(Message zen:84)
Subj: [L5RINFO] Rules for 16 May 2000
From: Zen Faulkes <zfaulkes@PLANET.NET.AU>

  To: L5RINFO@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:06:33 +1000
X-Accept-Language: en
-- /blue/homes/cowell/Mail/mhl.format --

Greetings,

From:    Jon Paulson <Takezo1385@AOL.COM>
Subject: Kolat Help

> I'm working on a Kolat deck for fun... Anyone had much sucess with non
> unicorn strongholds?

   A Crab Kolat deck placed in the top 4 of the Australian Kotei. A deck
list can be found on The Mighty Crab. (Don't have URL handy; but many
pages have links to it -- Daniel?)

;;;;;

From:    Michael Cooney <mc@MATHS.TCD.IE>
Subject: Re: Rules for 15 May 2000

[Multiple Counterattacks]

> Sorry to question you about this, Zen, but is Rally not played at the
> end of the battle rather than the phase and so will always be able to
> be played before the Counter?

   This one's worth clarifying. Thanks for the nudge.

   It depends. Rallying Cry can be played after *any* battle, but
Counterattack can only be played after the *last* battle. At that last
battle, however, they both react to the same trigger, so active player
gets first reaction.

;;;;;

From:    Scott Schultz <scott@CEWEEKLY.COM>
Subject: Re: Day of Thunder

> [snip Eric's account of Chris' corruption]
>
> All of this goes to show why there's no objective reality when talking
> about history, only subjective reality. And this was only two (three?)
> years ago.

   Hey, I took photos. Had some published in InQuest. Have a look at
them and see if you can see Chris wearing two T-shirts. (Of course, he
may have taken one off, but...)

;;;;;

From:    Chris Ostermann <OninoBob@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Rules for 15 May 2000

> So you can now use multiple Purusha's in a battle?

   Yes.

> Last I recall seeing, the ruling said that since it's the same action,
> you could only use one.

   You can respond multiple times to a trigger is you have different
copies of the card. You just can't respond with the *same* action
printed on the *same* card more than once. A little rule to cover cards
missing "once per" text.

;;;;;

From:    Jason Liang <jliang2@UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU>
Subject: Re: Hero's of Rokugan?!? ONLY $80!!!

> Perhaps if Ed released an official explanation of exactly WHY the set
> costs so much, and where all the money went, the price would be easier
> to swallow.

   I invite anyone to interested in the economy of scale applied to
printing to read John Wick's columns at http://www.gamingoutpost.com.
It's something he talks about a lot.

   Here's what Ryan Dancey had to say about it:

From: RyanD@frpg.com (Ryan S. Dancey)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 18:30:03 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc

   "At six million cards, the printing cost accounts for about 70% of
the total cost of goods.  (Cost of Goods being computed as:  Film
charges, press charges, packout charges, and storage and shipping
charges, plus hourly rate charges as applicable for those functions).
The cost of the paper accounts for about half the cost of the printing
itself. However, there is a "floor" to that figure - the press time.  It
takes a certain amount of time to set the press up, run make-readies,
color proof the press, then tear the whole thing down, scrub the press,
and prepare for the next job.  At Yaquinto, it takes only a few hours to
print 6 million cards - and a good chunk of those hours is in the
set-up and break-down time.  In other words, it costs a substantial
amount to run one piece of paper through the press.  If that cost is
averaged across tens of thousands of sheets, its an inconsequential
part of the per-sheet cost.  As the number of sheets goes down, the
cost per sheet goes up.  Way up.

   "It costs us roughly $1.75 or so to produce a deck of L5R, including
the rulebook, the tuck box, the cello-wrap, the deck display box, and
the shrinkwrap around the display box.  (In other words, a fully
packed out unit).  I provide that figure for comparison, so that you
can see the vast difference between printing something like L5R (where
we print much more than six million cards) with some lesser print
runs.

   "We made about 5,000 of the Rage preview decks, which are two 60 card
decks and a rulebook, cello-banded (no tuck box), no display box, no
packout, and no shrinkwrap.  Those decks cost us nearly $4.00 each.
Doing a 60 card deck in that configuration would have cost us about
$3.00 each.  If you use the standard "rule of five"(*) to determine
SRP (your cost of goods should be 1/5th your SRP), then a short-run 60
card deck would have an SRP of $15.00 - no box, no nothin'.

   "Put another way, we could have produced 300,000 cards, and sold them
(without flowpack wrappers, just loose cards) in 15 card "boosters"
(if you'll allow me to use that term as loosely as possible) for SRP
$3.75 each.  The practical application of getting a product like that
with no packaging distributed through the channel in good order is
left as an excersize for the reader.

   "It's even worse though.  The Rage cards are printed on >really<
inexpensive paper, using a very inexpensive coating/finishing process.
A high end playing card like Magic, or any of the other FRPG games is
probably >twice< as expensive to produce as those Rage cards.  So to
do those "boosters" for Netrunner would result in an SRP much closer
to $7.50.  For 15 cards.  No wrapper.  No advertising.  No support.
Seven and a half bucks.  How many do you want?  (It's actually a
pretty good business at that point, because even if the product
doesn't sell, we won't have spent much money >total< on the printing.)

[snip]

   "Because printing doesn't "scale" linearly (it's much cheaper per
item to produce 1,000,000 items than 100,000 items) the publisher's
profit goes up the more units are produced."

;;;;;

From:    Brian Spencer <jack-hawksmoor@AUSTIN.RR.COM>
Subject: Re: Rules for 15 May 2000

> Section four of the FAQ notes that Sneak Attack changes the order
> of who plays actions in battle.  By this reasoning, the attacker would
> get an action before the defender's first action and could play a
> Deadly Ground before Purusha gets his chance to react to defender's
> first action.  Have I missed something?

   The part of the FAQ that says, essentially, all those actions that
say "before the defender's first action", "before the battle begins",
etc., all *happen at the same speed*. Trying to read them pedantically
leads to headaches.

   So: Attacker has first chance to play "before the battle" reaction.
Sneak Attack. Sneak Attack does *NOT* immediately let him play an
action; it switches who gets the "normal" first action. Player to left
now has chance to do "before the battle" action (e.g., Purusha).

;;;;;

From:    Mark Wootton <Kakita@KAKITA.FREESERVE.CO.UK>
Subject: Some questions [Zen, Dave]

> I have seen Horde players using Suspicions before now. The wording on
> Suspicions is that '.every player (including you) loses 1 honour.' If
> these two clans effectively prevent the honour loss from ever
> happening, is it right to think that they prevent the whole thing
> happening as the honour loss for every player is all one single
> entity?

   No. It's a seperate honor loss for each player.

> It has been ruled (bizarrely)

   Not bizarrely. Correctly.

> that Unrequited Love is not an unconditional honour loss even when it
> is played on a bowed personality that has a personal honour of one or
> more. It has been ruled that Breach of Etiquette is an unconditional
> honour loss even when a player with lower family honour uses it
> against a Ninja. Can someone explain the logic of this?

   Whether an honor loss is conditional or not depends on the text on
*that card alone*. You do not factor in what an opponent might play or
other card effects.

> The favour cannot be used with Seppun Sensei.

   Sure you can. You can still send units home, rehonor personalities,
etc.

> Therefore it does not prevent an honour loss from ever happening (c.f.
> other rulings mentioned). Therefore it must actually modify it in some
> way. Therefore, after the use of the favour (assuming the player does
> not have Seppun) you are left with an honour loss of 0. But there is
> still an honour loss, which therefore can, subsequent to the use of
> the favour, be modified by effects that modify honour losses. Correct?

   No. Look, for simplicity's sake, I'm going to *tenatively suggest*
that players treat the the use of the Favor as "cancelling" an honor
loss. I can't rule it that way, because that's a rules change, which I
can't do.

> Suppose an opponent Hantei's a card that attaches to personalities -
> Rise from the Ashes would be a good, and probable, example. I use
> Amnesia. I attach three Rises form my hand. Amnesia wears off. I can
> still use the Rises. Correct?

   Yes.

;;;;;

From:    Ben Sanders <bensanders@X-STREAM.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Rules for 15 May 2000

>>> If I'm lucky enough to have 2 Counterattacks and a Rally in hand I
>>> can Counter-Rally-Counter, can't I?
>>
>>   Yes.
>>
>> 1. End of last battle in normal attack phase.
>> 2. Players have chance to play Reactions to it, starting with active
>>    player.
>> 3. Defender plays Counterattack in response to (1).
>> 4. Epic battles ensue.
>> 5. End of last battle in Countarattack attack phase.
>> 6. Players have chance to play reactions in response to (5). (Note
>>    that this means the original attacker can Counterattack the
>>    Defender's Counterattack before the defender can play Rallying
>>    Cry.)
>> 7. The initial Counterattack has now fully resolved.
>> 8. Players continue playing reactions to the *original* trigger event
>>    (1) until everyone passes, starting with player to left of
>>    defender.
>> 9. If Defender has unbowed units and another Counterattack, he may
>>    react again to (1).

> Suppose that (9) does not happen, instead:
> 10 If orignal attacker now plays Rallying Cry - what happens?

   I would say, "Tough luck, Charlie." The attacker had a chance to
Rally before the COunterattack and missed it.

> Can they (for example) retroactively unbow their Togashi Mitsu with 5
> fire counters? Could they have defended with the personalities they
> were going to rally during the earlier counterattack?

   This is one of those really ugly cases where I am just going to say,
"No," because the alternative is so horribly confusing.


Zen Faulkes! * Crab Clan Scholar

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

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.