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 August 2011
This question is inspired by Kitsune Hisano's ability and actuall is a 2 part question:
First, Hisano's text:
Reaction: Once per game, after Hisano enters play: Create a 2F / 2C / 3PH Mantis Clan • Nonhuman • Fox • Spirit • Unique Personality with the ability, "Battle: Target an enemy attacking Personality: Move him home.
First question: if Hisano is somehow returned to my Dynasty deck, going face-down, would he create another Spirit if he enters play again? In other words, does a card going face down forget that it has used a "once per game" ability?
Second question: Assuming Hisano can create a second Spirit, would that be legal if the other Spirit is still in play? The created Spirit is Unique, but it has no name.
From the rulebook:
A card with the Unique keyword will not enter play for, or otherwise become controlled by, a player who controls a Unique card with the same title
Emphasis mine.
Thanks in advance.
Alex Jones (rules official), 8 August 2011
This question is inspired by Kitsune Hisano's ability and actuall is a 2 part question:
First, Hisano's text:
Reaction: Once per game, after Hisano enters play: Create a 2F / 2C / 3PH Mantis Clan • Nonhuman • Fox • Spirit • Unique Personality with the ability, "Battle: Target an enemy attacking Personality: Move him home.
First question: if Hisano is somehow returned to my Dynasty deck, going face-down, would he create another Spirit if he enters play again? In other words, does a card going face down forget that it has used a "once per game" ability?
Second question: Assuming Hisano can create a second Spirit, would that be legal if the other Spirit is still in play? The created Spirit is Unique, but it has no name.
From the rulebook:
Emphasis mine.
Thanks in advance.
Yes to both questions, for the reasons stated.
A player, 10 August 2011
A dynasty card [Kitsune Hisano exp] that enters play creates a once per game effect. Gets reshuffled in the deck by a card effect [turning face-down & loosing it's memory]. *possibly my card being the target of The Unmaking
If I bring Kitsune Hisano exp back into play from one of my provinces [again], will I be able to activate it's Once per Game effect again?
-- Relevant card text
Kitsune Hisano exp
Mantis Clan • Earth • Shugenja • Naval • Scout • Experienced • Unique Reaction: Once per game, after Hisano enters play: Create a 2F / 2C / 3PH Mantis Clan • Nonhuman • Fox • Spirit • Unique Personality with the ability, "Battle: Target an enemy attacking Personality: Move him home."
The Unmaking
Void Battle: If this Shugenja is unbowed, bow him unless he is Void and destroy this card: Put a target enemy card without attachments on the bottom of its owner's appropriate deck.
Alex Jones (rules official), 11 August 2011
A dynasty card [Kitsune Hisano exp] that enters play creates a once per game effect. Gets reshuffled in the deck by a card effect [turning face-down & loosing it's memory]. *possibly my card being the target of The Unmaking
If I bring Kitsune Hisano exp back into play from one of my provinces [again], will I be able to activate it's Once per Game effect again?
-- Relevant card text
Kitsune Hisano exp
Mantis Clan • Earth • Shugenja • Naval • Scout • Experienced • Unique Reaction: Once per game, after Hisano enters play: Create a 2F / 2C / 3PH Mantis Clan • Nonhuman • Fox • Spirit • Unique Personality with the ability, "Battle: Target an enemy attacking Personality: Move him home."
The Unmaking
Void Battle: If this Shugenja is unbowed, bow him unless he is Void and destroy this card: Put a target enemy card without attachments on the bottom of its owner's appropriate deck.
Under discussion.
A player, 11 August 2011
In response to this question: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=93398
Just curious as to why this is under discussion when a ruling was already made for this situation here: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=93213
Alex Jones (rules official), 11 August 2011
In response to this question: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=93398
Just curious as to why this is under discussion when a ruling was already made for this situation here: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=93213
My apologies, I was distracted by Rules Team discussion on whether this should change. It may, but for now the original ruling stands.