Rules for 28 June 2004

Your Rules for Monday, June 28, 2004

Hida Yakomo (Oni)/Overconfidence

A player has out five Crab personalities and brings into play Hida Yakomo (Oni). Can I overconfidence the oni since he gain six force

No. Hida Yakamo (Oni) gives himself a bunch of individual bonuses that are all too small to overconfidence.

A Clan Sword does this TO ITSELF as well. However, the Sword is an ITEM. It can not be target with Overconfidence anyway. Now the PERSONALITY holding the Sword gets - one - bonus from that item. That bonus may well be big enough to warrant Overconfidence.

While it might be convenient short-hand to refer to the stat-change resulting from Yakomo Oni's trait as a "Clan Sword," the mechanics of the bonuses are NOT the same just because the end result looks similar.

Hida Yakomo

(Oni)/Overconfidence

Okay, that seems contrary to a recent ruling posted on this board that the honor gains come in pieces and the first one would rehonor any dishonored peeps at the battle and the winner gets the rest. I didn't like it then, but thought maybe it had changed so I kept my mouth shut. Clearly the rulebook says otherwise. It would not be the first time....

Who said that, where, and when?

The Honor gain from the Rulebook for destroying a losing Army during Battle Resolution is always a lump-sum gain. (As per pg 84 of the Diamond Edition Rulebook)

The Honor gain from the Card Effect of Field of Glorious Slaughter, on the other hand, is always a bunch of individual gains from each destruction. It will also typically trigger before the Honor Gain from Battle Resolution, as you destroy cards first as a (triggering Field) then you gain honor as another effect based on how many cards were actually destroyed (after Field of Glorious Slaughter has resolved its triggers).

Kuro's Fire/Flee the Darkness and Ambush/Tireless Assault

First, about Kuro's Fire : - I have resolved Norikazu's ravings ; my opponent casts KF, and i react with Flee the Darkness ; is KF destroyed ?

Well, whether or not Kuro's Fire is considered "cast" will depend on when you cast Flee the Darkness.

With Consecutive Ranged Attacks, all Ranged Attacks after the first have to wait for the one before them to resolve before you select targets. If you Flee during the Choose Targets step, then you'd Cancel Kuro's Fire before it was considered "cast." You could, however, wait until the first Ranged Attack had resolved, and cast Flee the Darkness when one of the subsequent Ranged Attacks was targeted to cancel it during the Resolve Effects step.

Oddly enough, there is an old Ruling on the books for Norikazu's Ravings:

"The spell's effects on itself (e.g., self-destruction) occur first. Norikazu's Ravings take effects after the entire casting if the spell is still there. [Card text, 13 July 1999]" (Accumulated Rulings, Norikazu's Ravings)

I'm not sure if that ruling still applies with the current definitions of "casting" and "cast." I'll ask Jeff what he wants to do with it - designer intent, literal meaning, or what have you.

By the literal reading, though, the Spell is considered "cast" immediately after the "Pay Costs" step ends, before any effects of the Action resolve. Kuro's Fire would get destroyed before the Resolution Step, but if you canceled it during the Targeting Step, it wouldn't ever be "cast" to trigger Norikazu's Ravings.

- My opponent has Agasha Chieh with Kuro's Fire in play, as well as a Ring of Air ; he casts KF, i react with Flee ; can he straighten Chieh with the Ring of Air ?

Chieh is still bowing to pay the cost of casting the Spell, so he can straighten Chieh with the Ring. All the Ring cares about is why she bowed, not that she was successful.

My opponent targets a bowed personality in my home with Ambush ; once Ambush begins to resolve, is that personality still considered in my home ? If the answer is yes, i guess i could straighten it with Tireless Assault ?

"Units in this battle are neither at a Province nor at home." - Card Text, 3rd sentence.

Non token Creation

I recently had a discussion with friends about Ratling Raiders. The card states that it creates "2 ratling personality card...", these cards are not specified as token.

Ergo, they are not tokens. The cards aren't trying to fool you.

Thus, I wanted to know, if you can create non token cards, that goes to the discard pile, get feign-ed, and everything else.

They are cards. They behave just like every other card.

Nothing semms to prevent it, however, it seems quite non-intuitive.

Non-intuitive? Nothing about tokens is intuitive. All those rules are completely arbitrary - made-up to suit the game's need of them.

I don't think it is non-intuitive, so much as it runs counter to previously held assumptions and experiences - like most new discoveries and inventions. "If it isn't a piece of cardboard, it must be a token!" is a faulty assumption, rather than a logical conclusion.

Kuon xp3 and Strike at the Tail clarification

I believe what he was asking here about Kuon is whether or not Kuon can initiate his action.

Oh, you mean without any opposing players? Sure he can. His Action doesn't target or anything. You pay the cost and generate the effect, which in this case wouldn't be much of an effect.

It is my understanding from Jeff is that irrelevant of what 4 additional cards I have, and even if he is unopposed, with Kuon xp3 I can dicard 4 fate cards as 4 seperate battle actions and then play the ring of water.

Sure you can. Actions don't have to produce any useful effects (or effects at all) to still be taken. All you need to do is meet targeting requirements, pay costs, and resolve effects without getting canceled.

I'll toss Jeff's reply in here, just to be tidy.

Legality - Danjuro

Ok, ok... I've got a new problem with the recent rule from Jeff.

This is not a recent rule. It's as old as L5R. It has been there in one form or another since Imperial Edition:

"If a Reaction redirects, nullifies or alters the attributes of the target of the interrupted action so that the target no longer meets the targeting requirements of the interrupted action, the interrupted action will have no effect on the targeted card." [Imperial Edition rulebook p. 39 - NOT A CURRENT WORDING]

The simplification to its current form occurred sometime in the Hidden Emperor timeframe.

All I've done recently is clarify this rule on two points: it applies if a target becomes illegal for any reason (not just due to a Reaction), and it only applies if a target becomes illegal before the action that targeted it begins resolving. The latter ruling, by the way, is how this rule has always been interpreted when it has come under discussion in the past. But it hasn't been at the forefront of discussion for years.

Suppose there is a card that state following : "Target an opposing unbowed personality to destroy it". Something really broken isn't it ^^.

What if I redirect it with Danjuro, since he's getting bowed between being targeted and before the actions begins to resolve, he's no more legal, and >he can't be destroyed, right ?

Danjuro does not work on this hypothetical action. The way you word it, the targeting is a cost ("Target an opposing unbowed personality TO ..."). Costs cannot be redirected. [DE p. 74]

Now, suppose the action states like that : "destroy and opposing unbowed personality".

I believe, that, since Danjuro he's getting bowed between he's chosen as a target and before the action begin to continue its resolution (which was interrupted by danjuro), he won't be destroyed either?

Am I right ?

You are right.

That should cover all the questions from Monday, June 28, 2004. If I missed your question, please repost it with the flag [RULES] in the subject line and I'll get back to you at the first opportunity.