If I have a character I control with a cloud the mind attachment from my opponent on him, can I use calling in favors on said character to discard the cloud the mind?

The reasoning is tha since the attachment in already attached, the "if able" part cant happen, so the "otherwise" part does.

Apparently not: source .

Thanks for the find Khudzlin. !!!

More importantly, imo, is the following Dev Ruling concerning Calling in Favors and similar cards:

"Seeker/Keeper only" is a deckbuilding restriction, not a play restriction. You can take control of cards that do not match your role.

This is, well, interesting, since it could have been argued either way. (being able to take control of a card that has the Seeker/Keeper listing, or not being able to)

@LordBlunt Well, I just looked up the card on fiveringsdb, so you can thank @mplain for collecting developer rulings and putting them online.

Saddly they need to get something up on /here/ or their main L5R page about rulings. So far every example and link that comes up directs me off to a non-official site that I would not use in a tourny.

9 minutes ago, Darksyde said:

Saddly they need to get something up on /here/ or their main L5R page about rulings. So far every example and link that comes up directs me off to a non-official site that I would not use in a tourny.

Just because it's unofficial, that does not make it incorrect.

37 minutes ago, twinstarbmc said:

Just because it's unofficial, that does not make it incorrect.

The issue is that rulings should be hosted on the main site for the game not an affiliated web site. If they want to keep going this route than FFG should just add link to the main page and state that official rulings can be found here.

It's an issue for tournament play as while the rulings are great for giving us clarity of intent with many of the cards, if they aren't being made available to the general public (which if you don't regularly check the specific board in question you may not catch every ruling) and some have the potential to really bite a player if it comes up in tournament play. Plus there becomes the question of at what point does a ruling become official or errata (yes Pit Trap got one to make it work and I'm sure Brawler's will be getting one in the future), is it as soon as the update is released, is there a grace period while people find out about it?

We've seen the effects of the rulings being handled this way at events like Pax where the majority of complaints about judge rulings were players who were upset that an e-mail/board post ruling was not respected. Well unfortunately if it ain't in an official document (RRG, FAQ) that has been made available to the general public than it shouldn't be taken as written in stone and is sadly the judges discretion whether to accept the "ruling" or not.

i asked about them doing rulings here on the site, and they said no and they have no intention of doing so, there is a link you can use to asked the questions.

5 hours ago, Schmoozies said:

The issue is that rulings should be hosted on the main site for the game not an affiliated web site. If they want to keep going this route than FFG should just add link to the main page and state that official rulings can be found here.

If the design of a card doesn't function according to the RR then we will probably see the RR updated to fix it. So far all rulings have been in accordance with the RR. This isn't to say the RR is perfect, but the proper response as a player receiving these answers is to realize the answer already follows the RR. Read through the RR with the ruling in mind and you can see how it works. This understanding is infinitely more valuable than a massive online doc of times the Devs essentially said "The RR says it does this." That's all any Dev response has been so far - simple clarification of the rules already in place.

For instance - when the rules question was asked about whether Borderlands Fortification could swap with your SH the answer was Yes. Then the RR changed and the answer became No, but only because the RR changed - not because of anything the Dev said. Similarly when the rules question was asked about Toruti and Hotaru and the answer was "the ring ability gives the attacker certain decision points, as this ability does not specify that the controller of these characters resolves as if they were attacking then the current attacker is still the attacker for resolution of these ring effects." The RR has not changed, and the cards have not received any errata so by a reading of the cards in accordance with the rules even without the FAQ we can see that it works as they have answered it.

I hope they continue to update the RR. So far they've only updated it to fix broken interactions but it could really use some clarity updates... but I don't disagree with them simply relying on the RR. Doing a FAQ would quickly become extensive as players often question things they don't understand leading to Devs patiently answering the most inane questions that... really just don't merit the attention, but sometimes online its the only way to shut someone up lol.

If you were appealing to a judge for a ruling on an interaction in the game it would make more sense to illustrate your case with the RR than with an online FAQ / Dev ruling. Don't copy and paste dev rulings hoping for them to save you in a tourny but DO know exactly what to reference in the RR to illustrate your case and you may find you get a favorable ruling. As an example for the Hotaru / Toruri I would show the judge that the RR explicitly states the Attacker makes decisions for ring effects, and that other cards which give the defender control over the ring effects all include the text "as the attacker" while this card omits it, then point out that there is no errata or FAQ for this therefore... following the RR the defender may trigger the ring ability but the current Attacker will still make any choices as attacker while resolving the ring effect.

48 minutes ago, shosuko said:

Doing a FAQ would quickly become extensive as players often question things they don't understand leading to Dev rulings on things that... really just don't merit it, but sometimes online its the only way to shut someone up lol.

Just because you take up answering rules and issuing in an oficial place like a forum doesnt mean you have to answer every single question someone has. Many questions can be answered by directing someone to the rules or by other players with more dominion of them. However an official place where all rule adresses that are necesary would be good, specially for official play.

Also thanks for the reply with thw rules reference.