Rulings for 5 February 2000

Rules for February 6th

Also, something else important that I forgot to mention in my last post, Jeff is back from vacation, and will be retaking the Pants of Ruling any minute now.

"The Pants of Ruling". That sounds so Herman Wouk.

Miscellaneous queries. . .

Heya everyone--Since y'all responded so quickly and well to my Ratling questions, I'd like to share a few more puzzlers (well, puzzlers to me, anyway) with you:

Will Oni no Yamaso negate Matsu Gohei's attacking bonus (or any bonus which kicks in "while attacking" and thus before any battle actually begins)?

If it was applied before the battle began, like Gohei's, then it won't be negated.

Purushas in both the attacking and defending armies. . . I assume that the active player gets first shot (so to speak), and then we move clockwise for further reactions?

Correct.

Gaheris (was: [L5RINFO] Rules for February 2nd)

Could you please please please please not make your arguments with hypothetical cards. Such was done before with Farmlands and Jeff relied on the hypothetical heavily to make, in my opinion, a bad counter-intuitive card ruling that changed the way people had been playing with the card for years.

Not until the Farmlands ruling did I realize that when I went to the store I was giving the cashier money to conduct the act of commerce and in return I was receiving my eggs and milk for free.

So please whether you hate Gaheris or love him please keep the argument to real cards.

The Farmlands situation brought to light the fact that a ruling had been made which only worked because every card it applied to followed the same pattern -- they all had no costs except gold and, more importantly, created exactly one token and didn't do anything else. Retaining the ruling would have mandated that that pattern be followed by all cards in the future. That's an inelegant restriction and an accident waiting to happen.

It also meant I couldn't implement the following highly desirable, highly generic, highly (might I add) intuitive general principles to the game's design:

o When bringing a card into play from your hand, figure the cost as though you're bringing a card into play from your hand.

o When using an action on a card in play, figure the cost as though you're using an action on a card in play.

Instead, we'd have to have

o When bringing a card into play from your hand, figure the cost as though you're bringing a card into play from your hand.

o When using an action on a card in play, figure the cost as though you're using an action on a card in play, unless the action creates cards or tokens, in which case treat it under both rules. If this leads to a paradox in the math, ask Jeff how to handle it.

Rulings: Bonuses and Penalties

Hi all,

I am a bit puzzled (and know at least another) by the following rulins (from Zen's archive, or my own "new rulings"):

Bonuses and penalties

Conditional bonuses from traits (e.g., "while attacking") are reapplied every time the relevent condition is met. [VRD, e-mail, 12 January 2001; JA, e-mail, 17 January 2001]

What constitutes a "conditional bonus"?

Something you either have or you don't have.

Or, what doesn't?

Something which you always have, but in varying amounts. Your "counting bonuses," like Ancestral Swords, fall into this category.

Nezumi/Kaiu Sensei question

Given the ruling that the Warrens is not a Ratling Stronghold, but a Nezumi Stronghold, and the fact that Kaiu Sensei lists the Ratling clan as being able to use it; can the Warrens use Kaiu Sensei?

Of course. The Nezumi ruling came about only to address the problem of what trait cards like Oath of Fealty give to Ratlings, since the rulebook says the "Ratling Clan" has no members.

"Ratling" works just like "Shadowlands" on Sensei cards. The Strongholds associated with these factions are readily identifiable, despite the words not matching a rulebook- listed alignment trait.

Force of Will and O'Ushi Sensei

Can I use O'Ushi Sensei to make this spell switch Force and Chi if another player targets me with it?

Yes, or switch Force and Personal Honor.

Gaheris (was: [L5RINFO] Rules for February 2nd)

Cards that "Target everything" do not target, it's a contradiction in terms. Journal doesn't stop people from being hit with some kind of global effect.

Cards can break the rules. Cards can and do exist which affect "all" of something and yet still target due to deliberate wording.

Dragon Tattoo (Vaughn, Jeff)

I know that one can gain zero (0) +1/+1 tokens on the Dragon tattoo.

There are cards which affect units which have or obtain force bonuses.

Are gaining tokens on a Dragon tattoo ever a force bonus? Why or why not?

Gaining one or more tokens leads to gaining a Force bonus, because the Personality's total Force increases. Gaining 0 tokens does not produce a bonus.

Rules for February 6th

I had a question about (surprise) O- Ushi Sensei. If my opponent is using O- Ushi Sensei and I play Return for Training, what is the procedure for picking legal targets? If I picked a target which is made illegal because my opponent checks for force instead, does Return for Training bounce into my hand?

Anyways, by the time that you've picked a target, it's too late for your opponent to change that target by making RfT reference force instead of PH. He can't make you go back, and once you've picked a target, the PH part of RfT is irrelevant, so he still goes home.

I'm going to overturn Vaughn here. The rulebook clearly states that if a Reaction makes one or more targets of an action illegal, that that action does not affect those invalid targets. This is a REVERSAL.

Heya, this is fantastic! Does this ruling also apply to Iaijutsu Art?

Moot point.

Destroying and removing

You can't rule on combos. A ruling has to be able to apply regardless of a combo. Either Encircled always works against Gaheris (Journal or no) or it doesn't. And it doesn't.

I'm not asking for a ruling on a combo. I'm asking for a rethink on the immediacy clause of Zen's August ruling. That's all.

I've rethought it and I say it needs to stand. Gaheris only allows actions with certain effects to be played. If you don't know, at the time you play an action, whether its effect will be a valid one by Gaheris's text, then you can't play it.

Rules for February 6th

Sure. When you play the action from your hand, it thinks that it's going to send Gaheris home. That makes it legal. Something negating one of the effects that made it legal to play doesn't retroactively make it an illegal action (extenstion from Jeff's ruling on ToC/Winter Warfare, 12/10/00).

When Winter Warfare is in effect, it's clear that Block, Refugees, etc. will not send Gaheris home. I can't find the ruling you cite. Can you post it, or tell me where to find it? It's not in Zen's rulings file dated 2/1/01.

Seems to me that you're allowing an action that knows it's going to be illegal, yet in the Journal/Encircled example you don't want to allow an action that's not 100% sure whether it's eventually going to be legal. Maybe if I could see the ruling you mention I'd understand better.

This is the only point I've seen so far that warrants further consideration. The core issue here is whether the card whose legality is in question shall always be evaluated in isolation. That's what Vaughn did, and that's why he got the results he got: Block Supply Line's removal is unconditional and immediate, making its printed effect pass Gaheris's test, whereas Encircled Terrain's removal is not immediate. In both cases, no other cards or current conditions are considered.

Perhaps existing involuntary effects, like Winter Warfare, should be considered if their own game effects are both immediate and unconditional? It's one for the Rules Team.

Hypothetical Cards

IIRC, and it's been a while. I think that Jessica was working on updating all the wordings on the older cards that were going to be reprinted in Gold and then possibly work on the other cards.

Jessica and I worked together on templating Gold. There were no plans to go back and redo the wordings of every card ever printed.