Rulings for 17 January 2001

We're dealing with fundamental rules of the game here. Those of you trying to logically prove that "once per battle" is a cost and/or an effect are bound to have problems because we're smack-dab in the realm of axioms, not theorems...things which are true because the rulebook *says* they are, not because they were deduced. And the way things *are* right now is:

1. Costs are not refunded when an action is canceled. 2. A player's opportunity to "take one action or pass" is not refunded when an action is canceled. 3. A canceled action does not otherwise count as having been used (for example, with respect to a limited number of uses per turn).

I recall making rulings based on these principles before Time of the Void. To my reckoning, this is a stable and tested set of rules. Now, there *is* an unintuitive incongruity between #2 and #3 which all this discussion has boiled to the surface, but it's not a paradox. Is it a fatal flaw in the rules? No. Will reversing #3 make the game better? Maybe. If so, will it improve more aspects of the game than it breaks? I don't know yet. It will take contemplation and some database work. Will the rules change in Gold? It depends on what the Junta finds. Unless and until it does, I'm strongly inclined to continue enforcing the three rules above.

Rules for 15 January 2001

Because Footsteps of Madness says so. Cards can override rules.

So can Flee the Darkness, then. Tell me why *that* one doesn't?

Why can't Flee break the rules - cancels the action AND negates it effects? Isn't that what the card actually says?

I see your confusion.

The rulebook, under "Canceling Actions and Negating Effects", says that a canceled action is not considered to have been used, but one whose effect is negated still is. This looks like a paradox.

One possible way to resolve this is to read the second rule not as saying that negating sets the action's state to "used", but that it DOESN'T RE-set it to "unused". It's still the opposite of what canceling does, only it's not a paradox now.

If it truly is a paradox, nothing will resolve it except Word from On High...which you've already gotten. Coincidentally, it just happens to be exactly the same as the last paragraph: negating an effect, or even all effects, of an action has no effect on the action's "used" status. Only canceling does. That's why there's no paradox, and that's why Flee the Darkness doesn't break the rules.

Cancellation Question (Really -not- beating a dead horse)

Caveat: This is not about Flee the Darkness and Hitomi's innate duel.

That said, in light of the recent discussion and Jeff's ruling on how cancellation works, I was curious about another pair of cards and a situation that arose this past weekend at the Somerville, MA TotEC...

Fall on Your Knees v. Bayushi Kachiko exp3

Kachiko reads: "Reaction: Discard a card from your hand when a Battle Action is played during a battle that Kachiko is in. Cancel the Action."

Fall on Your Knees reads: "Reaction: PLay this card when a player plays a Reaction during the Battle Action Segment. Cancel that Reaction."

Let's suppose that Kachiko's Reaction is used in response to Storms of War. In response, player A plays Fall on Your Knees to ensure that Storms goes off. What happens next?

Based on the rulings on cancellation, I would assume that so long as Scorpion player B still had cards in hand, Kachiko's Reaction could either be used again:

a) immediately to cancel Fall on Your Knees, ensuring that the first cancellation (vs. Storms of War) goes into effect since the cancelling reaction was, in turn, cancelled; or

b) immediately in response to Storms of War a second time. This is possible since Kachiko's Reaction was cancelled by the Fall on Your Knees Reaction, and the original trigger - the Battle Action - is still in process of being played.

Vaughn or Jeff- Are either or both of these assumptions correct?

a) is not correct since Kachiko can't cancel Reactions.

b) is correct.

questions

1-If I have (for example) wasp sensei on my Kyuden Kitsune... wasp clan personalities gain "yoritomo aliance" or "fox clan" Trait?

"Yoritomo's Alliance".

i can pay 4 gold less for this personalities like fox personalities

Since they don't gain "Fox Clan", no.

2- Kuni Utagu (Experienced) counts as jade card? (for jade works)

Yes.

Kaiu Sensei Question

I realize that this question has probably already been asked, but I probably missed the answer.

If using Kaiu Sensei, and you have a Barracks in play, do the followers in the barracks contribute force to defending all of your provinces?

Yes.

If so, if one of those provinces are destroyed, are the followers similarly destoyed?

Yes.

Likewise, if the followers are outforced, but manage to successfully defend the province, are they destroyed during resolution?

Yes. The Barracks too. And they're all worth honor.