Rules for 27 May 2002
A rules digest from the L5R CCG rules team, copied from the mailing list archive for Oracle of the Void. The askers' names are left out. Rulings are as they stood on this date; later rulings, the rulebooks and the Rules Archive may differ.
Greetings,
Agasha Haminari question.
[Agasha Hamanari and Night Battle]
He tries to destroy the terrain using Sup Tacs I bow [Hamanari] to cancel the sup tacs, was my move legal or did he have to use deversionary tactics.
It's legal (provided that your opponent's Superior Tactics is targeting one of *your* cards; i.e., your terrain). If you have a Shugenja in the battle (i.e., Hamanari), you can take any action you want under Night Battle.
I'm not sure why you think there would be a difference between Superior Tactics and Diversionary Tactics here.
One Life, One Action
If my opponent challenges Hamanari to a duel, may I bow him to cancel the action, then use One Life, One Action on the card[?]
See Dark Allies rulebook, pg. 45: A canceled action was never taken. One Life, One Action cannot be used.
How about with regards to the Ancient Halls of the Lion after a terrain has had its effects negated? Can One Life, One Action be used then?
Yes. The terrain resolved, even though it didn't do anything.
[I]f Akodo Tadenori attacked a province with the Shadowlands Marsh on it, he would orginially be 0F, as usual. The attack chooses to tactician a 4. Would Tadenori's force be 4, or would it be 2[?]
See Dark Allies rulebook, pages 31 (rule), 32 (example in bold): 2.
Whistling Bulb Arrow Rules Question
Can Mukami/Nobumoto use a Whistling Bulb Arrow effectivley[?]
Sure.
:;;;;
To the official rules folks...
I would like to officially voice an opinion that I think there should be some sort of 'Mulligan Rule' in effect for L5R.
From one of Jeff Alexander's posts, archived at Deathseeker, http://www.deathseeker.com/article.pl?sid=2001/05/23/024045&mode=thread
"[Y]ou already HAVE a mulligan in L5R. You start the game with a gold source in play. It's your Stronghold. I'd much rather solutions be based around that. That's one of the reasons it's there, after all: so you can afford to do something from the very start of the game."
Could those of you discussing "Mulligans" please change your subject heading from "To the official rules folks..." to something more informative?
Rules for 24 May 2002
Please note: I am not saying Zen is wrong. I recognize that he is a rules guy and I am not.
But I am a Rules Guy who will listen to reasoned arguments. I have been known to change my mind, and even say flat out, "I was wrong." :)
I just don't like illogical rulings.
Neither do I. Unfortunately, written English that is short enough to fit on a card is not precise enough to allow for an infallible logical analysis. (A game *that* logically precise would look like computer code, and would probably be about as much fun to play as re-writing the Linux kernel.)
I don't want to comment any further on the specific matter at hand, because it was originally Jeff's ruling, which I can't override.