Priske
Daily rules
A topic from AEG's L5R CCG Rules forum, copied for Oracle of the Void from the Wayback Machine (its copy), so posts 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.
If this forum is going to replace the mailing list, will Marty still be doing a post with the day's answers?
I hope so, as it is much easierfor me to post that to our local players than it is to sift through all the threads.
Thanks
Rusty Priske
Making Digest viable in this Forum would require some special Moderator powers for the Rules Team. I think I see a viable way of doing it, though. Basically, add a secondary Forum here which only Moderators can post to - in this case the Rules Team. Call it "Daily CCG Rules Digests."
Say we want to make "Rules for 25 March 2005."
1.) I make a thread in the "Daily CCG Rules Digest" called "Rules for 25 March 2005."
2.) I go into "L5R CCG Rules" and find all threads opened in the Rules Questions section for 25 March 2005.
3.) I take the initial Rule Question in the thread and move it into the "Rules for 25 March 2005."
4.) I then delete all other posts in that thread that aren't from someone official.
5.) I then compose a reply to the question.
6.) Repeat from step 3 until all Rules Questions for that day are answered.
I think that could work. I need to talk to the powers that be about seeing just how powerful Moderator Fu is in this phpBBS.
That would be super-spiffy.
Rusty Priske
Martin Lund wrote:Making Digest viable in this Forum would require some special Moderator powers for the Rules Team. I think I see a viable way of doing it, though. Basically, add a secondary Forum here which only Moderators can post to - in this case the Rules Team. Call it "Daily CCG Rules Digests."
Say we want to make "Rules for 25 March 2005."
1.) I make a thread in the "Daily CCG Rules Digest" called "Rules for 25 March 2005."
2.) I go into "L5R CCG Rules" and find all threads opened in the Rules Questions section for 25 March 2005.
3.) I take the initial Rule Question in the thread and move it into the "Rules for 25 March 2005."
4.) I then delete all other posts in that thread that aren't from someone official.
5.) I then compose a reply to the question.
6.) Repeat from step 3 until all Rules Questions for that day are answered.
I think that could work. I need to talk to the powers that be about seeing just how powerful Moderator Fu is in this phpBBS.
- Marty Lund
Deputy Rules Monkey
I think that is a great idea.
But until that happens, I have just one question.
Who are the "official people" that you mention in point 4?
Every time I read the digests from the mailing list, there are a lot of answers to rules questions from nobody knows how many different people.
Some, such as Jeff Alexander and yourself, are well known to work for AEG and from that position have the authority to give "official" answers to rules questions.
If it is known who are on the rules team, it is easy enough to seperate official answers from speculation and wishful thinking.
Thank you.
Who are the "official people" that you mention in point 4?
Jeff Alexander, Martin Lund, MaPhi Messner, and Zen Faulkes are the current active Rules Junta.
Wow !
That was quick.
Thanks for the fast answer Zen !
It'd be nice if they put the daily rules in a stick that only mods and select people could post in, so people who want to complain about the rule could not do so in said thread.
HERO Games has a rules forum where anyone can start a thread for questions, but only a rules authority can reply to answer.
I think such a system would be a very good idea for the L5R board.
Zen Faulkes wrote:Kasper wrote:
Who are the "official people" that you mention in point 4?
Jeff Alexander, Martin Lund, MaPhi Messner, and Zen Faulkes are the current active Rules Junta.
Paul Jacoby as well.
Hmm that sounds like a good (if painful) idea Martin.
Though perhaps when the rules guys post an answer to a question that thread could be locked. (Though I can see that causing lots of duplicate threads).
Oh and can the current Watch List be added as a thread as well, that way it can be updated (and locked) as needed. Plus relevant comments by the PDT can be added if desired.
HERO Games has a rules forum where anyone can start a thread for questions, but only a rules authority can reply to answer.
I think such a system would be a very good idea for the L5R board.
Hear, hear. Uninformed "helpful" rules spam was one of the worst things about L5R-CCG. And then people forget the source of the uninformed comments and go, "I'm sure I saw Jeff ruled on it that way..."
Jeff Alexander wrote:Zen Faulkes wrote:
Kasper wrote:
Who are the "official people" that you mention in point 4?
Jeff Alexander, Martin Lund, MaPhi Messner, and Zen Faulkes are the current active Rules Junta.
Paul Jacoby as well.
Is there a "chain-of-authority" between these guys?
If two of them publicly contradict themselves in a matter of rules, which ruling is to be followed?
If two of them publicly contradict themselves in a matter of rules, which ruling is to be followed?
Jeff Alexander's. Everyone else is a rules deputy of equal rank.
Zen Faulkes wrote:Kaiu Toshiba wrote:
If two of them publicly contradict themselves in a matter of rules, which ruling is to be followed?
Jeff Alexander's. Everyone else is a rules deputy of equal rank.
... and if there's no call from Jeff?
If there's any kind of conflict, Jeff always settles it. He's cool like that.
... and if there's no call from Jeff?
You listen to whatever Rules Deputy answered the question. (I see now that "Rules Official" has been posted next to our usernames and avatars, so it's clear who's got the power to make official rulings and who does not.) It's rare that two Rules Deputies both answer a thread and have a serious disagreement. We all occasionally make simple errors, but those are usually obvious and fixed quickly.
It's About time Poor Zen jumping from Web site to web site to "LAY DOWN THE LAW" for us L5R players. Now it all comes together...Muhahaha the Evil Empire begins {sound from the Vader theme plays}
Martin Lund wrote:Making Digest viable in this Forum would require some special Moderator powers for the Rules Team. I think I see a viable way of doing it, though. Basically, add a secondary Forum here which only Moderators can post to - in this case the Rules Team. Call it "Daily CCG Rules Digests."
I'd much rather see the posts bundled up into a monthly digest. That way you could include it in this forum and there's be no need for another forum just for digests. Don't forget also that you can give posts individual subjects so if you wanted this could be a place to put the "Rules for 25 March" business.
All you'd then have to do is lock the topic and that way only mods would be able to post to it. You could keep the previous x months rules digests as sticky topics so that people can get back to them. Otherwise there's always the search function for older digests.
Say we want to make "Rules for 25 March 2005."
1.) I make a thread in the "Daily CCG Rules Digest" called "Rules for 25 March 2005."
2.) I go into "L5R CCG Rules" and find all threads opened in the Rules Questions section for 25 March 2005.
3.) I take the initial Rule Question in the thread and move it into the "Rules for 25 March 2005."
4.) I then delete all other posts in that thread that aren't from someone official.
5.) I then compose a reply to the question.
6.) Repeat from step 3 until all Rules Questions for that day are answered.
Well this is just personal opinion, but I like seeing how others are interpreting the rules and reading their arguements as well. So I'd rather not have the other posts deleted. If a ruling is made, couldn't the relevant post simply be copied and pasted into the digest thread? I understand that other people's posts will clutter the official response but I don't believe there are that many rules threads that would have such extended discussions with many posts that this would be a problem. And again, there is the search function.
Zen Faulkes wrote:Kaiu Toshiba wrote:
... and if there's no call from Jeff?
You listen to whatever Rules Deputy answered the question. (I see now that "Rules Official" has been posted next to our usernames and avatars, so it's clear who's got the power to make official rulings and who does not.) It's rare that two Rules Deputies both answer a thread and have a serious disagreement. We all occasionally make simple errors, but those are usually obvious and fixed quickly.
Quickly?
More than one week ago, Marty issued a ruling concerning Matsu Mieko and Rain of Death http://www.alderac.com/pipermail/l5r-ccg_alderac.com/2005-January/033356.html
MaPhi ruled the same situation exctly the opposite way (about one week before that).
Now we wait for a reply from Jeff.
... and still wait.
...
Actions do not target anything without explicitly saying so or implicitly targeting by producing a Ranged Attack or Fear as the first effect.
Rain of Death is a card printed after Dawn of the Empire, so this rule applies to it.
Tactical Battle: Produce two consecutive Ranged 3 Attacks.
Mieko makes you unable to target the Personalities, but Rain of Death does not require you to do so to pay its cost.
Martin Lund wrote:I haven't gotten to the re-question on that issue in the L5R-CCG Rules Digests yet. The week has been kind of busy.
At any rate, the Rules Junta went over this a little earlier. The answer is on the Web of Lies Rulesheet:
Web of Lies Rules Sheet wrote:
Actions do not target anything without explicitly saying so or implicitly targeting by producing a Ranged Attack or Fear as the first effect.
Rain of Death is a card printed after Dawn of the Empire, so this rule applies to it.
Rain of Death wrote:
Tactical Battle: Produce two consecutive Ranged 3 Attacks.
Mieko makes you unable to target the Personalities, but Rain of Death does not require you to do so to pay its cost.
- Marty Lund
Deputy Rules Monkey
Except that Ranged Attack and Fear do target as a rulebook effect. Everything else must explicitly say target, but not those two. Unless you were talking about targeting or not targeting your own tactician, in which case . . .
Unless you were talking about targeting or not targeting your own tactician, in which case . . .
That was all I meant to refer to, yes.
Martin Lund wrote:I haven't gotten to the re-question on that issue in the L5R-CCG Rules Digests yet. The week has been kind of busy.
At any rate, the Rules Junta went over this a little earlier. The answer is on the Web of Lies Rulesheet:
Web of Lies Rules Sheet wrote:
Actions do not target anything without explicitly saying so or implicitly targeting by producing a Ranged Attack or Fear as the first effect.
Rain of Death is a card printed after Dawn of the Empire, so this rule applies to it.
Rain of Death wrote:
Tactical Battle: Produce two consecutive Ranged 3 Attacks.
Mieko makes you unable to target the Personalities, but Rain of Death does not require you to do so to pay its cost.
- Marty Lund
Deputy Rules Monkey
I humbly disagree; at least that's not how I read Jeffs emails.
I fear that Jeff needs to resolve this himself, as two rules deputies are in conflict now. But at least we can bury this discussion afterwards
What does this mean for us players?
Which ruling do we have to play with?
Or may we choose?
Or do we have to wait for Jeff's intervention before these two cards become legal to even play with again?
Or ...
Which ruling do we have to play with?
Or may we choose?
If it's a friendly game, toss a coin, or agree beforehand. If it's a tournament game, ask the judge, because the tournament judge is always right during the tournament.
Zen Faulkes wrote:Kaiu Toshiba wrote:
Which ruling do we have to play with?
Or may we choose?
If it's a friendly game, toss a coin, or agree beforehand. If it's a tournament game, ask the judge, because the tournament judge is always right during the tournament.
OK. Say I am the tounament judge. Which decision should I make?
Say I am the tounament judge. Which decision should I make?
Make a decision based on your own common sense and good taste.
as a TO having all the rules in one post would make my life a lot easier
thanks
>Jeff,
>
>Just to be clear, can you confirm for everyone that
>Rain of Death does not target the Performing
>Tactician, as the entry in the Web of Lies Rulesheet.
>I don't think Marc was CC'd on the follow-up
>discussion to the original question.
Per the rulesheet, its cost does not target at the current time.
However, it does still require making a choice who is going to bow
during the targeting step to work appropriately.
So, at least until we see another Rules Change, Clarification, or Errata, neither ability targets the Performing Tactician, though you still have to choose one during the Targeting Step for the second Action, since it mentions "opposing" in relation to the victim targets which you have to choose at that point.
On: Rain of Death