A Noble End wording issue, part 2

L5R CCG Rules board, 17 July 2007

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, 17 July 2007

Continuing from viewtopic.php?f=59&t=59348 ----- Zen said: "It can, if and only if all those followers were destroyed because their Force was zero.

I believe the original question was, 'If a Personality's force was reduced to zero and destroyed, do you also get honor for all those non-zero Force Followers that were destroyed because they were attached when the Personality was destroyed?'"

----- That was the original question, but I think the reasoning for your ruling is faulty. You are making a connection between the use of "for" and "for each," which are entirely different constructions. "For each," which is the terminology used in A Noble End, only specifies how the honor gain from the card is structured (that is, destroying two cards produces one four-point gain rather than two separate two-point gains). The rules term "for," which is cited as the basis for this ruling, does not appear in the text of A Noble End.

Zen Faulkes (rules official), 17 July 2007

"For each," which is the terminology used in A Noble End, only specifies how the honor gain from the card is structured (that is, destroying two cards produces one four-point gain rather than two separate two-point gains). The rules term "for," which is cited as the basis for this ruling, does not appear in the text of A Noble End.

You can't say "For each" without saying, "For." That "for each" indicates that an effect is proportionate does not imply that it is not dependent (what "for" indicates).

On: A Noble End