Rules for 29 November 2004

Your Rules for Monday, November 29, 2004

Bowed at battle resolution

If I my entire army is bowed during battle resolution, and there is no opposing army, am I considered to have 'won' it?

No. Not without specific text that says otherwise. You must have an army on either side for the resolution of the battle to create a "Win," "Loss," or "Tie."

The same thing applies for duels - if your foe suffers an "unfortunate accident" before you compare chi totals, no one "wins" or "loses" a duel.

Aramasu's Pride from the Web of Lies previews, however, has a printed exemption that counts unopposed battles as "wins" for its - specific - effect.

Two questions

If say, Otaku is in my army, and a card in my army is destroyed by a ranged attack, does Otaku apply a ranged attack to a card opposing her, or does she destroy a card opposing her?

Otaku specifically cites the effects, "destroy," "bow," or "moved move."

You would apply the appropriate one of those 3 effects, not any other restrictions or additional effects related to them.

See also the email I forwarded to the List from Jeff Alexander on September 30th.

If an effect sends something home bowed, Otaku would just send something home.

If an effect destroyed something with a Force less than X (where X is the RA strength) Otaku would just destroy something.

If an effect bowed a card and prohibited it from straightening until its controller's next straighten phase, Otaku would just bow something.

Are regions considered to be in the battlefield, for the purposes of fulfilling relevance? I.e., targeting or destroying a region in a battlefield would, by itself, fulfill relevance?

Yes. They are considered to be cards at the battlefield, but not cards in any army (hence they can't be "opposing" or "opposed").

Shinjo Suboto

Shinjo Suboto: "Pay Suboto's Gold cost if you are not the Defender: If Suboto is face-up in one of your Provinces and will be opposed, bring him into play in the current battle." Does this technically count as "moving" him into the battle?

No. Bringing a card into play at a Battlefield is not the same as moving a card into a battlefield.

This is why you can use Essence of Gaki-do in an Ambush.

Shinjo Suboto again

If you are not the Defender, can I still bring him into play in the current battlefield by paying his gold cost?

"If you are not the defender" only refers to the condition under which you must pay Suboto's Gold Cost as a cost of the Action - nothing more.

Restoring Doji Treasury and Unicity

I wanted to know which player is able to put a chosen holding in play. It should matter in case of unique holdings (e.g. Shogun's Barrack) if both players want to bring the same one in play.

If the desired effects would conflict (putting two of the same Unique into play at once) the player whose turn it is gets to decide the order in which players select a holding and bring it into play. (Extension from page 34, Diamond Edition Rulebook)

Is Tireless Assault "performed"?

Question: is Tireless Assault considered to be "performed" by the personality? (for the purposes of Ninja Mentor, for example)

Looking at p71 of the rulebook, the only one of the criteria which seems relevant is: "3. Actions which involve one or more Personalities or Followers in their cost....or which require targetting your own Personalities or Followers who meet certain conditions, such as being a Shugenja or a Tactician or having a Chi above 2, are performed by those cards."

It would be performed by criteria #3.

You have to target a Personality.

That Personality must meet the condition of being in your home and not have been in a battle during its resolution in this attack phase.

Timing Issues

Suitengu's Surge has the sentence, "Remove the unit from the game. Return it to the game, with all attached cards and tokens, before the beginning of the next turn."

Fury of the Hida has the sentence, "Remove the Followers from the game at the end of the turn if you are not a Crab Clan player."

Is not the ... before the beginning of the next turn ... and .... the end of the turn.... the same for timing's sake?

"Effects that occur between phases or segments resolve in the order of the phase or segment they refer to. E.g., an effect occuring "after the Events Phase" resolves before one occuring "before the Action Phase." [ZF, 10 August 2001]" (Accumulated Rulings, "Timing")

Suitengu's Surge will prevent Fury of the Hida from removing the follower tokens from the game, because it returns the unit to play after Fury of the Hida tries and fails to remove the tokens from the game.

Suiteingu's Surge

The default state of cards entering play is unbowed unless they are holdings (which typically enter play bowed) or there is card text stating otherwise.

<SNIP>

Suiteingu's Surge removes a Personality and all its attached cards and tokens from the game entirely.

<SNIP>

Am I correct in expecting the unit to reenter play unbowed?

Sure. They trigger "entering play" effects as well.

Rule of Obvious Legality/Cardinal Rule -Jeff

(and yes, I know that Jeff is going to rule that she can use her ability in the discard pile - it only makes sense. That will be a ruling by fiat, however, based on designer intent and not based on the actual rules of the game and the wording of the card.)

I have covered this before. If a card tells you to use its ability only at an illegal time, then it is legal to use at that time. It's a case of the card overriding the rules, and it is directly supported by page 34, which is a very real page I did not just make up.

Herald Promo Time of legality Question

Greetings,

I got a Herald with a promo today.. It appears that the promo is Diamond bugged only. It is a cool little item card, that might fit in a few decks called Tamori's Flame.

Can somebody tell me when it will be legal.

When Web of Lies becomes legal.

Presence

But that doesn't settle the issue. The card that you are talking about is an Imperial edition card. All other MRPs have either "You may play this in a battle which you have no units" thus making the Presence issue moot or some statment making it only legal to play when you have one or more units in the battle.

Greetings,

The question at hand is, "Does Ancient Battlefield fulfil the Rule of Presence?" Yes. Precedent: Traversable Terrain (not the most recent printing, however). Under its original wording, it was used for years to slide in units in a battle where you had none.

I agree. Traversable Terrain is not a precedent. The rules of Presence and Relevance were not the same in Imperial Edition, which is the only edition of the rules where Traversable lacks the explicit exception to the Rule of Presence.

Regarding Ancient Battlefield:

Page 80 says the action meets Presence only if the gaining of a unit in the battle is an unconditional result of the action.

Examining the Glossary on page 98 reveals that the definition of "conditional" is incorrect and needs to change.

The exact wording has yet to be determined, but it will either be similar to or replace the definition of "variable". The movement of the unit into the battle IS conditional -- it is not a preordained mandatory effect of the action, but instead relies on something not determinable at the time of playing (in this case, a future player decision made when Delayed Terrains resolve).

In the interim, since the movement of the unit is conditional, the action of playing Ancient Battlefield does not meet the Rule of Presence. It is not legal if you have no units in the current battle.

That should cover everything for Monday. If I missed your question, please repost it with the flag [RULES] as part of your Clear and Distinct subject line. I'll get back to you at the first opportunity.