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, 15 February 2012
The card triggers when personality is destroyed when: a) personality is destroyed by a battle resolution while in a defending army - no doubt about it b) personality is destroyed by an action while in a defending army - sure c) personality is destroyed by an action taken pretty much anywhere - ... I know one guy, who thinks that this might trigger no matter when and where the personality is and I quite frankly don't have a clue. He might be right.
I need clarification if the "defending army" clause is present for both action and battle resolution.
Relevant text:
The Empress' Address
Political Reaction: After the resolution of an action or a battle that destroyed any of your Personalities in a defending army, bow your performing Courtier or Empress and target your non-Unique Personality with your Clan alignment in your discard pile: Bring him into play (in your home), ignoring costs. Gain 2 Honor.
There are previous ruling to that card, but with different wording.
I must say, that the question was inspired by this ruling viewtopic.php?f=59&t=96174. It seems that Poland understands the word "or" in a different way. If I was about to write how PoTM works in regard to that ruling I would put this effect in two separate sentences. The way it's worded right now makes the whole confusion and causes question. No one in my playgroup interpreted it the way it was ruled.
Alex Jones (rules official), 15 February 2012
The card triggers when personality is destroyed when: a) personality is destroyed by a battle resolution while in a defending army - no doubt about it b) personality is destroyed by an action while in a defending army - sure c) personality is destroyed by an action taken pretty much anywhere - ... I know one guy, who thinks that this might trigger no matter when and where the personality is and I quite frankly don't have a clue. He might be right.
I need clarification if the "defending army" clause is present for both action and battle resolution.
Relevant text:
There are previous ruling to that card, but with different wording.
I must say, that the question was inspired by this ruling viewtopic.php?f=59&t=96174. It seems that Poland understands the word "or" in a different way. If I was about to write how PoTM works in regard to that ruling I would put this effect in two separate sentences. The way it's worded right now makes the whole confusion and causes question. No one in my playgroup interpreted it the way it was ruled.
Both "the resolution of" and "that destroyed any of your Personalities in a defending army" apply to each of "an action" and "a battle", due to the rules for Conjunctions.
Using mathematical language, conditions are distributive over conjunctions, so the ability could be worded as: Reaction: After the resolution of an action that destroyed any of your Personalities in a defending army or the resolution of a battle that destroyed any of your Personalities in a defending army, bow your performing Courtier or Empress and target your non-Unique Personality with your Clan alignment in your discard pile: Bring him into play (in your home), ignoring costs. Gain 2 Honor.
A player, 15 February 2012
So i saw this.
To me the rules are saying nouns with definite articles do not cross pollinate their modifiers when joined by a conjunctive "and" or "or". While nouns without such articles do.
So for this ruling to be correct wouldn't the text need to read: Reaction: After the resolution of an action or battle that destroyed any of your Personalities in a defending army, bow your performing Courtier or Empress and target your non-Unique Personality with your Clan alignment in your discard pile: Bring him into play (in your home), ignoring costs. Gain 2 Honor.
Instead of as it does read: Reaction: After the resolution of an action or a battle that destroyed any of your Personalities in a defending army, bow your performing Courtier or Empress and target your non-Unique Personality with your Clan alignment in your discard pile: Bring him into play (in your home), ignoring costs. Gain 2 Honor.
With the definite article "a" before "Battle" in the text, isn't that the exact distinction the referenced rule is making? Therefore, shouldn't this be just The resolution of "an action" or "a battle with the indicated qualifications"?
If not then why is there a distiction in the rule between "a shadowlands shugenja or monk" and "a monk or a shadowlands shugenja"? Based on the above ruling the two indicated texts should be treated identically, but the rule says they should not be. Please help me understand the distinction in this case!
Alex Jones (rules official), 17 February 2012
So i saw this.
To me the rules are saying nouns with definite articles do not cross pollinate their modifiers when joined by a conjunctive "and" or "or". While nouns without such articles do.
So for this ruling to be correct wouldn't the text need to read: Reaction: After the resolution of an action or battle that destroyed any of your Personalities in a defending army, bow your performing Courtier or Empress and target your non-Unique Personality with your Clan alignment in your discard pile: Bring him into play (in your home), ignoring costs. Gain 2 Honor.
Instead of as it does read: Reaction: After the resolution of an action or a battle that destroyed any of your Personalities in a defending army, bow your performing Courtier or Empress and target your non-Unique Personality with your Clan alignment in your discard pile: Bring him into play (in your home), ignoring costs. Gain 2 Honor.
With the definite article "a" before "Battle" in the text, isn't that the exact distinction the referenced rule is making? Therefore, shouldn't this be just The resolution of "an action" or "a battle with the indicated qualifications"?
If not then why is there a distiction in the rule between "a shadowlands shugenja or monk" and "a monk or a shadowlands shugenja"? Based on the above ruling the two indicated texts should be treated identically, but the rule says they should not be. Please help me understand the distinction in this case!
Under discussion.
A player, 6 March 2012
To add some spice to a discussion, that is taking place for quite a while now here viewtopic.php?f=59&t=96245, I give you an example:
a) I have Coutier A at home b) I play Sacrifice of Pawns to bring a Courtier B, from dynasty deck. c) I play The Empress' Address, reacting to the death of my A Courtier from action, bringing that very same A Courtier from discard, gaining 2 honor.
Is that legal ?
Please, sort this out. My friend plays a deck that solely relies on that combo and "Under discussion" doesn't help him in deciding should he play this at kotei. If the discussion will prolong itself - what has bigger priority ? Comprehensive rules (namely, the Rule of Conjunctions) or the ruling ?
Ben Higgins (rules official), 8 March 2012
I give you an example:
a) I have Coutier A at home b) I play Sacrifice of Pawns to bring a Courtier B, from dynasty deck. c) I play The Empress' Address, reacting to the death of my A Courtier from action, bringing that very same A Courtier from discard, gaining 2 honor.
Is that legal ?
No. You can now only react with The Empress' Address to the death of your personality in a defending army.