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, 24 February 2008
If I played Ungrateful Host, declared an attack, and my opponent used an action to destroy one of my units with 3 attachments on it, from say "The Seventh Tower", how many of their personalities would that person have to dishonor? Would it be 4 since destroying a unit destroys 4 cards?
How about instead of using an action to destroy one of my units, they use an action to destroy one of my personalities which happens to have 3 attachments on it? Would this be 1 then because they are destroying a personality and not the attachments in this case?
Doruk Özaydın (rules official), 28 February 2008
If I played Ungrateful Host, declared an attack, and my opponent used an action to destroy one of my units with 3 attachments on it, from say "The Seventh Tower", how many of their personalities would that person have to dishonor? Would it be 4 since destroying a unit destroys 4 cards?
How about instead of using an action to destroy one of my units, they use an action to destroy one of my personalities which happens to have 3 attachments on it? Would this be 1 then because they are destroying a personality and not the attachments in this case?
If Ungrateful Host is in effect and an action is played by the opponent that destroys a personality with three attachments, then the opponent loses 3 honor and dishonors one personality.
If Ungrateful Host is in effect and an action is played by the opponent that destroys a unit with three attachments, then the opponent loses 12 honor and dishonors four personalities.
This is per Using Attachments on attachments leaving play when their Personality leaves play: "This leaving play is a rulebook effect contingent on the effect that took the Personality out of play, so the attachments are destroyed for" (as a consequence of) the original effect, but not "by" the original effect."