So, when does the official L5R Rules subforum open?

And is there an official FFG rep, or three, that actively answers questions (here and cardgamedb), or is it all fan discussion (with the occasional "I heard it from a designer")?

I initially believed that the attachments would not leave play seeing how that's how it works in the other games I play (non-FFG). I was actually prepared to come here and argue the same, I even had a chart and everything. Then I noticed there are two different types of restrictive wordings. There is "Play only if X" like Cloud the Mind or Height of Fashion as well as "Attach only to X" as you see with Grasp of Earth or Watch Commander. It actually does look to me that while the former are only restrictions on when you're able to play something, as has been stated by someone who says they asked a dev, the later are constant checks. I still would love to see a FAQ answer about this just for clarity sake seeing how I could see a TO deciding either way.

On the one hand that does mean that something you steal with loaded up stuff will potentially be far less useful than it would have been for your opponent it also means you can use control effects to effectively knock off some attachments. I don't know who ends up being more punished if this is the case but I suspect somehow it's not going to be the Scorpion.

I've only played Netrunner, so am/was unaware of AGoT and Conquest rules.

To be honest, I'd be happy whichever way the ruling falls. I'm just conditioned from other games to read it one way (seems to be not the FFG way).
But I would prefer rulings to be centralised, and made by an obvious official (no disrespect to knowledgeable players like yourself Khudzlin).

In the past, have rulings for other FFG games been made on two forums, live streams, Facebook, in person? Anywhere else? And then not added to the FAQ?

Rulings on CardagameDB for Conquest were pretty official.

11 hours ago, Bayushi Shunsuke said:

So, when does the official L5R Rules subforum open?

And is there an official FFG rep, or three, that actively answers questions (here and cardgamedb), or is it all fan discussion (with the occasional "I heard it from a designer")?

FFG may or may not open subforums for this game. It's entirely up to them.

In any case, no official FFG rep will appear on their own forums answering game questions, as per their own policy.

13 hours ago, LuceLineGames said:

I think the lesson to be learned is that you check for play restrictions when you play them. I wouldn't read anymore into it than that, and think Grasp of Earth still fits with this reasoning. If the character with Grasp of Earth attached changes control, you wouldn't re-check the play restriction.

So you ask a question about the wrong card and then interpret the answer to fit your preconceptions?

7 minutes ago, Gaffa said:

FFG may or may not open subforums for this game. It's entirely up to them.

In any case, no official FFG rep will appear on their own forums answering game questions, as per their own policy.

What is their policy on TO/Judging at a Nationals tournament?

I think we have confirmed that there is still confusion* around "Attach to a character you control".

Hypothetical incoming
If this particular ruling does not show up in an official L5R FAQ, and as a judge, I rule the it only checks upon attaching, what recourse does a player have?
Even if they show me the forum post, I cannot confirm it as official.
The only official rulings I can see are a FAQ, or an email reply to a question (viewing the email on the player's phone).



* Perfect example in this thread.
At one point, the response is "it's how it works in all other FFG games".
Then, we find out that games have different wording, which opens up further interpretations.

"Attach to a Shugenja" is a continuous check there is no doubt about that. Khudzlin has it 100% right on the difference between "play only if you" and "attach to a."

The one tricky thing is if an attachment on a stolen character read "Kneel the attached character to ..." Even though the control of the attachment has not changed because you pay cost with game elements controlled by other players neither player would be able to trigger this.

As to the hypothetical. Hopefully they would be able to appeal the bad ruling to a different judge but maybe not. In thrones this year a bad ruling was made at US Nationals that cost someone a top spot. It happens and luckily millions of dollars don't change hand as a result. Of course even in sports where millions of dollars do change hands officials make the wrong call sometimes as well.

16 minutes ago, Steinerp said:

"Attach to a Shugenja" is a continuous check there is no doubt about that. Khudzlin has it 100% right on the difference between "play only if you" and "attach to a."

One final one for the night: There's still doubt

Why do Play Restrictions have to have the same wording?

Play Restrictions and Permissions
Many cards or abilities contain specific instructions pertaining to when or how they may or may not be used, or to specific conditions that must be true in order to use them. In order to use such an ability or to play such a card, all play restrictions must be observed.

Cloud the Mind
Play only if you control of Shugenja
Worded so that you can still attach it to characters belonging to either player, with the restriction of needing a Shugenja.

Way of the Dragon
Attach to a character you control.
Simple restriction on what it can be attached to.

Neither of these could be rewritten to use the same phrasing, but that doesn't mean that because they use different wording that they need to be treated differently.

Let's rewind a bit.
Assume I need to judge an L5R event, and have zero knowledge of any rulings related to other LCGs (this should never be expected btw).
This question comes up.
I check the Rules/FAQ/RulesRef (as they currently stand).
- I see the section on Play Restrictions (as well as ones for Attachments etc)
- I see no mention of Continuous Checks

Can you see why I want to keep this debate/discussion/argument going?(Note: I'm not doing it just to be argumentative)

4 hours ago, Gaffa said:

In any case, no official FFG rep will appear on their own forums answering game questions, as per their own policy.

Then how are we supposed to get truly official rulings on weird stuff like this? Is there another way to ask the rules gurus?

Play restrictions and attachment restrictions aren't quite the same thing.

5 minutes ago, twinstarbmc said:

Then how are we supposed to get truly official rulings on weird stuff like this? Is there another way to ask the rules gurus?

There's a link on this forum. Click "Customer Service" at the bottom of the page and you'll find your way to it.

As one of the ones who was feeling some measure of uncertainty (certainly at least for the case of judge rulings) I went ahead and submitted a Rules Question through the form, and the design team responded quite quickly. And yes, he confirms what Gaffa and Khudzlin have stated. Attachments have a constant check on attachments restrictions (I asked specifically about attachments with the wording "Attach to a character you control") and if the character changes control, the attachment is considered no longer legally attached and is discarded.

I don't know what/if there's any policy regarding posting the question/response/responder's name in the forums, but I would be happy to quote the exact text of my question and answer if that is allowed, just to provide a solid, quotable (and if I'm so bold, FAQ-worthy) Q&A to settle this issue for everyone.

EDIT: And I do want to say thank you to @Gaffa and @Khudzlin for your knowledgeable responses in this discussion, sorry for any doubts.

The way it was worded definitely left a degree of doubt, but given the historical trend it's not surprising that it turned out the way it did. Thanks for getting the word directly from the devs, Zesu Shadaban.

1 hour ago, Khudzlin said:

There's a link on this forum. Click "Customer Service" at the bottom of the page and you'll find your way to it.

This is the primary way to ask a rules question and the LCG designers themselves usually reply.

30 minutes ago, Zesu Shadaban said:

I don't know what/if there's any policy regarding posting the question/response/responder's name in the forums, but I would be happy to quote the exact text of my question and answer if that is allowed, just to provide a solid, quotable (and if I'm so bold, FAQ-worthy) Q&A to settle this issue for everyone.

I don't know about the responder's name, but the question and answer are definitely fair game.

Thanks @Zesu Shadaban and @LuceLineGames for piecing together this puzzle. Though I'm still a bit confused.... There's no mention of "attachment restrictions" in the rules reference, so I think this would fall under a type of play restriction. It looks like there are some play restrictions that apply to when you initially play them, and some play restrictions that continue to take effect. And it seems to be determined based on the interpretation of the individual card wording: "Play only if" is a one-time, and "Attach to" is a constant restriction? It seems like each time they make a variation on play restriction wording, they will have to make a ruling on how to treat it?

10 minutes ago, FrizzleFratz said:

Thanks @Zesu Shadaban and @LuceLineGames for piecing together this puzzle. Though I'm still a bit confused.... There's no mention of "attachment restrictions" in the rules reference, so I think this would fall under a type of play restriction. It looks like there are some play restrictions that apply to when you initially play them, and some play restrictions that continue to take effect. And it seems to be determined based on the interpretation of the individual card wording: "Play only if" is a one-time, and "Attach to" is a constant restriction? It seems like each time they make a variation on play restriction wording, they will have to make a ruling on how to treat it?

Cloud the Mind only cares about you controlling a shugenja when you play it, which is why it has a play restriction. If all your Shugenjas leave play, Cloud the Mind will continue to Cloud someone's Mind so long as that character is still in play. But it doesn't have an attachment restriction: it can attach to any character. Which means so long as that character is still in play, any other changes to the character won't do anything to Cloud the Mind.

Way of the Dragon and Grasp of Earth are the opposite. They don't have a play restriction, because they don't care if you have any particular type of character in play (OK, technically, Grasp of Earth can only be attached to a Shugenja, but that's still just an attachment restriction, not a play one). Neither of these two have play restrictions that limit their play; they just have restrictions on what they can be legally attached to. It's a fine line of difference, and won't affect 99% of games played with them, but it is a difference.

8 minutes ago, Gaffa said:

Cloud the Mind only cares about you controlling a shugenja when you play it, which is why it has a play restriction. If all your Shugenjas leave play, Cloud the Mind will continue to Cloud someone's Mind so long as that character is still in play. But it doesn't have an attachment restriction: it can attach to any character. Which means so long as that character is still in play, any other changes to the character won't do anything to Cloud the Mind.

Way of the Dragon and Grasp of Earth are the opposite. They don't have a play restriction, because they don't care if you have any particular type of character in play (OK, technically, Grasp of Earth can only be attached to a Shugenja, but that's still just an attachment restriction, not a play one). Neither of these two have play restrictions that limit their play; they just have restrictions on what they can be legally attached to. It's a fine line of difference, and won't affect 99% of games played with them, but it is a difference.

Thanks, that differentiation helps understand how to treat them, and it could be applied even if they end up changing the wording a bit.

Frizzle- It is a effectively a constant ability since it doesn't include the word "play." Like all constant abilities it is always checking if it is true or not. The moment it becomes untrue, the rulebook tells you to discard it. It is similar to if it said "Attached Shugenja gets +1 Military" It would constantly be looking to see if it was attached to a shugenja. If it was it would give the Shuengja +1, if it wasn't it wouldn't. The even more complex "Attach to only to Phoenix Clan personality. Attached Shugenja gets +1 Mil" Would be constantly check to if it's personality was a Phoenix and if it was a shugenja. If it lost phoenix it would be discarded, but if it just lost shugenja it would remain attached but not give the +1.

That's good to know. As of right now my only concern is if this will be added to the FAQ or some other rules document. I believe that we have the right ruling but unless it comes from a source that's easier for a TO to find than a forum post from before the game even releases it will be hard to make sure that's how it would be ruled in an actual tournament setting.

Quoted here my full question as asked (I tried to be as specific as possible for clarity and provided an example):

Quote

Rules Question:
Per the Legends of the Five Rings Rules Reference document, "An attachment a player controls remains under his or her control even if the card or game element to which it is attached is under an opponent’s control." It also states, "If a situation arises in which an attachment is not legally attached, discard the attachment." Some attachments contain the text, "Attach to a character you control." If Player A has a character with an attachment with this text, and Player B takes control of the character, according to the Rules Reference, Player A controls the character's attachment, but Player B controls the attached character. In this situation, is the attachment considered no longer legally attached due to Player A no longer controlling the character, and therefore must be discarded, or is the requirement to "Attach to a character you control" considered fulfilled at the time of attachment, and therefore is unaffected by the fact that the character and the attachment are no longer under the same player's control?

Full response:

Quote

Attachments constantly check their attachment restrictions, and if the game situation changes so that the attachment is no longer legally attached, it is discarded.

So, in your example, if the character changes control, the attachment is no longer legally attached (as you no longer control the character), and is discarded.

EDIT: In case any missed from before, this is the question I submitted and answer received from the FFG LCG design team utilizing the official Rules Inquiry form here on the website.

I'm working on a FAQ for the L5R Discord channel (I could post it here if there is interest). I'll just note that this will NOT be the official FFG FAQ (which will come out when they do it).

Just to throw two cents in on another FFG game. In Star Wars Destiny, most of the attachments checked at the time of attachment. After an item was attached it did not care about play restrictions anymore. In fact, an item could then be moved to an "illegal" character because moving was not attaching in it.

1 minute ago, Isawa2 said:

Just to throw two cents in on another FFG game. In Star Wars Destiny, most of the attachments checked at the time of attachment. After an item was attached it did not care about play restrictions anymore. In fact, an item could then be moved to an "illegal" character because moving was not attaching in it.

Hmm...sounds like that could be a CCG Design Team quirk. FWIW the person that responded to my Rules Inquiry was specifically denoted as an LCG Designer.