Rules for 7 July 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,
Hiruma dojo and a trageting Q
can [I] bow [Hiruma Dojo] to lower the cost of a Samurai before bowing another holding to produce the cost, thus effectively pay for a 4G Samurai with only the HD?
Yes, if I understand your question. You mention two holdings, then talk about using only the Hiruma Dojo...
when a card targets a unit, it does not target a pepp, and can't be canceled with the Asako Towers, right?
Pepp?
If you mean Personality, wrong. Dark Allies rules, page 47, top of page in italics.
question about a ruling
Combining two posts here...
I am using Legendary as my source for card text, and for errata, if there's a better one, please let me know.
For errata, please consult the Rules Archive directly at:
Kakita Atoshi. Why is it ruled that way? It seems to be in direct contradiction to what the card actually says.
Because the interaction with Diplomatic Apprentice was unexpected. Consider it an erratum if it makes you happy.
I am questioning the approach. That seems to be the wrong way to solve the problem. Would it not be better to issue erratum (MRP, what-have-you) for the offending card, than to make a ruling that directly contradict the card text?
I'm not sure how this improves anything. Ruling or erratum, in either case, you have to look at the Archive for a line of text that says, "This is how the card works." "A rose by any other name," and all.
Using the Most recent printing rule has the drawback that it requires printing the card again, which only happens after a long delay. The game can be badly damaged in the meantime by out-of-whack cards.
the amount of rulings (that I've seen on the net, or been a witness to) that contradicted the card text astounded me.
How many cards are you referring to? Besides Atoshi, there's Emperor's Underhand. I can't think of too many others in the Gold legal pool. Considering the number of cards released, the number of errata are small.
Also, by "been a witness to," do you mean at tournaments? Because I can't help you there. Judges making rulings on the spot will make errors.
It's gotten to the point that even for the cards that are not even out yet, people are afraid to apply the rules of the game, to arrive to a solution; the perfect example being Corruption's Price.
It only took people a day or so to reach a consensus. That's not bad for people working in bits and pieces, probably often without rulebooks, etc. Other rules debates have gone on a lot longer.
Cost Reductions
Is there a hard and fast rule for all of the cards/effects/strongholds that have cost reductions for cards, are they permanently reduced in cost or do the revert to there origonal cost at the end of the turn.
The rule is: read the text of each individual card or stronghold carefully.
Tip: Effects referring to cards you "own" or "control" are generally permanent, the rest are generally not. (I won't swear this works in all cases, especially with older card text)
Ambush Strategist + Fox Nagamaki
Does Ambush Strategist affect Fox Nagamaki to make it a +4 Force bonus that remains in effect even after it is bowed to produce its Ranged 3 attack?
See Archive: "Gives a Force bonus to items capable of ranged attacks (e.g., Jade Bow). [VRD, 27 October 2000]"