Rules for 24 July 2004

Your Rules for Saturday, July 24, 2004

Kyuden Ikoma

Using the same logic that says you can't necessarily Sup Strat for a Formation, if I cancel a Formation being played with Kyuden Ikoma, my opponent doesn't get the Formation back after the battle, right?

They are "played as a Battle Action," so you can cancel playing one with Kyuden Ikoma. They are also Action Cards (note the red border), so they will go back to your hand.

They are not, however, all cards "with a Battle or Open action." That is determined strictly on the basis of what text is printed on the card.

Archive update

Greetings,

I've just updated the Archive. I normally don't mention this, but with the Setai Sensei preview out, Jeff A. mentioned that te ruling on what is considered "attached" changed. I meant to get this up before the preview card was out, but there's a lot of previews to track. Anyway, Jeff said the ruling was going to change, but not what it would change to. The new entry is:

"Personalities are not attached to other cards in their unit."

Zen Faulkes! * Crab Clan Scholar * Unaligned Archivist

Question: Warrens of Nezumi and Are You With Me?

Can the combination of Warrens and Are You With Me? (or the Emerald Armor) allow ratling followers to cost zero? Can you apply the "cost 1 less" after the "minimum of 1"?

No. The effect of the Warrens of the Nezumi was in effect long before Are You With Me resolved. The effects apply in the order they were introduced to play

switching stats & penalties

so if i have a 1/1 personality with a +0/+1 weapon. then he gets his force and chi switched. then he gets his weapon destroyed. does he then die from having zero chi?

Yes. The Switch effect gave him +1F, -1C. That -1C is still in effect, so if his +1C bonus goes away, he total chi is calculated as such:

1C (base) -1c (switch effect) 0c (final total)

Death Ensues.

Opposing formations

Well rules on what happens to formations when played are rather unclear. The very question is : is a formation part of an army

The formation is not a part of or "in" an army. It is associated with the Army, but it is not a Card in that Army.

Direct Assault

here's the situation. my opponent used direct assault and proceeded to wipe out my army. i no longer controlled opposing cards. however, the TO ruled that I was still considered "an opposing player" despite no longer controlling any cards in that battle, which allowed him to wipe out my holdings with the rest of his unbowed units. Was this ruling in error?

Yes. The Ruling was in error. "An opposing player" is a player with units in an Army opposing the other player's Army. "The opposing player" is the Attacker or Defender, depending on which side the person playing the card in question is on.

An Attacking or Defending Ally can be "an opposing player" but never "the opposing player."

The Attacker or Defender is always, "the opposing player," but when lacking any units at the battle will not qualify as "an opposing player."

That looks like everything not related to Wrath for Saturday. If I missed your question, please repost it with the flag [RULES] in a clear and distinct subject line and I'll get back to your at the first opportunity.