Jump to content
MadMonkZero

Charge clarification and old school presence and targeting.

Recommended Posts

Hey Folks,

I tried searching for some clarification on this but wasn't able to locate the info in the rules pdf, reference pdf or randomly online. Just trying to figure out the ways to use charge. Plus sadly, old school L5R rules are making me second guess things instead of taking them at face value. Thanks to anyone who can answer any of these.

Q: When you use “charge” do you pay the cost for the character you choose?

Q: Can you use Charge with cards that are only defenders? Charge and Hiruma Yojimbo?

Q: Do you have to have someone in a conflict to target the enemy? Can you play cards or take actions of you have no defenders?

Q: Can someone outside of the conflict (back at the home row) use powers on someone inside the conflict?   (conflict card Assassination)

Q: If a ring is chosen for a conflict and it has fate on it and it’s switched during a conflict to another ring and that one also has fate on it, what happens to the fate on the first ring and/or the second ring?  (province? – Elemental Fury)



 

Edited by MadMonkZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) No. Putting a character into play is different from playing a character. (see the term put in the RR)

2) Yes, but if a character is disallowed from participating in a conflict, they are immediately sent home bowed.

3) You don't need to have a character participating in a conflict to play cards unless that card specifically mentions such a requirement. Ex: you can court games with no defenders so long as the conflict is political.

4) Yes, assuming that the ability does not specifically mention that they must be participating as well. Ex: Sinister Soshi is designed to weaken enemies from home, as she can not participate.

5) The player gets fate from both rings.

Edited by player2636234
updated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quick answers. To explain the last question - Q: Do you have to have someone in a conflict to target the enemy? Can you play cards or take actions of you have no defenders?  What I mean is lets say an attack is declared against you, and you don't have any people on the board, can you still play conflict cards or take actions? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MadMonkZero said:

Thanks for the quick answers. To explain the last question - Q: Do you have to have someone in a conflict to target the enemy? Can you play cards or take actions of you have no defenders?  What I mean is lets say an attack is declared against you, and you don't have any people on the board, can you still play conflict cards or take actions? 

Yes you can play cards.  Presence is not required unless specifically stated in the card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the rules from ol5r were a lot more complex for open and battle actions, and were very ambiguous for when certain things could be played.  The new game is very simple -

Actions explicitly state any timing restrictions in the ability, such as "during a conflict" or "while this character is participating in a conflict."  There are no other hidden restrictions - its great!

If something is "put into play" then it is free, injected into the game state with no further cost than the action which puts them into play required.  

its so much easier this time around haha. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiruma Yojimbo's card says that the character cannot be "declared" as an attacker. Does that preclude being moved in to or played to a combat where they are an attacker? Or is it just a limitation on the declaration step?

For comparison, Shiba Peacemaker says he cannot "participate" as an attacker, which implies to me that moving and playing him to combat cannot be done because we know it's an illegal play before we do it. Am I mistaken on this point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMgosh Shosuko, that is great to know. It's why I keep over thinking things I think, old L5R was nuance after nuance, almost as bad as magic. It's just odd to have things look "too easy" if you know what I mean. 

Ok, so if I read this correctly then according to Ishi Tonu who replied "correct", Suzume Tomonori's statement that I could use charge on Hiruma Yojimbo because that card "can only be declared a n attacker" while Shiba Peacemaker just straight up "cannot participate as an attacker" means that due to the wording the Crab is ok for charge but the Phoenix isn't.

Edited by MadMonkZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly - when you cannot be "declared" it is only about your natural ability to declare who is attacking / defending.  If it is cannot "participate" that means you cannot enter that type of conflict.  You cannot declare them, or move them, and they cannot be moved into it.

This is the way dash (-) stats work too.  When a character has a - mil or pol they cannot be declared to that type of conflict, or be moved into it, or played into it.  They cannot participate.  If a character does become involved in a conflict they cannot participate (right now the only way for that is for the type to switch which stat is compared like Rally to the Cause, and Captive Audience on a character with - stat) they immediately bow and move home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MadMonkZero said:

OMgosh Shosuko, that is great to know. It's why I keep over thinking things I think, old L5R was nuance after nuance, almost as bad as magic. It's just odd to have things look "too easy" if you know what I mean. 

Ok, so if I read this correctly then according to Ishi Tonu who replied "correct", Suzume Tomonori's statement that I could use charge on Hiruma Yojimbo because that card "can only be declared a n attacker" while Shiba Peacemaker just straight up "cannot participate as an attacker" means that due to the wording the Crab is ok for charge but the Phoenix isn't.

From the looks of it, part of the intent with the LCG was to streamline many of the rules.  Another example of this is the fact that most keywords (e.g. Cavalry, Shugenja) now exist only to be referenced by other cards, rather than having specific rules associated with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

From the looks of it, part of the intent with the LCG was to streamline many of the rules.  Another example of this is the fact that most keywords (e.g. Cavalry, Shugenja) now exist only to be referenced by other cards, rather than having specific rules associated with them.

Those are called Traits in FFG's vocabulary. Keywords also exist (such as Ancestral or Sincerity) and they do have rules attached (which usually appear as reminder text on the cards). The order, going down from the illustration, is traits (bold italics, centered), keywords (normal type, left-aligned), constant abilities (each with its own paragraph), triggered abilities (also each with its own paragraph).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Khudzlin said:

Those are called Traits in FFG's vocabulary. Keywords also exist (such as Ancestral or Sincerity) and they do have rules attached (which usually appear as reminder text on the cards). The order, going down from the illustration, is traits (bold italics, centered), keywords (normal type, left-aligned), constant abilities (each with its own paragraph), triggered abilities (also each with its own paragraph).

Yes, but context makes it pretty clear which was meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Khudzlin said:

Yeah, I got it, but we should get folks to use the correct terms as early as possible.

Probably, but if I haven't managed to get the two terms straight in two years of playing FFG games, odds are it's not going to happen.

Considering how many people still refer to Strongholds as "boxes", I figured rules were more important than terminology to this community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, theninthguardian said:

I feel it's also worth noting that you can't declare an attack and assign no one. You do initially have to have presence, but if all your people get sent home or discarded, I assume you can still take actions there as the attacker.

Yes, it is just required for getting an attack started.  The only requirement is an unbowed/Ready character capable of participating in the conflict type.

(I keep using personality instead of character)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Probably, but if I haven't managed to get the two terms straight in two years of playing FFG games, odds are it's not going to happen.

Considering how many people still refer to Strongholds as "boxes", I figured rules were more important than terminology to this community.

I got better after a few years. Though to be honest, I only played the CCG for two arcs (and have now played various LCGs for longer). Also, "box" is much shorter than stronghold (especially in writing), so I guess that's why it stuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Khudzlin said:

I got better after a few years. Though to be honest, I only played the CCG for two arcs (and have now played various LCGs for longer). Also, "box" is much shorter than stronghold (especially in writing), so I guess that's why it stuck.

I've just always found the box terminology interesting because the CCG only used boxes for strongholds for a relatively short period of its life.  (I didn't start collecting until around Diamond, so I never actually used them, personally; nor even heard the term until I started coming to these message boards for the LCG, actually.)  It's fascinating that the term became so ingrained as to last even to the LCG era, in relatively common usage.

I do get where you're coming from, though, and hopefully if our local group grows I'll be able to keep "traits" and "keywords" straight when teaching the game.  I just wish FFG had gone with something a bit more descriptive to help differentiate the two ("ruled keywords" vs "non-ruled keywords" for instance).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Khudzlin said:

You think the typesetting difference isn't enough? To FFG, they're different concepts with different names and calling them both keywords makes no sense.

I wasn't talking about the visual distinctions, but the terms themselves.  There's nothing about the terms "keyword" and "trait" that tell you which is which; just an arbitrary distinction.  FFG could have decided to flip around which was which, and it would make just as much sense.  I'm just saying having terms that were a bit more descriptive would have been helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...