Rulings for 14 January 2000

Flee the Darkness vs Hitomi exp. 3

If an action is completely cancelled (which Flee the Darkness does), it's treated as though it never happened. Therefore, in this case, Hitomi could use her ability again.

Then what's the point of cancelling it?

You get one more chance to get rid of her before she does it again, I suppose. Not great, but better than nothing.

Flee the Darkness vs Hitomi exp. 3

Missed that one. However I do remember it being ruled rather clearly that after a cancelled lobbying attempt (ala enough talk) you cant bow for the favor again that turn.

That's due to the wording of Enough Talk! It cancels (or ("negates", under current templating) the effects of the Political action but does not cancel the action itself.

Flee the Darkness vs Hitomi exp. 3

so she can do it again after it's cancelled, but ONLY if it's cancelled. If her ability's EFFECT was negated, that's different.

It *IS*. Flee the Darkness says "the action is canceled, and all effects are NEGATED".

Read what the archive says again:

] An effect which is cancelled in its entirety is considered not to ] have even been attempted. [DW, l5rinfo, 12/1/97] This is NOT true ] of an action which has "all its effects" cancelled but does not ] get cancelled itself.

"...BUT DOES NOT GET CANCELED ITSELF". That excludes cards like Flee, which both cancels and negates. So, this exception doesn't apply. The people who are saying that the action may be attempted again are correct.

"Cancel the action and negate all its effects" is redundant. I think it shows up on cards from a desire to be crystal clear about what happens. The fact is, though, that it IS redundant. It is, in all instances, 100% equivalent to just "Cancel the action". That's why, in the latest Style Guide that Jessica and I worked on, there's an entry saying "cancel or negate, but don't do both".

Don't get fooled by the words, either. The consistant use of "cancel" when referring to squelching the action itself and "negate" only when stopping its effect(s) is also relatively new. For a long time, "cancel" was used to mean both, and you had to read it in context to determine which meaning it had. (The archive entry itself is old enough to suffer from this shortcoming, if you'll notice.)

In Search of the future and O'Ushi Sensei again

1.I have a question concenring the latest ruling on In search of the future. A conditional force bonus from a trait will be reapplied if the relevent condition for the bonus is met after In Search of the Future has been played. [REVERSAL, VRD, e-mail, 12 January 2001] what is a conditional forcebonus in this context?

A bonus which exists only while a certain situation holds. It's either there or it's not.

Is the trait of the clan swords conditional since it applies depending on the number of personalities in play? Or does this only includes force boni like +1 F if opposed by a shadowlands card?

I'd like to say that only the latter is, for now. I'll see if the Junta has any better ideas.

2. O'Ushi Sensei: what about Flameseeker for example? His ability states: Battle: Bow Flameseeker. Reduce the Chi of an opposing Personality by Flameseeker's Chi. This will not reduce the target's Chi below 1. Can the O'Ushi Sensei change this to force reduction?

Yes, as well as the minimum of 1 in the last clause.

Some TotEC-sparked questions...

Hi all,

After a long playing weekend, it's only natural that some interesting questions arised... mainly, I'd want confirmations.

* Innate abilities are not considered Spell effects, right?

Right.

* Flattery mentions discarding

"cards from your hand with combined focus values greater than the total Force of the opposing army"

Can it be used if there is no opposing army?

No. This is straight from the archive.

Stupid Naga question

If the Qamar dies and the Isha (exp) becomes the Qamar with his reaction, can another player bring his own Isha (exp) into play while I still have my new Qamar/Isha?

That is to say, does "Until the end of the game, Isha is considered to be Qamar" mean that the Isha is now the Qamar and no longer the Isha or is the Isha now both the Qamar and the Isha?

He is both Qamar and Isha. He triggers effects which only happen with the Qamar, such as attaching the Armor for free, but his title doesn't actually change. He will still prohibit other Unique Ishas from coming into play.

Also, when did Bakeneko go from being wonderfully powerful to pretty much blah with his erratum? When was that erratum issued?

Right after the set came out.