Rulings for 26 March 2001

Gennai and RoV

A friend pointed out to me what appears to be the MRP of the Ring of the Void, which states that its reaction (or benefit) cannot be triggered between discarding and drawing. I don't have the exact text, because I don't own a copy of that particular printing. He argues that this prevents me from playing, or activating, the Ring in conjunction with Agasha Gennai's Fate swapping ability. Mr. Faulkes' rulings archive, however, states, specifially, that Gennai and RoV work nicely together, allowing one to end up drawing 5 new Fate cards, plus one for every copy of Gennai that you've activated.

The Ring can't be played in the middle of an action which creates a discard immediately followed by drawing or refilling your hand. Gennai's effect doesn't fit that definition, so the ruling doesn't apply to it.

Further confusing the issue is the fact that Gennai's ability is neither a trait (it is not in bold) nor an innate ability/action (it does not follow a Battle, Limited, Open, or Reaction). So ... what exactly is it?

It is a trait. Everything on a card that's not an action is a trait. It's just not a boldface, keyword trait.

Kaiu Sensei and Fortified Ground / Kaiu Sensei and Fortified Ground In-Reply-To: <200103270348.WAA02228@mail.lamere.net>

This message was originally submitted by darkangel@GCI.NET to the L5RINFO list at ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM. <L5RINFO@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

If my opponent attacks province 4 which has no fortifications attached, and I have 3 fortifications on province 1, can I play Fortified Ground in province 4 and send 3 units home? Does Kaiu Sensei consider the 3 forts in my other province in play at every province?

It lets you use actions, and benefit from traits, which are on the Fortifications as though they were there, but that's it. They don't count as being on the current Province for anything else.

Winter Warfare and rulings

Consistency? How is overriding the cards long understood operation and effect promoting consistency?

It broadens it. The idea is to have the "all effects are separate" rule apply every single time more than one thing happens. I hope you agree with me that that is also a form of consistency.

Templating for consistency is fine for future sets, but shouldn't be enforced on older cards that weren't designed under templates because then you have wacky effects like these popping up way down the road.

And that right there is one of the two big reasons the ruling is being reconsidered.

"Nothing banned, nothing restricted" - But the rulings can be a real crapshoot...

You can assert all sorts of things by taking phrases out of context. Like that Nietzsche was an atheist, or that you'd always be able to play with every L5R card you own.

I've got a copy of Inquest #28, dated August '97. Wizards will regularly stick backstock of really old issues of stuff out in the employee lounges, free for anyone who wants one. I snagged this one for the ad right in the middle of the magazine. In it is a bold picture of an Emerald Edition Crab starter deck floating over a stark white background with these words under it:

900 cards. 0 banned. 0 restricted.

It's funny how no one seems to remember a full 33% of that ad.

As one of my English teachers once said...

Nick brings up a concern I've been having. If the new owners are serious about getting a jump on L5R once things sign, why haven't they hired Jeff, placed him on retainer, or otherwise kept him working on the game and not looking for another job?

There are more things than that to consider, such as the ALWAYS-greater-than-zero chance that the deal will fall apart at the last second and my own personal choice of where I wish to live. Which isn't to say that I wouldn't enjoy working for Alderac, mind you...just that it's hardly the only thing I could possibly like, especially if it ends up not involving L5R.