Superior Reach and Halls of the Forgotten

L5R CCG Rules board, 18 April 2012 to 13 June 2012

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, 18 April 2012

If I play Superior Reach on a Beserker with my weaponized Kensai and the Crab player reacts with Halls of the Forgotten, what effect will be delayed: everything behind the ":" or only the reduction to 0 Force >>> will the berserker still be able to perform actions?

Thank you for your time!

Alex Jones (rules official), 18 April 2012

If I play Superior Reach on a Beserker with my weaponized Kensai and the Crab player reacts with Halls of the Forgotten, what effect will be delayed: everything behind the ":" or only the reduction to 0 Force >>> will the berserker still be able to perform actions?

Thank you for your time!

Both the reduction to 0 force and the inability to target the Kensai with actions are effects on the Berserker, and so are delayed until after the battle ends.

A player, 19 April 2012

The topic has been asked and answered twice, here and here, but with different answers. Could you please make a definitive ruling?

Thanks in advance.

Alex Jones (rules official), 19 April 2012

The topic has been asked and answered twice, here and here, but with different answers. Could you please make a definitive ruling?

Thanks in advance.

Under discussion.

A player, 31 May 2012

Have you reached a final decision on this?

A player, 6 June 2012

Any updates to this? It's been over 2 months now.

Or this? Nearly a month for this one.

Or have they be forgotten?

Brook Cunningham (rules official), 13 June 2012

Any updates to this? It's been over 2 months now.

Or this? Nearly a month for this one.

Or have they be forgotten?

Discussion over!

"Effects on" has been clarified in the CR, so Alex's above ruling is correct, and my contradictory one that was linked has been edited.