Emperor's Under-Hand

Legend of the Five Rings card from The War of Spirits

Card Type

Holding

Gold Cost

3

Keywords

Unique

Card Text

This Holding enters play for 3 less Gold if you are a Scorpion Clan player.
Limited, w: Lose 1 Honor to target another player. You may look at his face-down cards in his Provinces or hand. You may discard this card from play to discard one of the cards at which you looked.

Legality

Four Winds (Gold), Hidden Emperor (Jade)

Deck

Dynasty

Printings

Rulings

• Targets a card it discards. [VRD, 14 August 2001] Rules Archive, August 18, 2007, p. 80
• Erratum: Second-last sentence should read, "You may discard the Emperor's Under-Hand to discard one of those cards." [JA, web, 9 September 2001] Rules Archive, August 18, 2007, p. 80
• Erratum: Emperor's Under-Hand: The second-last sentence should read, "You may discard the Emperor's Under-Hand to discard one of those cards." [errata] Legend of the Five Rings FAQ, May 21, 2003, p. 15

Rules Q&A

• Q: 1.) A lot of cards have recently been drastically errata-ed: not simply basic ruling changes, but the cards themselves have been rewritten (The Emperor's Under-Hand, Snow Crane Tattoo, Imperial Funeral (again), and Nagimaki, among others). Will AEG be following the 7th Sea model for these cards and placing errata-text versions of them in future starters?
  A: Where feasible. I don't have plans to do it across the board. Jeff Alexander, "post for 30 October 2001", 31 Oct 2001
• Q: The argument is that because the use of the Favor for the Under-Hand is not a cost for the *entire* action, it does not fit the old definition of "Political."
  Ok, quick question...does this mean that Shadylands can use EU?
  A: Yes. Jeff Alexander, "replies to 8 September", 11 Sep 2001
• Q: Yes, folks, much as it pains me to do this, I'm forced to invoke that "E"-word you all know and love so much.
  Effective the 1st of October:
  The Emperor's Under-Hand will have its last sentence changed from "You may discard the Imperial Favor to discard one of those cards." to "You may discard the Under-Hand to discard one of those cards."
  ........
  Why?
  A: Why? Because the card is overly strong in the Gold environment. It wins games all by itself, it's purely a matter of luck who gets it first, it's its own best protection, it's a rare card from an out-of-print expansion...
  Why errata? The Under-Hand's original inclusion in the Gold environment was an oversight much akin to Evil Feeds Upon Itself's. For that reason, and due to the fact that the Under-Hand isn't nearly so dominating in the Open environment, led me initially to favor applying the same solution: simply remove the Gold bug. However, EFUI was discovered and addressed immediately. It was taken from the Gold environment before the Gold environment existed. Not so with the Under-Hand...as one of our playtesters pointed out, removing the Under-Hand's bug at this point would effectively be banning it. That made up my mind for me.
  Why now? Because the card is doing too much damage to the play environment to wait for an MRP and Oni's Fury's sell date to fix it. Jeff Alexander, "replies to 8 September", 11 Sep 2001
• Q: Regarding the Under-Hand, there's a ruling: For cards printed before Gold Edition: If the Imperial Favor can be discarded to pay for an action's cost, the action will always be Political, but the action's effects are not automatically Imperial Favor effects. [ZF, 1 August 2001]
  Would this ruling (in combination with the above reversal of Vaughn's ruling that actions discarding the Imperial Favor as a cost are always political even if the discard is optional) imply that since the Under-Hand is a pre-Gold Edition card, using the Emperor's Under-Hand is not a Political Action if you're not discarding the Imperial Favor as part of the cost (in other words, you're just looking at the cards), but it IS Political if you are using the "enhanced" ability to discard a card? Or was this ruling also part of the reversal?
  A: It is not Political irrespective of whether you force a discard. Jeff Alexander, "replies to 7 September", 11 Sep 2001
• Q: Confusion at court stops [Emperor's Under-Hand]?
  A: Viewing, no. Discarding, yes. Zen Faulkes, "Rules for 8 August 2001", 10 Aug 2001
• Q: 4. If Emperor's Under- Hand is considered completely political, then a Shadowlands Horde player can't even use it to look at his opponent's cards right? Also, what makes discarding the Imperial Favor political and a use of the Imperial Favor, when the card doesn't state that it is a use of the Imperial Favor?
  A: Any action that requires the discard of the Imperial Favor as a cost is considered Political (glossary). As an extension of that, any effect that requires discarding the Favor as a cost is also Political. The Underhand clearly requires discarding the Favor as a cost to discard a card, and any action with a Political effect is entirely Political (Battlefield of Shallow Graves).
  So, the Underhand is a Political action, and is *sometimes* a use of the Imperial Favor. Using C@C will only cancel the discard a card effect, not the whole action. Vaughn Derderian, "Rules for November 27th", 27 Nov 2000
• Q: 4. If Emperor's Under- Hand is considered completely political, then a Shadowlands Horde player can't even use it to look at his opponent's cards right? Also, what makes discarding the Imperial Favor political and a use of the Imperial Favor, when the card doesn't state that it is a use of the Imperial Favor?
  It shouldnt be. Technically the Hantei Sword and similar cards shouldn't be stopped at all by Confusion and the like but there's a longstanding ruling that more or less equates "discard" to "use".
  A: It's not just a ruling, it's a rule. Check the SW rulebook, pg. 66. Vaughn Derderian, "Rules for November 27th", 27 Nov 2000
• Q: By a strict reading of the Spirit Wars glossary, Emperor's Under-Hand is not political, because discarding the Favor is not a cost of the action, just a cost of one of the effect. However, I'm inclined to believe that the whole action is always political. Am I correct in this assumption?
  A: Yes. An action that is sometimes Political is always Political. Vaughn Derderian, "Rules for November 23rd", 23 Nov 2000