Implicit constraints on legal targeting (L5R rules board)

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, 21 November 2007

In reference to this question again, about Share the Blame and the Equip action, and a few other related previous rulings detailed below. Mr Lund's powerful and fascinating conclusion was: "And yes, you must target a card in your hand that could legally attach to the target Personality - not simply have one in your hand and then elect to target something that can not legally attach due to on-going effects, restrictions, or Honor Requirements - even though there is nothing in the Rules that explicitly says you must make legal selections during the Targeting or Cost steps." If I understand it correctly, if Equip's targets can be chosen so that its effects do attach something to somebody, then they must be chosen this way by the equipping player. I love it so much !

However I can't stop wondering whether this smart marvellous ruling, which goes further than the CR towards good faith, is intended to be applied only to one's own Equip action or if there is a broader subjacent picture. Since this naive useless question haunts me everyday, please may you delight me by explaining this ruling's range and meaning in a more general way, if it is intended to be applied to other game situations, or to a specific kind of actions, or to both players ? I overconfidently guess it neither applies to all actions nor does it compel all players to choose all targets so that all effects are applied with the largest possible width (I also guess this isn't a good English sentence, grammatically and lexically speaking, I hope it can be understood nonetheless). Moreover I desperately wager this ruling mainly (if not only) applies to actions that put cards into play, compelling to choose all targets of such actions, so that they do put as many cards into play as possible, but I can't make an opinion yet about whether it applies to both players...

At this time I was unable to find an example with cards that bring personalities into play: Death after Life and Let Them Fight Their Dead ignore restrictions while Will's target can't be chosen through Misdirection... Nevertheless let's try to gain a clearer sight at least on attaching with another example. During a battle my opponent plays Cleansing Spirit but I play Misdirection so I choose the two remaining targets of this Kihos's effects. Here again no card text reads the third target must be able to attach the second target legally, much like the Equip action, therefore according to my arrogant unworthy irrational opinion, those implicit constraints on legal targeting come from the Good Faith Rule, its frightening ghostly "spirit" and Mr Lund's lovely ruling (quoted above, at the beginning). For simplicity sake my opponent has thousands of Gold left, he controls hundreds of different personalities at the current battlefield and he owns dozens of different discarded Items and as many Followers, but some of them can only be attached to some specific personalities and some others can't legally enter play at all ; for instance a Budoka's Tonfa (Can not attach to a Samurai) lies in his discard pile but all Personalities he controls are Samurai, and he also owns a discarded Brand of Cowardice (Can only attach to a Courtier or Magistrate) but few Courtiers. Must I target a discarded card and one of his Personalities, among those he owns or controls, so that no restriction prevents this Personality from attaching this attachment card, or am I free to choose ANY discarded Item or Follower and ANY of his Personalities at the current battlefield (since all are legal targets, according to Cleansing Spirit's actual text) even if they wouldn't have been acceptable targets for my opponent to choose ? To be more specific: can I target the Tonfa ? can I target the Brand and a non-Courtier Samurai ?

If I must do my best to make Cleansing Spirit "work", why is it so specific to attaching actions (or to actions which put cards into play) please ? For example why can I play Misdirection to make an Unwavering Assault target a Personality who has already been in an attacking army during a battle’s resolution this same turn, whereas I can't play Misdirection to make a Cleansing Spirit target a Budoka's Tonfa and a Samurai ? Maybe the confusion only lies in my mind because there is no common link between two such game situations but please I beg you to help me to understand all these targeting legality rules and rulings better.

At last to match this topic with the old "blind targeting" ruling made by Mr Fuchs about Eastern Hub Port and Misdirection, and also to this associated ruling about the Good Faith Rule and the Desiccated and that ruling about Obsidian Dragon and the "Equip" action, what happen if I play Misdirection while my Mantis opponent is equipping his Obsidian Dragon during battle, assuming he has only one card left in hand (which must be a Spell) and one The Desiccated in his discard pile ? Must I target his one card in hand or am I allowed to choose this discarded follower, so that his Equip action attaches nothing ?

Thanks by advance for those additional explanations.

Martin Lund (rules official), 21 November 2007

"And yes, you must target a card in your hand that could legally attach to the target Personality - not simply have one in your hand and then elect to target something that can not legally attach due to on-going effects, restrictions, or Honor Requirements - even though there is nothing in the Rules that explicitly says you must make legal selections during the Targeting or Cost steps." If I understand it correctly, if Equip's targets can be chosen so that its effects do attach something to somebody, then they must be chosen this way by the equipping player. I love it so much !
However I can't stop wondering whether this smart marvellous ruling, which goes further than the CR towards good faith, is intended to be applied only to one's own Equip action or if there is a broader subjacent picture.

Actually, the context given was lifted directly from the Comprehensive Rules the situation in question is:

From the point when the action is announced legally to the point where the targeting is required, if any of the action’s required targeting is interfered with and required targeting can no longer be met, the action’s effects do not resolve and its costs are waived. It is still considered taken, but not resolved. If it was on an Action card, the card is discarded normally.

The key point here is the use of "can no longer be met." That refers to the ability to meet targeting requirements - not one's desire to do so. There is no provision on the books for backing out of a play just because you don't feel it is in your best interests to follow through or it isn't going exactly according to plan. Until somebody adds wording to that effect it seems like you are committed to the Action you announced whether you like it or not.

Moreover I desperately wager this ruling mainly (if not only) applies to actions that put cards into play, compelling to choose all targets of such actions, so that they do put as many cards into play as possible, but I can't make an opinion yet about whether it applies to both players...

Actually, I think the real question that needs to be asked is this:

"Where in the Rules does it say I have to follow through on the Good Faith Rule?"

Now, all things being equal a player is responsible for executing all Required Targeting and Cost Payment of his action to the best of his ability, barring specific clauses that give "outs" for interference.

But where does it say, that you must choose something you can legally attach rather than something you can not legally attach? If you have 1 legal attachment and 1 illegal attachment, I've technically met the Good Faith Rule on announcement. Why do you have to target the one which I can legally bring into play once I get to the Required Targeting step?

I don't find any direct instruction on the matter. What happens when an effect has another player make a decision that the Ability's controller would normally have to make is even less clear.

It is definitely something that needs to be addressed and codified.

In the meantime, indulge me and work under the following assumptions:

1.) You've still got to honor the Good Faith Rule's premise about legal attachments when Targeting cards to attach / be attached, IE - you need a legal pairing of attachment + personality. 2.) That onus in on whatever player winds up making the Targeting decisions (Misdirection).

These are just stop-gap rulings for getting through your games in the meantime while the Rules Team hammers out the fine details on this and updates the Comprehensive Rules however necessary.