Alter History

Legend of the Five Rings card from Emperor Edition, Empire at War, Shattered Empire

Card Type

Event

Keywords

Unique

Card Text

After you reveal cards in your Provinces at the start of your turn, if this Event is face-up in one of them, after the next time this game you destroy a Province as the Attacker, the Defender loses 5 Honor.

Legality

Age of Conquest (Emperor), Destroyer War (Celestial), Shattered Empire

Deck

Dynasty

Printings

Rulings

• The "ignoring Honor Requirements" effect only applies to players whose honor is currently at or above their starting family honor. [ZF, 25 February 2011] Comprehensive Rules, Celestial Edition, with specific card rulings, final version, February 2012, p. 121

Rules Q&A

• Q: So I've been keeping an eye on this thread.
  And I think the confusion is in the difference between "This loss cannot reduce a player below his or her starting Honor."(Tjeki) and "If this loss brings him below his starting Family Honor, then ..." (Alter History).
  In the first case the text is ambiguous as to whether it means "a player who's family honor is currently below his starting family honor", or "the loss is truncated anytime it would cause the player's family honor to drop below it's starting value from a value at or above it" or "the loss is truncated anytime it would cause the player's resulting family honor to be below it's starting value". I believe in this case the rules have always been interpreted to be the last of the three. And to be fair, only the middle case is signifigantly different. In truth I believe the wording was intended to cover both the first and third cases, and thus the somewhat ambiguous wording was deliberate.
  In the second case, the text is quite specific. Initially I disagreed with the ruling based on Tjeki and associated rulings. Then I reread the card. The difference is in the nature of the effect, and the interpretation of the word "brings". The presence of that word indicates that for the effect to trigger the gamestate must be changed from a state where the player loosing honor was at or above his starting honor to a state where he is below it.
  That is my take on it, anyway.
  I hope this does not become a trend for big honor losses, as that would give dishonor a huge advantage.
  A: Here's the decision. The first ruling on Alter History will stand: The "ignoring Honor requirements" condition only works if Alter history is the loss that brings the player below starting family honor. For example, if your starting honor is 4, and you're currently at 2, losing honor from Alter History will not allow you to ignore honor requirements.
  Please note that this is a ruling just on Alter History. This should not be interpreted as some new general rule or new game term. In particular, the rulings on other cards discussed above will also stay as they are. We may look into defining these things a little more closely in the future, but not yet. Zen Faulkes, "Alter History and ignoring reqs", 25 Feb 2011
• Q: (I)f my opponent is at -2 honor before I destroy his province, and Alter History drops him to -7 honor, he does not get the benefit of being able to ignore honor requirements, correct?
  A: Ah, I see the point where I sowed confusion. Alas, 'twas the first answer. I thought the first question was asking something rather different. Sorry.
  Time to kick this to the Rules Junta. Stay tuned. Zen Faulkes, "Alter History and ignoring reqs", 22 Feb 2011
• Q: What is the precise difference between "bring Family Honor below X" and "reduce Family Honor below X"?
  A: None in the context of these cards. And I don't think any of the answers above implied that there was any difference.
  What you're thinking, I suspect, is: "My opponent is currently at -1 Honor. So if I play something that makes him lose 2 honor, but has the clause, 'this will not reduce Family honor below 0', I can play it, because it's not reducing Honor below zero."
  You are reducing Honor below zero - even further below zero. It is not reducing Honor past zero, which is what you seem to be thinking the cards mean. Zen Faulkes, "Alter History and ignoring reqs", 22 Feb 2011
• Q: if my opponent is already below his starting Honor, can I inflict him a 2 honor loss with Yogo Tjeki? if my opponent is already below 10 Family Honor (but higher than me), will my Delicate Negociation inflict him an honor loss?
  A: In both cases, the action is legal to take, but your opponent's honor total will not change. See: http://rules.l5r.com/CE_Glossary_R#Reduce.2Fincrease Zen Faulkes, "Alter History and ignoring reqs", 21 Feb 2011
• Q: In reference to this: viewtopic.php?p=1176337#p1176337
  Does this ruling extend to the The Yoritomo Alliance (first mantis stronghold)? Namely, can its player use it for any amount of Gold if he is already below 0 Family Honor?
  The Yoritomo Alliance Reaction: When you bow your stronghold, you may lose Family Honor to increase the gold it's producing, on a one for one basis. You cannot alter or redirect this honor loss. You cannot use this ability if it would reduce your Family Honor below zero.
  A: From the Legacy Rules Archive, Strongholds: The Yoritomo Alliance Ability cannot be used if your Family Honor is below 0. Alex Jones, "Alter History and ignoring reqs", 21 Feb 2011
• Q: Alter History: The specific word that I'm having trouble with is "brings".
  A: The word is being used in its regular meaning in English and has no special technical meaning here. Zen Faulkes, "Alter History and ignoring reqs", 7 Feb 2011
• Q: When Alter History triggers its effect (once you have destroyed the province), does its honor req ignoring require it to have been the honor loss that drove their family honor below their starting honor?
  A: Yes ("this loss"). Zen Faulkes, "Alter History and ignoring reqs", 6 Nov 2010