L5R CCG Rules board, 5 November 2010 to 25 February 2011
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, 5 November 2010
When Alter History triggers its effect (once you have destroyed the province), does its honor req ignoring require it to have been the honor loss that drove their family honor below their starting honor?
Example situation...
Lion is at 3 family honor (already below starting honor) Province is destroyed. Lion is now at -2 honor
Will Alter History allow them to ignore honor reqs? It would seem no, due to the wording, but I wanted verification.
Text - After the next time this game you destroy a province as the Attacker, the Defender loses 5 Honor. If this loss brings him below his starting Family Honor, then until the game ends, he may ignore Honor Requirements when bringing Personalities into play. Thanks!
HN
Zen Faulkes (rules official), 6 November 2010
When Alter History triggers its effect (once you have destroyed the province), does its honor req ignoring require it to have been the honor loss that drove their family honor below their starting honor?
In regard to this thread: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=87217&p=1152791
Alter History's Text - After the next time this game you destroy a province as the Attacker, the Defender loses 5 Honor. If this loss brings him below his starting Family Honor, then until the game ends, he may ignore Honor Requirements when bringing Personalities into play.
The specific word that I'm having trouble with is "brings". For future reference can I assume that reads like "if something is currently in that state"? So in this case "If he is now below Family Honor" would be equivalent to "brings him below Family Honor"
Zen Faulkes (rules official), 7 February 2011
Alter History: The specific word that I'm having trouble with is "brings".
The word is being used in its regular meaning in English and has no special technical meaning here.
In reference to this: viewtopic.php?p=1176337#p1176337
Does this ruling extend to the The Yoritomo Alliance (first mantis stronghold)? Namely, can its player use it for any amount of Gold if he is already below 0 Family Honor?
The Yoritomo Alliance Reaction: When you bow your stronghold, you may lose Family Honor to increase the gold it's producing, on a one for one basis. You cannot alter or redirect this honor loss. You cannot use this ability if it would reduce your Family Honor below zero.
Alex Jones (rules official), 21 February 2011
In reference to this: viewtopic.php?p=1176337#p1176337
Does this ruling extend to the The Yoritomo Alliance (first mantis stronghold)? Namely, can its player use it for any amount of Gold if he is already below 0 Family Honor?
The Yoritomo Alliance Reaction: When you bow your stronghold, you may lose Family Honor to increase the gold it's producing, on a one for one basis. You cannot alter or redirect this honor loss. You cannot use this ability if it would reduce your Family Honor below zero.
From the Legacy Rules Archive, Strongholds: The Yoritomo Alliance Ability cannot be used if your Family Honor is below 0.
In reference to this : viewtopic.php?p=1176337#p1176337
Does the ruling on Alter History extend to Yogo Tjeki and Delicate Negociation?
Yogo Tjeki Limited: Bow to make a player lose 2 Honor. This loss cannot reduce a player below his or her starting Honor.
Delicate Negociation Political Limited: The player or players with the most Family Honor each reveal the top card of their Fate deck and lose Honor equal to the revealed Focus value. This will not reduce any player below 10 Family Honor.
Zen Faulkes (rules official), 21 February 2011
Does the ruling on Alter History extend to Yogo Tjeki and Delicate Negociation?
I'm not sure what part of the ruling you're talking about. Could you be more specific? If you mean, "Does this loss refer specifically to the one in the same ability?", yes.
A player, 21 February 2011
In reference to this: viewtopic.php?p=1179566#p1179566
Sorry for my imprecision. My questions are: - if my opponent is already below his starting Honor, can I inflict him a 2 honor loss with Yogo Tjeki? - if my opponent is already below 10 Family Honor (but higher than me), will my Delicate Negociation inflict him an honor loss?
The referenced ruling on Alter History to seems to indicate yes to both, since the action I would be taking would not itself be bringing him "below the line". But that would be a big reversal from what these cards used to do.
Zen Faulkes (rules official), 21 February 2011
if my opponent is already below his starting Honor, can I inflict him a 2 honor loss with Yogo Tjeki? if my opponent is already below 10 Family Honor (but higher than me), will my Delicate Negociation inflict him an honor loss?
In reference to this: viewtopic.php?p=1179645#p1179645
I might be missing something, but the referenced section of the rules don't seem do address this question (I copy-paste that paragraph below). What is the precise difference between "bring Family Honor below X" and "reduce Family Honor below X"?
--- Reduce/increase
Effects that "reduce" or "increase" some number only include effects that work by directly changing the number of something. Examples: "All Honor gains this turn are reduced by 1;" "Reduce the Force bonus to 1;" "Set his Force to 3" (if his Force was over 3); "He copies the other Personality's Force" (if this lowered his own Force).
Such effects are considered to be reduction, and not negation, even if they happen to reduce the number in question to zero.
Some effects reduce or increase an indefinite number of numerical changes, such as to a Family Honor value or to a stat. Such effects are indefinite conditional effects that are triggered “before” any numerical change that is eligible to be reduced or increased. Examples: In "All Honor gains this turn are reduced by 1," any particular Honor gain is modified by this effect at the timing point “before” the Honor gain occurs.
Zen Faulkes (rules official), 22 February 2011
What is the precise difference between "bring Family Honor below X" and "reduce Family Honor below X"?
None in the context of these cards. And I don't think any of the answers above implied that there was any difference.
What you're thinking, I suspect, is: "My opponent is currently at -1 Honor. So if I play something that makes him lose 2 honor, but has the clause, 'this will not reduce Family honor below 0', I can play it, because it's not reducing Honor below zero."
You are reducing Honor below zero - even further below zero. It is not reducing Honor past zero, which is what you seem to be thinking the cards mean.
Sorry, with regard to this thread: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=87217 something is not making sense to me here, if you could please clarify.
With regard to Alter History, the honor loss from Alter History must take a player from above (or equal to) his starting honor to below his starting honor in order for the "ignore honor requirements" portion to trigger, right? So, if my opponent is at -2 honor before I destroy his province, and Alter History drops him to -7 honor, he does not get the benefit of being able to ignore honor requirements, correct?
Then you go on to explain that Yogo Tjeki will not reduce a player from -1 to -3, because reducing someone below their starting honor includes reducing someone FURTHER below their family honor.
But then the confusing part is where you state that:
Daigotsu Jibei wrote: "What is the precise difference between "bring Family Honor below X" and "reduce Family Honor below X"? None in the context of these cards. And I don't think any of the answers above implied that there was any difference
This is very confusing. Alter History's HR-ignoring effect doesn't happen when it "brings" a player further below their starting honor, but Yogo Tjeki won't "reduce" a player further below his starting family honor...
Either I've misinterpreted your answer to Alter History's question, or there is in fact a difference between "bringing" someone below X honor and "reducing" someone below X honor.
Zen Faulkes (rules official), 22 February 2011
(I)f my opponent is at -2 honor before I destroy his province, and Alter History drops him to -7 honor, he does not get the benefit of being able to ignore honor requirements, correct?
Ah, I see the point where I sowed confusion. Alas, 'twas the first answer. I thought the first question was asking something rather different. Sorry.
And I think the confusion is in the difference between "This loss cannot reduce a player below his or her starting Honor."(Tjeki) and "If this loss brings him below his starting Family Honor, then ..." (Alter History).
In the first case the text is ambiguous as to whether it means "a player who's family honor is currently below his starting family honor", or "the loss is truncated anytime it would cause the player's family honor to drop below it's starting value from a value at or above it" or "the loss is truncated anytime it would cause the player's resulting family honor to be below it's starting value". I believe in this case the rules have always been interpreted to be the last of the three. And to be fair, only the middle case is signifigantly different. In truth I believe the wording was intended to cover both the first and third cases, and thus the somewhat ambiguous wording was deliberate.
In the second case, the text is quite specific. Initially I disagreed with the ruling based on Tjeki and associated rulings. Then I reread the card. The difference is in the nature of the effect, and the interpretation of the word "brings". The presence of that word indicates that for the effect to trigger the gamestate must be changed from a state where the player loosing honor was at or above his starting honor to a state where he is below it.
That is my take on it, anyway.
I hope this does not become a trend for big honor losses, as that would give dishonor a huge advantage.
Zen Faulkes (rules official), 25 February 2011
So I've been keeping an eye on this thread.
And I think the confusion is in the difference between "This loss cannot reduce a player below his or her starting Honor."(Tjeki) and "If this loss brings him below his starting Family Honor, then ..." (Alter History).
In the first case the text is ambiguous as to whether it means "a player who's family honor is currently below his starting family honor", or "the loss is truncated anytime it would cause the player's family honor to drop below it's starting value from a value at or above it" or "the loss is truncated anytime it would cause the player's resulting family honor to be below it's starting value". I believe in this case the rules have always been interpreted to be the last of the three. And to be fair, only the middle case is signifigantly different. In truth I believe the wording was intended to cover both the first and third cases, and thus the somewhat ambiguous wording was deliberate.
In the second case, the text is quite specific. Initially I disagreed with the ruling based on Tjeki and associated rulings. Then I reread the card. The difference is in the nature of the effect, and the interpretation of the word "brings". The presence of that word indicates that for the effect to trigger the gamestate must be changed from a state where the player loosing honor was at or above his starting honor to a state where he is below it.
That is my take on it, anyway.
I hope this does not become a trend for big honor losses, as that would give dishonor a huge advantage.
Here's the decision. The first ruling on Alter History will stand: The "ignoring Honor requirements" condition only works if Alter history is the loss that brings the player below starting family honor. For example, if your starting honor is 4, and you're currently at 2, losing honor from Alter History will not allow you to ignore honor requirements.
Please note that this is a ruling just on Alter History. This should not be interpreted as some new general rule or new game term. In particular, the rulings on other cards discussed above will also stay as they are. We may look into defining these things a little more closely in the future, but not yet.