Scorpion Bushi Rank 2 Tech (Pincers and Tail)
Konichi-wa Jourei Bengoshi, this is my first time posting. I have searched the L5R forums for like an hour but could not find any answer to my questions concerning the Tech, so I decided to put my questions in front of your Rules Court :o) The feinting part is clear to me, but I am not sure about the free raises part. As was said by Shawn (I think it was him), you get the free raises on each attack against the opponent(s) who failed striking at you, accounting for each opponent individually. So if for example Akodo Someone strikes at Bayushi Joe and misses and Joe's air ring is 4 he would get 4 free raises on each of his attacks against Akodo-san until Akodo-san's next turn. However: If Akodo Someone would strike three times at Bayushi Joe (2 regular attacks + extra attack action) and would miss for some misfortune three times, would Bayushi Joe get still only 4 free raises or 12 ? I can't find evidence in the RAW that would deny stacking of free raises. I know if this is true, the tech has some horribly powerful potential and most groups would possibly houserule it, but I just wanted to know...

Wow, I never considered that. I'd give them all 12 tho, for a few reasons, RAW aside. 1) If attacked by multipe attackers the Bayushi would only get to attack 1 person untill he hit R4, when he could hit 2, and he'd get the raises only from the one guy. 2) If you are going to go all out on Bayushi, change your famuily name to Sashimi. They are good at leveling the playing feild, and that's a good representation of that. They are tougher against tougher opponents. So If I were Akodo Joe I would not opt for the 3d attack, and maybe not the second. No one's forcing the Akodo to take all of his attacks. Of course if I was the Scorp i'd pump my Defense and go FullD/Attack/Full D/Attack till the Akodo dropped.

Personally I think it's a conditional thing. IE, if they've missed you then you get the free raises. Not cumulative. Nothing says it's cumulative so I woulnd't think it'd keep adding. Same as Hida 4 technique where if they attack you (regardless of the outcome) you get an additional rolled and kept. You could say that if they attack you 3 times you get 3k3! Umm, no.

I'm with Lord Ben on this one. It's 'if', not 'when'. I realize that's a small distinction and very ambiguous, but that's the way I choose to read it.

I can tell you're a Crane, Tsukaede-san. That Akodo is a shameful coward. The way to do it is to attack the scorpion and when he counterstrikes let your teammates cut him down... :)

To my knowledge it stacks. The wording is not "If your opponent has attacked you and missed since since their last turn" it is "If your opponent attacks you and miisses" The first statement would be a qualifying statement meaning that as long as the qualifications are met you would get the bonus. The second is a triggered effect, meaning that everytime the conditional trigger happens you get the effects. If it triggers multiple times then the effects stack. There may have been a ruling that changed the way this works, but as written the Technique can trigger multiple times, and the effects do not say that they are not cumulative.

So what wins? If it doesn't say it applies multiple times does which way does it default? I'd say on the side of being conservative. 4 raises is already plenty. Then the Hida 4 rank is going to give people the same cumulative bonus. Hiruma Scout 2 and Akodo Bushi 1 both state when the bonus is cumulative

I am of the general opinion that bonuses like this should not be cumulative. As to what the RAW says, it is vague.

Is cumulative even a question? In this instance you have multipe atacks, not cumulative. The next attack is not based on the effect of the previous attack (unless you make 4 raises, then that would be cumulative.) If ya want to get all ccg-like, let's break down the wording of the rule and assume that the writers had their grammer hats on. from Big Book of Samurai Fun, p139- "Additionally, if an opponent attacks you and misses, you gain a number of Free Raises equal to your Air Ring on any attacks against that opponent that occurs before their next turn." RAmen. So, ask the question- Did Akodo miss me? A: Yes Result: I get raises equal to my air ring to hit him before his next turn. Akodo attacks again: Q: Did he miss me? A: Yes Q: Is this "before the next turn" A: Yes Result: I get raises equal to my air ring to hit him before my next turn. Also note the word "attacks" instead of "attack". The Scorp gets those raises for every attack against that dude before his next turn.

Note the small but potentially meaningful difference between 'if an opponents attacks you and misses' and 'when (or even if) an opponent makes an attack against you and misses'. The latter obviously refers to separate, individual attacks. The former is ambiguous but, in my mind, appears to refer to being attacked in general, regardless of the number of individual attacks that might make up the 'total' attack.

Gramaticly there is no difference between "Attacks" and "Makes an Attack". Consider the example: Akodo Joe attacks Akodo Joe makes an attack. Akodo Joe attacks Marge twice. Akodo Joe makes 2 attacks on Marge. Akodo Joe attacks Marge then Sven. Akodo Joe makes an attack on Marge, then makes an attack on Sven. What is the defination of "Attack" in the game? Because those busybodies at AEG decides to put art into their books instead of definitions of simple English we are left to our own devices and grasp of high school English. One of the wonderful things about our language is its ability to say the same thing different ways. Now if the RAW were written like a tech manual, it would be clearer as to the designers intent (Like some games with the initials D, D), but there would be less wiggle room for the GMs. Speaking as a GM, I don't like that idea. I like the freedom to wiggle.

Gen. Eisenhower and his troops made an attack on Normandy beach, June 6, 1944. So they only fired once? "Akodo Joe attacks" is a proper sentance only with a predetermined object. My bad, you are correct in pointing out my poor grammer. The full example should have read: Akodo Joe attacks Marge. If Akodo Joe has the possibility of more than one attack, he should follow this with another sentence, or expand the sentence to include where the second attack goes. If he does not, the assumption would be all of his attacks go on Marge.