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, 16 October 2007
RE: This.
Pardon me, but I believe the above answer is incorrect.
Let me preface this by saying I am hopful I can adequately and correctly assert the validity of my statement despite how frustratingly vague that answer is:
In the link, the asker asks if he may use Mareshi's ability to straighten a unit (it's first effect), then choose to have the second effect fail by attempting to move the unit to a location it is already at.
The answerer directs the asker to the FAQ, leaving the asker (and anyone else reading along) to his own devices from there on. Within the FAQ, the only apparently relevent information I can find is "Do effects have to happen for an action to be legal? No, they don't." This, I feel, leads one to believe that the answerer is saying that the asker's play was legal.
But Mareshi's effect does not say "you may" move the target. It mandates a move. Movement is defined in the CR as changing location. "Trying to move something to somewhere it's already at" is, by definition, not "moving" it at all. Therefore, I believe, the asker's play is not legal, as it is tantamount to choosing to not resolve part of the effect.
Roger Giner-Sorolla (rules official), 17 October 2007
RE: This.
Pardon me, but I believe the above answer is incorrect.
Let me preface this by saying I am hopful I can adequately and correctly assert the validity of my statement despite how frustratingly vague that answer is:
In the link, the asker asks if he may use Mareshi's ability to straighten a unit (it's first effect), then choose to have the second effect fail by attempting to move the unit to a location it is already at.
The answerer directs the asker to the FAQ, leaving the asker (and anyone else reading along) to his own devices from there on. Within the FAQ, the only apparently relevent information I can find is "Do effects have to happen for an action to be legal? No, they don't." This, I feel, leads one to believe that the answerer is saying that the asker's play was legal.
But Mareshi's effect does not say "you may" move the target. It mandates a move. Movement is defined in the CR as changing location. "Trying to move something to somewhere it's already at" is, by definition, not "moving" it at all. Therefore, I believe, the asker's play is not legal, as it is tantamount to choosing to not resolve part of the effect.
You must have missed:
Q: Can I use an action that moves a card if it's already in the location it would move to or if it can't move?
to which the A is yes. Note that the phrase is "that moves a card," not "that may move a card."
I'm editing the entry and CR a little, as Blind Cards is not relevant (Blind Cards apply to the specific case of things that refer to another action's anticipated effects) and the CR need to cover failure as well as negation of independent effects.