Reversal sur les coûts?

Vu sur le forum AEG

Question:
Regarding this ruling:
L5R Accumulated rulings wrote wrote:
If all or part of the cost of using an action or bringing a card into play is prevented, or if a cost is changed after an action has been announced (e.g., Kaiu Sugimoto (Experienced Keeper of Earth)), the player trying to take the action or play the card may either use further resources to complete the payment or allow the attempt to fail. (This is not negation of effects.) If it fails, the card returns to where it came from or stays where it is (e.g., an announced action card remains in hand; because it is now out of play and face down, it does not count towards the normal once per turn limit or any other usage limits). The player does not receive a refund on any costs already paid. If the action of attaching a card has its costs modified after announcement, the same thing happens: the player returns the card being attached to where he played it from and does not receive a refund for any costs paid for it. [BK, email, 20 January 2006; ZF, web, 29 January 2006] The announced action counts towards an player's opportunity to take an action. [ZF, web, 30 January 2006]

Why was it decided that cards should return to hand and not the discard pile? This ruling is very unintuitive and effectively makes using an "increased cost" effect useless against cards from hand.

Can we expect a reversal based on the presence of several new cards that have similar effects in Drums of War? (namely Shadow on the Court and Shosuro Nakako).

Réponse:
The Drums of War rules sheet reverses this with a full explanation of how changing costs work.

Je trouvais ce ruling un peu touffu mais je pensais l'avoir assimilé.

Et maintenant... à quoi peut on s'attendre ? Simplification (annuler les effets de l'action et on discarde) ou plus compliqué encore

Moi je trouve ça plutôt cool, peut être que Nakako et Shadow vont devenir de bonnes cartes au final...

Storm,
l'extension serait un peu moins pourrie... ou pas ^^