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, 1 August 2007
In reference to this, if I make no mistake Mr Lund's answer means that, if I played an Unexpected Betrayal on a personality in my opponent's army but when resolution begins I have no unit left on my side, then the unexpected traitor will stop betraying my opponent and he still contribute Force to my opponent's army as though I hadn't played Unexpected Betrayal on him because "there is no army on [my] side for Unexpected Betrayal to cause that Unit to contribute to. The effect would fail."
I'd like to underline a point that makes me overconfidently wonder whether this answer might not be correct. Please forgive the foolish arrogance of youth.
Indeed I read that in the glossary "I" : Instead of [...] 3. If the new X is negated, or fails to happen for a reason other than negation (“do not” wording, absence of relevant game elements), the old Y doesn’t happen. Example: In “target enemy unit adds Force to your army instead of the enemy army,” if you have no army (i.e. no units) then the unit still does not add Force to the enemy army.
Unexpected Betrayal reads: Battle: Target a dishonorable Personality in an army. Cards in that unit cannot perform actions. During battle resolution, the unit's Force is added to your army's total instead of its controller's.
In the given example, it seems that : X = "the unit's Force is added to my army's total" ; Y = "the unit's Force is added to my opponent's army's total".
It also seems that X "fails to happen for a reason other than negation" therefore "the old Y doesn’t happen", does it ? It looks like quite much the example above, in the third point of the "Instead of" point in the glossary. So, does the unexpected traitor still contribute Force to my opponent's army or to no army please ?
Thanks for your most precious help.
Martin Lund (rules official), 1 August 2007
In reference to this, if I make no mistake Mr Lund's answer means that, if I played an Unexpected Betrayal on a personality in my opponent's army but when resolution begins I have no unit left on my side, then the unexpected traitor will stop betraying my opponent and he still contribute Force to my opponent's army as though I hadn't played Unexpected Betrayal on him because "there is no army on [my] side for Unexpected Betrayal to cause that Unit to contribute to. The effect would fail."
I'd like to underline a point that makes me overconfidently wonder whether this answer might not be correct. Please forgive the foolish arrogance of youth.
Indeed I read that in the glossary "I" : Instead of [...] 3. If the new X is negated, or fails to happen for a reason other than negation (“do not” wording, absence of relevant game elements), the old Y doesn’t happen. Example: In “target enemy unit adds Force to your army instead of the enemy army,” if you have no army (i.e. no units) then the unit still does not add Force to the enemy army.
Unexpected Betrayal reads: Battle: Target a dishonorable Personality in an army. Cards in that unit cannot perform actions. During battle resolution, the unit's Force is added to your army's total instead of its controller's.
In the given example, it seems that : X = "the unit's Force is added to my army's total" ; Y = "the unit's Force is added to my opponent's army's total".
It also seems that X "fails to happen for a reason other than negation" therefore "the old Y doesn’t happen", does it ? It looks like quite much the example above, in the third point of the "Instead of" point in the glossary. So, does the unexpected traitor still contribute Force to my opponent's army or to no army please ?
Thanks for your most precious help.
You're right. I got #2 and #3 backwards in terms of X and Y.
X is contributing to the enemy army.
Y is contribution to the normal army.
If you couldn't contribute to the normal army, you can't contribute to the enemy army.
If you can't contribute to the enemy army, you don't go back to contributing to the normal army.
I'll make the necessary adjustments.
Also, don't feel any need to be too formal addressing me. The rules are what they are, and I'm certainly not above making a mistake now and then - especially with all the MRPs and rules changes floating around. I'm not going to take it personally.