Rules for 29 July 2004

Sorry for the delay on these posts, folk. I've been pulling extra duty at my professional gig, and I've also got a wife at home. You know how it is - you can't really cut time out of either of those things without taking your life into your hands. Anyway, on to your Rules for Thursday, July 29, 2004

Bonuses and Penalties

Situation: Player A has Nobuyoki and Yajinden out. Yajinden has an Inazuma Blade equipped. Tamori bows to reduce the Inazuma Blade from a +3 to a +0 thus giving Yajinden a loss of 3 Chi (as per previous official rulings regarding loss of Chi from weapons on this forum)

Incorrect. Refer to the Diamond Edition Rulebook, page 62:

"Any time the current number on a card changes from one value to a higher value, that number is receiving a 'bonus' - unless the reason for the increase is that a penalty expired or an existing penalty or bonus changed. Likewise, if a number decreases, it's receiving a 'penalty.'"

Yajinden's chi is being reduced because the existing +3 Bonus from Inazuma Blade has been changed. As noted above, this - does not - qualify as a Chi Penalty to Yajinden. The Inazuma Blade sure got a penalty, but not the personality.

Question

Is receiving -X Chi tokens considered a Chi penalty or they only *give* a Chi penalty to their Personality? If an action negates such a penalty, what happens to the token?

Giving someone a Token that happens to inflict a penalty is not the exact same thing as giving someone a penalty directly. If a Token has an effect that it generates Negated or Redirected, the Token stays where it is, even though its generated effect (in this case -1C) is going somewhere else.

If stays in place, what happens to the penalty itself? Is it permanently negated or the effect wears down at the end of the turn, the penalty thus reappearing?

The penalty is Negated for as long as the Negating Effect specifies it goes on for. If unspecified, the "until the end of the turn" duration is the default.

In Search of the Future Question

Comments Below:

Marty Well wasn't in the past when a card was played as a battle action it was considered in play for that battle. It had something to do with an action card being put into play, when played.

[MARTY] The Action Card may be in play temporarily, but it is not considered to be in / at the battle / Army. The only Action Cards that do that with themselves are Terrains and Formations.

Otherwise you could play targeted Actions from your hand during a battle at Province A that only targeted and affected cards and Province B. You can't - and that's the whole point of Relevance.

The Rules of Relavence are 1. It comes from a card or token in battle.

[MARTY] Fails #1 - In Search is not "in the battle."

2. It moves or creates a token in battle.

[MARTY] Fails #2 - no movement or creation effects.

3. It targets or directly affects a card or token in the battle, the province under attack, or the battle itself.

[MARTY] And it Fails #3 - unless there is an actual bonus in the battle that it will alter.

Otherwise you could say you can not play it at all on the defensive if no attacking cards have force bonuses in the battle.

[MARTY] Barring your own army having Force Bonuses it could affect, you're exactly right. It doesn't fulfill Relevance, so you can't play it, just like a slew of other Actions (mostly Opens) under the right circumstances. Ikoma Technique and Shiba Technique have the same issue: Nothing to affect = no Relevance.

Like if somebody plays in search when they see the opponent has an ancestral sword in the battle and thinks it effects the battle. The person can not play the card, because they are wrong, and must put it back in their hand..or even better is disqualified for making an illegal move. (Sarcastic extreme)

[MARTY] They made an illegal play. Just fix it and move on. Stuff like that happens all the time. I tried to send home James's courtier with Refugees on the attack one time before I manufactured my Gaki-do Tokens. He correct me. Though I tasted the bitter sting of public humilitation, the world did not come to an end. ;-)

If the player makes a habit of trying to make illegal plays, inform your judge so he can determine whether the player is trying to cheat.

And anyway, this way is actually a lot less harsh for the player making a mistake. Playing In Search under the incorrect interpretation against a Clan Sword would still not negate the bonus AND cost that player his Action and opportunity to play or pass. That's a far worse punishment than correcting them and forcing them to do something else or pass.

- Marty Lund Deputy Rules Monkey

Hey! Deputy Rules Monkey!

Yo!

I don't know if anyone's answered this question yet; I haven't seen it anywhere. With Heart of a Hero, is the individual force bonus increased permanently on the card, based upon the wording? Or is it a one shot only deal for printed actions that grant them?

Heart of a Hero only affects Bonuses - which are Effects, not Actions. It won't change the ability on Razor's Edge Dojo, for instance. It will only change the Bonus Effect created by that ability when you use it during a Battle after Heart of a Hero is played.

So any given Bonus becomes increased for the life of the bonus, but the ability itself is not changed. If you used RED last turn with Heart of a Hero for +4 Force per crab, and this turn you use RED again with no Heart of a Hero before the play it would give your Crabs +1F, not +4F - because this is a new bonus effect.

RULES Trait question.

How is it conditional on being legal? That's what the Cardinal Rule is all about.

Now, I know exactly how Jeff is going to rule on this, but if a card says "If X, Do Y" and Y is not a legal action, the Cardinal Rule says to do Y even if it is not a legal action.

The Cardinal Rule does not say to do Y under all situations. The Cardinal Rule says to do Y anyway only if it is, by its nature, against the rules of the game. It's the reason a card that says

"Limited: Remove a Personality from the game."

cannot target a Personality in a discard pile, but one that says

"Limited: Remove an Honorably Dead Personality from the game."

can.

-- Jeff Alexander Lead Designer, L5R CCG Alderac Entertainment Group

Same Old Tricks

Then why is it that Bayushi Kamnan exp can target cards not in play? He does not have text that explicitlly allows him to.

Limited: Once per turn, permanently lose two Chi to look at up to four face-down cards. You may then pay 2 Gold to discard one.

There's a rule that lets him. DE rulebook p. 73:

"An effect that targets a face-down card may target any such card, including one not in play."

-- Jeff Alexander Lead Designer, L5R CCG Alderac Entertainment Group

RULES Trait question.

Is Lesser Shrine destroyed if it is in your Dynasty deck, and you take an action that cause an honor loss?

No. "Destruction" is an effect that can only apply to something in play.

-- Jeff Alexander Lead Designer, L5R CCG Alderac Entertainment Group

In Search of the Future Question

Since when? That rule hasn't been in the rulebook, the archive, or anywhere else that I'm aware of until right this moment. Other than simply saying, "That's the way that we want it," what precedent is there for this ruling?

We have consistently used that phrase to signify that an action need not meet the Rule of Presence, and only that. After a quick scan, I see it as far back as Obsidian Edition and Dark Allies.

Or, more importantly, what *need* is there for this ruling?

The need is to prevent potentially dozens of cards from randomly increasing in power due to changes in the rules governing their use from those understood when the cards were designed and worded.

The only thing that this question has revealed, in my mind, is a need to reword In Search and cards like it so that they specifically say that they overright the Rule of Presence.

That's a fair assessment. Before the Rule of Presence had a formal name in the rulebook, there was no way to do this. Once it got a name, we chose to retain the existing phrase for consistency. It was a tradeoff.

In any event, Marty's ruling stands.

Or maybe, "You may play this card as if you had a unit in this battle."

It's even less text-intensive than: You may play this card during a battle in which you have no Units.

But it implies there actually is a unit there, meaning you can target it, or you opponent can redirect your action to it, and cards whose effects depend on whether they're opposed or how large an army is present.

Better would be

"You may play this card even if you have no units in the current battle."

which explicitly addresses one particular condition that would make it illegal (having no units) withou making a global "this action is legal" statement.

Twisted Forest

1. My opponent has declared his attack against me, and we're currently resolving the battle at one of my provinces. Neither my opponent nor I have units at that battle. Can I play Twisted Forest?

Putting a Terrain into play at the current battle will satisfy Relevance.

OK, that looks like all the non-Wrath rulings plus some info from Jeff to boot. If I missed your non-Wrath question and Jeff wasn't able to help you out either, please repost it with the flag [RULES] in a clear and distinct subject line. I'll get back to you at the first opportunity.