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.
I play Hired Killer with Determination targeting an opponent's Champion. My opponent reacts with Seat of Power with Determination. Is the Hired Killer redirected? Is the reasoning the same as when a force bonus and Justly Earned Victory interact?
Thanks!
I play Hired Killer with Determination targeting an opponent's Champion. My opponent reacts with Seat of Power with Determination. Is the Hired Killer redirected? Is the reasoning the same as when a force bonus and Justly Earned Victory interact?
Thanks!
http://rules.l5r.com/Rulings_D#Determination: "An action that is affected by Determination can negate an earlier action that had also been affected by Determination."
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=66277
I play Hired Killer targeting an opponent's Champion. I react to the Hired Killer with a Determination, and react to the Determination with a Determination. My opponent reacts with Seat of Power, reacting with Determination. Is the Hired Killer redirected? If my opponent reacted to his Determination with another Determination, would it be redirected?
Thanks!
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=66277
I play Hired Killer targeting an opponent's Champion. I react to the Hired Killer with a Determination, and react to the Determination with a Determination. My opponent reacts with Seat of Power, reacting with Determination. Is the Hired Killer redirected? If my opponent reacted to his Determination with another Determination, would it be redirected?
Thanks!
He who plays the most Determinations wins (effects are not negated).
If both players have equal numbers of Determination, last one played wins (effects are not negated).
Regarding this : viewtopic.php?f=59&t=66277
Well, the play described in the OP post is not correct, as you play determination BEFORE you announce an action (card text) so the sequence of play should be :
Player A : Determination, Announce Determination and play it (This Determination can now can't have it's effect negated or it's target changed), Announce Hired Killer (this Hired Killer can't have it's effect negated nor it's targeting changed, then the personality it kills will be removed from the Game). Player B : Determination, Announce Seat of Power (can't have it's effect negated, not it's targeting changed). This effect bypass the last determination of player A, and effectiveley Player B can change the target of Hired Killer.
Is this reasoning incorrect, and why?
Regarding this : viewtopic.php?f=59&t=66277
Well, the play described in the OP post is not correct, as you play determination BEFORE you announce an action (card text) so the sequence of play should be :
Player A : Determination, Announce Determination and play it (This Determination can now can't have it's effect negated or it's target changed), Announce Hired Killer (this Hired Killer can't have it's effect negated nor it's targeting changed, then the personality it kills will be removed from the Game). Player B : Determination, Announce Seat of Power (can't have it's effect negated, not it's targeting changed). This effect bypass the last determination of player A, and effectiveley Player B can change the target of Hired Killer.
Is this reasoning incorrect, and why?
I interpreted "I play Hired Killer and react with Determination" as an informal description of the process.
I believe the summary above describes the first question, but not the second, which added another Determination to the mix.
I believe Goju Kaze brought up an interesting exception to the "more determinations wins" maxim in this thread... viewtopic.php?f=59&t=66277
He asked about Determination #1 + Determination #2 + Hired Killer being played by player A. Then player B reacts with Determination + Seat of Power.
Under the "more determinations wins" theory, the Seat of Power fails to redirect the action. However, I am not sure if that applies to "target change effects" the same as it applies to "negation effects".
Determination #1 being played as a reaction to Determination #2 says "this Determination cannot have its targetting changed nor its effects negated". The targetting change portion of Determination #1 does not affect Hired Killer, only the targetting change portion of Determination #2 does that.
When player B reacts with Determination + Seat of Power, he now has an action that says "change the target of Hired Killer, this change of target cannot be negated".
Where this gets confusing, and maybe you can clarify for me... the double determination from player 1 seems to grant double "negation protection", so I understand why it trumps "determination + negation effect" . However, double determination seems to only grant one instance of "target change protection", and so is it possible that it can be successfully reacted to by "Determination + target change effect"?
I apologize if this was confusing, my head hurts after thinking this post through to be as clear as possible, and it still reads like a word problem in logic.
(D)ouble determination seems to only grant one instance of "target change protection", and so is it possible that it can be successfully reacted to by "Determination + target change effect"?
Remember that a second Determination isn't affecting the original action (i.e., Hired Killer), it's affecting the first Determination. The responding player (i.e., using Seat of Power) is trying to negate the effects of the first Determination, so the initiating player (i.e., the one playing Hired Killer) is preventing the negation of his first Determination by using a second.
Regarding the last post of this thread : viewtopic.php?f=59&t=66277
I don't get it Zen, where is my reasoning false? In your example, the player A is playing a second determination AFTER player B played his own determination, but this is an illegal play, as you have to play Determination BEFORE announcing playing an action (as per card text). Determination is not played as a reaction AFTER you play an action, but BEFORE you play it.
CR entries on Negation, I read a conflict : 1 - Effects are negated individually; negating one effect of an action does not automatically negate the others, for instance.
2 - When effects conflict in their application but not their timing, the later effect takes precedence over the previous effect. Example: If an effect can not be negated (negating anything that attempts to negate it), and is countered by a later negation effect that itself can not be negated, the later effect succeeds in negating the previous effect. [ADDED July 30 2007]
As I read it, the effect that tries to negate the changing of Target of Seat of Power is the double cannot from Determination², not the second one only, and as per the entry about resolving "negating conflict" the last effect win.
But there is the issue of the "individual effect".
So the question is, what is preventing the Set of Power changing of Target, Just the Second Determination or the combinaison of both Determination? I think (but I may be wrong) that "cannot²" is beaten by the cannot of the Player B Determination.
In your example, the player A is playing a second determination AFTER player B played his own determination(.)
Incorrect.
I play Hired Killer targeting an opponent's Champion. I react to the Hired Killer with a Determination, and react to the Determination with a Determination. My opponent reacts with Seat of Power(.)
The first player is getting in all the Determinations before the second. I agree that there is a little vagueness in "play Hired Killer", which, as I previously said, I took to be an informal description of the process.
(W)hat is preventing the Set of Power changing of Target(?)
For Seat of Power to change the target, the effect of the first Determination (on Hired Killer) by the first player has to be negated. It is negated by the single Determination (on Seat of Power) played by the second player. The second Determination (on the the first Determination) by the first player prevents that negation.
Mod request: Please think carefully before making any further posts on this topic. Thanks!