Tireless Assault

Legend of the Five Rings card from Heaven & Earth, Training Grounds, Wrath of the Emperor, Web of Lies, Enemy of My Enemy, Code of Bushido

Card Type

Strategy

Gold Cost

2

Card Text

Battle: Target your unit in your home: Straighten it and move it to the current battlefield.

Focus Value

1

Legality

Four Winds (Gold), Rain of Blood (Diamond)

Deck

Fate

Printings

Rules Q&A

• Q: I'll ask Jeff what he wants to do, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say to (for now) play the card as if it says, "Target a unit in your home that has not been in any battle during its resolution this Attack Phase. Straighten that unit and move it into the current battle."
  Why? I was under the impression that a card needed to be a severe balance issue to receive erratum? It doesn't particularly matter to me either way, I am just wondering why very clear text on a card that's in print, and is not a balance issue (as far as I know), is being changed.
  A: The fact that it has taken almost two years for someone to point out that this card -- a Common that is heavily played by multiple factions -- doesn't do what everyone thinks it does means the wording is not "very clear". The intent is blindingly obvious and is still attainable by a change which is A) minor, and B) involves removing something no longer needed anyway. Plus, the card was technically incorrect from the very beginning unless we define "unbowed unit" as "a unit with an unbowed Personality" (and likewise for "bowed unit"), which cause problems elsewhere. Martin Lund, "Rules for 13 January 2005", 18 Jan 2005
• Q: Question: is Tireless Assault considered to be "performed" by the personality? (for the purposes of Ninja Mentor, for example)
  Looking at p71 of the rulebook, the only one of the criteria which seems relevant is: "3. Actions which involve one or more Personalities or Followers in their cost....or which require targetting your own Personalities or Followers who meet certain conditions, such as being a Shugenja or a Tactician or having a Chi above 2, are performed by those cards."
  A: It would be performed by criteria #3.
  You have to target a Personality.
  That Personality must meet the condition of being in your home and not have been in a battle during its resolution in this attack phase. Martin Lund, "Rules for 29 November 2004", 2 Dec 2004
• Q: Question 2: May I use Tireless Assault to move units other than the unit I played Retribution on into battles during the attack phase created by Retribution? ( If not why not?)
  A: Again, Retribution says nothing to the effect of preventing this. Martin Lund, "Rules for 16 September 2004", 23 Sep 2004
• Q: Scenario 2: I have 5 Personalities in Play. My Opponent has four Provinces. My opponent Ambushes one of my Personalities. After the Ambush I play Retribution. I assign my Retribution unit to his fourth Province, and proceed to resolve the other three battles first. I use Tireless Assault to move into and destroy each of these Provinces in succession with my other three Personalities. Legal?
  A: Yes. Martin Lund, "Rules for 16 September 2004", 23 Sep 2004
• Q: My opponent targets a bowed personality in my home with Ambush ; once Ambush begins to resolve, is that personality still considered in my home ? If the answer is yes, i guess i could straighten it with Tireless Assault ?
  A: "Units in this battle are neither at a Province nor at home." - Card Text, 3rd sentence. Martin Lund, "Rules for 28 June 2004", 30 Jun 2004
• Q: If I attach the Ruby to a personality, then bow him to bow one of my opponent's personalities, and then (during the subsequent Attack Phase) I "Tireless Assault" that personality (with the Ruby) into a battle, take the province, and go home bowed, what happens during the subsequent Straighten Phase to the original target of the Ruby?
  A) Since the Ruby is bowed, it's still active, and the original target cannot straighten.
  B) As soon as the personality (with the Ruby) straightened due to "Tireless Assault", its effect ended. Regardless of what happened to the Ruby later in the turn, the original target was free of all restrictions at that point, and he can now straighten.
  B.
  I really don't get this answer. If I tireless assault my unit in and choose to leave the ruby of iuchiban bowed
  A: But you can't do that. A card that "may remain bowed" may only ignore the normal straightening that occurs during the Straighten Phase. Jeff Alexander, "rules for 17 March 2004", 18 Mar 2004
• Q: Is this legal that you declare your attack and send no units?
  A: Yes. [DE pp. 79-80] Jeff Alexander, "rules for 26 Feb. 2004", 27 Feb 2004
• Q: then you resolve the battle and play TIRELESS ASSAULT to straighten and move your bowed units on the province. thus, satisfying the rule of presence ... "...you can play Battle Actions if that action moves or gains you a unit..."?
  A: Presence (moving one of yours in) AND Relevance (moving SOMETHING in). Yes. You need to satsify both. Fortunately, moving one of your own units in automatically satisfies both. Jeff Alexander, "rules for 26 Feb. 2004", 27 Feb 2004
• Q: Honestly, I don't see how moving Personalities who aren't originally part of an Ambush into one, regardless of whether it comes from Strategic Crossroads or any other card 'in the battle', meets relevance DESPITE the action coming from a card or token at the battle based on two past rulings - one on stalling and another on relevance with Tireless Assault:
  1) An old, somewhat unrelated, ruling dealing with Dark Path of Shadow vs Armor of Earth and stalling.
  We, as players, know we can't send the unit home using DPoS because Armor of Earth will just cancel it. Thus it was decided the DPoS player was stalling if they kept trying to send the Armor of Earth unit home. Couldn't that very logic cross over in any action trying to move a Personality into an Ambush if it is illegal to do so?
  A: He's not stalling because he's not trying to do something an infinite number of times to make the game run out of time before it finishes. Jeff Alexander, "rules for 17 Feb. 2004", 19 Feb 2004
• Q: 2) Wasn't it ruled a failure to meet the Rule of Relevance to use any action that would move someone who cannot attack/defend into the appropriate army, such as Matsu Domotai? I runderstand that this ruling was made specificly on Tireless Assault (though Carrier Pigeon and a few other cards could also come-to-mind), but why wouldn't it logicly carry over to other, similar, instances - regardless of the source?
  A: It doesn't carry over "regardless of the source" because an action is Relevant if it's on a card in the current battle even if it doesn't target or affect anything there. Jeff Alexander, "rules for 17 Feb. 2004", 19 Feb 2004
• Q: Strategic Crossroads is played in an Ambush to get the Battle actions for Ring of Water (trying to move in another personality 3 times, which fails because Ambush doesn't allow the movement). The ruling for Tireless Assault say: Ambush: Because other units may not move into the battle, any action that would try to move in another unit (e.g., Tireless Assault) are not legal because they will not satisfy the Rule of Relevance. [JA, 11 August 2003] Now, as a terrain, Strategic Crossroads is a card at the battle, which satisfies Relevance - is it legal or not?
  A: No.
  There is no action on Strategic Crossroads. There is a trait that describes an action players can use, but that is not an action on the Terrain. Jeff Alexander, "rules for 6 Feb. 2004", 7 Feb 2004
• Q: [W]hich "resolution" is being refered to [in Tireless Assault?]
  A: Battle Resolution Segment.
  Zen Faulkes! * Crab Clan Scholar * Unaligned Deputy Rules Guy Zen Faulkes, "Rules for 4 December 2003", 5 Dec 2003
• Q: after I Tireless Assault into the battle, can I use Latomu's Ranged 2 Attack w/o bowing & then bow him to use his Ranged 4 Attack? Can I combine these two?
  A: No. It's one action with an "or" in the middle. Zen Faulkes, "Rules for 1 December 2003", 1 Dec 2003
• Q: As new 'attacker' after playing Retribution, during the new attack phase, can I Tireless Assault an additional unit in, since that's not an assignment (thus avoiding the 1 unit limitation)?
  A: Yes (Rules Archive, General Rules, Battle, Maneuvers Segment). Zen Faulkes, "Rules for 17 October 2003, Part 3", 17 Oct 2003
• Q: What happens if I want to use Kwanchai to replace that personality in the ambush ?
  A: The Personality in the Ambush goes home. Zen Faulkes, "Rules for 5 October 2003, Part 2", 5 Oct 2003
• Q: This makes sense. Another question along these lines. Can someone use Tireless Assult to move another of their personalities into the (Ambush) Battle on either side? i.e., my opponent Ambushes Bowed Personality X. Can I Tireless Assault Personality Y to join the defense against the attacking Personality?
  A: No. Ambush says that no other units may be assigned or moved to the battle. Vaughn Derderian, "Rules for August 8th, 2003", 8 Aug 2003
• Q: From www.dragonstrategy: Is this a valid combo?
  Attach Void Tattoo to a personality with enough unit force to take a province. Attack province Go Home Use Tireless Assault to attack another province.
  Tattoo of the Void says that this personality does not count as having a unit in the battle. Tireless Assault says that if the unit has not been in a resolution of a battle to straighten and move into the province. Does this work?
  A: Dear Tattoo of the Void,
  How I hate thee. Couldst thou not find a more obtuse wording to use in describing thyself? Be a dear, please scuffle off and shoot thyself at the earliest possible opporunity.
  Thanks!
  Anyways, I'm going to go with no right now. Tattoo of the Voids second clause is mostly relevant to determining Presence. The unit is actually there, and Tireless Assault can't be fooled into thinking that the unit was never there. Stop trying to fool the cards. Vaughn Derderian, "Rules for July 25th, 2003", 25 Jul 2003
• Q: 3. Cove of Cursed Blades vs Tireless Assault Text on Tireless Assault: Battle: Target a bowed or unbowed unit in your home that has not been in any battle during its resolution this Attack Phase. Straighten that unit and move it into the current battle. Situation: My opponent attacks the Cove with one unit and I send that unit home bowed with the Tsudao Wind. The unit has not been at any other battles this attack phase. Question: Can my opponent Tireless Assault the unit into another battle this Attack Phase?
  A: Sure, but the unit doesn't straighten. It just moves in, and sits there, bowed. Much more effective to use Tireless to move your Unit back into the Cove's Battle before the Battle ends, and the Cove's effect kicks in. Vaughn Derderian, "Post for July 15th, 2003", 15 Jul 2003
• Q: Examples: 1) Personality A may not straighten (due to Atoshi or Dragon tattoo say), and I play Tireless Assault. Does the personality move into the battle without straightening? (That'd make Spider Tattoo tasty)
  A: Yes. Jeff Alexander, "post for 2 June 2003", 3 Jun 2003
• Q: If I play Tireless Assault on Matsu Domotai while I am a defender, I know he can not move into the Battle but will he still straighten?
  Yes.
  How exactly is that supposed to work? The personality targeted by Tireless Assault must be in your home, so you must move that personality into the battle to satisfy the Rule of Relevance. Since Domotai cannot move into a defending army, he will make that action illegal. Am i right?
  A: Oops! You're right. You know beforehand Domotai will not enter the battle, so the action doesn't meet Relevance. (It also does not meet Relevance if you have no units in the battle.) So although the action WOULD simply straighten him if it were legal, it is not legal. Jeff Alexander, "post for 30 May 2003", 3 Jun 2003
• Q: If I play Tireless Assault on Matsu Domotai while I am a defender, I know he can not move into the Battle but will he still straighten?
  A: Yes. Jeff Alexander, "post for 29 May 2003", 30 May 2003
• Q: For example, when playing Kyuden Ikoma, if an opponent tries to Tireless Assault a unit into a battle where I have no units, can I cancel it with my stronghold?
  A: Yes. Jeff Alexander, "post for 22 May 2003", 23 May 2003
• Q: 3.) An argument we were having the other day: can I Tireless Assault to straighten a Personality that is being Ambushed, because the battle isn't taking place at a Province? Is that Ambushed peep considered to be "at home" for the purposes of Tireless Assault?
  A: Personalities in an Ambush battle are not in their players' homes. A card cannot be in battle and home at the same time. Jeff Alexander, "post for 8 May 2003", 9 May 2003
• Q: province A gets hit with ISOTF than SupTac's into province B, Does the Tsuno get the bonus back? I assume no.
  A: It does not. It needs to stop attacking, then start again, to give itself the +2F all over again. Jeff Alexander, "post for 23 April 2003", 24 Apr 2003
• Q: Was Tireless Assault deliberately omitted from patching with the "Absent" keyword to keep its original functionality like Unwavering Assault received?
  A: (Replying to kempy_nezumi: "Probably mistake. @Brook Cunningham") Not deliberate nor a mistake. The fact remains that I never (or rather, still haven't, depending on your optimism? :P) finished converting every card in the Oracle to Ivory/20F formatting; some remain in Emperor format. You'll note that Tireless still has a constraints block.
  I'd be more inclined to go the other way, personally 🙂 Brook Cunningham and Alex Jones, "Sun and Moon #rules-questions", 7 Sep 2023
• Q: I'm referring to the "...that has not been in any battle during its resolution this attack phase." That text is wrong. Tireless assault allowed for multiple province taking through big units.
  A: So, just to summarize: What we've determined is that this card was never able to legally have a single unit move in and destroy multiple Provinces in the same Attack Phase; you're remembering it wrong and/or it was played wrong. The original text is what you see printed on the card images in the above post from Kempy, with the text itself preventing it from being in more than one Battle if it had already been through a Resolution that Phase. The Oracle text is how it would be printed under Emperor Edition rules, because the "second battle rule" was in the rulebook and not on the cards at that point. I hope that clarifies things? Brook Cunningham, "Oracle of the Void #l5r", 23 Oct 2022