I'll be using this thread to review card rulings posted to FiveRingsDB and proposing edits https://fiveringsdb.com/ . I would also appreciate it if everyone could keep me in check so I don't make a bad recommendation. If you see anything that may need re-wording on FiveRingsDB, post it for discussion! I appreciate what those folks at FiveRingsDB are doing for the community, as this is a great resource.

https://fiveringsdb.com/card/above-question

Quote

Above Question

"Above Question does not prevent attached character from being sacrificed for Way of the Crab (that event doesn't use the word "choose" in its text).

RRG "Target" "

Way of the Crab does use the word "choose" in its text, but the "choose" is on a player and not the character. This could be clarified.

Edit: Misread Ancestral Daisho X_X

4 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

Ancestral Daisho is added to your hand if it is discarded by a card effect. Per the rules reference:

The card specifically says it returns to hand 'when attached card leaves play.' It doesn't refer to the Daisho leaving play at all.

Edit: Unless I am misinterpreting the plain text on the card. I understand this to mean when the card Daisho is attached to leaves play, but it could refer to 'when this attached card leaves play' I suppose. The Rules Reference on Ancestral says:

"Ancestral is a keyword ability that appears on attachments. If the card or game element to which an ancestral attachment is attached leaves play, the ancestral attachment is returned to its owner’s hand instead of being discarded." This seems to support it refers to the card the attachment is attached to being the key.

Are we sure that all rulings on FiveRingsDB are coking from the design team?

40 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

https://fiveringsdb.com/card/above-question

Above Question does use the word "choose" in its text, but the "choose" is on a player and not the character. This could be clarified.

They're referring to way of the crab. Above Question isn't an event.

And while WoTC does use 'choose' in it's card text, we understand in this case that that kind of choose (player) doesn't apply, since this is a clarification under Above Question. The language could be tightened up, sure, but I think it's pretty clear what is meant.

13 minutes ago, Joelist said:

Are we sure that all rulings on FiveRingsDB are coking from the design team?

Not all are from the design team, but the ones that are are clearly marked as "developer rulings" with links to the ruling/correspondence.

11 minutes ago, Tebbo said:

They're referring to way of the crab. Above Question isn't an event.

And while WoTC does use 'choose' in it's card text, we understand in this case that that kind of choose (player) doesn't apply, since this is a clarification under Above Question. The language could be tightened up, sure, but I think it's pretty clear what is meant.

Corrected my comment. Yes, the ruling is correct, it's just the example given could be tightened up.

Alrighty, fixed. C'mon, give me some big fish deserving of a whole thread!

https://fiveringsdb.com/card/court-mask

Quote

Court Mask.

Dishonoring a character is an effect of Court Mask's ability, not a cost. So you can use it even if attached character is already dishonored, or if Steward of Law is participating in the conflict.

RRG "Triggered Abilities"

If Steward of Law is in play and participating in a conflict, you can initiate the ability, however you cannot dishonor a character (who has no status) using court mask. The ability is allowed to be initiated because the card returned to your hand is a change in game state. However Steward of Law says "characters cannot become dishonored". The dishonoring would simply fizzle and fail to resolve.

Quote

Rules Reference:

Cannot
The word “cannot” is absolute, and cannot be countermanded
by other abilities or effects.

You also would be able to initiate the ability if the attached character were already dishonored, and again, the dishonoring part would just fail to resolve.

I thought the ruling on Steward of Law is that a character cannot become dishonored, meaning if they are already honored they can still be dishonored since they are placed in the normal state rather than the dishonored state.

2 minutes ago, Zesu Shadaban said:

I thought the ruling on Steward of Law is that a character cannot become dishonored, meaning if they are already honored they can still be dishonored since they are placed in the normal state rather than the dishonored state.

Yes, I need to clarify my point, that the effect would fizzle if the attached character had a normal status.

I'd like to clarify, do you see the current ruling for Court Mask as being incorrect, or did you read it and felt it was misleading (to you), or do you think that someone sometime might misinterpret it, and that it could be reworded for 100% accuracy?

Because honestly, I would reword a ruling if someone actually got confused, but I don't really want to go reword every entry looking for perfection, foolproofing it against the very possibility of misinterpretation. It's like someone actually being offended -vs- someone thinking that someone else might get offended. There's a difference between something being imperfect, and it needing to be changed. Which one is Court Mask?

44 minutes ago, mplain said:

I'd like to clarify, do you see the current ruling for Court Mask as being incorrect, or did you read it and felt it was misleading (to you), or do you think that someone sometime might misinterpret it, and that it could be reworded for 100% accuracy?

Because honestly, I would reword a ruling if someone actually got confused, but I don't really want to go reword every entry looking for perfection, foolproofing it against the very possibility of misinterpretation. It's like someone actually being offended -vs- someone thinking that someone else might get offended. There's a difference between something being imperfect, and it needing to be changed. Which one is Court Mask?

I find it misleading to have a blanket statement, and think it could easily mislead others that says you can use court mask even with Steward of Law in play and leave it at that. I'd go as far to say that as it is worded it is incorrect (by it saying it's part of the effect you can dishonor even with Steward in play).

The site isn't that credible if there isn't at least one other person reviewing what goes on there. There have been 'big fish' that I and others have already helped in correcting (I.e. Shameful Display). If you want this site to be a resource for others, be open to some feedback. I was going alphabetically and was halfway done with 99% of the enteries being perfectly reasonable, with only 2 recommendations. I expect to have some more feedback, and also have some more developer rulings that I'd recommend you put on the site. My opinion is that this will add credibility to the site and I'd be happy to help.

@mplain

There is a discussion about Restoration of Balance going on.

The discrepancy is do you discard multiple cards one at a time or as a lump effect at once.

The RR discusses "drawing cards" as a simultaneous effect but says nothing about discards.

Restoration of balance says to "discard until you have 4 or fewer" and the argument is whether or not you can discard to less than four cards at once or do you discard one at a time until you get to 4 cards in hand (as suggested by @InquisitorM) ?

Whether you discard the cards one at a time or all at once is a bit moot: in the latter case, you (as the owner of the cards) choose what order they go into the discard.

9 hours ago, LuceLineGames said:

The site isn't that credible if there isn't at least one other person reviewing what goes on there. There have been 'big fish' that I and others have already helped in correcting (I.e. Shameful Display). If you want this site to be a resource for others, be open to some feedback. I was going alphabetically and was halfway done with 99% of the enteries being perfectly reasonable, with only 2 recommendations. I expect to have some more feedback, and also have some more developer rulings that I'd recommend you put on the site. My opinion is that this will add credibility to the site and I'd be happy to help.

There's actually plenty of people giving feedback on the ruling entries etc. We're based on Discord, feel free to join: https://discord.gg/dhnuzWw . I'm more active there, this forum isn't very convenient for that kind of thing in my opinion.

Edited, bad reading of Ikoma Eiji.

https://fiveringsdb.com/card/niten-master

Quote

Niten Master

Dragon Character. Bushi.

Cost: 4. Military: 3. Political: 3. Glory: 2.

Reaction: After you attach a Weapon attachment to this character – ready this character. (Limit twice per round.)

Quote

You can attach a third Restricted attachment to Niten Master, discard one of them so that there are only two left, then trigger Niten Master's ability.

RRG "Restricted"

I disagree with this interpretation Niten Master, given the current rules, as there aren't any rules to indicate you can play a restricted attachment on a character that already has 2 restricted attachments. The rules simply state that if a character has 3 or more attachments, you must discard one, as this is an illegal game state. There are examples of other 'illegal game states' in the game, and in each other case, you aren't allowed to play into them. For instance, a 'dash' political character can't be played in a political conflict, or even be put into play into that conflict, but if it 'somehow finds itself' in a political conflict, it would need to be removed. Without explicit rules stating as such, I don't see how you can 'play' into an illegal game state.

Quote

Restricted is a keyword ability. A character may not have more than two attachments with the restricted keyword attached to it at any time .

• If at any time a character has three or more restricted attachments, that character's controller must immediately choose and discard one of the restricted attachments on the character as soon as the illegal game state occurs.

I wouldn't mind being proven wrong with a developer ruling (or if there is something I'm missing), but I just don't see how we can jump to this conclusion.

47 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

https://fiveringsdb.com/card/ikoma-eiji

@mplain For clarification, Ikoma can put conflict characters into play straight into the conflict, correct? Is this just a ruling for Dynasty characters, or am I missing something?

Eiji cannot put conflict characters into play.

17 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

I disagree with this interpretation Niten Master, given the current rules, as there aren't any rules to indicate you can play a restricted attachment on a character that already has 2 restricted attachments. The rules simply state that if a character has 3 or more attachments, you must discard one, as this is an illegal game state. There are examples of other 'illegal game states' in the game, and in each other case, you aren't allowed to play into them. For instance, a 'dash' political character can't be played in a political conflict, or even be put into play into that conflict, but if it 'somehow finds itself' in a political conflict, it would need to be removed. Without explicit rules stating as such, I don't see how you can 'play' into an illegal game state.

Can you give an example of a situation in which a character could end up with three Restricted attachments attached, and that rule would apply?

2 minutes ago, mplain said:

Eiji cannot put conflict characters into play.

Gotchya, my bad.

3 minutes ago, mplain said:

Can you give an example of a situation in which a character could end up with three Restricted attachments attached, and that rule would apply?

Not off the bat. I also can't think of another example where you can 'play' a card into it's illegal game state.

I am being told that Brad Andres answered the question about Restricted attachments in Stream #4. He say you can indeed play a third one. Sorry i don't have the link.

2 minutes ago, LuceLineGames said:

Not off the bat. I also can't think of another example where you can 'play' a card into it's illegal game state.

It looks to me like they're leaving design space open for the future. An event that makes an attachment restricted, for example, thus forcing the owner to discard one. The key to me is the definition of restricted: Restricted is a keyword ability. A character may not have more than two attachments with the restricted keyword attached to it at any time .

'At any time' means just that. So if a character has two restricted items, you can't play a third on him, because that would violate this rule.

Edit: And as I was writing this it looks like there was a designer ruling to the contrary Oh well...