Rules for July 27th

Hi folks! To those of you on the Darkedge list, I know that Zen already hit some of these questions, but I'm double covering to make sure that all the people on one list or the other get all the answers.

Isawa Taeruko now reads "..paying all costs.".

Great Walls of Kaiu reduces fortifications by 4.

Would Isawa Taeruko make a Kaiu player's PPGs, when fetched with Taeruko, 5G, or 1G?

1g. Her statement about paying all costs does't specifically override any other modifications, so she just makes you pay whatever you would have if you were buying the Fortification normally.

Does Taeruko override Kaiu Walls(ala Fantastic Gardens/Kosaten)?

No. Kosaten Shiro specifically says that no other modifications will apply to the cost of the holding. Taeruko just has a note about paying all costs, something that probbly wouldn't be there if she hadn't had a previous version that reduced costs.

Checking the rules I've noticed that, after the last battle, Counterattack may be played before Rallying Cry. This means the attacker units are still unbowed!

You mean bowed, right? Yes, Counterattack is now played before Rallying Cry at the last battle. If the attacker chooses to resolve their battle last, they should be prepared for a really bad situation.

But, that's not the problem. The point is... when do attacking units bow? after all reactions have been played?

Attacking units bow at the end of the Resolution segment. For a split second, they're bowed while the attacker waits for all other players to react to the end of the resolution phase of the battle that just ended. Then, the attacker can play a Rallying Cry, and the units are straightened retroactively, as if they had never bowed.

Does this mean that the Attacking units in the last battle will always be unbowed against a Counterattack?

No, they'll be bowed. Resolve your battles first.

Does this mean this has happened since the beginning and we've been playing wrong for years?

No. The rules for Reacting to game events changed with Gold. Before, the active player (usually the attacker) got to react to game events first, and then the chance to React went to his left. Now, anything that happens during the active players turn is reacted to first by the player on his left. It's a simpler general rule, but the change is causing some significant upheavals.

It's in the Rules Archive that "May not play an Ancestral Sword if there is a player of that Clan". The honor loss doesn't comes from the action of attaching but from the Sword itself, which is an item. Why can't Horde Players play a Phoenix Sword against a Phoenix player?

We have the following statement: "Can play actions that kill a Personality who is dishonored or who causes an honor loss when destroyed (e.g., Oni no Pekkle), because the honor loss is not written as part of the action. [Summary of other rulings, ZF, 13 May 2001] "

Isn't it the same case than the Pekkle's?

No. Killing a Pekkle causes an honor loss that had nothing to do with the card that you played from your hand. When you play a Sword, the Sword itself generates an honor loss. That's part of the attachment action.

Well, you can say that the honor loss comes when attaching the Sword so the action will cause the honor loss (smart rules?). How about the following revision then? : " a.. Attaching an Item or Follower that gives "+X" to a stat is not an action giving a force bonus. The force bonus comes directly from the attached card, not the action. [REVERSAL, JA, 5 July 2001] "

With the Overconfidence reversal, it looks like Horde players should be able to play Swords of all Clans, regardless of the type of players in the game. If an attachment action no longer carries with it the 'traits' of the result (i.e., attaching a No-Dachi doesn't count as giving a force bonus), I can't see why playing an Ancestral Sword should still count as an action that generates an honor loss.

Yes, but the only one of those that's new in Gold is Test of Courage. Also note that all this stuff about protection from Stand due to targeting goes out the window if he has more personalities with followers than you do personalities in your army. In that case, Stand is *not* targeted, and all of your guys (even those with targeting protection) without followers are bowed.

May I ask why? I thought that if an action targeted, it _always_ targeted, regardless of the circumstances.

I don't think that's true anymore. With Gold, we have very clear definitions of what defines targeting. It's very clearly possible for an action to sometimes fulfill one of the rules of targeting, and at other times, not fulfill any at all. For instance, to use Stand Against the Waves as an example, we have:

Battle: Your opponent must bow as many Personalities in his or her army who have no Followers as you have units in your army. If he or she cannot do so, bow all opposing Personalities without Followers.

The second, conditional effect of the card is *clearly* not targeted (Rule 3), but the first effect clearly is targeted. I think, with the clear definition of targeting in Gold, it's possible now to determine at point of play whether or not an action is targeted, especially considering the cover all effect of Rule 4.

The person may decline the challange by taking a 7 honor hit. It is part of the cost to decline. If he refuses to take the 7 honor hit, he can not decline the challange.

Big deal. Take the hit. Wind's Truth half of it to your opponent. Soul of Goshiu the rest of it to your opponent. Smile.

Sorry, no can do. Even with the MRP, you still have to Wind's Truth *all* of a gain/loss or *none* of it. You can't use the card to subdivide honor gains and losses.

If I have a unit with a shugenja and a Spearmen (for example)... Can I combine the ranged attack from the spearmen with a kiho casted by the shugenja that makes a ranged attack (The Wrath of Osano-Wo for example).

Sure.

This is a question regarding cards which grant a force bonus compared to cards which have force themselves:

The Gold Edition Rulebook shows the following cards have an attribute known as "Force" in their top-left box.

Followers Personalities Ancestors

And the following have an attribute known as "Force Bonus" in their top-left box:

Weapons

What I'd like to know is if Force Bonuses are distinct from Force itself.

Yes.

If yes, than why do Ancestors have Force as opposed to force bonuses?

All the Ancestors I've seen give force bonuses. You're looking at the rulebook too hard. Regardless of the card type descriptions in the rulebook, it's a case by case determination to see if a card grants a force bonus or has seperate force. If the attached card has a +X Force, it *always* adds directly to the personality. This is true even for Followers, which are listed in the GE rulebook as having Force. The specific case overrides the general. It's possible for an Ancestor to have direct Force instead of giving a bonus, but it hasn't happened yet (as far as I know).

If no, does this mean when cards require me to destroy force, I can count my Ono for 2 force, and the personality it is attached to as base + 2 force, getting double effect out of my Ono?

Probably not. I assume that you're talking about To the Last Man, so I'll use that as an example. In that situation, you could destroy the Ono, but then you wouldn't get the 2f that you used to have when it was atttached.

I'd think that Force Bonus and Force would be distinct, reserved game terms, much like Battle and Battle Action, but still, a clarification would be nice.

Something with a +X always adds directly to its attached personality. Something that just has an X adds only to unit force. Anything that targets one of these cards with either value and references Force will use either value equally well. If you have specific interaction questions, bring 'em up, and we'll see how well this holds up.

Does the Battle ability of the [Warrens of the Nezumi] Stronghold mean that ratling followers can bow and destroy themselves to destroy a follower?

Exactly.

Yojiro's ability includes the sentence "This is not considered an Honour gain." Does this mean it is or isn't affected by In Time of War, which uses the word "rise"? Is this just semantics, or is the difference intentional?

I don't think the difference was intentional, but it is significant. Yojiro's ability is not a gain, but it *will* be capped by In Time of War, which doesn't care about the nature of the increase, only the increase itself.

Presumably, Yojiro's ability in unaffected by Deeds, Not Words and Loss of Face. Correct?

True on both of those counts.

I saw the recent ruling regarding attaching items with force bonuses, in regards to Overconfidence.

My question is: Would the same rule apply to force bonus tokens? Specifically, I'm thinking of Togashi Genshou/Hitomi Juppun with a Dragon Tattoo. Does he get the force from the tokens?

Yes. Attachment actions appear to no longer give bonuses or penalties in and of themselves. Dragon Tattoo attaches tokens. What those tokens do appears to be irrelevant.