post for 24 July 2002

Someone in the know (Ray, Jeff, Dave)

Fill in the details please about the Invitational Tounaments at Gencon please.

They are open to the folks we've invited and to Kotei winners. There is going to be a 1-on-1 and a Team Multiplayer game. They will not affect the storyline. Is there anything else?

There is going to be a Strategic game at GenCon, too.

unicorn stronghold

The only thing that bothers me about the stronghold is the wording of "items you own" I hope it doesn't require the items to actually be in play for their focus value to be raised.

"Own" is defined in the Glossary, on p. 79. Cards are owned at all times, not just when in play, and always by the same player.

unicorn stronghold

Here's another question for you. How does this stronghold react with cards(like Blade of Truths) that look at focus values. For purposes of these cards, are those focus values equal to what is printed or what the stronghold says???

Anything that refers to a card's stat and doesn't use a term like "base" or "printed" uses its current value. [DA p. 32]

Courier

Does Courier target the personality it's leaving?

No.

Question Jeff

Jeff, Do to recent ruling on the Blade of Truths: #2: The Blade of Truths refers only to Reaction Action cards when it says "may not play Reactions". Yes, this could have been made clearer than just using the ambiguous word "play". Then the same rule would apply to Fall on Your Knees (card text below) and that it only works when someone Plays a Reaction Card?

No, because Fall On Your Knees was printed before we started paying more attention to how we used the word "play".

Rules question [Jeff]

If Asahina Kimita has a Chime of Harmony attached, and casts Asahina's Breath on herself, does she have

a) 11 Chi or b) 14 Chi

during the subsequent challenge?

14. The duel is not the very first thing to happen during the Spell's effects, so the +3C bonus would apply before Kimita adds her Chi to itself.

Togashi Genshuo one more time (Jeff)

I saw an assertion on another list that Genshuo's limitation isn't affected by Dragon Tattoo because the action gives a token, not a bonus and it is the token that gives the bonus. Perhaps it was the way this was said in that other forum, but could you clarify?

That interpretation is correct. The source of the Fire token bonuses is the tokens, not the action that created them.

post for 19 July 2002

* Go through the rulings document some time and see how many >principles are not deducible from the rulebook, the English (not to >mention French) language, and common sense.

"There's stuff in the game that doesn't make sense. Proof of this is left as an exercise to the reader. The game will be bad until it's all fixed."

This is NOT helpful. How about some examples?

Okay ... I will confine myself to the most important ones, all cut and pasted from the rulings archive. Note that there are many more rulings that appear confusing but can be resolved with careful reading of the Dark Allies rulebook, such as Matsu Hataki's infinite loop.

1. If something requires a unit to be "sent home bowed," bowing only occurs if the unit is actually sent home. Note that this is an exception to the rule that all card effects resolve seperately.

Allow me to refresh your memory on this one.

At one time, we tried to incorporate an across-the-board rule that all actions try to resolve as throughly as possible, to answer questions like "Can I cast a spell that says 'Draw three cards' when my deck only has two left?" and "Togashi Bobo says 'Togashi Bobo's Chi can't be reduced,' so am I allowed to play Evil Portents?" An example went into the rulebook involving trying to send a unit home bowed that couldn't leave battles. That example stated that since moving home from battle and bowing are two separate effects, the Personality would bow but stay in the battle.

Chaos ensued. Large numbers of players, both casual and serious, protested that interpretation. All manners of objections were lodged: "Go home bowed" is one sentence and doesn't have a comma so you can't split it up. The person who discovered that interpretation didn't play the game and therefore her conclusion was inexcusably unusable, regardless of the logic behind it. It was never that way before. Everyone "KNOWS" that's not how it works. "Going home" isn't movement (only "moving to your home" is) so it's not an effect. Etc., etc.

In the end, it was (quite accurately) pointed out that too many existing cards drastically changed in functionality under the "going home and bowing can happen separately" rule. Being immune to send-home effects, which used to be a beneficial trait given to particularly aggressive attacking cards, became a suicidal drawback. And so, amidst great cheering, "going home bowed" was made a special case in the shadow of the more widespread general rule, which genuinely was the basis of many individual rulings -- and isn't that what you want? A rulebook that contains the general principles the game's designers operate under when they answer questions?

2. 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] (related: An action creating a +X token is not considered to be an action providing a bonus to a given stat. [VRD, 26 July 2001])

4. An attached card that grants you some bonus effect when destroyed (e.g., Lesser Oni) must be destroyed directly to collect the reward. Destroying it by destroying the Personality doesn't count.

5. An effect that destroys a Personality by lowering his or her Chi to zero does not directly cause the death of the Personality. [JA, 29/30 November 2000]

Let's say you have a Personality in play with 3 Chi. I play an Evil Portents. Then I play a second. Then I play a third. He dies. Clearly, it's the SECOND Evil Portents that killed him, since he'd still be alive if I hadn't played it. Right?

Wait now. Put a Naginata on him first. Then I play all three Portents, one at a time, followed by Ninja Thief-ing his Naginata away. He dies again. Now what killed him? Ninja Thief? Ninja Thief doesn't kill people, it moves Items. Your intuitive solution that the last action played before he died is the cause of his death gets shakier.

Hang on, it gets better! Imagine he has only 1C to start. This time you give him your Celestial Sword. You have only him and one other Clanmate in play, so his total Chi is 4. I -- no, wait, YOU, for some reason -- play three Portents on my turn. Then I Kolat Master his buddy. Again, he dies. You say it's my Kolat Master that killed him? How sure are you everyone everywhere will intuit that "obvious" determination?

It's tempting in many cases to slap down an overarching "If Action X is taken and Y happens, Y is a result of Action X." It seems more intuitive in straightforward situations, but in the long run it has at least as many problems, and quite possibly more. Never mind the fact that the larger L5R's customer base is, the less we have the luxury of relying on intuition.

3. For spells that destroy themselves (or otherwise remove themselves from play), the spell's destruction is always a cost. [JA, 8 October 2000]

(A bit problematic for Isawa Suma then...)

Things like Suma are a problem when the Spell requires its own destruction regardless of whether there exists a catch-all ruling to cover for bad templating. These are two independent, though interrelated, issues.

6. A Personality's honor requirement must be met before, during, and after paying costs. [Partial Reversal]

I don't understand why you think this is unintuitive or unsupported by the rules. Generally, in L5R, you can't start doing something that's illegal at the beginning on the off chance that it will be allowed once you've finished. Or is your point that this general guideline isn't mentioned?

7. If a card is used to pay the cost of an Imperial Favor effect (e.g., Acquiring Favor), it is considered a use of the Favor in all ways. [VRD, 28 December 2001]

Again, are you saying this is unnatural or pointing out its absence from the rulebook?

Anyway, the situation is not as terrible as I'd originally thought, but as the rulebook generally tends to be updated following significant rulings I thought I would call attention to those that were missed. Card templating, perhaps, is the more serious ongoing issue.

"Templating is a serious issue." That's what I like about you, Roger. You're so precise. :) Seriously, a hint where to start would be very much appreciated.