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.
In regards to this ruling awhile back: winter storm: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=60210
We get referred to: http://rules.l5r.com/Special_wording_ru ... _of_things
But we know from required targeting: http://rules.l5r.com/Abilities_and_acti ... _targeting
That rapid deployment needs exactly two targets. But it doesn't say exactly two, it just says two.
When do these special wording rules apply? It seems there is some inconsistency, or I am just plain too tired tonight and missing something.
In regards to this ruling awhile back: winter storm: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=60210
We get referred to: http://rules.l5r.com/Special_wording_ru ... _of_things
But we know from required targeting: http://rules.l5r.com/Abilities_and_acti ... _targeting
That rapid deployment needs exactly two targets. But it doesn't say exactly two, it just says two.
When do these special wording rules apply? It seems there is some inconsistency, or I am just plain too tired tonight and missing something.
The difference is, Winter Storm doesn't have required targets; only actions have required targets.
http://rules.l5r.com/Abilities_and_acti%20...%20_targeting: "An action’s required targets consist of anything that is targeted by the player taking the action in the action's constraints or effects..."
Edit: To further clarify, I believe what you're seeing as inconsistency is actually just a removal of redundancy. Yes, to be more visually consistent with the special wording wules, Rapid Deployment could have read "Target exactly two of your units...". But because the required targeting rules already necessitate targeting exactly two units, saying so explicitly would be redundant.
The real difference is that "two" also is satisfied by "more than two" when checking for the presence of things, not when actually targeting or affecting those things.
"If there are two Samurai in play" is literally true if there are three - pick two of the three. The clarification is that, when exactly two is meant in such an effect, "exactly two" will be said.
"Bow two enemy cards," though, still means bow two. You don't get to loophole and lawyer your way into bowing the whole army.
In that sense the citation in the original ruling was a tad misleading. A better basis would be this section of the Target entry in the Comprehensive Rules Glossary: "However, sometimes targeting may happen in a trait. In that case, targeting must be carried out if possible, but there are no special implications if the targeting fails, other than the non-availability of any target for further effects that refer back to it." "If possible" here really means "to the fullest extent possible". I'll rewrite this section of the CR to be clearer.