Rulings for 12-14 March 2001

WinterWarfare(again!),atVaughn'sinvitation(was:Re:Tsuchi-do?)

Winter Warfare was in Crimson & Jade. It bears a copyright date of 1997. So for around three years, nobody questioned how Block interacted with Winter Warfare; everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) assumed that WW completely canceled Block's effect(s).

I don't think that's true, since until only recently it was only one effect. What I think WAS true was that a large number of players believed it made Block Supply Lines *illegal to play* -- something I haven't seen mentioned anywhere, by anyone, and is also a completely new and separate option apart from negating individual effects and canceling actions outright.

canceled Block's effect(s). Suddenly, and arbitrarily, Zen ruled in August 2000 that no, WW only negates the send-home portion of block, and that the bowing 'effect' should take place 'normally'. It was a bad call.

I disagree and I'm behind it 100%. I think the Shadowlands & Ninja "can't lose honor, yet can still play Kolat Master" bit sets a strong precedent, not to mention seriously calling into doubt what is and is not intuitive. At the very least, it highlights the fact that sometimes one has to choose between intuitive and consistant because you just can't get both. Example:

What happens if Imperial Gift (gain 2 Honor and get an Item from your deck) goes off during As the Shadow Falls (no honor gains for anyone for two turns)? Has this ever happened to you? Did you just go and get the item, or did you toss the whole event? By my recollection, people consistantly do the latter.

I think Zen made the right call then. I'm officially backing him on it now.

Nightmare question

When I first saw Nightmare I thought this was a card that would allow a player to play fear against a Naga or Shadowlands player. Am I incorrect? Did I misread the card?

IF you somehow produce a Fear effect that gets applied to Personalities, and IF said Personality is "immune to" or "unaffected by Fear", then, yes, Nightmare will override the immunity. It will not allow normal Fear to bow Personalities.

I. Challenge Vs The Dark Path of Shadow

I play with The Dark Path of Shadow. If one of my ninja personalities refuses a Iaijutsu Challenge, do I suffer the 7 honor loss?

No. The honor loss is coming from the Iaijutsu Challenge card, which is another player's.

And what if I refuse the duel with a non-ninja personality?

Still no loss.

Rules Question: Dark Path o Shadow, Lessons o Honor

Sorry, but can someone please explain to me why Dark Path of the Shadow can negate the honor loss from Lessons of Honor? I don't see how the effect from Lessons of Honor affects any ninja cards, or any cards for that matter. Is the Dark Path of the Shadow really supposed to negate all honor losses caused by opponent's cards, or just ones that affect ninja cards?

All losses from all other players' cards. Just like it says.

(vaughn) Current state of the WW/Block debate

A ruling was issued shortly after the release of Seppun Sensei regarding the card "Lies, Lies, Lies"

the essentials of the rule were that the two effects of the card(the Honor gain of 8, then the concurrent loss to starting family honor) could not be separated because while it was 2 separate effects, they were in a chain that could not be severed. Thus, you cannot gain the 8, then cancel the concurrent loss. ( I understand that the primary reason for this was to prevent the abuse of Lies...) But, it does make logical sense, and is consistent, and I think it should be considered across the board for actions.

That was a purely play balance-related ruling. Treating LLL as a separate gain and loss opens wide holes for abuse. You don't even need Seppun Sensei, really. You can just Favor the loss away, or Wind's Truth it to someone else. It's not a matter of it being a chain of effects, per se.

Rulings for late February 2001

Vaughn Derderian writes:

BTW, I just noticed that "opposing player" is not defined in either the (online) Spirit Wars rulebook, or the Accumulated Rulings. Might be useful... (hint to Zen)

Check page 42 (in section 4.4 of the Attack Phase rules). That's got a guide to all the different uses of 'opposing'.

I made a full search for the word "opposing" in the online rules before posting yesterday, so I read the relevant paragraph. Here it is, for reference:

If a card's text targets or refers to an "opposing" card, "this battle," or "another attacking/defending" card, the card must be in the same battle as the target to create the effect. A reference to "an opponent" in relation to a battle means "a player with units in the opposing army." A reference to "your opponent" in relation to a battle means either "the Attacker" or "the Defender," as appropriate, regardless of whether the player has units present. "Opposing army" means "one or more units attacking one of your Provinces or defending a Province you are attacking."

Nothing about "opposing player", which is the words I was looking for. Does you reply mean that it is equivalent to "your opponent"?

"An opposing player" and "an opponent" are equivalent when it comes to battles. Same with "the opposing player" and "your opponent".

sent home bowed and WW

Alex H. writes: Hi there!

I have not been particpating to the discussion, and I don't know if this has been adressed before (if so I apologize in advance), but I noticed a ruling while sifting through the archive :

Targeted actions cannot be taken if there is no legal target. Actions with multiple effects cannot be performed at all if one of those effects targets and does not have a legal target, regardless of whether the other effects target or have legal targets. [JA, 16 January 2001]

I am not foolish enough to want to give a straight answer to the WW/BSL dilemma, but would want to look at it in light of this ruling:

1) first of all; as of now, BSL is a comprised of two effects. It also is a targetted action. Do the effects target too? Or only one of them? Or none at all ? this is not a rhetorical question, only a general wondering.

Only the action, as a whole, is targeted. Once the action's target has been chosen, the effects just happen, or not.

Thanks. That is correct.

Rulings for early March, 2001

Okay, question for you: what, in your opinion, should happen if BSL gets played on a Personality who cannot bow? In particular, what if she can't bow because Twisting Ravine is in play?

Twisting Ravine (DJH) Battle: Terrain "[...] Cards cannot be bowed by actions while this Terrain is in play, although all other effects of those actions resolve normally."

Hey, Jeff. Welcome back. I hope you're reading the WW/Block thread, since this has been asked a couple of times in that thread.

It's perfectly clear that the Personality targeted by BSL in the Twisting Ravine should go home, because of the last phrase on Twisting Ravine. What's the problem?

The "problem" is that, under the old ruling that "bowed" was a modifier to going home, you have to realize that Twisting Ravine is explicitly upgrading it to a separate effect to get your intuitive answer.

Rulings for early March, 2001

No. Bowed cards cannot use their actions.

;;;;;

Does this cover strongholds as well?

Yes.

Winter Warfare "Hotseat"-clarification.

In a message dated 3/14/01 9:29:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes:

So, if anyone thinks that any of us: Me, Stefan, Keith, Nick, Scott, or any of the others continuing this debate, have anything less than a great deal of respect for the people that make and interpret the rulings, you are absolutely mistaken.

Now that I've finished that, ON WITH THE DEBATE!

Mitch

You just stated it perfectly. We all may disagree, but we all have respect for those making the rulings, as it is an almost thankless job that none of us would wish for. So, to Jeff, Zen, Vaughn, and anyone else I might be missing, thanks for putting up with us.

Keith

Wow. I'd stick this up on my wall if I had a printer. You're welcome!