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.
If I have Goju Yurishi at a battlefield with an attachment on him and my opponent plays Sundering Strike, I react with Yurishi and move him home as soon as he is targeted as the cost of Sundering Strike. Since he is at home, is his attachment still a legal target for the effects of Sundering Strike?
Thank you
Edited subject to include full card title. -Ryushi
Wanted to bump this question before it got migrated its way off the first page
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=96313
EDIT: Just wanted to add a request for a description of how Goju Yurushi's reaction and attacment destruction works in general. Are there any effects that would target him and destroy an attachment where his reaction protects the attachment?
If I have Goju Yurishi at a battlefield with an attachment on him and my opponent plays Sundering Strike, I react with Yurishi and move him home as soon as he is targeted as the cost of Sundering Strike. Since he is at home, is his attachment still a legal target for the effects of Sundering Strike?
Thank you
Edited subject to include full card title. -Ryushi
In your example above, your opponent can not use the optional effect on Sundering Strike to destroy one of Yurishi's attachments.
Optional targeting happens during an actions resolution, which is in your example well after Yurishi is targeted by and has reacted to the targeting by Sundering Strike with his Reaction. At that point he is home and it is the Rule of Location that prevents his attachments from being targeted by Sundering Strike.
EDIT: Just wanted to add a request for a description of how Goju Yurushi's reaction and attacment destruction works in general. Are there any effects that would target him and destroy an attachment where his reaction protects the attachment?
Within the broad scope of L5R, "in general" can be a very dangerous term.
Please see the above ruling for an example of what you have asked for, but keep in mind that each different card interaction is it's own special case, and should be looked at individually.