Rules for November 13th

Weekend catchup time, folks. Sorry about the gap, but weekends are the busiest time of week for me, and it's hard to fit a rules post in there. I'll try and remedy that, though.

1/ I assume that Rallying Cry does not affect units that have been sent home during the course of the battle - correct?

Yes. It only affects units that were bowed by the resolution of the battle.

2/ Kosaten Shiro reduces gold and honour producing holdings by 1 gold, but the costs cannot be reduced further. Fantastic Gardens normally cost 7, but cost 5 for a Crane - does that count as a reduction, or is it the base cost? (ie: will it cost 6,5, or 4, assuming KS is in play?)

It costs 6. This is something that people still have problems with, but essentialy the KS reduction overrides any other reductions that would be applied to your holdings. The 'costs 5 for Crane' counts as a reduction, so KS will override it.

3/ With the appropriately aligned stronghold, do Shadowlands, Naga, and Monk cards eneter play at 2 less (or +honour), or only if they specifically say (eg: Sepulcher of Bone reduces Undead by 2).

Yes for everything except Shadowlands and Ratling. There are special rules for those Strongholds, and they are the only ones who do not get the advantage of bringing people into play for 2 less or honor.

4/ How many Strongholds are there? Is there anyway of getting them except tracking down all the out of print starters? Do they appear in boosters or something?

There are a little over 40 different Strongholds. Most of them only appeared in the starter that they came out in, but occasionaly some got reprinted in various expansions. You can find reprinted Strongholds in Time of the Void, Jade, Pearl, and Soul of the Empire. The upcoming Gold expansion will also have Strongholds, but nobody knows which ones they will be. Honestly, your best bet if you're looking for a specific Stronghold is to try and trade for it, and just proxy it until you find a real copy. Outside of a tournament, most players won't mind.

5/ Can a province have more than one fortification? What about a region and a fortification?

Each province can have multiple Fortifications, but only one of each type. You can only have one Region on a province, though, but Regions and Fortifications don't conflict with each other (barring card text).

6/ which 'optional' rules are actually pretty standard in tournaments?

Well, in the most recent rulebook, there's only one optional rule (the honor plus cut rule). The 'one-time Event' rule has been made non-optional, and the Jade and Jade Extended rules are more tournament formats than rules. Those are used sometimes, and your best bet is to ask the Tournament Organizer what the format will be before you go to the tournament.

What happens if Uso exp focuses 2 fist shout?

next 2 cards opponent focuses are at random or only one?

He has to focus twice more, and both focuses are random.

From private mail...

Vaughn Derderian writes:

So, even pretending that an Empty Crevasse had a trait which could be applied as a benefit to all of your provinces (which they dont'), you would still need to bow the 'real' Crevasse to generate its gold, and you could not then bow it again to generate more.

Just as a question: "the traits of all of your non-Unique Fortifications are in effect..."

Does that include the "bold" traits? (What I mean is, if I need to _count_ the number of Fortifications at a Province, will I only count the "real" Fortifications [basically meaning the "bold trait" "Fortification" isn't "in effect"], or all of them? There are several cards that count the number of Fortifications at a Province)

Even the bold traits are in effect, but I don't think that will fool cards that look to see how many Forts are attached to a specific province. No matter whether the traits are in effect or not, they're still only attached in one place. So, cards that look to see how many cards are 'at' or 'attached' to the province currently being resolved will not count Forts whose effects are in place due to Kaiu Sensei.

The November 9 rules archive on the Steel and Iron web site, http://www.planet.net.au/~zfaulkes/o-ushi.html#Archive , has the following item.

A card that cannot be sent home will bow if affected by something that causes it to be "sent home bowed." [REVERSAL, JA, 2 November 2000]

I do not recall seeing this item on the L5R newsgroups. What is the current status of this ruling?

Well, I went and looked back at Jeff's posts from that time, and here's what I found:

** Costs and Effects ** Some effects have multiple independent elements that resolve ** separately. For example, a card that says "send a card home bowed and ** dishonored" targeting a card that "cannot be sent home" dishonors the ** target but does not send it home. ** ** Is the target bowed? If not, if the card were worded "send a card home ** dishonored and bowed" would this bow the target but not dishonor them? * * Yes, it is still bowed. This example is particularly bad.

[Posted to L5RINFO on November 1 as 'Spirit Wars Rulebook']

So, that looks like a re-reversal to me. Take it as such until you hear something different.

Come to think of it, this easily solves a question I had a few days ago, about attaching being considered a performed action. When someone dishonored attaches a Sword, the honor gain will rehonor them, making it a performed action that generated an honor gain. Ergo, attaching is performing.

I think you may want to limit "performing" to the same rulebook defn given for "taking" an action (Spirit Wars, p.37). Or at least peg this to make it clearer in the next rulebook. As is perform is defined almost identially but slightly differently which is a nuisance. In May Zen noted that "perform" should probably be brought in line with "take" but lacked the authority to make the change.

The section of the rulebook I was looking at is pg. 49 of the SW rulebook. That's where all the details about 'taking' an action are, and how you determine whether you or one of your cards is taking an action. There is, as far as I can tell, no rulebook definition of performing an action, but the archive and many cards use 'take' and 'perform' interchangeably.

The extension of performing/taking an action to cover attachement wasn't mine, but something that happened a long time before I started. It kinda bothered me, because I couldn't find any precendent or reason for the ruling other than designer fiat, but I think that the Sword/dishonored personality example works pretty well for me.

So, 'take' and 'perform' mean the same thing, and attaching a card of any type to a personality counts as the personality performing/taking an action.

Logical Inconsistency: Hida Tech does not make A true. The target of Hida Tech is NOT in fact Defending, he is merely "targettable and affectable by" cards that look for Defending cards. In order to make A true, Hida Tech would have to be worded something like "This card is considered to be Defending for all purposes except which army it contributes to." This will be my last objection to this ruling, because I really *want* the ruling to stand (Go CRAB!), but I really don't *believe* it to be correct.

If the subject of Hida Tech can be targeted and affected by cards (including himself) as if he were defending, the isn't he pretty much considered to be defending for any card effect that would reference his status as attacker/defender? I suppose that a rulebook (or Stronghhold!) effect that triggered off his attack/defense status wouldn't be fooled by Hida tech, but every single other card effect, without exception, would treat a Hida Tech target as if he were defending.

Wow, is this one going to generate debate...ironic considering that I think this card coaster-worthy (*particularly* if it doesn't counter ISoF). How can something that reduces your force (no matter how you got the force) not be a penalty? Sure, it's a penalty exactly the same size as (all) the 'bonuses' or force adds...

I Charged Gohei, thus gaining 3f. I now have a force total of 6 (1 base, 2 ability, 3 charge). 5 battle actions down the road you play ISoF. It does not counter my ability or charge bonus...it subtracts their value from my force. Since my force *is* changed instantly by the original play of the Charge (for things like Test of Might and such) and my force is now reduced by 3 (since ISoF *does not* retroactively negate my Charge bonus), how can that not be a penalty?

-AND-

Zen's Rulings include the following: *** Anything that raises a card's stat above its printed value is a bonus. This includes "permanent changes," switching stats, copying, focusing, etc. [ZF, 21 May 2000; JA, e-mail, 30 August 2000] ***

Why is a "Force Penalty" being ruled not to be the reverse of that?

-AND-

From the Archives:

Anything that raises a card's stat above its printed value is a bonus. This includes "permanent changes," switching stats, copying, focusing, etc. [ZF, 21 May 2000; JA, e-mail, 30 August 2000]

Ok, lets try this:

Anything that *lowers* a card's stat *below* its printed value is a *penalty*. This includes "permanent changes," switching stats, copying, focusing, etc. [EA, 11 Nov 2000: on his own initiative]

Nice touch to insert yourself in the Archive, btw. I'm also interested to see how focusing could lower your force...

Anyways, here's my definition of a force penalty:

A positive effect (meaning something that has been created, not the lack of something) that would explicitly reduce the force of a card.

The problem is that this would include modifications of current bonuses, and I agree with Jeff that ISotF does not create a force penalty, in the same way that Imperial Ambassadors do not create a new honor loss. However, this appears to create a conflict with the ruling on force bonuses, so to make them both fit, the rulings about bonuses have to comply.

So, an effect that modifies a force bonus or penalty is not considered to be a new bonus or penalty, but is instead a modification of the existing bonus/penalty. Silence does not create a new bonus, he modifies an existing one, and ISotF does not create a penalty, but modifies a bonus. Likewise, Battle of Shallow Waters does not create a force bonus, it modifies a penalty.

Now, to the examples.

Example: Gohei attacks. He is 3 force while attacking. The defending player plays Uncertainty (-2,-2). The attacking player drops a Battle of Shallow Waters. At resolution Gohei has 1 force, because his force bonus was reduced, he was not assigned a force penalty.

Not true. BSW will negate the penalty from Uncertainty, because regardless of the fact that Gohei has a bonus and a penalty in equal measure, he is under the effect of something that explicitly reduces his force. BSW negates it, and Gohei has 3 force.

Example: Ikoma Gunjin attacks, and uses his Tactician ability for something else. He Charges, giving him 3 force. The defending player drop another Uncertainty (-2,-2). The attacking player plays a Battle of Shallow Waters. At resolution Gunjin has 1 force, because his force bonus was reduced, he was not assigned a force penalty.

Hey, this is the same example as the last one! Anyways, assigning a penalty when someone has a bonus in effect is *not* the same thing as modifiying that bonus. If there is a positive effect in place that reduces someones force explicitly, then BSW will cancel it. Gunjin has 3 force.

Example: Utaku Kamoko (3/2) attacks. Normally, she'd be 4 force while attacking. She Charges, Destiny has no Secrets, and does a little dance. Now she's 8 force. The defending player plays In Search of the Future. The he plays an Uncertainty on her. The attacker drops a Battle of Shallow Waters. At resolution, her force is 3, because the Uncertainty here was a Force Penalty that dropped her below her printed force.

Correct.

What happens if the Order of things is changed? What if Utaku Kamoko attacks, has 4 force, Charges, gets Uncertainty played on her, a Battle of Shallow Waters is dropped, gets Destiny has no secrets playeed on her, and then the ISotF gets played? What is her force at resolution?

3. The ISotF reduces all of her bonuses to zero, and then the BSW cancels the Uncertainty.

Does Uona Sensei prevent you from getting cards out of your discard completely, or does it allow you to retrieve the top card of your discard as well? I believe it prevents it completely, one of our local players disagrees.

Uona Sensei says 'You cannot get cards from your discard piles or from anywhere in your decks except the top.' The 'except the top' qualifier applies completely to the part about your decks, not the whole restriction.

About the basic bayushi goshiu, if you got more than one goshiu through pan´ku , shapeshifter or something else, can you create one extra honor loss, for each copy, or are you limited for the original number or honor losses, in other words can you react more than once to a honor loss if you got many copies of bayushi goshiu non exp.?

Yes, perfectly legal. With multiple Goshiu's, you can create a new loss for each one, regardless of anything about the original loss.

Looked in the rules book and the archive, and could not find the answer to this one;

Can a Personality have more than one Ancestor attached, if the attachment is legal?

Sure. You cannot attach more than one at once, because bowing to attach is part of the cost, but you can attach several Ancestors on subsequent turns, and could attack more than one at once if you negated the bowing part of the cost (Torii Shrine, for example).

This raises some interesting questions concerning the new Lion SH. (Which, does *not* blow IMHO. It is just versatile *and* useful. Tactician is not just a brutish club to throw at provinces with this) Lion Shugenja have the potential to become highly powerful characters, and the Armor and Katana of the Twilight Mountains should be stapels of such decks. I can see the possibility of some very effective dueling strategies coming out of this. Lion Shugenja + Ancestor + Armor &Katana oTM= average Chi of 6 or 7.

Caveat: The Armor and Katana do not give a bonus for each Ancestor attached, but only care whether or not you have an ancestor attached. However, I keep wondering why no one has picked up on Kitsu Sanako with this new SH yet. A Sanako with Shiryo no Tetsuya, Shiryo no Goju, and a Night Medallion becomes a 4/8 personality who can, as an Open action, give all personalities in play (including herself) +4/+4 for each Ancestor they have attached. That couldn't be a combo, could it?!?

If I play the Deadly Ground battle terrain, can my opponent play Ralling cry?

Sure. Deadly Ground's effects last only until the end of the resolution segment, when it leaves play. Rallying Cry is played after the resolution segment, so it's okay.

I have a quick question that might have been answered already.

In Spirit Wars, there are two items called Honorable and Bitter. I'm assuming you can attach either of them , singlily, on a personality. Or else its impossible to attach either, am I correct? Whats the ruling on these cards?

If you have one, you can attach the other. If you have neither, you can attach one. I'm beginning to sense that Honorable and Bitter might have been poorly worded, but the gist of the effect is that they skip the normal restriction on having one weapon if you're trying to attach the second part of the pair. They do not prevent their attachment if you don't have one or the other attached.

On a related note, can you use Fall on your Knees to cancel Rallying Cry or even Counter Attack?

No and no. Fall on your Knees will only cancel actions played during the Battle Action Segment, and both Rally and Counter happen well after the BAS is over. You also cannot use FoyK to cancel actions played *during* the Resolution segment, as that's after the BAS, too.

Okay. Earlier (last week i think) while following a differnt thread I became confused on the ruling for Reactions.

From what I read, I came to believe that you could not play multiples of the same reaction on the same trigger. For example:

Matsu Agetoki is attacking a province. Agetoki takes the province and goes home. Back home in his fief are 3 Ikoma Kaokus. As a reaction to Agetoki taking a province, one of the Kaokus bow to give Agetoki a permanent +1/+1. The other two can not because their "Reaction" has already been played once.

Not quite. The restriction on Reactions reads as follows:

You can play multiple copies of a Reaction card, in turn, in reaction to one trigger effect, but you cannot use a Reaction on a single card more than once per trigger. [SW rulebook, pg. 50]

So, because each Kaoku's Reaction is coming from a seperate card, all three are legal. However, if Kaoku's Reaction didn't bow him, you would only be able to use it once in reaction to Agetoki's province kill.