Rules for 18 January 2005

Your Rules for Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Gukochi vs. Overconfidence

My unbowed Mirumoto Gukochi wins a duel during battle. He uses his Reaction adding his 3C to his unit’s total Force.

If my Mirumoto Gukochi has attached a bowed Spearmen, explain me the current Force stats for each card and whole unit: - Current Force of Gukochi (I am not sure) - Current Force of Spearmen (I expect 2F) - Current Force of Unit (I expect 6F)

Can my opponent play an Overconfidence on him after Gukochi used his Reaction?

No. Gukochi doesn't say that he adds his Chi to HIS Force - just the Force of his UNIT.

Current Force of Gukochi - 3F Current Force of Spearmen - 2F Crurent Force of Unit - 8F

Gukochi contributes 6F to the Unit thanks to his ability, 3 from his 3F, and 3 from his 3C.

His card, however, does not have 6F. It has 3F.

Tangen Sensei vs Underhand Reaction

I have a Motomu and a Osamito, YT Tangen Sensei. My opponent plays Underhand Wind, and have Nizomi on play.

I declare attack. My opponent targets Motomu with Underhand's Reaction. Can I redirect it to Osamito with Tangen Sensei?

Tangen Sensei: Reaction: After an action targets a card you control during an Attack Phase: Once per battle, redirect the action.

It wouldn't work. You can only use Tangen Sensei's ability when you have a distinct battle to apply the "once per battle" clause against. This would typically be the Battle Action and Battle Resolution segments of that given battle. It would not work during Declaration, with is when the Underhand of the Emperor is used.

Cards you own

Effects Effects applying to all cards "in the game" or cards you "own" affect cards in decks. [JA, 18 December 2001]

I'd rather people quote the rulebook than the archives when the answer is in the former.

You own a card if it was in the deck you brought to the table, regardless of whether it is currently in play or who controls it. Created cards and tokens are owned by the player that created them. [DE p. 102]

Paneki Exp. 2

If I use Paneki to play a card from my opponent's hand other than an action card (such as a Ring of Water or a follower that can attach during battle), is the card discarded? I ask because Paneki says "It discards to its owner's discard pile", but what happens if the card isn't discarded at all?

Does he force it to be discarded, or can it remain in play?

It doesn't force the discard, only tells you which pile that card must go to when it would normally go to the discard pile. Without that clause, cards played from another player's hand would go to Paneki's controller's Discard Pile, rather than the that of the card's owner.

Does paying costs target?

If I have to chose which personality pays a cost for an action, am I targetting the personality?

For cards printed prior to Dawn of the Empire, yes. Choices cause targeting by the old Diamond Edition rules. (Web of Lies Rulesheet)

I bring several tacticians into a battle with Matsu Mieko, and thus cards I own cannot target them.

I later play Rain of Death. Will activating any of the actions in Rain of Death target the performing tactician?

Nope. It is printed after Dawn of the Empire and does not explicitly target the performing Tactician.

use of explosives

we recently had question come up at a match,wondering if explosives can be used on fortification's or not,as the card is counted as a holding but attached to a province. thank for the groups help.

Explosives says, "Limited: Destroy a Holding."

Fortifications are holdings.

I don't see any rules-related problems with blowing them up.

Fwd from Jeff -Doji Konishiko and Konetsu

Here you go folks.

- Marty Lund Deputy Rules Monkey

Rules Question -Doji Konishiko and Konetsu

Jeff,

When you use Konishiko's Reaction to gain the ability of a Political Action on a card, do the once-per-turn restriction and bowing effect become part of the copied ability itself, or are they separate on-going effects.

<SNIP>

They modify the action itself.

The Fortune's Smile questions and "printed" trait removal

Does the 2 honor gain from The Fortune’s Smile “involve” the dueling personally? If The Fortune’s Smile is revealed in a duel with a dishonored personally, will The Fortune’s Smile rehonor the personally? Does the 2 honor come before, during or after the results of the duel?

An effect of a card that Personality used as a Focus in a duel is good enough to be "involved."

It comes before the results of the duel. It says to gain the honor when it is revealed, which is before you compare totals.

If Kenson Gakka is my stronghold, and I use Mirotai's ability. During the following attack, is he considered to have the printed Tactician trait for satisfying the "formed by requirments" for Rain of Death? If I'm not using Kenson Gakka?

No -- he's lost the trait.

Is this true? If a personality “loses” a trait or ability, are they considered to NOT have the “printed” instance of that trait or ability?

The printed card is not changed unless the effect text specifically says it changes the "printed" status of the card.

Losing the Tactician trait to Mirotai's ability does not change his status as a having the - printed - Tactician trait.

So sayeth the Jeff.

Kan'Chek

Hey folks,

Another example of poor template writing.

Kan'Chek says

" Kan'chek may cast Kihos in any discard pile as if they were in your hand. Kan'chek may cast Spells in any discard pile as if they were attached to him, except those whose costs would remove the Spell from play. Remove any card that he casts these ways from the game, after it resolves."

The phrase "remove from play" used to be the same as "remove from the game." Examples of spells/kiho's that do this after being used include "Sezaru's Gift" or Rise from the Ashes.

"Discard from play" used to mean "remove from the game". It was so confusing and unintuitive that we stopped using it four years ago. The last cards on which that phrase appears were printed in Spirit Wars. Notice that Sezaru's Gift has the actual phrase "remove this card from the game", as does the Diamond MRP of Bronze Lantern.

When an ordinary spell is used the phrase is "destroy this spell."

Usually. If the Spell has balance issues when combined with effects that recycle destroyed Spells, it gets something else like "remove from the game" that doesn't combo. It's still an example of leaving play, though.

Here is my point. These two phrases are different, but has their been a ruling that "remove from play" means the same as "destroy this spell" or does it mean the same as "remove from the game"?

"Removed from play" is completely generic and means only what it says. It refers to any method of going from in play to anywhere else, and includes destruction, discarding, removal from the game, return to a Province or hand, reshuffling into a deck, and so on. No cards instruct you to "remove a card from play" because there isn't enough information given -- where does it go? The phrase is only used as a trigger. Note that when Kan'chek does instruct you to do something to the Spell card, he says "remove [it] from the game", which does have a destination.

If it is the former, then Kan'Chek is merely okay. If it is the latter, then Kan'Chek can basically duplicate practically any spell after it has been used once by anyone (with some very small exceptions) and he is utterly broken.

Can anyone let me know which way this has been ruled?

Kan'chek can basically duplicate practically any Spell after it has been used once by anyone, with the exception of ones that require destroying, discarding, etc. the Spell itself as part of its casting cost. And although he's undeniably a very strong Personality, "utterly broken" is kind of stretching it.

That should cover everything from Tuesday, January 18, 2005. 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.