Winter Warfare

Legend of the Five Rings card from Samurai Edition, Crimson and Jade, Lotus Edition

Card Type

Event

Keywords

Unique, Winter

Card Text

Until your second turn from now begins, Terrains may not be played, and movement from actions of units to or from battlefields is negated.

Legality

Age of Enlightenment (Lotus), Clan Wars (Imperial), Race for the Throne (Samurai)

Deck

Dynasty

Printings

Rulings

• Q: So if I use The Dark Path of Shadow's ability during Winter Warfare, the entire attacking army bows but stays in the battle? A: Yes. The Imperial Herald, Issue 17, p. 40
• Erratum: Reads, “Winter Warfare Winter Until the beginning of your second Events Phase from now, Terrains cannot be played, and actions cannot move units to or from battlefields.” [MRP, Samurai Edition, 25 July 2007] Comprehensive Rules, Samurai Edition, with specific card rulings, final version, May 2009, p. 170

Rules Q&A

• Q: If I use Overwhelmed in a situation where nobody can be moved out of a battle (ie, Winter Warfare, Entrenchment, Tsuchi-do) does the opposing player have to blow up his personality with the largest force or can he say "I choose to send home two units, but as I can't send them home, they just stay there"?
  A: He must destroy the one with the largest Force. Jeff Alexander, "post for 7 Oct. 2002", 8 Oct 2002
• Q: First, a warm up.
  Overwhelemed gives its victims a choice: send home two Personalities or destroy the highest-force one. One may conclude the following:
  a) If there is only one unit in the opposing army, it must be destroyed as there are not two units to send home.
  b) If Winter Warfare is resolved and in effect, units cannot be sent home, necessitating destruction once more.
  Are these conclusions correct?
  A: Yes. Jeff Alexander, "post for 29 August 2002", 30 Aug 2002
• Q: I have a question about Yoritomo Soetsuko's ability.
  Reaction: Bow before one of your Personalities in this army bows due to another player’s card effect to negate the bowing.
  Now if the ruling on Winter Warfare and the Ninja stronghold is still that being sent home bowed is one action
  A: The ruling is not that "send home bowed" is one action. The ruling is that the bowing effect is contingent upon the going home effect, and is an exception to the rule that all effects of an action that can happen, do, even if some of its other effects are negated or prohibited.
  Soetsuko will negate the bowing but not the move home. Jeff Alexander, "post for 21 August 2002", 22 Aug 2002
• Q: It's a no-action effect (lossing honor from a dishonored personality) and during the resolution of a battle but before you destroy the personality. It's known that an honor loss will occur.
  It's known by *you* that an honor loss will occur, because you can see the result of the battle coming. However, the cards don't have any idea of what's going on until the boulders actually start rolling. The death of the Samurai is what generates the loss, and that's the point at which you can start looking at Seppuku as an option for reducing said loss. Not before.
  Actually, it's known by the game also. By the mechanic that allows you to use Yu. During resolution, after the final totals of force are calculated, before the personalities are removed to the discard pile. Your personality is dishonored and his death is going to cause you dishonor. It's a known game effect, known game state. And similar to the Gaheris/Block Supply Lines/Winter Warfare ruling.
  A: I would, however, like to point out that nothing happens during battle resolution which is a valid trigger for seppuku's "reaction". Jeff Alexander, "post for 29 October 2001", 30 Oct 2001
• Q: Does it allows a player to play action cards after a Great Silence? Or play a terrain after a Winter Warfare? Or target a personality with a Kitsuki Kaagi's Journal's personality with a BSL? Play any action from out of the battle under the effect of a Ravine?
  A: Yes, yes, no, yes. Jeff Alexander, "post for 9 October 2001", 9 Oct 2001
• Q: If a unit is sent home bowed, becoming bowed is contingent upon actually going home. This is a REVERSAL.
  Is there going to be any change to Winter Warfare?
  A: No. Jeff Alexander, "replies to the 22 May digest", 31 May 2001
• Q: Quoth Kakita Yasuyo: Now onto Nicks Newbie questions. So how would YOU explain this interaction to a newbie? You explain to me, and I'll be the newbie. Here's a list of my questions:
  Winter Warfare says my card cannot be sent home. How come it's bowing instead?
  Yes Winter Warfare says your card cannot be sent home, it doesn't dsay it cannot be bowed. The rules are that if one effect is stopped then other effects are not necassarily stoped.
  Next newbie question: So that means I can use Kolat Master on someone who won't join my clan to kill most of their followers, give them the Kolat trait, and reduce their personal honour to zero, right? What is the difference?
  A: That's not a newbie question. That's a very good question. There is no difference. So, like many times before, an old ruling on an individual card will need to be reversed so it matches the way other cards with similar mechanics work. Jeff Alexander, "Rulings for 28 March 2001", 5 Apr 2001
• Q: Consistency? How is overriding the cards long understood operation and effect promoting consistency?
  A: It broadens it. The idea is to have the "all effects are separate" rule apply every single time more than one thing happens. I hope you agree with me that that is also a form of consistency. Jeff Alexander, "Rulings for 26 March 2001", 30 Mar 2001
• Q: I personally dont see the part of speech as a big hangup.
  My main objection is that the game has been set up with these things not really being atomic. Under such a system, negating one part of an effect would apparently negate the whole verb clause e.g. making Twisting Ravine and Winter Warfare work the same on all "send home bowed" effects and Akodo Dagger cancel the send home of "send home bowed and dishonored". It also makes one guy who cannot be targetted/effected by RA's counter Hosigeru completely. Try to get out of that mess and you are left with a "verbs denote effects except when akodo dagger and co are in play and then it might or might not be...".
  A: All Devil's Advocating aside, here's my firm, personal stance on this particular matter: Twisting Ravine and Akodo Dagger have zero impact on whether Generic Grammatical Construction X should be ruled as one effect or two. Specific card text can override rules and rulings, and that's exactly what these two cards do. Jeff Alexander, "Rulings for 24 March 2001", 29 Mar 2001
• Q: What you could do with Nick's idea though is to make a general, universally applicable ruling (and RULE in the book) that any effect that isnt a verbal form is a dependant effect upon the verb effect. That WOULD work fine IMO. E.g. Block Supply Lines and Winter Warfare. The bowing is dependant so it doesnt happen. Twisting Ravine and BSL:
  "Bowed" IS a verbal form. It is a participle, a verbal adjective, in that it is derived from a verb directly. I still like the idea, though.
  A: And you expect newbies to know this???
  I can just see it now: passing out grammar pre-quizzes at the L5R demo booth next GenCon. Jeff Alexander, "Rulings for 24 March 2001", 29 Mar 2001
• Q: Winter Warfare was in Crimson & Jade. It bears a copyright date of 1997. So for around three years, nobody questioned how Block interacted with Winter Warfare; everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) assumed that WW completely canceled Block's effect(s).
  A: I don't think that's true, since until only recently it was only one effect. What I think WAS true was that a large number of players believed it made Block Supply Lines *illegal to play* -- something I haven't seen mentioned anywhere, by anyone, and is also a completely new and separate option apart from negating individual effects and canceling actions outright. Jeff Alexander, "Rulings for 12-14 March 2001", 22 Mar 2001
• Q: In a message dated 3/14/01 9:29:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes:
  So, if anyone thinks that any of us: Me, Stefan, Keith, Nick, Scott, or any of the others continuing this debate, have anything less than a great deal of respect for the people that make and interpret the rulings, you are absolutely mistaken.
  Now that I've finished that, ON WITH THE DEBATE!
  Mitch
  You just stated it perfectly. We all may disagree, but we all have respect for those making the rulings, as it is an almost thankless job that none of us would wish for. So, to Jeff, Zen, Vaughn, and anyone else I might be missing, thanks for putting up with us.
  Keith
  A: Wow. I'd stick this up on my wall if I had a printer. You're welcome! Jeff Alexander, "Rulings for 12-14 March 2001", 22 Mar 2001
• Q: If the Akodo Dagger can separate the "dishonored" part of "send home bowed and dishonored", why can't Winter Warfare separate the "send home" part? There's nothing to say that the "all other effects" text on the Akodo Dagger isn't just useful clarification....
  If that were true it would have already been mentioned. Zen said his ruling was arbitrary, and I think Nick's arguments are well-presented and logical, not to mention correct. As such, an arbitrary ruling should be reversed.
  A: My dictionary has two definitions for "arbitrary":
  1. Decided or fixed at the discretion of an arbiter ("A person having power to decide a dispute") or judge. 2. Fixed or arrived at through will or caprice; decisive but unreasoned.
  I assure you the ruling is arbitrary only in the first sense. This is how rulings have ALWAYS worked in L5R. There's only one head on the top of the totem pole. Dave set things up that way on purpose, and I see his reasons and agree with the philosophy. Any time a final decision rests in the hands of one person, it will be, by definition, arbitrary.
  The current way things work was internally debated for a long time. It involved polling the opinions of not only the Rules Team but top-level players at GenCon 2000. It involved estimations of how comprehensible each ruling would be to new players AND how consistently applicable it would be at the hands and in the minds of existing ones. No coins were flipped. No 8-balls were shaken. Jeff Alexander, "Rulings for 7-9 March 2001", 18 Mar 2001
• Q: In a message dated 3/6/01 2:02:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, writes:
  This ruling *so* sticks in my craw. It has been decided that what looked like an adjective ('bowed' and in "How were you sent home? Bowed.") should be read as a verb (Sent home bowed now means "Go home. Bow"). Had BSL been worded as such ("Bow a target attacking personality. That personality is immediately returned to its fief") then it'd be two bits. It's sort of like saying 'Vanilla Ice Cream' is actually two things - vanilla and ice cream - and not simply ice cream with a designator/adjective.
  I agree with you. To me, this was the worst ruling made in current memory. It makes no sense to me at all. For Winter Warfare, I can accept it (though still grudgingly) but for all other send home bowed effects it is horrible.
  A: Okay, question for you: what, in your opinion, should happen if BSL gets played on a Personality who cannot bow? In particular, what if she can't bow because Twisting Ravine is in play?
  Twisting Ravine (DJH) Battle: Terrain "[...] Cards cannot be bowed by actions while this Terrain is in play, although all other effects of those actions resolve normally." Jeff Alexander, "Rulings for early March, 2001", 14 Mar 2001
• Q: Using the Dark Path/Winter Warfare ruling...
  If I use Block Supply Lines to send an attacking unit home, bowed and then use Sanetama's Reaction, would the attacking unit stay in the battle, but be forced to bow?
  Cards in Question...
  Shinjo Sanetama - Unicorn Clan Master of the Hunt * Cavalry * Reaction: Bow when an infantry unit is moving into or out of a battle Sanetama is in. The move is cancelled if all the units in Sanetama's army are cavalry.
  Block Supply Lines - Battle: Remove one attacking unit from this battle. It returns home bowed.
  A: Yes. Sanetama only negates the movement. (He was worded back when "cancel" was used in two different ways.) Jeff Alexander, "Rulings for late February 2001", 10 Mar 2001
• Q: In a message dated Fri, 16 Feb 2001 4:29:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, Jeff Alexander writes:
  <<>And does the Dark Path Stronghold still bow the attacking army (if under 10 chi), but not send them home if Winter Warfare has gone off?
  Yes.
  I know this has been stated before, but could someone enlighten me on the logic of the above ruling. After searching the accumulated rulings all I find is:
  Winter Warfare Negates "send home" effects rather than cancelling actions. [ZF, 1 August 2000]
  Is not being bowed an effect of being sent home?
  A: According to the rulebook, negating some of an action's effects doesn't stop any of the others. (This is something that's pretty much always been true, really.) The trouble that arises is that going home bowed is two effects -- you go home, and you bow. Jeff Alexander, "Rulings for 15-16 February 2001", 19 Feb 2001
• Q: And does the Dark Path Stronghold still bow the attacking army (if under 10 chi), but not send them home if Winter Warfare has gone off?
  A: Yes. Jeff Alexander, "Rulings for 12-13 February 2001", 16 Feb 2001
• Q: Sure. When you play the action from your hand, it thinks that it's going to send Gaheris home. That makes it legal. Something negating one of the effects that made it legal to play doesn't retroactively make it an illegal action (extenstion from Jeff's ruling on ToC/Winter Warfare, 12/10/00).
  When Winter Warfare is in effect, it's clear that Block, Refugees, etc. will not send Gaheris home. I can't find the ruling you cite. Can you post it, or tell me where to find it? It's not in Zen's rulings file dated 2/1/01.
  Seems to me that you're allowing an action that knows it's going to be illegal, yet in the Journal/Encircled example you don't want to allow an action that's not 100% sure whether it's eventually going to be legal. Maybe if I could see the ruling you mention I'd understand better.
  A: This is the only point I've seen so far that warrants further consideration. The core issue here is whether the card whose legality is in question shall always be evaluated in isolation. That's what Vaughn did, and that's why he got the results he got: Block Supply Line's removal is unconditional and immediate, making its printed effect pass Gaheris's test, whereas Encircled Terrain's removal is not immediate. In both cases, no other cards or current conditions are considered.
  Perhaps existing involuntary effects, like Winter Warfare, should be considered if their own game effects are both immediate and unconditional? It's one for the Rules Team. Jeff Alexander, "Rulings for 5 February 2000", 8 Feb 2001
• Q: Here's another one. Since indirect effects like the Journal's inability to target arent considered for the legality of taking the action (cf Osari Plains above), I assume it is legal to favor/Block/DPoS Gaheris (no journal) during Winter Warfare, thereby bowing him.
  A: Sure. When you play the action from your hand, it thinks that it's going to send Gaheris home. That makes it legal. Something negating one of the effects that made it legal to play doesn't retroactively make it an illegal action (extenstion from Jeff's ruling on ToC/Winter Warfare, 12/10/00). Vaughn Derderian, "Rules for February 6th", 6 Feb 2001
• Q: Way of Deception would still work [under Winter Warfare] since it is 'not considered moving', yes?
  A: Yes. Vaughn Derderian, "Rules for December 18th", 18 Dec 2000
• Q: More fun with questions...
  1) Would the Winter Warfare no send home ruling also apply to also apply to Feign Death? A person dies, is Feigned, and thus would have to return to the battle because technically they can't leave it? (Ditto for Sight of Death) Or does pretending to die buy you a sleigh ride through the snow :) ?
  A: Both Feign Death and Sight of Death return the personality to play after they've died, so they've already left the battle, though they haven't quite *moved*. A Feigned/Sighted personality still comes back in your fief. Vaughn Derderian, "Rules for December 11th", 11 Dec 2000
• Q: 2) I'm a bit confused as to what Yuki no Onna's controller can ignore during Winter Warfare. Does this mean that if I have Yuki no Onna in play I can ignore the fact that my opponent cannot be sent home and send them home anyway, or does it only refer to things affecting my cards? Or does it only refer to the terrain portion?
  A: You can ignore both the moving part and the terrain part. Your actions can move people into and out of battle, and you can play terrains. Vaughn Derderian, "Rules for December 11th", 11 Dec 2000
• Q: Respectfully, I must disagree. Your personality has been "targetted by an action that would remove them from this battle". Winter Warfare states that they may not be "moved into or out of battles with actions". The current ruling on winter warfare says that you may still TARGET a personality with an action that WOULD normally send them home, despite the fact that it cannot send them home thanks to WW. The targetting is all that the Test of Courage looks for, it doesn't care if the action is about to have its effects negated.
  A: Agreed. Test of Courage still works under Winter Warfare. Vaughn Derderian, "Rules for December 11th", 11 Dec 2000
• Q: Zen Faulkes writes: Greetings,
  Does this mean that Winter Warfare no longer serves as the Doom of the Ninja? [snip] Note: this would make Winter Warfare a great pro-Ninja card...
  Only if, while the event occurs, the Ninja player's opponent declares an attack on a province with an army with less than 10 Chi total. You can't make the event work for you, unless your opponent isn't paying attention or doesn't know the rules.
  If I'm playing Ninja with some decent Force, and Winter Warfare resolves, I attack, leaving a lone 1F defender. If you attack me when I'm bowed, I kill your army. Sounds OK.
  Now, another situation: Winter Warfare resolves. I, as Ninja, play one of the many cards that force you to declare an attack against me.
  A: Like Will of the Emperor, which also happens to be a Ninja action. Vaughn Derderian, "Rules for November 27th", 27 Nov 2000
• Q: Around here, Winter Warfare has been included in decks, in a large part BECAUSE it would spell the doom of the Ninja. If that rule changes, it becomes a pro-Ninja (in the right deck) card; that's an important consequence.
  A: Not as important as it would have been 3 or 4 months ago. Either way, that's the way that the rules work. Vaughn Derderian, "Rules for November 27th", 27 Nov 2000
• Q: * The current Accumulated Rulings (under "Battle") state that:
  A card that cannot be sent home will bow if affected by something that causes it to be "sent home bowed." [REVERSAL, JA, 2 November 2000]
  Does this mean that Winter Warfare no longer serves as the Doom of the Ninja? [in other words, because one needs to ask clear questions: if Winter Warfare is in play, no Yuki no Onna is in play, and an army with less than 10 Chi attacks a Ninja, can the Ninja use the Stronghold action to just bow everything?]
  A: Yes, to both of yuor questions. Vaughn Derderian, "Rules for November 26th", 26 Nov 2000
• Q: For how many of my turns [does Winter Warfare] work...?
  A: It does not count your current Events Phase when it starts looking for the "second from now". So, it will last through your current turn, through your next turn (which contains the first Events Phase from now), up until the beginning of your next Events Phase after that, on your second turn from now (Citation). Brook Cunningham, "winter warfare lasting", 9 Aug 2008
• Q: I am looking for a confirmation of this interpretation.
  Winter Warfare Winter Until the beginning of your second Events Phase from now, Terrains can not be played, and actions can not move units to or from battlefields.
  Broken Lines Reaction: Before battle resolution at a province, if you control one or zero Personalities: The Attacker chooses to either move all units in his army home, or bow 2 cards in his army (he can choose this even if he has fewer than 2 cards in his army).
  My contention is that if I have Winter Warfare in play, and my opponent plays Broken lines, I may choose the send home effect (see: this ruling), and that Winter Warfare then negates that action (see: this ruling).
  My reasoning is that I make the choice from Broken Lines, because I can choose an action which will be negated, and that Winter Warfare says "cannot be sent home" which is equal to "send home actions are negated."
  Is my interpretation correct?
  A: Looks right. Zen Faulkes, "Broken Lines and Winter Warfare", 22 Feb 2008
• Q: Would he still be able to gain the honor?
  A: http://rules.l5r.com/FAQ#Is_an_action_l ... _happen.3F
  Admittedly, the question doesn't ask if the action can be played, so it's a slight variation on the FAQ. But the basic idea is the same: Are effects contingent on other effects?
  And it never hurts to... Zen Faulkes, "Flash of Steel and Winter Warfare", 3 Feb 2008
• Q: I have attacked with cavalry one of the provinces the defending player didn't assign any units. After I declare that I want to resolve such battle, he plays Falling Leaf Strike, giving a -3F penalty to my personality, but not moving the monk to the battle, because Winter Warfare doesn't let him move. Is this a legal action, since he has no presence before he plays the action, nor after it finishes resolving?
  A: http://rules.l5r.com/Battles#Combat_Segment:
  "Even if the movement is known beforehand to fail -- for example, due to ongoing negation effects, or due to the unit having been in an attacking army during the Resolution Segment of another battle -- the action can still be taken. [CHANGED Jan 20 2008]
  "Example: Winter Warfare ("actions can not move units to or from battlefields") is in effect. It is legal to play Rout ("Battle: Move home a target unit. Destroy one of its attachments (if any).") even though the movement effect will be negated. The destruction of an attachment still occurs because effects are independent." Zen Faulkes, "Falling Leaf Strike X Winter Warfare", 22 Jan 2008
• Q: Winter Warfare prevents Fusami from moving, does the 'and' prevent her from challenging the attacking enemy personality?
  A: Rules, Effects: "Effects are negated individually; negating one effect of an action does not automatically negate the others(.)" Zen Faulkes, "Fusami + Winter Warfare", 12 Jul 2007