As I said in another topic, you all secretly want to be Crane. Because you envy our skill with blade, fabulous looks and general Crane awesomeness ;-) .

Why be Crane when you can be Scorpion? Also enviable skill with blade, even better looks, and everyone knows it's more fun to be bad.

Then you'd really want to be a spider.

Speaking of, I want some dirty tactis cards that we (Spider Clan) can use in a duel.

Crane: " You are clearly outmatched! Prepare to die at my bla-"

Spider: *throws stining powder in Crane duelist's eyes.*

Crane: " Aaaagh! You dishonorable do -"

Spider: *lops the Crane's head off.*

Spider: " Victory before honor ."

That's Scorpion. Spider would rely on their own strength (eating mushrooms and baby's liver to hulk up counts as your own strength). Which is why I think that duelist theme is great for Spider, because it helps hammer the whole PERSONAL POWER ABOVE ALL thing.

You have a point!

There were cards like that. Nobody ever used them because packing your deck with dueling reactions was considered subpar. They were funny as hell when used though, as I mentioned in my story above with my Duel-icorn deck.

Spider duelist would be that one girl who destroys anyone in her path using perfectly legal methods and tools available to everyone, and make fun of causes they championed, pointing out that it wasn't "Honor" that decided the victor, but pure strength and will.

Scorpion duelist is one willing to do anything to win, including sacrificing Honor...and losing. Scorpion understands that beyond their duel, there is actually a bigger picture and if it's better to throw the fight, then let's throw it. If fight has to be won no matter what, then so be it, even if poison and trickery is involved.

I see her growing up and becoming a duelist like Onita.

I wouldn't be surprised to seeing Dueling out of the game at all, or at least is greatly overhauled (Personally, I like the Joust idea someone posted above).

I enjoy it, but it is clunky, very hard to balance (if it isn't strong enough no runs duels, if its too strong dueling dominates) etc... But one of hte biggest issues with dueling in the game is that they are too often one-sided, which isn't very fun OR thematic. If two people enter a contest both should have a good chance of winning, and often that isn't the case in L5R.....of course the problem that brings up is, if you're only going to win 50-60-70-80% of your duels, why play them instead of other, more reliable actions?

Welk, that depends. You can sometimes trick a brash idiot to challenge a master. Or force aomeone into a corner where they know they will lose and have to back down to save face. One-sided duels are a thing in fiction, in amd out of the game. But thematically it is similar to a gunfight.

I wouldn't be surprised to seeing Dueling out of the game at all, or at least is greatly overhauled (Personally, I like the Joust idea someone posted above).

I enjoy it, but it is clunky, very hard to balance (if it isn't strong enough no runs duels, if its too strong dueling dominates) etc... But one of hte biggest issues with dueling in the game is that they are too often one-sided, which isn't very fun OR thematic. If two people enter a contest both should have a good chance of winning, and often that isn't the case in L5R.....of course the problem that brings up is, if you're only going to win 50-60-70-80% of your duels, why play them instead of other, more reliable actions?

I'd agree with that, but I think it should include the other avenues of play too. I'd want some risk of losing if I duel someone but if I'm using a master duelist compared to some random bandit or courtier, then I expect a relatively high chance of success.

I wouldn't be surprised to seeing Dueling out of the game at all, or at least is greatly overhauled (Personally, I like the Joust idea someone posted above).

I enjoy it, but it is clunky, very hard to balance (if it isn't strong enough no runs duels, if its too strong dueling dominates) etc... But one of hte biggest issues with dueling in the game is that they are too often one-sided, which isn't very fun OR thematic. If two people enter a contest both should have a good chance of winning, and often that isn't the case in L5R.....of course the problem that brings up is, if you're only going to win 50-60-70-80% of your duels, why play them instead of other, more reliable actions?

I'd agree with that, but I think it should include the other avenues of play too. I'd want some risk of losing if I duel someone but if I'm using a master duelist compared to some random bandit or courtier, then I expect a relatively high chance of success.

I wouldn't mind a game where a Lion or Unicorn player could look at the board state and think "Now's a great time for a duel. I'm going to do that."

Absolutely. Every clan should feel as though dueling is an option for them. An option of last resort, perhaps, but an option nonetheless.

I wouldn't be surprised to seeing Dueling out of the game at all, or at least is greatly overhauled (Personally, I like the Joust idea someone posted above).

I enjoy it, but it is clunky, very hard to balance (if it isn't strong enough no runs duels, if its too strong dueling dominates) etc... But one of hte biggest issues with dueling in the game is that they are too often one-sided, which isn't very fun OR thematic. If two people enter a contest both should have a good chance of winning, and often that isn't the case in L5R.....of course the problem that brings up is, if you're only going to win 50-60-70-80% of your duels, why play them instead of other, more reliable actions?

I'd agree with that, but I think it should include the other avenues of play too. I'd want some risk of losing if I duel someone but if I'm using a master duelist compared to some random bandit or courtier, then I expect a relatively high chance of success.

I wouldn't mind a game where a Lion or Unicorn player could look at the board state and think "Now's a great time for a duel. I'm going to do that."

The question to that are the tools associated with dueling. Are we simply going to see just actions and a few personalities that can start them or should it be an option that always' available?

The question to that are the tools associated with dueling. Are we simply going to see just actions and a few personalities that can start them or should it be an option that always' available?

Always might be a bit much. Once per turn? Maybe. Either way, we're in the realm of built in actions.

It could also be one of several kinds of conflict you can initiate. Like, each turn, you're allowed a duel, a battle, and a lobby. If you wish, perhaps the duel could take place *during* the battle or lobby, but can be independent of it.

Hard to say re: frequency of duels, but I wouldn't want you to just be able to duel out the other side without some kind of reasonable limitation.

As i pointed out before, might be better as an option suring the combat phase.

In mind's eye theatre, during a battle, two commanders/generals face off. The first part of every battle is the boasting from both sides in an attempt to intimidate the other army. Sometimea it works, sometimes is a stalemate.

Then, during the heat of combat two "champions" square off to duel that no one dares inturrupt. A win could rally the troops and a loss demoralize and cause a route. Or the death of a beloved champion then spurs his men into berserker rage.

Dueling needs to simulate that.

As i pointed out before, might be better as an option suring the combat phase.

I wouldn't want to lose the non-battle applications, though.

That can still be done during actions on cards or personalities that can function outside combat for other results.( taking the favor, canceling another's action, etc)

That can still be done during actions on cards or personalities that can function outside combat for other results.( taking the favor, canceling another's action, etc)

So could battle. I think making it once per turn, in or out of battle, provides flexibility so it's a mechanic that can be leveraged by more decks, either casually or as a deck focus. This meshes well with making it something that appeals to every deck in the right situation, which if it's going to be a built-in rulebook mechanic, it should.

If one were to decide that built-in dueling is important, of course. And if it's not, why not make all duels card effects, rather than excepting battle duels? We'll see what the game actually looks like, though.

Whatever the situation with dueling, most of it should be optional. Of course, there should be a penalty for refusing a duel. It would make dueling more dependent on the opposing player's choice but I could live with that.

I don´t think I would want a optional dueling mechanic. The reason is that either the penaltiy is not gambreaking or a bit to weak or it is gambraking and if you say ignore it for multiple duels you loose. Both cases are not desirebrable cause either dueling becomes useless casue nobody agrees to it or it becomes to strong and a opressing mechanic.

I think it should be a alternate military way to get to the victories they need but the mechnics have to change and each clans needed either a counter option like the crabs had with their strenght dueling or good duelists.

Dueling needs to stay, in one form or another, and while everyone should be able to it, 2-3 Clans should be better than anyone else. We alrealy lost Ancestors, Regions, and Celestials. The game should not lose so much of its flavor. Flavor and fluff is what made people care.

The game also needs to avoid a homogenized version where clans and abilities are vanilla and uninteresting so..

If you are Mantis, for example, sorry you are garbage at dueling and should continue to be garbage at dueling (even with your Ogre Bushi's on boats).

Dueling needs to stay, in one form or another, and while everyone should be able to it, 2-3 Clans should be better than anyone else. We alrealy lost Ancestors, Regions, and Celestials. The game should not lose so much of its flavor. Flavor and fluff is what made people care.

The game also needs to avoid a homogenized version where clans and abilities are vanilla and uninteresting so..

If you are Mantis, for example, sorry you are garbage at dueling and should continue to be garbage at dueling (even with your Ogre Bushi's on boats).

That should really go with every avenue of play (military, economics, political, etc.).

Dueling needs to stay, in one form or another, and while everyone should be able to it, 2-3 Clans should be better than anyone else. We alrealy lost Ancestors, Regions, and Celestials. The game should not lose so much of its flavor. Flavor and fluff is what made people care.

The game also needs to avoid a homogenized version where clans and abilities are vanilla and uninteresting so..

If you are Mantis, for example, sorry you are garbage at dueling and should continue to be garbage at dueling (even with your Ogre Bushi's on boats).

That should really go with every avenue of play (military, economics, political, etc.).

The game should keep it?

Or Mantis are garbage?

In the beginning of the game dueling was great, it had a really poker like element to it. Later on when they tried to develop it further it was way too good or just not good enough.

I hope the reboot can bring some of the enigma and mystery back to the game that the CCG had up until Gold Edition. The game had a wild west feeling to the design but was hardly broken. I mean, if you don't count military always being dominant due to players being penalized for being behind in the current game state. I really hope they get rid of provinces as something that can be destroyed, yet something you rely on to produce resources. It's just a terrible game mechanic.