Final Sacrifice...

How does final sacrifice interact with actions like fear and ranged? 

I looked at how fear and ranged are worded in their ivory rules text: 

fear: (Bow a target enemy Follower, or Personality without Followers, with X or lower Force). 
ranged:  (Destroy a target enemy Follower, or Personality without Followers, with X or lower Force).

Is the X a condition of targeting?

All actions are announced, then have their costs paid. At this point, starting with the active player, you may play interrupts. Afterwards targets are assigned and effects are resolved.

IE: Richard Anounces a fear 3 off the Spider box, as the active player he boosts its strength by one with Daigotsu Onosaka's Interrupt ability. Patrick at this point has the option to play an interrupt or pass. He chooses to play Final Sacrafice, redirecting the fear to Bayushi Masashi, who is equipped with a Justice, making his force 6. The fear doesn't bow Masashi.

Just like in CE, you can target personalities with actions even if you don't meet the force. IE: Ranged 3 on Hida Kuon, forcing him to use his negation trait.

panku wrote:All actions are announced, then have their costs paid. At this point, starting with the active player, you may play interrupts. Afterwards targets are assigned and effects are resolved.

IE: Richard Anounces a fear 3 off the Spider box, as the active player he boosts its strength by one with Daigotsu Onosaka's Interrupt ability. Patrick at this point has the option to play an interrupt or pass. He chooses to play Final Sacrafice, redirecting the fear to Bayushi Masashi, who is equipped with a Justice, making his force 6. The fear doesn't bow Masashi.

Just like in CE, you can target personalities with actions even if you don't meet the force. IE: Ranged 3 on Hida Kuon, forcing him to use his negation trait.

My question is according to the rules text is the X or less force a requirement to target?   If it is, then what you just described doesn't work.

I ask because the wording on final sacrifice says "If legal".   If you have a 3 force body, and a 5 force body, I use a ranged 3.   Can the ranged three (according to the rules text from ivory cards not the way we know it from before ivory) only target 3 force bodies?  (see the above cut and pasted from the oracle).

Disclaimer:  Pulled this right off ivory cards, but checked the advanced rulebook as well.  They changed it from the way it was worded where the effect was conditional on force comparison. 

This is from the Ivory Edition Rulebook:
"Destroy a target enemy Follower or Personality without Followers with X or lower Force."


This is from the Emperor edition rulebook:
"Target a Follower or a Personality without Followers in the current enemy army. If its Force is equal to or less than X, destroy it."

Notice the difference...

The basic rulebook is written so that a 10 year old can grasp the basic game because they assume new players are retards /shrug

Gosh wrote:The basic rulebook is written so that a 10 year old can grasp the basic game because they assume new players are retards /shrug

That's from the advanced rulebook.  I just want to make sure, because if someone runs into this and doesn't call it correctly and loses it's on our group, even if I'm wrong.

Chris got a final ruling on the ranged attack wording...  

Apparently the advanced rulebook, is not the final wording...   Nor the printed cards...  

Palmer wrote:The Ivory Rulebook wording is a bit of a shorthand; the longhand (I'm reviewing the new CR document right now) will be similar to the Emperor wording, so you can target something you can't destroy. Additionally the full text should allow targeting to remain optional (different from most targeting, but then Ranged Attacks have always been a special beast).

Now that Water is played differently, there shouldn't be much reason to fire off null ranged attacks.

In response to:  
I saw the rules post about ranged attacks, with the recent edition I noticed a distinct change to the wording of ranged attacks (including melee and fear).


This is from the Emperor edition rulebook:
"Target a Follower or a Personality without Followers in the current enemy army. If its Force is equal to or less than X, destroy it."

This is from the Ivory Edition Rulebook:
"Destroy a target enemy Follower or Personality without Followers with X or lower Force."


This has been a discussion in our play-group and I wanted to ask about the wording as it seems odd that in one, it's clear that you can target anything, but in the other "With X or lower force" is wording similar to a condition. Note there are cards in the environment with similar wording:

Thoughtless Sacrifice:
Battle: Target your unbowed Personality. Target an enemy unit with Force equal to or lower than your Personality's Force, or Force plus Personal Honor if he is defending. Destroy both targets.

Also of note, the new ivory rulebook omits the previous ruling that a ranged attack may have no target. Is targeting now not conditional at all (with (Condition)), and if you don't meet the requirements the action just fails? In this case would using final sacrifice make thoughtless sacrifice fail completely if not within the force comparison boundary?


Seems confusing...

The entire change to reactions is FUBAR.

Also, a few key interactions:

If you are playing Fearful Volley with a scout in play, the following can occur:

You:  I announce Fearful Volley.
Your Opponent: I play turtle's shell as a reaction.
You:  Okay, pass on reactions.
Your Opponent: Pass.
You: Okay, I use the fear 2 to bow your dude.

And another:

If your opponent has any Yojimbo's in play (likely out of Scorpion or Phoenix Shugenja build with the Yojimbo of Earth Followers), they can really mess up your Unsettling Gathering with Final Sacrifice.

Final Sacrifice targeting a yojimbo personality for Unsettling Gathering means that no matter what attachment you select, it MUST be attached to that Yojimbo (assuming it's legal, so no moving spells, but anything else).
Final Sacrifice targeting the yojimbo follower for Unsettling Gathering means that you steal the 1f Yojimbo Follower, not the other attachment you actually wanted to steal.

And yet another silly interraction (sigh... so unintuitive):

Tsuruchi Gosho cannot use Unholy Strike to buff his RA.  To be precise, there is never a timing window for ANY interruption of his RA, neither to negate it or strengthen it (outside of traits on a terrain, for example).  This is because an interrupt cannot be interrupted, and it's effects happen IMMEDIATELY (although they usually create a delayed effect so it feels like they happen later).  This is something to watch for if you are playing against mantis.  Gosho will never RA for more than 3.

While I'm at it, another fun combo:

Playing Advance Warning or Strategic Withdrawal when you (or your opponent) has Blanketed Forest out means that your personality stays at the battlefield, and the rest of the effects still happen.  IE: I target my 3f Bowed Scout.  He stays at the battlefield, straightens, and then the province strength is lowered by 3.

Yeah I saw the gosho response while looking at other stuff...  

Moto Taigo can't blow up dudes he sent home or elsewhere, only ones coming to the battlefield.   I'm really confused by interrupts and presence...  Again more simple yet more confusing?  Not understand...

Moto Damasko wrote:Yeah I saw the gosho response while looking at other stuff...  

Moto Taigo can't blow up dudes he sent home or elsewhere, only ones coming to the battlefield.   I'm really confused by interrupts and presence...  Again more simple yet more confusing?  Not understand...

It makes sense logically, but it doesn't make sense intuitively.  When you use his interrupt, you are setting up a delayed action that will target something after they move.  The rules of targeting (rule of location) is that they must be at the current battlefield.  So it makes logical sense that he can only target someone after they have moved to the current battlefield.

That being said, Intuitively, that stinks, and new players would totally not "get" that interaction.  The ham-fisted cramming of an "interrupt" step where all interrupts can occur makes action resolution technically "easier", but makes INTERPRETING proper action resolution actually much harder and much more unintuitive.

Entirely agree, I'm still absolutely stunned that they put out an Advanced rulebook, and the advanced rulebook has shorthand for shorthand, and suddenly there is an entirely different set of longhand. 

The interrupt type in general is just obnoxious as of right now because of how they handled it's build and interrupt triggers...  intuitiveness in my opinion is half the equation of "easy" for new players.  They need to both be able to understand the action and effectively use it intuitively without questioning things.  This was also my concern with demonstrating technique in a way, Intelligent wordsmithing should in effect make it so you shouldn't need to go look at rules.  

I find the idea that you are going to have an action with a condition (thoughtless sacrifice) and an action that uses the same wording in the rulebook (ranged, melee and fear) yet one is a condition and the other is shorthand for something else entirely excessively complicated and unnecessary.  It also doesn't add anything to the game, final sacrifice in my opinion could easily be changed to something more eloquent and intuitive as a reaction. 


Whenever an action could target one of your personalities, the action must target your target yojimbo regardless of conditions, it's effects occur as normal. 


Now we have a thematic card that doesn't feel like it's screwing over either player, accomplishes the same effect and is simple and intuitive. Now no matter how you change ranged attacks or other actions it all works.  IF the card was normally conditional (thoughtless sacrifice) you still get to protect the card you want to protect, if it is not conditional (the correct wording for ivory ranged/fear/melee attacks) it's intuitive and easy.

The ruling on Moto Taigo has me confused.

http://www.alderac.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=106606&p=1404632&hilit=taigo#p1404632

Why is this not a perfect case of the card overriding the technical rules - the card itself clearly says you may target a card in any unit that has moved?

If not the above, Given that his Interrupt must be triggered before we find out if any cards have actually moved, then surely the targeting of his Interrupt may only target a card currently at the battle (as cards at the battle are the only legal target), and therefore would only destroy a card leaving the battle, and could NOT target a card moving in because it is not in the battle at the time of Interrupt?


Now we are seeing interaction with targeting during an interrupt and requiring presence, whata mess.

Moto Damasko wrote:The ruling on Moto Taigo has me confused.

http://www.alderac.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=106606&p=1404632&hilit=taigo#p1404632

Why is this not a perfect case of the card overriding the technical rules - the card itself clearly says you may target a card in any unit that has moved?

If not the above, Given that his Interrupt must be triggered before we find out if any cards have actually moved, then surely the targeting of his Interrupt may only target a card currently at the battle (as cards at the battle are the only legal target), and therefore would only destroy a card leaving the battle, and could NOT target a card moving in because it is not in the battle at the time of Interrupt?


Now we are seeing interaction with targeting during an interrupt and requiring presence, whata mess.

Well, again, the targeting is occurring after the move is performed.  And that's when it checks for presence.  The interrupt creates a delayed effect.  The "if the action moved any units" is a qualifier and thus sets the timing of when the interrupt takes effect (in this case, the moment after the cards moved).  Then, it says "A target card" which means it is following targeting rules which follow rule of presence.

I thought targetting occured before card effects (Or in this case delayed effects) resolve, not as effects resolved.   Can you technically ring of earth a movement away from an opposed battlefield (You have presense) that is not the active battlefield to one that isn't opposed (No presense).

There is no specific window for targeting, it happens when the card says so.

panku wrote:There is no specific window for targeting, it happens when the card says so.

Gotcha, for some reason I thought that it was a phase in the action key (declare action, pay costs, interrupts, declare targets, resolve effects).

Moto Damasko wrote:

panku wrote:There is no specific window for targeting, it happens when the card says so.

Gotcha, for some reason I thought that it was a phase in the action key (declare action, pay costs, interrupts, declare targets, resolve effects).

That's because it was in both CE and EE. Now it's declare, pay, interrupt, resolve. Targeting is just part of action resolution now.

Gosh wrote:

Moto Damasko wrote:

panku wrote:There is no specific window for targeting, it happens when the card says so.

Gotcha, for some reason I thought that it was a phase in the action key (declare action, pay costs, interrupts, declare targets, resolve effects).

That's because it was in both CE and EE. Now it's declare, pay, interrupt, resolve. Targeting is just part of action resolution now.

So I'm crazy and have bad memory.