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, 27 March 2010
There was a situation as follows:
Player A created a challenge against Player B's Personality. The duel stat was Chi. Both Personalities in the duel had equal Chi. Player A's Personality had the "Duelist" keyword, while Player B's one had not.
According to "Duelist" term in Glossary ("If a Duelist is in a duel against a non-Duelist with an equal or higher duel stat than his own when the duel begins, the Duelist has the first opportunity to focus in the duel, and must use this opportunity to focus if possible."), Player A focused first. Player B called a foul on the basis of the ruling: "Duelist: May focus first in duels if he or she has a lower duel stat." (Comp. Rules, Card features, Keywords).
I presume that Glossary definition is above the one from the Keywords section in this case, but I'd just like to make sure. How such case should have been judged?
Thank you.
Brook Cunningham (rules official), 27 March 2010
There was a situation as follows:
Player A created a challenge against Player B's Personality. The duel stat was Chi. Both Personalities in the duel had equal Chi. Player A's Personality had the "Duelist" keyword, while Player B's one had not.
According to "Duelist" term in Glossary ("If a Duelist is in a duel against a non-Duelist with an equal or higher duel stat than his own when the duel begins, the Duelist has the first opportunity to focus in the duel, and must use this opportunity to focus if possible."), Player A focused first. Player B called a foul on the basis of the ruling: "Duelist: May focus first in duels if he or she has a lower duel stat." (Comp. Rules, Card features, Keywords).
I presume that Glossary definition is above the one from the Keywords section in this case, but I'd just like to make sure. How such case should have been judged?
Thank you.
Player A's play is correct.
Player B has no basis to call foul. In the section he quotes, the following disclaimer occurs before the lists of keywords: "See their respective Glossary entries for more detailed descriptions of these terms." The entry under Duelist there is technically correct, but a look in the Glossary as directed reveals that it works with equal Duel stats as well as lower.
I do understand how this was confusing, however, and I will look into its perhaps being altered to avoid future confusion.