Rules for February 2nd

[> t0408.1: Perhaps I'm thick-headed Vaughn, but I disagree on this one. According to …]

There's always a chance. You bring up a good point, that any Reactions modifying her gold production should occur before her action/effect is finished resolving. So, you're correct about Phillipe's example. That specific play of cards would not reduce her gold production to zero, but it's conceivably possible for cards to exist that would result in such a situation by dishonoring her.

I'm sticking to the ruling that gold production can be changed by changing incidental things about the gold producing card (Seppun Kossori's personal honor, the number of Iron Mines in play), but any changes *would* have to happen directly in response to the gold production, not later in the payment/purchase sequence.

[> t0408.1: I was wondering, if one of my personalities is dishonored by the …]

Nope. Permanent changes to the game environment (destruction of a personality, honor gain/loss) are not undone by Final Words or Solar Eclipse.

[> t0408.1: And don't forget Purusha, who I THINK can shoot you from any …]

Nope. Purusha can only be used at the battle where he's assigned. No telescopic sights for him.

[> t0408.1: Taking the last statement above to heart, I still have to think …]

Yes. However, the personality who bows/doesn't bow would still be considered to be involved in the creation of the gain/loss for purposes of seppuku and dishonor.

[> t0408.1: My question is if I play White Shore Plain during a battle …]

Yep.

[> t0408.1: I was looking over the archive and read the following on Seppun …]

First off, actions are never negated, only canceled. Anyone who brings up Flee the Darkness will automatically get grim-fwapped.

It is possible, however, for some effects of an action to be negated. This is not the same thing as canceling the action, even if all effects of the action are negated (i.e., the action only has one effect, and that effect is negated).

So, I guess my question to you is, was the honor gain/loss part of the action negated in whatever example you're asking about? In other words, you really have to give me something more to work with. If, in some hypothetical situation, all effects (including the honor gain) were negated, then no, the honor gain would never occur. If the honor gain were not negated, then it would occur. If the action is canceled, then it wouldn't. Could you be more specific?

[> t0408.1: If you take the top card only. You may use Banish to …]

Not true. With Banish, you draw the top card. Legal under Uona. Then, you draw the top card again. Also legal. Draw again (still legal). Draw again (still legal). Then three of the cards you just drew get reshuffled back into the deck (not covered at all by Uona Sensei). Drawing specifically means taking the top card of your deck into your hand, always, and Banish says nothing that would supercede that.

[> t0408.1: Hm. This contradicts some other rulings I've heard, both in tourney and …]

Because it's in the Archive that way. Under Death and Destruction:

A destroyed card goes in the discard pile of whoever controlled it at the time. If someone else owns it, the card does not change piles when the change-of-control effect would normally wear off. [DW, 12/2/97]

[> t0408.1: Huh. I just checked the rulings, and the most relevant ruling is …]

I don't think so. Because Banish uses the word draw, it implies a very specific effect. Drawing is taking the top card of your deck and putting it into your hand, nothing else. What happens to those cards after they are drawn is irrelevant, but for the fact that they were drawn, not searched for and retrieved.

[> t0408.1: Here's another question: My opponent is attacking with Moto Gaheris (I wish …]

No, you may not play Encircled Terrain. It would, in theory, remove him from the battle eventually, but an action needs to immediately and unconditionally remove him from the battle (and not by killing him) to be legal under his prohibition. Actions that would eventually do are not not legal, especially in a case like Encircled Terrain/Kaagi's Journal, where there are multiple card effects involved in his removal.

[> t0408.1: Why should an immediacy test exist? It's not supported on Gaheris' text: …]

There needs to be an immediacy test to avoid causality arguments, like the one created by Encircled Terrain. Let's say that I have an Intelligence Agent in play when you play the Encircled. Now, I can target Gaheris with actions. Was your Encircled still legal, because now it *won't* send him home? And if it wasn't legal, how'd it get played?

In a comparable situation, let's say that I have a Kakita Toshimoko with Ancestral Dictate played on him targeting Moto Gaheris. Gaheris is attacking Province 1, Toshimoko is at p2. Should I be able to play a Superior Tactics to move Toshimoko into p1? It *will* send Gaheris home...eventually.

Likewise, the destruction!=removal case needs to be in place to prevent silly applications of cards like Test of Courage. Test of Courage should not be able to cancel Iaijutsu Duel. 'Removing' is moving the unit home or to another province, nothing else.

[> t0408.1: The question basically relates to Land of the Dead and the terrain …]

5F, for the terrain and the region. Arriving at the Imperial Gates only changes their printed force, so any in-place modifications to their force would continue to be in place, adding or subtracting to/from their new 'printed' force.

[> t0408.1: Perhaps an easier way to put it - is the force bonus …]

Traditionally, force bonuses from Regions have been granted when the personality assigns or moves into the relevant province. This is neither here nor there in relation to your question, but I wanted to answer it anyways. Most force bonuses are not reapplied constantly, and if Arriving didn't change printed force, if it changed current force instead, then the bonus from Land of the Dead would *not* reapply. But, that's not the case, so it's irrelevant.