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 relation to: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=83023 and viewtopic.php?f=59&t=83047
These 2 rulings contradict each other. In Asako Mokichi's ruling, you say it has to explicitly state "exactly" or "only", but thenin Family Keep you say it doesn't, because it's implied. Surely in the absence (yet another!) technical errata, only one of these rulings can be correct?
In relation to: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=83023 and viewtopic.php?f=59&t=83047
These 2 rulings contradict each other. In Asako Mokichi's ruling, you say it has to explicitly state "exactly" or "only", but thenin Family Keep you say it doesn't, because it's implied. Surely in the absence (yet another!) technical errata, only one of these rulings can be correct?
I admit, I didn't answer the question on Family Keep with the citation that Zen did for Mokichi.
But if you'll notice, his rules citation completely backs up what I ruled to be the correct interpretation.
In Asako Mokichi's ruling, you say it has to explicitly state "exactly" or "only"(.)
Yes, but that's not all that was said.
The quoted ruling goes on to say, "or by mentioning two or more specific numbers such as 'zero or one.'"
Family Keep mentions two or more specific numbers: "one or zero cards."
(I)n Family Keep you say it doesn't, because it's implied.
No, the post doesn't say anything about "implied." It just used an example rather than citing a rule.
Surely in the absence (yet another!) technical errata, only one of these rulings can be correct?
I'm not seeing a problem.