You know, if you use "Sensei Slot" as a "thing that allows me to pursue an Alliance", you can make Mono-Clan decks ~Special~ by "freeing up" the Sensei Slot for them, allowing them something that allows them to potentially stay competetive. Basically, you either play a sensei (special ability empowering your mono claniness), or you play an alliance (ability to use different clan and maybe weaker special ability).

As you get all of the cards anyway, it's better to encourage people to try out different clans and decks instead of pidgeonholing them into clan loyalty, imho .

Mono clan decks shouldn't need an alliance to stay competitive either as it defeats the purpose behind having that clan to begin with. I haven't really heard anything about a disadvantage to these alliance cards.

You know, if you use "Sensei Slot" as a "thing that allows me to pursue an Alliance", you can make Mono-Clan decks ~Special~ by "freeing up" the Sensei Slot for them, allowing them something that allows them to potentially stay competetive. Basically, you either play a sensei (special ability empowering your mono claniness), or you play an alliance (ability to use different clan and maybe weaker special ability).

As you get all of the cards anyway, it's better to encourage people to try out different clans and decks instead of pidgeonholing them into clan loyalty, imho .

Mono clan decks shouldn't need an alliance to stay competitive either as it defeats the purpose behind having that clan to begin with. I haven't really heard anything about a disadvantage to these alliance cards.

The disadvantage they are presenting is the opportunity cost - ie losing the ability to run a sensei that works with you clan in the old system.

You know, if you use "Sensei Slot" as a "thing that allows me to pursue an Alliance", you can make Mono-Clan decks ~Special~ by "freeing up" the Sensei Slot for them, allowing them something that allows them to potentially stay competetive. Basically, you either play a sensei (special ability empowering your mono claniness), or you play an alliance (ability to use different clan and maybe weaker special ability).

As you get all of the cards anyway, it's better to encourage people to try out different clans and decks instead of pidgeonholing them into clan loyalty, imho .

That is sort of how the Agendas work in AGOT 2.0. Yes, the majority of the current agendas are for alliances, but there is one that doesn't allow you add out of faction cards into your deck as an option. And there is a second non-alliance agenda announced in the upcoming cycle. I fail to see how the agenda system they have in AGOT, which is what allows alliances, would be bad, especially since it sounds like the Sensei slot is already similar to AGOT's agendas.

You know, if you use "Sensei Slot" as a "thing that allows me to pursue an Alliance", you can make Mono-Clan decks ~Special~ by "freeing up" the Sensei Slot for them, allowing them something that allows them to potentially stay competetive. Basically, you either play a sensei (special ability empowering your mono claniness), or you play an alliance (ability to use different clan and maybe weaker special ability).

As you get all of the cards anyway, it's better to encourage people to try out different clans and decks instead of pidgeonholing them into clan loyalty, imho .

Mono clan decks shouldn't need an alliance to stay competitive either as it defeats the purpose behind having that clan to begin with. I haven't really heard anything about a disadvantage to these alliance cards.

The disadvantage they are presenting is the opportunity cost - ie losing the ability to run a sensei that works with you clan in the old system.

That's not as much of a disadvantage as you might think. Some of those sensei are extremely narrow. Even the older sensei were worse in that regard.

The old alliance cards for AGoT used to increase the amount of power you needed to win the game, if I remember. The newer ones gave an opponent an advantage. That's more of a balance factor that's needed.

Mono clan decks shouldn't need an alliance to stay competitive either as it defeats the purpose behind having that clan to begin with. I haven't really heard anything about a disadvantage to these alliance cards.

Alliance cards would be Sensei.

You know, if you use "Sensei Slot" as a "thing that allows me to pursue an Alliance", you can make Mono-Clan decks ~Special~ by "freeing up" the Sensei Slot for them, allowing them something that allows them to potentially stay competetive. Basically, you either play a sensei (special ability empowering your mono claniness), or you play an alliance (ability to use different clan and maybe weaker special ability).

As you get all of the cards anyway, it's better to encourage people to try out different clans and decks instead of pidgeonholing them into clan loyalty, imho .

That is sort of how the Agendas work in AGOT 2.0. Yes, the majority of the current agendas are for alliances, but there is one that doesn't allow you add out of faction cards into your deck as an option. And there is a second non-alliance agenda announced in the upcoming cycle. I fail to see how the agenda system they have in AGOT, which is what allows alliances, would be bad, especially since it sounds like the Sensei slot is already similar to AGOT's agendas.

Senseis and Agendas are basically the same thing, yes. They're chosen and played the same way.

Really the only difference is that sensei have stronghold stat modifiers (though they are sometimes +0 across the board). AGoT house cards have no stats to modify.

The old alliance cards for AGoT used to increase the amount of power you needed to win the game, if I remember. The newer ones gave an opponent an advantage. That's more of a balance factor that's needed.

Only if you have the goal of making alliance decks weaker, rather than competitive. In which case, why bother?

Even in base AGoT 2.0, some decks choose to use the Fealty agenda (reduces cost for 1 Loyal card by 1, but requires a maximum of 15 neutral cards and everything else in-house) instead of an alliance agenda. Some decks even choose to go no-agenda (no alliance or fealty) in order to play more than 15 neutral cards with a straight house deck. No agenda is also an option if you can't find room for the minimum 12 allied cards in your deck required from your alliance faction, which stops you from splashing in 3x a specific card for a combo. Alliance decks also get diminished returns from *many* house-restricted card effects.

Note also that new agendas coming up, as mentioned, require a house-pure deck by virtue of the game not allowing than one agenda, so you can't run an alliance agenda with another agenda.

Straight house decks aren't being tossed aside wholesale. They're perfectly competitive with the agenda system we're discussing in place. All it takes is renaming the banner cards "sensei" (or renaming the L5R sensei mechanic "banners"). There's no reason to assume the results in L5R will be wildly different, assuming competent design and testing.

I really wish people would stop dressing this discussion up in, "but balance!" As said *waaaaaay* earlier in the thread, whether or not alliances are available has no inherent effect on balance in the absence of information about game rules and card pool, and competent design and testing can produce an environment where both pure clan and alliance options are attractive, and balanced with each other. We're citing the AGoT agenda system because it's an example that demonstrates balance can be achieved in that system, inasmuch as balance is ever achieved in a CCG/LCG.

You can prefer pure-clan only, but don't pretend it's the only path to a balanced game, or that pure-clan decks and alliance decks coexisting in balance is impossible.

Mono clan decks shouldn't need an alliance to stay competitive either as it defeats the purpose behind having that clan to begin with. I haven't really heard anything about a disadvantage to these alliance cards.

Alliance cards would be Sensei.

You know, if you use "Sensei Slot" as a "thing that allows me to pursue an Alliance", you can make Mono-Clan decks ~Special~ by "freeing up" the Sensei Slot for them, allowing them something that allows them to potentially stay competetive. Basically, you either play a sensei (special ability empowering your mono claniness), or you play an alliance (ability to use different clan and maybe weaker special ability).

As you get all of the cards anyway, it's better to encourage people to try out different clans and decks instead of pidgeonholing them into clan loyalty, imho .

That is sort of how the Agendas work in AGOT 2.0. Yes, the majority of the current agendas are for alliances, but there is one that doesn't allow you add out of faction cards into your deck as an option. And there is a second non-alliance agenda announced in the upcoming cycle. I fail to see how the agenda system they have in AGOT, which is what allows alliances, would be bad, especially since it sounds like the Sensei slot is already similar to AGOT's agendas.

Senseis and Agendas are basically the same thing, yes. They're chosen and played the same way.

Really the only difference is that sensei have stronghold stat modifiers (though they are sometimes +0 across the board). AGoT house cards have no stats to modify.

Some have balancing factors that do change some 'stats' around. The Long Voyage increases your deck size, for instance. They are also optional just like Sensei are. Have to account for that specifically.

Thus far, it's more like they (pure clan) been somewhat ignored compared to always using some type of alliance. There has to be some sort of balance to account for mono-clans, which have been the focus of the game for just about its entire run.

I haven't really heard anything about a disadvantage to these alliance cards.

Tell you what. Just assume FFG's designers aren't idiots, and if the goal is for clan decks and alliance decks to coexist, they can achieve it.

Some have balancing factors that do change some 'stats' around. The Long Voyage increases your deck size, for instance. They are also optional just like Sensei are. Have to account for that specifically.

Thus far, it's more like they (pure clan) been somewhat ignored compared to always using some type of alliance. There has to be some sort of balance to account for mono-clans, which have been the focus of the game for just about its entire run.

It sounds like you're confusing agendas and banners (which may be the fault of people using the terms interchangeably). Banners is shorthand for a specific group of agendas that allow alliances, because they're all titled, "Banner of the XX." Agendas are the larger card type that are similar to sensei in their execution.

So, for example, a new version of Long Voyage would be mutually exclusive with taking another Agenda, so Long Voyage would require a pure clan deck.

At the moment, when alliances are most important to game play variety because of a small card pool, most Agendas are Banners. There is one that isn't a Banner (Fealty) that gives a cost reduction bonus to loyal cards, but puts a ceiling on neutral cards in your deck (and per normal game rules, allows no out of house cards).

Running without an Agenda is also an option, if you wish to run a deck that is straight house, but runs more than 15 neutral cards.

Note also that all banners require you run a minimum of 12 cards of the allied house (and don't allow you to run their loyal cards) to prevent you from splashing one specific card for a combo. This diminishes synergy, because many, if not most, card abilities that interact with other cards are restricted to cards of the same house. Perhaps most significantly, this includes cost the basic cost reducers, of which each house has at least 1, and most have 2. So even taking aside the opportunity cost of not playing another agenda, alliance decks take hits in efficiency and other areas thanks to the way abilities are designed.

New Agendas that will be introduced (that have been spoiled so far) will have different advantages and drawbacks, but have nothing to do with alliances or out of house cards, so decks that use them would be house-only.

AGoT 1.0's system for running out of house cards was entirely different, and actually much more like L5R 1.0, I believe. Out of house cards cost a bit more gold. There may have been Agendas that reduced this, but in general, running an Agenda (like say, Long Voyage) had no impact on whether you could run out-of-house cards or not. I expect a new version of Long Voyage would be mutually exclusive with Banners, and thus require a house-only deck.

Some have balancing factors that do change some 'stats' around. The Long Voyage increases your deck size, for instance. They are also optional just like Sensei are. Have to account for that specifically.

Deck size isn't a stat, btw. It's a game rule that the Agenda modifies. Affiliations don't each get their own deck size, and other than House alignment, are identical as far as I'm aware. Someone more familiar with the card pool for 1.0 might correct me.

Stronghold Stats (and note the "stronghold" qualifier) are province strength, starting honor, and gold, which AGoT's affiliations don't have, nor do they have any equivalent stats. That may not be the technical term in L5R, but given the accompanying notation example, it should've been pretty clear I was referring to those.

Some have balancing factors that do change some 'stats' around. The Long Voyage increases your deck size, for instance. They are also optional just like Sensei are. Have to account for that specifically.

Deck size isn't a stat, btw. It's a game rule that the Agenda modifies. Affiliations don't each get their own deck size, and other than House alignment, are identical as far as I'm aware. Someone more familiar with the card pool for 1.0 might correct me.

Stronghold Stats (and note the "stronghold" qualifier) are province strength, starting honor, and gold, which AGoT's affiliations don't have, nor do they have any equivalent stats. That may not be the technical term in L5R, but given the accompanying notation example, it should've been pretty clear I was referring to those.

I consider deck size a "stat" even if it isn't something that specifically changes your stronghold. The point is that it specifically targets a number and changes the way the game plays for that player, much like the modifiers on sensei. Modifiers is probably the better word.

I do have hope that the playtesters and designers will try to make every balanced out in some way but some cards in every LCG are better than others. I can only say this looking at and playing the Lord of the Rings LCG but I have heard other stories from the Call of Cthulhu one too. Even some cards (*cough* Arcbound Ravager *cough*) can break through the cracks.

As long as mono Clans are at the forefront.

Even some cards (*cough* Arcbound Ravager *cough*) can break through the cracks

Really the Arcbound Ravanger? You might forget that Darksteel was the set which introduced the Skull Clamp to magic which by it slef is far more broken than the Ravanger ever was. ^^ But yeah not everthing will get fished out by playt testing I just have the hop that FFG will react in a more positive way when playtester actually tell them that something is off with the card and how you could fix it than AEG did.

Even some cards (*cough* Arcbound Ravager *cough*) can break through the cracks

Really the Arcbound Ravanger? You might forget that Darksteel was the set which introduced the Skull Clamp to magic which by it slef is far more broken than the Ravanger ever was. ^^ But yeah not everthing will get fished out by playt testing I just have the hop that FFG will react in a more positive way when playtester actually tell them that something is off with the card and how you could fix it than AEG did.

Just the first card I could think of at the moment. Arcbound Ravager just ended up being in the format longer too. Almost as bad as Umezawa's Jitte. Now there's a card that I have no idea managed to get past playtesters in its current form!

Some of it might simply be a number of issues. First, the expectancy and necessity to fill slots in a set. There's going to be meh cards (usually featureless cards or draft cards) with this regard and a LCG is the perfect opportunity to fix most of those. Other include human error and shifts in the game's focus (Kamigawa's power level compared to Mirrodin).

Re: "Either use a sensei or have the option to ally"-

The sensei available to Phoenix through Ivory Edition were so utterly wretched that the decision would have been a no-brainer.

And apart from a few broken nightmares (pre- errata Akagi for the Crane springs to mind) most Sensei enabled nothing worth the handicaps they built in.

IF FFG goes this route, hopefully they will make sensei whose mechanical beneifts are actually comparable to"pick cards from another faction that shore up our most glaring weaknesses.".

Re: "Either use a sensei or have the option to ally"-

The sensei available to Phoenix through Ivory Edition were so utterly wretched that the decision would have been a no-brainer.

And apart from a few broken nightmares (pre- errata Akagi for the Crane springs to mind) most Sensei enabled nothing worth the handicaps they built in.

IF FFG goes this route, hopefully they will make sensei whose mechanical beneifts are actually comparable to"pick cards from another faction that shore up our most glaring weaknesses.".

And again, looking at a comparable game in AGoT (8 houses and all), there are decks that are better off going no agenda (no sensei).

You lose a lot of synergy for going cross faction, so it's not necessarily a net gain to cover your weaknesses that way. This is just a matter of card design.

As people have been saying all along, if the opportunity cost is appropriate, no-sensei can be an equally attractive option if design makes that a goal.

Clan Loyalty has to remain.

Being able to include for a greater cost another clan's personality? That too.

Or you could use the SW LCG approach which I also like for cards from other factions.

Keep strongholds.

Alliance strongholds? I would love that too.

L5R needs to be a bit more simple as it used to be but not as simple as your average XCG, fill X with any type of card game. I mean no insult to other cards games. What I like about l5r the most, was its complexity.

As someone said, without clan loyalty, ergo, pure decks, then l5r would be five rings and no legend at all.

Or, alternatively, we could go back to the past:

http://imperialassembly.com/oracle/#cardid=642,#hashid=434d0cd71253505cb94af14f5cfb701e,#cardcount=5

http://imperialassembly.com/oracle/#cardid=4101,#hashid=434d0cd71253505cb94af14f5cfb701e,#cardcount=30

http://imperialassembly.com/oracle/#cardid=4661,#hashid=434d0cd71253505cb94af14f5cfb701e,#cardcount=42

http://imperialassembly.com/oracle/#cardid=7006,#hashid=434d0cd71253505cb94af14f5cfb701e,#cardcount=68

http://imperialassembly.com/oracle/#cardid=7680,#hashid=434d0cd71253505cb94af14f5cfb701e,#cardcount=73

http://imperialassembly.com/oracle/#cardid=9242,#hashid=434d0cd71253505cb94af14f5cfb701e,#cardcount=100

Here's the thing though. These Sensei worked because, tied as they were to the ongoing storyline, a time came when they were cycled out. This represented the evolving nature of the game and setting, including said short-term alliances.

On a LCG, from my understanding, this cycling doesn't happen.

Cycling does happen. It is just a good 7-8 years before the first cycles rotate out. After that, it should be 2 cycles rotating out every year and a half. And then, it is just cycles. The big boxes are supposed to be permanent additions (though I question how likely this will be). And the Core, of course, will always be a permanent addition to the game.

Here's the thing though. These Sensei worked because, tied as they were to the ongoing storyline, a time came when they were cycled out. This represented the evolving nature of the game and setting, including said short-term alliances.

On a LCG, from my understanding, this cycling doesn't happen.

The same is going to be true for every card printed, though. Personalities long dead in the story (whatever form that takes) will stay playable for years. Forever, if they're core set or deluxe box (though I agree with Sithborg that we'll see how this works out in practice once it starts being an actual factor in play; FFG may reverse course).

In any event, I think it's actually 7-8 cycles, but they tend to come out faster than annually, if I'm not mistaken. It still works out to a long time. So 5-6 years before a card cycles out, probably.

So, really, they might just as well be printed in the core on the idea that, "At some point, these two clans will probably be allies, so here's the card. It's good for the life of the game."

Well big boxes and the month break afterwards helps spread things out. So, 7 years at worst, really. And then, this is FFG. Who while they are doing a lot better recently, still has delays.

And it will still be years before the card pool gets large enough for the debate about viability of keeping big boxes in the card pool. A couple years after rotation before we can begin having that discussion.

And it will still be years before the card pool gets large enough for the debate about viability of keeping big boxes in the card pool. A couple years after rotation before we can begin having that discussion.

I think that debate is going to come up with one of their other games first, and have knock on effects across their game line. How soon does Netrunner hit critical?

3-4 years. It just finished up it's 4th cycle, and rotation doesn't hit till the 8th is released. Not enirely sure what their plan for the big boxes will be, though.

3-4 years. It just finished up it's 4th cycle, and rotation doesn't hit till the 8th is released. Not enirely sure what their plan for the big boxes will be, though.

Oh, wow, I didn't realize it was still that far off. I'm pretty sure big boxes are evergreen across all their games, including netrunner. We'll see if the plan survives actual implementation.

If it's going to change, it'll probably take a large unintended consequence appearing shortly after packs start cycling out and boxes don't.

3-4 years. It just finished up it's 4th cycle, and rotation doesn't hit till the 8th is released. Not enirely sure what their plan for the big boxes will be, though.

Oh, wow, I didn't realize it was still that far off. I'm pretty sure big boxes are evergreen across all their games, including netrunner. We'll see if the plan survives actual implementation.

If it's going to change, it'll probably take a large unintended consequence appearing shortly after packs start cycling out and boxes don't.

Like I said, that's the plan. The rotation will significantly slow down the number of cards in the game. It remains to be seen whether or not they will still release big boxes for Netrunner after the current one. When comparing the four big boxes, the first one starts to look really out of touch, compared to what the other factions have gotten.

I, know they stopped big boxes for AGOT 1.0 after the eighth one, giving one to each faction. But at that point, the card pool had grown to be quite large.

I scanned through the thread and believe it was already mentioned, I think a system similar to how Netrunner allows a limited out of faction splash would work well for L5R. Something similar could be done where personalities (and followers, items, spells?) have a clan loyalty value for splashing. Higher the clan loyalty the more it would cost you to splash. A stronghold could determine how high this loyalty number would be. I would personally like a second story driven restriction to deck building, where you can only splash cards from clans you are currently allied with or at least excluding clans you are feuding against. FFG could list which clans are allied for tournaments based off the current story.

I started playing L5R during CE. Besides just being drawn to the game mechanics and theme, I was drawn to the clan loyalty and story. I even attended a couple tournaments (a first for me) and enjoyed competing on behalf of the Crab and cheering on my clan. I even tried to keep up on the story and felt invested into my clan. I would hope the element of deck building L5R incorporates, will try to keep a strong sense of clan loyalty and the community among clans.