Drum of Water
Legend of the Five Rings card from Gold Edition, Anvil of Despair
Open in Oracle of the Void
- Card Type
- Item
- Force
- +0
- Chi
- +0
- Gold Cost
- 6
- Keywords
- Water
- Card Text
- Water Reaction: After battle resolution destroys an army, if this Personality is in the current winning army and you played a Terrain during the current battle, put the Ring of Water into play from your hand.
Water Battle: If this Personality is at a battlefield at a Province, destroy Drum of Water to target a battlefield at a Province. Move this Personality there. This ability has Absent and Remote if the target is the current battlefield. - Focus Value
- 3
- Legality
- Clan Wars (Imperial), Four Winds (Gold)
- Deck
- Fate
Printings
Gold Edition
- Rarity
- Uncommon
- Artist
- Mark Evans
- Card Number
- 107
- Publisher
- Wizards of the Coast
Anvil of Despair
- Rarity
- Uncommon
- Artist
- Nicola Leonard
- Publisher
- Five Rings Publishing Group
Rulings
- Erratum: Reads, "Drum of Water 6G 3FV Reaction: When an army containing this Personality destroys an opposing army after you have played a Terrain for the battle, play the Ring of Water from your hand. Elemental Battle: Destroy the Drum of Water to move this Personality to another of the Defender's Provinces." [MRP, Gold Edition, 1 July 2001] Rules Archive, August 18, 2007, p. 51
Rules Q&A
- Q: If an army with a drum of water ties an opposing army, and both armies are destroyed by the resolution of the battle, can drum of water's reaction be used to play the Ring of Water[?]
A: According to the Archive, yes (http://www.legendofthefiverings.com/rulings/#Battle). But...
That is an *old* ruling: it predates the appearance of the Drum of Water in Anvil of Despair by almost a year. I think that ruling was made with Famous Poet and Ring of Water in mind, not cards "in battle" like the Drum of Water. It's a long standing ruling that all cards in a battle are destroyed at the same time, which argues against that.
I'll bring it up with the rest of the Rules Junta when they get back. Zen Faulkes, "Rules for 28 June 2003", 28 Jun 2003 - Q: I heard a rumor that the following combo is not legal: Deadly Ground -> Drum of Water -> Ring of Water [...] because of uncertainty on whether or not one can take the reaction on Drum of Water after Deadly Ground has been played.
A: Drum fo Water is played "when an army... destroys an opposing army." That's present tense, which means it's played during battle resolution, which means Deadly Ground can't be played, which means you may not use the Drum of Water. Zen Faulkes, "Rules for 17 April 2003, Part 1", 17 Apr 2003 - Q: Deadly Ground prohibits the use of the Drum of Water during resolution.
The same would go for the reaction on Armor of Osano-wo, since Provinces are destroyed during resolution, correct?
A: Correct. Deadly Ground stops all Reactions taken during the Battle Action and Resolution Segments except those that destroy Deadly Ground. Jeff Alexander, "post for 24 March 2003", 25 Mar 2003 - Q: Quick question regarding drum of water. Is it possible to activate it in the event of a tied battle?
A: Yes. You don't "win", but you do "destroy the opposing army." (This is in the Archive, under "Resolution Segment".) Jeff Alexander, "post for 10 March 2003", 11 Mar 2003 - Q: Drum of Water Reads, "Drum of Water 6G 3FV Reaction: When an army containing this Personality destroys an opposing army after you have played a Terrain for the battle, play the Ring of Water from your hand. Elemental Battle: Destroy the Drum of Water to move this Personality to another of the Defender's Provinces." [MRP, Gold Edition, 1 July 2001]
Question: For the second Battle action, in order to move the personality does that personality have to be at a Battle?
A: Yes. He cannot move to "ANOTHER of the Defender's Provinces" if he is not at one of them already. Jeff Alexander, "post for 18 November 2002", 19 Nov 2002 - Q: Looking for an official ruling here:
Is it permissible to use the reaction of the Drum of Water in a battle that results in a tie or is the Drum destroyed before it has a chance to react?
A: This appears to fall under the "active player decides" timing conflict resolution rule. Jeff Alexander, "post for 4 October 2001", 4 Oct 2001