Utaku Saber

Legend of the Five Rings card from Stronger Than Steel

Card Type

Item

Force

+2

Chi

+1

Gold Cost

3

Keywords

Weapon

Card Text

Reaction: After the first time each turn this card enters play: You may rehonor this Personality. If you did not choose to rehonor him, gain 1 Honor (this gain does not rehonor him if he is dishonorable).

Focus Value

2

Legality

Race for the Throne (Samurai)

Deck

Fate

Printings

Rules Q&A

• Q: When my Action Phase starts, I control one dishonorable Personality. I equip her with an Utaku Saber. I use this item's Reaction. I choose not to rehonor my Personality. I am supposed to gain 1 Honor which don't rehonor her. However, I still doubt I can gain this 1 Honor. Let me explain why.
  Rules about honorable and dishonorable status read: "Before a player gains Honor from an action or trait that targeted, came from, or was performed by one or more of his or her dishonorable Personalities, the Personality is rehonored instead of the Honor being gained." Utaku Saber's action comes from an ability (a Reaction) on an Item in the dishonorable Personality’s unit so I am a player about to gain Honor from an action that was performed by one of my dishonorable Personalities, therefore the Personality is supposed to be rehonored instead of the Honor being gained.
  The text "this gain does not rehonor him if he is dishonorable", uses a 'does not' wording ; the glossary explains it means this rehonoring "does not happen under the circumstances given, it is not negation and overrides effects that prevent negation". According to me, here are the 'circumstances given': if the Personality is dishonorable (and she is), and if the rehonoring is linked to the gain (such as, say, by substituting the gain for rehonoring), so they seem to be matched.
  Thus we have : X = the Personality is rehonored ; Y = the Honor being gained. R = a rule about honorable and dishonorable status = the Personality is rehonored instead of the Honor being gained = X instead of Y UST = an excerpt from Utaku Saber's text = this gain does not rehonor him if he is dishonorable = X does not happen (*).
  Glossary, Instead: "If the new X is negated, or fails to happen for a reason other than negation (“do not” wording, absence of relevant game elements), the old Y doesn’t happen." As usual I can make another big mistake but I believe UST implies this new X "fails to happen for a reason other than negation (“do not” wording)" therefore the old Y doesn’t happen neither and the 1 Honor is not gained, isn't it ?
  As a conclusion, if we look back at the example given in my first paragraph, the main question is: if I choose not to rehonor my Personality, do I gain 1 Honor without rehonoring her or do I gain nothing (still without rehonoring her) and cry like a child who's just broken its favorite toy ? Of course as usual, if the answer is "yes you gain 1 Honor", I would really appreciate to read a few explanations apart from designer's intent, in order to be able by myself to explain why to anyone else.
  Thanks for your fantastic help.
  -------------------------------
  (*) The main point where my reasoning may be false is when I pretend that "this gain does not rehonor him" doesn't mean "substituting this gain for rehonoring him, does not happen" but rather it means "the rehonoring this gain substitutes itself for, does not happen". I am not good enough at English grammar to know for sure how to read this sentence, moreover most card texts using "do not" often say "you do not (gain or lose honor, usually)" rather than "this effect does not..." Nevertheless I see nothing in this sentence that could make me think this substitution does not happen, clearly it is this substitution's result (the rehonoring) that is prevented by the words "does not rehonor him", otherwise I suppose it would be written "this gain does not substitute itself for rehonoring him" or "you do not rehonor him instead of gaining this honor".
  A: CR now covers this
  http://rules.l5r.com/Physically_marked_ ... shonorable Roger Giner-Sorolla, "Utaku Saber: broken toy ?", 11 Oct 2007