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, 12 April 2008
Bob is attacking Tom with Hida X who is dishonored at the time fo the attack.
Tom with his first action plays Unexpected Betrayal. Bob then plays Unexpected Betrayal on his own personality. Both players then pass.
Is this a legal play? Does the personality contribute to Bob or Tom's army?
Text: 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.
The "your army's total" and "controller's" would seem to be in conflict.
Thanks, Nick
Brook Cunningham (rules official), 12 April 2008
Bob is attacking Tom with Hida X who is dishonored at the time fo the attack.
Tom with his first action plays Unexpected Betrayal. Bob then plays Unexpected Betrayal on his own personality. Both players then pass.
Is this a legal play? Does the personality contribute to Bob or Tom's army?
Text: 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.
The "your army's total" and "controller's" would seem to be in conflict.
Thanks, Nick
Please Search before asking.
It was pretty far down the list, but this question was already covered here.
A player, 12 April 2008
In reading the recent question about someone using an unexpected betrayal in an attempt to regain his personalities force, I am stumped. I understand that it won't do any good, that is not my concern. What is my concern is that Unexpected Betrayal states that the target unit's cards cannot perform actions. Wouldn't the second Betrayal be considered performing an action, since it targets? Wouldn't that be the clincher in saying '' this won't work'' ?
Brook Cunningham (rules official), 12 April 2008
In reading the recent question about someone using an unexpected betrayal in an attempt to regain his personalities force, I am stumped. I understand that it won't do any good, that is not my concern. What is my concern is that Unexpected Betrayal states that the target unit's cards cannot perform actions. Wouldn't the second Betrayal be considered performing an action, since it targets? Wouldn't that be the clincher in saying '' this won't work'' ?
The Personality isn't targeted in the constraints block (indeed, Unexpected Betrayal has no constraints block), so he isn't performing it.