Direct Assault

Legend of the Five Rings card from Lotus Edition, Hidden City

Card Type

Strategy

Gold Cost

0

Keywords

Center, Formation

Card Text

Battle: If you control four Samurai or Bushi, each with a Follower or Item, at the current battlefield, put this card into play there. Discard your other Formations there. You may take an additional Battle action.
Repeatable Battle: If this card is in play and you are meeting the conditions to put it there, target your performing Personality and bow all cards in his unit to either destroy a target enemy Personality's unit or a target Holding controlled by a player who controls a unit in the current enemy army.

Focus Value

2

Legality

Age of Enlightenment (Lotus), Rain of Blood (Diamond)

Deck

Fate

Printings

Rules Q&A

• Q: I know there has been a ruling with "Superior Stratagist" related to Formations that do and do not have Battle actions on them. Does that ruling also apply to this cards second ability, or can it only target non-formation action cards with "Battle:" actions on them? See the problem is that SupStrat specifically says "a card with a battle or open action", this one does not, leading to the question can this guy retrieve formations with battle actions on them, like Direct Assault for instance?
  A: An "action card" is a specific kind of card - the ones with the Red Borders.
  A "Battle action card," is an action card with a Battle Action on it.
  Don't confuse a Battle action card (Steel on Steel, Direct Assault) with cards that can be played "as a Battle Action" without any Battle Actions on them (like Iron Pillar) or cards that's - effects - create other Battle Actions (like Archer Squad). Martin Lund, "Rules for 6 January 2005", 10 Jan 2005
• Q: Is it legal to use Hiruma Todori NON-EXP or Tsudao's Chambers to straighten one Follower on a unit that entirely bows for the Direct Assault action?
  A: Yes. Why would it not be. They bowed. The cost was paid. They then unbowed. Hurrah.
  Well, you couldn't use Todori NON-EXP if he was the Personality in that unit and was bowed at the same time as the follower to pay the cost though. He'd be bowed by the time you went to use his ability, and that's not allowed. Martin Lund, "Rules for 2 January 2004", 7 Jan 2005
• Q: If an action like Direct Assault required me to bow a unit, could I choose to bow a unit that already had bowed cards in it?
  A: A unit is a Personality and all his attached cards. Direct Assault requires that you bow the unit to pay the cost. If you can't bow all the cards in the unit at that time (because some are bowed, in this case), you can't use that unit to pay the cost. Martin Lund, "Rules for 12 December 2004", 15 Dec 2004
• Q: Do non-follower tokens in units stop them from being used for things like Direct Assault?
  I would presume so as non-follower Tokens can't be bowed, but I'd like a little clarifcation about this.
  A: A "unit" is defined as a Personality and all his or her attached - CARDS -. That does not include Tokens, unless the Tokens are also Cards. If the Tokens are Cards, they have a bowed / unbowed state while in play, just like every other card or stronghold.
  As of Wrath of the Emperor, any Token that specifies a Card Type when created is itself a card. Follower Tokens and Item Tokens are the most common examples.
  Thinks like "Fire Tokens" can not be bowed, but they are not considered to be part of the definition of "Unit" either, so they won't get in the way of paying the cost of Direct Assault. Martin Lund, "Rules for 5 October 2004", 9 Oct 2004
• Q: Can I bow a unit that has his personality bowed? Example: I have an army with 4 bushi with 1 follower each. I play archer squad and bow the personalities for the ranged attacks, then i play direct assault. Can I bow the units with unbowed followers for the action or must the personality be unbowed for that. Direct assault says "bow a unit", not "bow a personality", so if I have unbowed followers does that count as unbowed units?
  A: A Unit is a Personality and all his or her attached cards (Diamond Edition Rulebook, page 105). If any of those cards are not unbowed, then the unit is not bowed. If any of those cards do not go from unbowed to bowed status, then you have not "bowed a unit."
  So, if the Personality, Follower, Item, or Ancestor in a given unit is bowed, you can't pay the cost "bow a unit" (such as that of Direct Assault) by just bowing the remaining cards in the unit. Martin Lund, "Rules for 1 October 2004", 4 Oct 2004
• Q: When I pay a cost by bowing a unit (Direct Assault, Strength in Numbers) does the entire unit need to be unbowed, or only the personality?
  A: A unit is defined as a Personality and all his attached cards. When you are told to do something to a unit, you've got to do that to the whole thing - all the cards. You can't pay a cost of bowing cards with cards that are already bowed. Since a unit is made up of cards, you can not pay the cost of bowing a unit with a unit that contains bowed cards. Martin Lund, "Rules for 27 July 2004", 30 Jul 2004
• Q: Am I correct in assuming that, since Direct Assault read "...to destory an opposing unit or holding controled by an opposing player", it may not be used if there are no cards in the opposing army?
  A: Correct. Martin Lund, "Rules for 22 May 2004", 25 May 2004
• Q: Castle Of the swift sword:
  Once per turn, if you control a Tacttician at the battlefield,You may play a formation as a normal action card for one of its abilities ignoring "formed by" requirements.
  Sadahigi:
  Battle: If Sadahige is in the current battle, once per battle, play an Action card from your discard pile for one of its Battle actions as if it were in your hand. Remove the card from the game.
  Itagi:
  Political Battle: Once per turn: Look at a number of cards from the top of your Fate deck equal to the number of Lion Clan Personalities you control at the current battlefield. You may play one Action card from those cards for an Open or Battle action printed on it.
  Can you use Sadahige or Itagi to get a formation card , lets say Direct Assault, and then play it as if it were just a regular action card with the stronghold?
  A: Yes. Jeff Alexander, "Castle Of The swift sword...", 12 Oct 2005
• Q: I resolve battle A first, and I play Direct Assault, can I bow the unit on B to destroy a defending unit on B ???
  A: No (Diamond rules, pg. 102). Zen Faulkes, "Some formations", 21 Mar 2005
• Q: Direct Assault says: "...to destroy one OPPOSING UNIT or A HOLDING..." what does this mean?
  A: Just what it says. A unit in the opposite army (Diamond rules, pg. 102) or a holding, which cannot be in the opposite army, since they're not in battle. Zen Faulkes, "Some formations", 21 Mar 2005
• Q: Direct Assault
  Center Formation
  Formed by four Samurai or Bushi, each with a Follower or Item.
  Battle: Bow one of your units in this battle to destroy an opposing unit or a Holding controlled by an opposing player.
  Must you have opposition at the battle you play Direct Assault to destroy a holding or does opposition at any battle work?
  A: Opposition in this battle. Martin Lund, "Direct Assault question", 21 Mar 2005
• Q: I have two Hiruma Odas out. I attach to one a Follower, and I get Direct Assault. If I attach the other a Follower, can that Oda go get another Direct Assault since that Oda's ability hasn't gone to get Direct Assault yet, or does the fact that one Oda got it so no others can't?
  A: One per Personality. Zen Faulkes, "Oda Q", 17 Mar 2005
• Q: Just a quick question regarding the wording on Direct Assault.
  Am I correct in believing that if I'm unopposed in a battle I can't use this card, since neither target requirements are met? I'm going back to this ruling:
  Maybe I'm wrong and I'm about to start abusing my playgroup with direct assaults but even if my interpretation is correct, I guess Ill just have to be satisfied with attacking unopposed and taking my opponents provinces.
  A: An opposing player is a player who controls cards opposing your cards at the battle.
  The opposing player is an old term now replaced with Enemy Leader.
  Direct Assault's printed Battle Action can't be used in an unopposed Battle. Martin Lund, "Direct Assault Clarification", 8 Feb 2005