(Message jeffa:292)
Subj: Re: [L5RINFO] Rules for 21-24 November
From: Jeff Alexander <jwa0@EARTHLINK.NET>

  To: L5RINFO@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 15:46:43 PST
X-Accept-Language: ja
-- /blue/homes/cowell/Mail/mhl.format --

>From:    Zen Faulkes <zfaulkes@PLANET.NET.AU>
>Subject: Rules for 21 November 1999
>
>Subject: Re: Rules for 20 November 1999
>From: Gary Kirby <Kirbdog53@AOL.COM>
>
>> Q: When is a member of your clan not a member of your clan?
>> A: When you use the Ratling or Kolat Sensei. Go figure that out.
>
>Q: Who made both those rulings?
>A: Jeff Alexander. The clear, authoritative guy. Go figure that out.

     Believe it or not, player comments were a big factor
sparking decision to separate Rings from mundane actions.

     The sensei rulings are entirely Dave's.  I just reported them
(after harbinging the resulting doom).

;;;;;

>From:    Michael Cooney <mc@MATHS.TCD.IE>
>Subject: Accessible Terrain
>
>Can the movement action be used to move cards in from your fief?

     Yes.  It does not say they have to come from any place in
particular, so they can come from anywhere.

>So can you Rally, then move all your units into the next battle as well?

     Yes.

;;;;;

>From:    Philippe DUCHON <duchon@LABRI.U-BORDEAUX.FR>
>Subject: Rules for 22 November 1999
>
>If, for some reason, my At'tok'tuk Sensei stops influencing the game,
>then I can Oath all of my Ratlings into my [perhaps temporarily]
>stricter Clan definition, right ?

     Yes.

;;;;;

>From:    Matt Farney <farneymp@ERINET.COM>
>Subject: Questions and discrepancies for Zen
>
>Side questions:
>1.  Doom of the Brotherhood.  Any news from DW/JA about the ring?  Discarded
>from play is a bit too god for that card imo.  Kills enligtenment
>completely.

     The word from Dave:  play as written, which means the new
definition, which means the Ring is gone for good.

>2.  Plains above Fast Troubles.  I didn't see any rulings on this card.  If
>I'm attacked elsewhere and I defend the PaFT, can I use its ability?  I
>don't see why not, given the card text.

     You can use it even if you don't defend it.  It satisfies
Relevance since you're using an action on a card on the Province,
and it satisfies Presence since it gives you a unit in the battle.

>3.  Can the Kitsu Tombs' special ability be used as it is tapped?  I don't
>think so, but it never hurts to ask.

     Yes (but not if it's already BOWED).  It works like the Plains of
Otosan-Uchi, as numerous folks have pointed out.

;;;;;

>From:    James Collier <smalltownpress@AZTEC-NET.COM>
>Subject: New Strongholds
>
>    Maybe when this storyline runs out, we should have strongholds with
>traits that give the different clans different strengths. The ideas below
>are suggestions only - I expect you have your own ideas about this. Tell
>people what you think, and maybe something will come of this.

     DO NOT POST CARD IDEAS TO THE LIST!

     For legal reasons, FRPG cannot EVER produce cards if there is any
doubt concerning the true origin of the idea.

;;;;;

>From:    Dean McNabb - Tegel <DeanM@TEGEL.CO.NZ>
>Subject: Re: Rules Questions
>
>>If Shiba Ningen bows for the favor, is it a void action for the purposes of
>>master of five?
>
>[DM] The ruling your question refers to may have been reversed recently
>(...and by Dave/Jeff themselves).

     You're right, it has.  An action carries only the traits of the
card it's on.  If it's not on a card -- like lobbying -- it doesn't
get any extra traits from any cards.  This was done mostly to make it
completely unambiguous which card(s) mattered.

>>Although there is only one choice to play a reaction on at a time, you still
>>have the choice as whether or not to play it. So, do reactions ever target
>>anybody?
>
>[DM] Reactions do not target, because there is no choice about what is being
>effected. Example: Togashi Yoshi (nonexp) gives a Personality you control a
>chi bonus when that Personality is entering a duel. You have no choice to
>what Personality gets the bonus.

     Saying "Reactions don't target" is like saying "Open actions
don't target".  The answer is not that simple.  Some do, some don't.

     It is true, however, that Reactions *usually* do not target the
thing they're reacting to.

;;;;;

>From:    Philippe DUCHON <duchon@LABRI.U-BORDEAUX.FR>
>Subject: Questions and discrepancies for Zen
>
> > Tutor.  The ruling on Tutors being cumulative is contradictory with the
> > ruling that the Ring of Void is not cumulative.  Suggested fix:
> > Errata/Print ring of void as:  Once during your end phase, you may...
>This
> > prevents abuse of ring of void; since if rov was cumulative, it would be
> > cumulative by itself and you could draw the rest of your deck....now. =)
> >
>
>The Wanker rule prevents you from using a Reaction on a card multiple
>times in reaction to a single trigger, especially when it would allow
>infinite combos or nearly infinite combos with one card. I don't think
>this is explicitly written in the rules, but then, the Wanker rule
>isn't written in the rulebook (which, BTW, I'm not too happy
>with). But, multiple Tutors are separate cards... sound OK to me.

     Right both times.  You get to use each Ring of the Void once
and each Tutor once.

;;;;;

>From:    Philippe DUCHON <duchon@LABRI.U-BORDEAUX.FR>
>Subject: Honor Bound (!) question [ZEN]
>
>* Nishiko (exp Shosuro Noshiko): can her ability be used if the
>  Province is empty?

     She says "replace one of your Province Dynasty CARDS with her,
face-up".  No.

>* Mantis Fleet: does this card remove the Cavalry trait from the unit?
>  From the Personality? (this could have 2 different answers)

     Yes.  No.  (It does.)

>* The False Tao: if a Ring "does not affect play" until the end of the
>  turn, will this delay an Enlightenment victory until then? Will it
>  affect the Gold production of a Monk player's Prayer Shrines?

     Yes, yes.

>* Nunchaku: you may only play an action that is legal in this
>  _Action_Phase_ (card text); does this mean it's unusable during a
>  battle, which isn't part of any Action Phase, and only has Action
>  Segment? (I suppose no, but then, there was a ruling about The Time
>  is Now and The Great Silence that was based on the "Action
>  Phase/Segment" words, I believe)

     It also mentions Battle Actions explicitly (and, according to my
spoiler at least, does not capitalize "action phase").  It refers to
whatever phase you're in.

;;;;;

>From:    Rich & Noel <dragnskya@JUNO.COM>
>Subject: Ambition's Debt redefinition of "discarded from play."
>
>The last I had heard, this was an interim rule specifically targetted at
>Rise from the Ashes, that was discarded in favor of direct eratta to Rise
>from the Ashes.  As stated in the rulebook, once an effect discards a
>card from play (for instance, an Elemental Ring to Doom of the
>Brotherhood, or a personality being discarded to Refuge of the Three
>Sisters), it is not retrievable by card effects designed to do so
>(Enlightenment/Recovering the True Tao for the Ring, Grasp the Earth
>Dragon for the personality).  Is this redefinition going to stand as
>correct, Dave?

     From Dave:  yes.

;;;;;

>From:    Zen Faulkes <zfaulkes@PLANET.NET.AU>
>Subject: Rules for 24 November 1999
>
>> Seppun Nakao: If I go negative, and all players have negative honor,
>> who controls Nakao when he commits Seppuku?

     He goes *directly* to the highest player (the "starting on your
left" bit is only there to resolve ties) and then, if everyone has
negative honor, he dies.  He doesn't spin around the table.

>Subject: Rules Questions
>From: Josh Powell <hiruma_kain@HOTMAIL.COM>
>
>> Is Boundless depths of water cumulative?
>
>   No. "You may draw a number of cards up to the number of kihos you
>successfully cast this turn;" that number doesn't change as you cast the
>kiho multiple times. Well, okay, it changes by *one* when you cast the
>kiho again, but you don't double / triple it.
>
>   (Thanks to Phil Duchon for stopping me from answering wrong!)

     Hm.  I disagree.  I've always thought it was cumulative.

     Consider a card that simply said "Draw one card."  You play two.
How many would you draw?  Now Consider a card that said "At the end of
the turn, draw one card."  Again, you play two.  How many would you
draw here?

;;;;;

>Date:    Thu, 25 Nov 1999 05:42:00 -0500
>From:    Hitomi Kagetora <kagetora@THEDRAGONCLAN.COM>
>Subject: Re: Rules for 24 November 1999
>
>> > Seppun Nakao: If I go negative, and all players have negative honor,
>> > who controls Nakao when he commits Seppuku?
>>
>>    Heh. His text reads, "If your Family Honor ever drops below 0, the
>> player in play with the highest Family Honor, starting to your left,
>> takes control of Nakao."
>>
>>    He goes to the player with the next highest honor, see that's below
>> zero, goes to the player with the next highest honor, sees that's below
>> zero, and so on until he runs out of players.
>>
>>    The player with the loweest honor is stuck; he or she gets Nakao
>> last.
>
>        Actually, not to nitpick, but he says "...drops below zero."  If
>you're
>already below 0 when you receive Nakao wouldn't you just keep him, as per
>his wording?

     By past precedent with the first Yoritomo Stronghold, plus the
obvious intent of the card (he'd rather break his oath of servitude or
even kill himself than work for someone evil), the answer is "no".

     Besides, think about it:  if everyone is negative, he kills
himself, and if at least one player is NOT negative but you are, you
wouldn't have gotten him in the first place.  Either way, you don't
keep him.

;;;;;

>From:    Matt Farney <farneymp@ERINET.COM>
>Subject: Re: More on my questions:
>
>>Mystic Ground.  I'm not sure why you cannot use this to save the province
>>from being destroyed from Shurin Storms.  SS destroys everything in one
>>giant event imo, so you should be able to.  As an aside, I remember an
>>argument about deadly ground.  Did the wording on DG change noticeably?
>
>Shurin Storms says that if you are the defender, the province is also
>destroyed.  Also implies at the same time.  After or then would imply after.
>That's my major problem with that ruling.

     "Also" does not imply "at the same time" to everyone.  Also, the
standard method for determing the relative order of multiple effects
is to apply them in the order written on the card.

>>Tutor.  The ruling on Tutors being cumulative is contradictory with the
>>ruling that the Ring of Void is not cumulative.  Suggested fix:
>>Errata/Print ring of void as:  Once during your end phase, you may...  This
>>prevents abuse of ring of void; since if rov was cumulative, it would be
>>cumulative by itself and you could draw the rest of your deck....now. =)
>
>I left something important out here.  Multiple Rings of the Void are
>currently not cumulative,

     Yes they are.  You use the second as a reaction to the first draw
you make from your first.

                         ___________________________________
Jeff Alexander          ( Legend of the Five Rings FAQ site (O
Phoenix Clan Scribe      )    http://www.zdi.net/jwa/l5r     )
                        (___________________________________(O

****************************************************************************

The L5R Home Page: http://www.wizards.com/L5R

To unsubscribe from this list send mail to listserv@oracle.wizards.com with
the line 'SIGNOFF L5RInfo' as the body of the message.

Contents (c)1999 Wizards of the Coast, Inc. All rights reserved.