On 7/9/2017 at 0:54 PM, kiramode said:

- Can Doji Challenger pull Otomo Courtier into a military conflict?

On 7/11/2017 at 0:27 PM, Joe From Cincinnati said:

This was answered in a previous L5R Live. You would pull them in but, since they have a military dash, they immediately go home bowed.

Since the L5R live never mentioned anything about harpooning a character with a dash stat, I'd say they really haven't answered this question. It would be nice to have a clarification on this.

FFG said dash characters cannot participate in a conflict of that type. My understanding would mean that a dash character couldn't be a target to harpoon in.

There's a difference between changing a conflict type and sending a dash character home and trying to harpoon him in, imo.

It was said at some point that the L5R design team turned to developers on the FFG team to help create the feel and flavor of each clan.

Which developers helped come up with the Crab feel?

RULES QUESTION

When a conflict has its type switched, what effect does that have on later conflicts declared by the same player? That is, which conflict is "used up?" For example, if Alice declares a Military conflict, and Bob switches it to a Political conflict for his own nefarious purpose, can Alice declare an additional Military conflict later in the phase, or does only her "real" Political conflict remain?

On 7/13/2017 at 0:45 PM, Sparks Duh said:

Since the L5R live never mentioned anything about harpooning a character with a dash stat, I'd say they really haven't answered this question. It would be nice to have a clarification on this.

FFG said dash characters cannot participate in a conflict of that type. My understanding would mean that a dash character couldn't be a target to harpoon in.

There's a difference between changing a conflict type and sending a dash character home and trying to harpoon him in, imo.

I heard the same as what Joe said from a live cast. Don't remember which one though.

MECHANICS QUESTION/ CRAB CLAN/ VENGEFUL BERSERKER

What happens with force bonuses (Or losing them) on a vengeful berserker after his ability triggers? How exactly does "double" work? Is it continuously checked?

Situation 1: Say Vengeful Berserker has a Fine Katana attached and triggers his ability, he goes up to 10. If his opponent then Lets Go the Katana, does he return to 6 (Double his skill without the katan), or does he go down to 8?

Situation 2: Say Vengeful Berserker triggers his ability w/o an attachment, then gets a Fine katana, does his skill go to 8? Or does it go to 10?

1 hour ago, Mirith said:

MECHANICS QUESTION/ CRAB CLAN/ VENGEFUL BERSERKER

What happens with force bonuses (Or losing them) on a vengeful berserker after his ability triggers? How exactly does "double" work? Is it continuously checked?

Situation 1: Say Vengeful Berserker has a Fine Katana attached and triggers his ability, he goes up to 10. If his opponent then Lets Go the Katana, does he return to 6 (Double his skill without the katan), or does he go down to 8?

Situation 2: Say Vengeful Berserker triggers his ability w/o an attachment, then gets a Fine katana, does his skill go to 8? Or does it go to 10?

This was talked about a bit in the most recent live video. Someone correct me if I get any of it wrong.

When calculating values you always start at the beginning. So if he gains or losses a Katana you would just recalculate from the beginning.

VB reaction goes off and doubles his (military) skill. This does not read like way of the Lion. If they wanted it to be the same they should have printed it the same so no idea there.

Edit* my guess is it will not add attachments, but it would be cool if I were wrong.

On 7/15/2017 at 1:35 AM, MoZi said:

I heard the same as what Joe said from a live cast. Don't remember which one though.

Joe pointed me to the episode where he thought he got his info from and FFG said that if a dash character ever finds itself in a conflict of that type, it goes home bowed. Nowhere did they say anything about harpooning a guy in to the conflict. Moving in to a conflict that the character cannot participate in is NOT the same thing as changing the conflict type (phoenix province).

I'd appreciate some clarification on moving a character to a conflict that they cannot participate in. My guess is that it's just not a legal action.

11 hours ago, Sparks Duh said:

Joe pointed me to the episode where he thought he got his info from and FFG said that if a dash character ever finds itself in a conflict of that type, it goes home bowed. Nowhere did they say anything about harpooning a guy in to the conflict. Moving in to a conflict that the character cannot participate in is NOT the same thing as changing the conflict type (phoenix province).

I'd appreciate some clarification on moving a character to a conflict that they cannot participate in. My guess is that it's just not a legal action.

It does change the board state. When I've heard them say actions weren't legal in the past it's been because they effectively made no change to the state of the game. We really need the rule book :|

1 hour ago, MoZi said:

It does change the board state. When I've heard them say actions weren't legal in the past it's been because they effectively made no change to the state of the game. We really need the rule book :|

If moving equals go from non-participating state to participating, then no, there is no board state change. Because the dash character cannot participate.

1 hour ago, Sparks Duh said:

If moving equals go from non-participating state to participating, then no, there is no board state change. Because the dash character cannot participate.

What do you mean? Assuming it is legal to target a character with 'dash', the board state does change - since the dash character goes home exhausted.

That does not solve the issue, since a character with 'dash' could be non-eligible to be 'harpooned' in in kinda the same way as a dash Mil character can't be dueled with Mil, but it does not contradict the "game state must change" rule.

1 hour ago, Eu8L1ch said:

What do you mean? Assuming it is legal to target a character with 'dash', the board state does change - since the dash character goes home exhausted.

That does not solve the issue, since a character with 'dash' could be non-eligible to be 'harpooned' in in kinda the same way as a dash Mil character can't be dueled with Mil, but it does not contradict the "game state must change" rule.

If movement equals going from non-participating to participating and the dash character cannot participate, then it can't be chosen for movement since the board state won't change. Which is why it can't be assumed that a dash character can be chosen, because board state doesn't change. The dash character cannot participate if move = going from non-participating to participating and vice versa.

Same reason you can't target a bowed character with a bow action. Board state doesn't change and therefore, the action isn't legal to take. Bowing = going from a ready status to a bowed status. If a character is already bowed, then it can't be chosen to bow since it won't change game state.

4 hours ago, Sparks Duh said:

If moving equals go from non-participating state to participating, then no, there is no board state change. Because the dash character cannot participate.

1 hour ago, Sparks Duh said:

If movement equals going from non-participating to participating and the dash character cannot participate, then it can't be chosen for movement since the board state won't change. Which is why it can't be assumed that a dash character can be chosen, because board state doesn't change. The dash character cannot participate if move = going from non-participating to participating and vice versa.

You are repeating yourself, not answering my objection.

What I am stating: if the unit gets pulled in, it goes home bowed => game state changes. Therefore, if the unit can be pulled in, the move is legal since the game state changes. If it can't be pulled in, the move obviously isn't legal (tautology). Which means it all depends on whether it can be pulled in (i.e., if it is an eligible target for the ability).

What you are saying: the unit cannot partecipate => nothing changes; nothing changes => pulling the unit in is not legal. Your argument looks circular to me ( the conclusion of your reasoning is identical to its premise ) unless you differentiate "can be pulled in" from "can partecipate".

In your words: "board state won't change" <=("since") "movement equals going from non-partecipating to partecipating" "and" "the dash character cannot partecipate"; "board state won't change" ("then")=> "it can't be chosen for movement". In the next sentence you repeat the previous reasoning, just with different words ("it can't be assumed that a dash character can be chosen" <=("because") "board state does not change" ). If you differentiate between "can be pulled in" and "can partecipate", however, the reasoning is still faulty, since your premise is false ("the unit cannot partecipate" does not imply that "nothing changes". Counterexample: "the unit can be pulled in"&"the unit cannot partecipate" => "the board changes"). What you would need to make your reasoning true is "the unit cannot partecipate"=>"the unit can not be pulled in", which, again, is precisely what we currently don't know (the rules could define it either as legal or illegal play).

Basically, what we know so far is: ["dash character cannot partecipate" means: "cannot be chosen to partecipate in a conflict of that type when attackers or defenders are declared" and "is sent home bowed if it founds itself in a conflict of that type"]. The latter is needed, since the game rules make it possible for such a character to find itself in a conflict of that type 'forcefully'. If, for example, the game rules stated "the type of a conflict cannot be changed if a character with dash is partecipating in that conflict", then there would be no need for the latter part (harpooning aside). My guess is that, since "being pulled in" falls under the category of being forced into a conflict, there is no need for the rules to make an exception, and it might even be very complicated to do so without doing the same for all similiar situations (since, after all, almost anything that happens is ultimately a choice of one of the players). To sum it up, my bet is on the Doji Challenger working on the units with "dash".

By contrast, the case for bowing a bowed unit is completely different, since a bowed unit is a valid target for a bowing effect to resolve: the reason why you can't target it with the ability is that, if you were to do that, the board state would not change. If it were to be an illegal target for a bowing effect (by writing in the rulebook something like "exhausted units can't be bowed"), then it would be illegal not because of the "board state does not change" rule, but by definition .

The reasoning is as follows: A) If the board state does not change, the action is not legal. B) Bowing a bowed unit does not change the board state. => C) Bowing a bowed unit is not legal.

In our case: A) If the board state does not change, the action is not legal. B) A unit with dash partecipating in a conflict of that type is sent home bowed (the board state changes). => ???

26 minutes ago, Eu8L1ch said:

You are repeating yourself, not answering my objection.

What I am stating: if the unit gets pulled in, it goes home bowed => game state changes. Therefore, if the unit can be pulled in, the move is legal since the game state changes. If it can't be pulled in, the move obviously isn't legal (tautology). Which means it all depends on whether it can be pulled in (i.e., if it is an eligible target for the ability).

What you are saying: the unit cannot partecipate => nothing changes; nothing changes => pulling the unit in is not legal. Your argument looks circular to me ( the conclusion of your reasoning is identical to its premise ) unless you differentiate "can be pulled in" from "can partecipate".

In your words: "board state won't change" <=("since") "movement equals going from non-partecipating to partecipating" "and" "the dash character cannot partecipate"; "board state won't change" ("then")=> "it can't be chosen for movement". In the next sentence you repeat the previous reasoning, just with different words ("it can't be assumed that a dash character can be chosen" <=("because") "board state does not change" ). If you differentiate between "can be pulled in" and "can partecipate", however, the reasoning is still faulty, since your premise is false ("the unit cannot partecipate" does not imply that "nothing changes". Counterexample: "the unit can be pulled in"&"the unit cannot partecipate" => "the board changes"). What you would need to make your reasoning true is "the unit cannot partecipate"=>"the unit can not be pulled in", which, again, is precisely what we currently don't know (the rules could define it either as legal or illegal play).

Basically, what we know so far is: ["dash character cannot partecipate" means: "cannot be chosen to partecipate in a conflict of that type when attackers or defenders are declared" and "is sent home bowed if it founds itself in a conflict of that type"]. The latter is needed, since the game rules make it possible for such a character to find itself in a conflict of that type 'forcefully'. If, for example, the game rules stated "the type of a conflict cannot be changed if a character with dash is partecipating in that conflict", then there would be no need for the latter part (harpooning aside). My guess is that, since "being pulled in" falls under the category of being forced into a conflict, there is no need for the rules to make an exception, and it might even be very complicated to do so without doing the same for all similiar situations (since, after all, almost anything that happens is ultimately a choice of one of the players). To sum it up, my bet is on the Doji Challenger working on the units with "dash".

By contrast, the case for bowing a bowed unit is completely different, since a bowed unit is a valid target for a bowing effect to resolve: the reason why you can't target it with the ability is that, if you were to do that, the board state would not change. If it were to be an illegal target for a bowing effect (by writing in the rulebook something like "exhausted units can't be bowed"), then it would be illegal not because of the "board state does not change" rule, but by definition .

The reasoning is as follows: A) If the board state does not change, the action is not legal. B) Bowing a bowed unit does not change the board state. => C) Bowing a bowed unit is not legal.

In our case: A) If the board state does not change, the action is not legal. B) A unit with dash partecipating in a conflict of that type is sent home bowed (the board state changes). => ???

To be honest, I wasn't looking to argue with you about anything. I was stating what I think the rule will be. But really, we need FFG to clarify it so we know. And that's the point of the thread. Initially, I just wanted to point out that FFG didn't already answer the question because what Joe saw on the l5rlive only answered the question of 'what happens to dash characters who are in a conflict of that type'. They didn't really answer if you can harpoon a character with a dash stat to that conflict type. And I'm not attacking Joe for his answer because it could be assumed that way, but I don't want to play the game on assumptions, ya know? For all we know, you CAN harpoon a character. But it could be said that the character might not be a viable target. All I'm wanting is a clarification. Because I don't want anyone to think the question was answered already when it really hasn't.

A similar interesting (to me) new situation would be if you can Charge with a -Mil char, making it go home bowed but in play, if for example you were first conflict attacking for ring of water and would straighten the new char. That said, it is your choice to attempt to have a char knowingly participate in a conflict it legally cannot be in.

10 hours ago, profparm said:

A similar interesting (to me) new situation would be if you can Charge with a -Mil char, making it go home bowed but in play, if for example you were first conflict attacking for ring of water and would straighten the new char. That said, it is your choice to attempt to have a char knowingly participate in a challenge it legally cannot be in.

I'd say it wouldn't be a legal action to take as well. Cannot participate shouldn't be go ahead and participate, but suffer the consequences.

Also... what are these challenges you speak of?? Are you referring to duel challenges or something? They already said characters with dash can't be a target of a duel challenge of that type. I'm confused...

1 hour ago, Sparks Duh said:

Also... what are these challenges you speak of?? Are you referring to duel challenges or something? They already said characters with dash can't be a target of a duel challenge of that type. I'm confused...

I fixed my terms.

Is there a set order for mulliganing?

2 minutes ago, shineyorkboy said:

Is there a set order for mulliganing?

Yes, in the last l5r live episode.

Ah, okay, provinces before you draw your hand and since provinces aren't revealed until after mulliganing player order doesn't matter.

Would it be possible for you to show an image of the card Charge! in the next L5R Live Event? It would be nice to have a proper spoiler for a card that is likely to have a pretty big impact on the game.

If someone already controls the imperial favor from a previous turn, and the Unbowed Glory + Claimed ring count is a tie, what happens to the favor? Does the current controller keep it, or does it to back to unclaimed?

MECHANICS/ PHOENIX CLAN

Can Shiba Yojimbo stop Court Games if your opponent chooses the dishonor route and you decide to target your Shugenja?

CRAB / CARD QUESTION

If you blackmail a character that has fate on it, then use the jade tetsubo on said character......who gets the fate?

10 minutes ago, Shu2jack said:

CRAB / CARD QUESTION

If you blackmail a character that has fate on it, then use the jade tetsubo on said character......who gets the fate?

I like the way you think.

13 hours ago, Shu2jack said:

CRAB / CARD QUESTION

If you blackmail a character that has fate on it, then use the jade tetsubo on said character......who gets the fate?

So in broader terms, does "owner" refer to the player controlling a card at the time, or to the player playing the deck the card came from?