In this game they also only have one recourse similar to the Gold in L5R but they also have 6 factions/colors based on the Elements of Harmony.

Some ponies have a requirement how much force of a specific faction/color you need to have on the battlefield to recruit it.

This is kind of similar to how Shadowfist does it, with each character providing faction resources (even from the dead pile, so long as they were once in play). So little 1 and 2 cost guys (foundations) require no faction resources, but provide 1. As you get higher up the food chain of character power, they start to require 1, or 2, or as many as 5, and generally provide some as well.

One of the interesting things here, too, is that even though it's a permission resource rather than a spend resource, the opportunity cost still bears on character power, so the game ramps in an interesting way in term cost-to-card power from early, to middle, to late game.

Shadowfist leans heavily toward monofaction in my experience, because the resource ramp is so sharp, but it could be flattened out to make more multifaction options attractive. Conversely, a simple way to keep monofaction viable with a flatter resource curve is to give a "head start" in resources for your chosen faction. So, a dragon deck could begin play with a dragon feng shui site (location essentially) that provides one or two dragon resources, making it generally more efficient to play dragons, but not locking out other factions if you're willing to build in the deck infrastructure.

In the pony CCG only the active pony contribute to the force required to bring in new ponies.

However you always start with you Mane Character in play. If your Stronghold could assign as Personality to battlefields and could not be killed or removed from game in any way of form, that would be the equivalent.

Since the force of the Mane Character also help to get over the requirement, you have one main color and as much secondary colors as you like. You are also required to have more then one color to win the game.

So even though you can build a mono faction deck, you will never win with it.

However in translating that to L5R a stronghold could give you a Clan discount... Not in form of Gold but in form of Clan Requirement by reducing it by lets say 4 since that is the normal gold production of a Stronghold.

Making it rewarding to stay in Clan, and make it in general more complicated to bring in stronger personalities from other clans.

Also as you described correctly I would also create something like early game, mid-game and late game personalities, which would make thing like 3rd turn Khans impossible...

...the Mane Character...

...ha!

...the Mane Character...

...ha!

They have a lot of horse puns in the show... Just look at the map:

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/mlp/images/c/cb/Map_of_Equestria_April_2013.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130403195243

In this game they also only have one recourse similar to the Gold in L5R but they also have 6 factions/colors based on the Elements of Harmony.

Some ponies have a requirement how much force of a specific faction/color you need to have on the battlefield to recruit it.

This is kind of similar to how Shadowfist does it, with each character providing faction resources (even from the dead pile, so long as they were once in play). So little 1 and 2 cost guys (foundations) require no faction resources, but provide 1. As you get higher up the food chain of character power, they start to require 1, or 2, or as many as 5, and generally provide some as well.

One of the interesting things here, too, is that even though it's a permission resource rather than a spend resource, the opportunity cost still bears on character power, so the game ramps in an interesting way in term cost-to-card power from early, to middle, to late game.

Shadowfist leans heavily toward monofaction in my experience, because the resource ramp is so sharp, but it could be flattened out to make more multifaction options attractive. Conversely, a simple way to keep monofaction viable with a flatter resource curve is to give a "head start" in resources for your chosen faction. So, a dragon deck could begin play with a dragon feng shui site (location essentially) that provides one or two dragon resources, making it generally more efficient to play dragons, but not locking out other factions if you're willing to build in the deck infrastructure.

Some other cards also give faction [and talent] resources in Shadowfist besides characters, but I usually just blew up sites with Mooks armed with Dynamite (old school Shadowfist). Besides the fact that that's a huge amount of different resources in the game, Shadowfist is also different because of the Power resource mechanic too. The fact that you need so much power to hire the big cards (4 or 5 is quite a lot in the game) limits the "mono-clan" guys more than their resource costs. Add in things like there isn't a minimum deck size or more direct bluffing with Feng Shui site and you have a very different type of game.

Contextually, Shadowfist is built more of a multiplayer game than 1v1.

A question. What would your actual mechanical implementation of multiclan be? If you were to build l5r from the ground up, how would you design it and balance it? I'd be interested to know what you had in mind.

Again, monoclan vs. multiclan is a spectrum. While I can't say you haven't engaged with the question in other areas, why the bloody-mindedness on calling L5R a multiclan game? It is *clearly biased toward monoclan.* If you want it to stay that way, that's fine. That's your preference.

But why pretend it already is multiclan? You even say monoclan decks are easier to build in your post. And while there is some truth to the fact that "easiest" does not always mean "best," if you take the various competitive (in the loosest sense) deck archetypes available over 20 years of L5R, I think there's little doubt they're going to be weighted far more monoclan (even with a few splashes here and there) than not. Even the language you use implies it: "There were *even* kotei wins last season," indicates that it's unusual for that to be so.

Why do I call it multi clan? Because it is. You conveniently ignore kotei wins that have occurred recently that exemplify this. There have been decks that have more out of clan than in clan that have won kotei events. Even in our recent kotei season.

I never said that monoclan was less prevalent at all. But to call to claim that the game isn't multi clan when it is 100% multi faction in terms of mechanics AND in practice is just deliberately ignoring fact.

I think the idea that it should be encouraged more is horribly misguided and wouldn't provide much to the game in way of mechanics, while at the same time taking an awful lot away from L5R's biggest selling point; Setting.

Some other cards also give faction [and talent] resources in Shadowfist besides characters, but I usually just blew up sites with Mooks armed with Dynamite (old school Shadowfist). Besides the fact that that's a huge amount of different resources in the game, Shadowfist is also different because of the Power resource mechanic too. The fact that you need so much power to hire the big cards (4 or 5 is quite a lot in the game) limits the "mono-clan" guys more than their resource costs. Add in things like there isn't a minimum deck size or more direct bluffing with Feng Shui site and you have a very different type of game.

Contextually, Shadowfist is built more of a multiplayer game than 1v1.

*shrug* Never said it wasn't a different game. There are lots of kinds of games, and mono/multifaction has different effects in each.

Totally agree that it's more of a multiplayer game, to the point that it's the only way I played it.

Why do I call it multi clan? Because it is. You conveniently ignore kotei wins that have occurred recently that exemplify this. There have been decks that have more out of clan than in clan that have won kotei events. Even in our recent kotei season.

I never said that monoclan was less prevalent at all. But to call to claim that the game isn't multi clan when it is 100% multi faction in terms of mechanics AND in practice is just deliberately ignoring fact.

I'm really not ignoring any facts. I dismissed a single data point that even you presented as an exception as being not reflective of wider trends. Do you have evidence of such a trend? A minority of decks including cards from other factions, or even a majority of decks "splashing" a specific card, even if they win events once in a while, doesn't make a game multifaction. The game isn't multifaction *compared to other games, on a spectrum between mono and multiclan.* 100% multifaction would be every deck being multifaction, in fact being *required* to be multifaction. Just as 100% monofaction would be decks only allowing in-faction cards, even excluding neutrals (which wouldn't exist in such a game, obviously).

L5R is neither of those things as it existed at AEG. But if perfect balance between mono and multiclan decks is 50% on that spectrum (also considering that decks that include, for example, only one out of clan personality has less weight in pushing it to the multiclan side than a deck with, say 50% out of faction cards, or an equivalent proportion of every clan without regard to clan loyalty), I'm *very* comfortable marking L5R as leaning much more toward a monoclan setup. I rather suspect that all the people arguing how vital clan loyalty is to the game, and how much they don't want alliances or easy cross-factioning would agree.

It's totally reasonable to say that you would prefer it to stay the way AEG set it up (although, again, not really the thread for that;there are plenty of other threads in which to discuss preferences specific to L5R). On the other hand, it seems pretty inconsistent with the actual game and the understanding of the vast majority of its extant audience to say that it's always been a multiclan game without warping the definition into meaninglessness.

All of that depends on the context of the world itself and what the designers want to achieve too. That's why mechanics in a vacuum don't necessarily work for me. It's also why I hope they have a bunch of articles about the game periodically.

Honestly, couldn't some of 'splashing' be done with more effective neutral cards? A card like Keisho is fun but feels strictly limited to its sensei card and drafting. Besides that, the idea of "easy" splashing (i.e. no real drawback) doesn't work for multiple reasons, primarily which is the actual flavor and central conflict of the game. That's why I'd rather promote things like sensei which relate to the general idea of the golden rule mechanic in card games: a central core of rules that are bent or broken with individual cards (like sensei).

I'm not necessarily arguing for easy splashing, and I agree there should be a balance between the advantages of playing out of faction cards vs. in faction in any game where you choose a primary faction. I genuinely don't understand how that keeps getting interpreted as, "You should be able to play anything you want with no real drawbacks!" which is a terrible idea on its face for any game. If you like balanced cards and games, then it follows that advantages from going cross-faction that may exist in a game must be accompanied by disadvantages to balance them. The relative weight of those is at issue, sure, but that doesn't mean, "No real drawback."

Neutral cards serve a different purpose than the ability to cross-faction, IMO. They're a great place to put functions that should be readily accessible to everyone, especially in a game with a small card pool (which is the way all of FFG's games begin), where as factioned cards tend to have mechanics specific to a faction. Combining cross-faction allows new and interesting combinations of faction specific mechanics, but obviously must be limited to some degree in order to preserve design space (Loyalty and the like helps here). As stated in the OP, a great purpose for limiting cross-faction play is creating space for mutually exclusive mechanics to exist that, when combined, would be abusive.

That being said, one neutral card that allows an alliance with any single other faction would be more economical in terms of card pool than producing an alliance card for each individual faction, whatever the specifics of design wind up looking like.

I whole hardly agree with Flory here.

Especially since the old Honor Requirement system was unbalanced and favored high honor clans and also only worked for the military win condition.

On a re-design of this game, the cross faction issue is an important one to tackle.

And many many games did it so much better then L5R.

Yeah, this OP seems to ignore that multiple clan decks were options all throughout the game's 20 year history. There've been cards that encouraged cross-faction play almost since the beginning (Oath of Fealty was in... Shadowlands, I think).

The game *encouraged* single clan decks through mechanics like in-clan discounts and the ability to waive honor requirements. Even that didn't keep cross clan decks from dominating (Naga/Phoenix were very strong in Emperor Edition, Scorpion/Crab Dishonor decks terrorized two arcs, etc.). People end up playing decks from their clan not because of mechanical or competitive advantages, necessarily, but because when people play L5R they play their clan. If I'm a Dragon player, and some Crane deck is winning a bunch of tournaments, my instinct isn't to play the Crane deck but instead to play my Dragon deck in such a way that it can beat the Crane. It's this faction-loyalty, ingrained into the setting and lore, that ends up making L5R tournaments much more unique experiences than other games, and indeed even playing the game at a high level respects not just a deck's power but its prevalance in certain areas based on the popularity of a given clan in that region.

I think you have to compare something like L5R to games with similar player bases and prizing structures. I wish I knew more about FFG tournaments across their various games, but strictly at a local level, I feel like I see a lot of diverse decks in the games I've played. This is sometimes warped if a new deluxe box has just hit and people are playing with the toys of the featured faction or factions, but generally speaking.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/9/21/compete-for-glory-and-riches/

Browse the prizes. It does give you an idea of what they do. This is Worlds, so this tends to be the most of what they do. No money. No exclusive things that would affect a game. I don't foresee this ever changing. And the lack of high money prizes has had a tendency to create better atmospheres in tournaments.

Thanks! I had a pretty good idea about prizing from the games I have played, but I meant more what breakdowns looked like as far as factions played and deck diversity.

I agree that I hope FFG doesn't cave to money prizing or anything like that, but there's no evidence to suggest they will. They've never done it and L5R's never done it, so no reason to think their L5R will do it.

Dan Dineen former TO manager at AEG have done cash price tournament in L5R before entering AEG, and had established somes rules to avoid problems....

BD Flory, i've got a major problem with all you question: where do they bring us, you seem to break all the thing that we actually love in the game, to get back to your post here, you want absolutely take multicaln declk for expending your deck buliding possibilities, ok it's up to you, but you could do it with the penality we all known from the actual game, it'fair to have all the bad guys in one deck but you must paid them, but i think you miss the main thing about this game it's originaly builded around 7 clans and there is a story behind. So allow multiclan deck is AGAINST the original game, having one or two personnalities OoC in your deck is ok and then your deck is normally builded around that personnality, the original Kaname/Koshin Keep was full of phoenix yojimbo to protect kaname, this version was difficult to run because the outcost of the ooc personnalities, but it's a non sense to play full of phoenix in a mantis box... it's like having red card in full black deck at magic ...

My final point about all the discussion here is if FFG follow the quarter of the whole thing i've read here we'll got something called L5R but not be L5R....

I really want to understand where you want to go but i can't, and i'm sorry because I feel sincerely that there is something behind your writing ...

Yeah, this OP seems to ignore that multiple clan decks were options all throughout the game's 20 year history. There've been cards that encouraged cross-faction play almost since the beginning (Oath of Fealty was in... Shadowlands, I think).

The game *encouraged* single clan decks through mechanics like in-clan discounts and the ability to waive honor requirements. Even that didn't keep cross clan decks from dominating (Naga/Phoenix were very strong in Emperor Edition, Scorpion/Crab Dishonor decks terrorized two arcs, etc.). People end up playing decks from their clan not because of mechanical or competitive advantages, necessarily, but because when people play L5R they play their clan. If I'm a Dragon player, and some Crane deck is winning a bunch of tournaments, my instinct isn't to play the Crane deck but instead to play my Dragon deck in such a way that it can beat the Crane. It's this faction-loyalty, ingrained into the setting and lore, that ends up making L5R tournaments much more unique experiences than other games, and indeed even playing the game at a high level respects not just a deck's power but its prevalance in certain areas based on the popularity of a given clan in that region.

Single decks -- even dominant decks -- do not an environment make. It's like saying climate change is false because it's a hot day. It's not the same thing -- that's temperature, not climate.

Looking at your examples, in the arc where scorpion/crab dishonor terrorized (and I'm taking you at your word at that) were other combinations competitive? Or was it something about that specific combination that made it work exceptionally well? On Naga, Oracle tells me Naga didn't even get an Emperor legal stronghold, so that's not cross-faction, that's taking neutral cards; I would assume design costed those naga cards knowing they would never get a 2G discount in an arc in which they were legal, so their utility should be about that of neutral cards.

If you insist on bringing story into this, I'm not so sure what's non-story about, "Wow, that clan is just murdering everyone. Let's ally to defeat them!"

But as stated in the OP -- and I'm repeating AGAIN -- this thread is intended to be about design and mechanical theory, not story. it's not even about L5R specifically, though it's obviously relevant to card games more generally. Perhaps it was a misstep to use the term "clan" in the OP, rather than faction, but it should be telling that I mentioned that I was asking what the advantages of *excluding* out of faction cards was. Which as others have pointed out, L5R doesn't even do.

I'm not even asserting, in the OP or elsewhere in the thread, that L5R *should* be a certain way, although preferences have obviously come up. At any rate, it's a thought experiment. People are talking about the way Shadowfist and My Little Pony do things; that doesn't mean they want L5R to become Shadowfist or My Little Pony. Card game design is interesting. I assume it is of interest to people who like card games. And since this is a board about a (dormant) card game, it seemed like an interesting subject to bring up.

If you find it difficult to understand why that would be of interest, or not of interest to you (and this is not just directed at you monjio, but generally), why post? Why be that person? If I start a thread and say, "I don't want to talk about setting; here's a question I'd like considered without that," why come into the thread and post, "but everything is about setting!" (Again that's directed more generally.) I get that setting and theme and story is important to the L5R community. But not every thread has to be, or should be, about that. Because that's not all it is.

it's about basic civility. Maybe that's asking a lot on the internet. It's like a fan of the story saying they want to talk about how important honor is in the setting without looking at mechanics, and me rolling in and saying, "Sorry, can't separate game mechanics! Military stomps honor all the time!" It would be a jerk move. Yes, there's a debate to be had over whether it's actually true that honor or military is stronger (and in which blocks), but then I'm pulling focus from something another poster was actually interested in for my pet issue. I would say the civil thing to do is live and let live, and if you must object, start a new thread! Like, "Why you can't separate theme and mechanics," or whatever. Because yes, that's an interesting discussion. But it's a *different* discussion.

A little understanding for people who see the game and/or like to discuss the game from a different perspective would go a long way to making what others have described as an insular community a lot more welcoming to all kinds of players, and I think everyone should want that.

Dan Dineen former TO manager at AEG have done cash price tournament in L5R before entering AEG, and had established somes rules to avoid problems....

I would actually be interested in seeing those rules if they're still out there. Got a link? Not that I think L5R or FFG should go cash prizes, but I'm curious to see what his approach was.

My final point about all the discussion here is if FFG follow the quarter of the whole thing i've read here we'll got something called L5R but not be L5R....

I really want to understand where you want to go but i can't, and i'm sorry because I feel sincerely that there is something behind your writing ...

Ha! I don't think much here is going to influence FFG one way or another, or in any other thread on this board. I'm sure they'll do market research, but I'm equally sure they have their own opinions on what would improve L5R, as well as which areas in which L5R doesn't need improvement.

About the dan's rules, nothing about games mechanics, nothing to feed you, the only rules applies to the match and the way it should be played, since i'm not for this kind of award (there some other game that doing cash prize magic and poker f.eg) that I'don't much more about this.

But what would you want with all those question ?

What do i miss ? What do you miss ?

About the dan's rules, nothing about games mechanics, nothing to feed you, the only rules applies to the match and the way it should be played, since i'm not for this kind of award (there some other game that doing cash prize magic and poker f.eg) that I'don't much more about this.

But what would you want with all those question ?

What do i miss ? What do you miss ?

Like I said, I'm curious. I'm not sure what you mean by, "feed me."

Game rules (including meta rules like floor rules and tournament rules) are interesting as objects of curiosity to me for various reasons, not least of which being that I used to work in game design, as well as in social science (where "rules" of all kinds double as incentives).

I'm not necessarily arguing for easy splashing, and I agree there should be a balance between the advantages of playing out of faction cards vs. in faction in any game where you choose a primary faction. I genuinely don't understand how that keeps getting interpreted as, "You should be able to play anything you want with no real drawbacks!" which is a terrible idea on its face for any game. If you like balanced cards and games, then it follows that advantages from going cross-faction that may exist in a game must be accompanied by disadvantages to balance them. The relative weight of those is at issue, sure, but that doesn't mean, "No real drawback."

Neutral cards serve a different purpose than the ability to cross-faction, IMO. They're a great place to put functions that should be readily accessible to everyone, especially in a game with a small card pool (which is the way all of FFG's games begin), where as factioned cards tend to have mechanics specific to a faction. Combining cross-faction allows new and interesting combinations of faction specific mechanics, but obviously must be limited to some degree in order to preserve design space (Loyalty and the like helps here). As stated in the OP, a great purpose for limiting cross-faction play is creating space for mutually exclusive mechanics to exist that, when combined, would be abusive.

That being said, one neutral card that allows an alliance with any single other faction would be more economical in terms of card pool than producing an alliance card for each individual faction, whatever the specifics of design wind up looking like.

The majority of clan cards should be loyal, as per fluff. This was originally circumvented with the aforementioned honor requirements, gold reduction, and other cards that bent the rules like sensei, Alliance, Oath of Fealty, and so on. Besides cards that bend "core" rules, I doubt honor requirements will remain and resources will most likely change as well.

I believe that you can achieve increasing a clan's card pool without out-of-the-box clan mixing in the general rules. I've brought up sensei so many times because they pretty much do what you were asking and then some.

It all just goes back to the idea of what the balance is or what it could be. This includes the other variables in the game (story, direction, mechanics, and so on). Look at various sensei and many have some sort of balancing factor. For example, Seppun Tasuke and the allowance of certain cards from any clan but also has that instant loss condition.

Yeah, this OP seems to ignore that multiple clan decks were options all throughout the game's 20 year history. There've been cards that encouraged cross-faction play almost since the beginning (Oath of Fealty was in... Shadowlands, I think).

The game *encouraged* single clan decks through mechanics like in-clan discounts and the ability to waive honor requirements. Even that didn't keep cross clan decks from dominating (Naga/Phoenix were very strong in Emperor Edition, Scorpion/Crab Dishonor decks terrorized two arcs, etc.). People end up playing decks from their clan not because of mechanical or competitive advantages, necessarily, but because when people play L5R they play their clan. If I'm a Dragon player, and some Crane deck is winning a bunch of tournaments, my instinct isn't to play the Crane deck but instead to play my Dragon deck in such a way that it can beat the Crane. It's this faction-loyalty, ingrained into the setting and lore, that ends up making L5R tournaments much more unique experiences than other games, and indeed even playing the game at a high level respects not just a deck's power but its prevalance in certain areas based on the popularity of a given clan in that region.

Single decks -- even dominant decks -- do not an environment make. It's like saying climate change is false because it's a hot day. It's not the same thing -- that's temperature, not climate.

Looking at your examples, in the arc where scorpion/crab dishonor terrorized (and I'm taking you at your word at that) were other combinations competitive? Or was it something about that specific combination that made it work exceptionally well? On Naga, Oracle tells me Naga didn't even get an Emperor legal stronghold, so that's not cross-faction, that's taking neutral cards; I would assume design costed those naga cards knowing they would never get a 2G discount in an arc in which they were legal, so their utility should be about that of neutral cards.

If you insist on bringing story into this, I'm not so sure what's non-story about, "Wow, that clan is just murdering everyone. Let's ally to defeat them!"

But as stated in the OP -- and I'm repeating AGAIN -- this thread is intended to be about design and mechanical theory, not story. it's not even about L5R specifically, though it's obviously relevant to card games more generally. Perhaps it was a misstep to use the term "clan" in the OP, rather than faction, but it should be telling that I mentioned that I was asking what the advantages of *excluding* out of faction cards was. Which as others have pointed out, L5R doesn't even do.

I'm not even asserting, in the OP or elsewhere in the thread, that L5R *should* be a certain way, although preferences have obviously come up. At any rate, it's a thought experiment. People are talking about the way Shadowfist and My Little Pony do things; that doesn't mean they want L5R to become Shadowfist or My Little Pony. Card game design is interesting. I assume it is of interest to people who like card games. And since this is a board about a (dormant) card game, it seemed like an interesting subject to bring up.

If you find it difficult to understand why that would be of interest, or not of interest to you (and this is not just directed at you monjio, but generally), why post? Why be that person? If I start a thread and say, "I don't want to talk about setting; here's a question I'd like considered without that," why come into the thread and post, "but everything is about setting!" (Again that's directed more generally.) I get that setting and theme and story is important to the L5R community. But not every thread has to be, or should be, about that. Because that's not all it is.

it's about basic civility. Maybe that's asking a lot on the internet. It's like a fan of the story saying they want to talk about how important honor is in the setting without looking at mechanics, and me rolling in and saying, "Sorry, can't separate game mechanics! Military stomps honor all the time!" It would be a jerk move. Yes, there's a debate to be had over whether it's actually true that honor or military is stronger (and in which blocks), but then I'm pulling focus from something another poster was actually interested in for my pet issue. I would say the civil thing to do is live and let live, and if you must object, start a new thread! Like, "Why you can't separate theme and mechanics," or whatever. Because yes, that's an interesting discussion. But it's a *different* discussion.

A little understanding for people who see the game and/or like to discuss the game from a different perspective would go a long way to making what others have described as an insular community a lot more welcoming to all kinds of players, and I think everyone should want that.

Just because people disagree with what you have to say, does not mean they don't understand what you are trying to say. The reason I asked what arcs you played in earlier in the thread was because I wanted to know if you had played with or against multifaction decks in the past, of which there have been loads of examples, the Crab/Ratling deck with Yakamo and Yakamo's claw being one of my favourite. I have Currently 6 slots in my Unicorn deck of out of clan personalities (not unaligned) because they have the reserve keyword I am looking for.

The thing is, and the reason why this discussion has absolutely no traction whatsoever is because you are using very loose terms and being extremely vague, you are yet to say what you think would be a solution for this in L5r. You also say you are not looking for it to be "easy" to put other clan cards into decks, but also that 2 gold makes it too difficult. So what is the solution? Because you are just going around in circles here. Is it 1 gold penalty? Is it X number of free slots? Is it a sensei/stronghold solution? And now you are saying that Naga weren't cross faction because they didn't have a stronghold..., which is just being contrary at this point.They had a clan alignment they were at the time building up a personality base for the upcoming stronghold.

The reason it would be non-story primarily is that the storyline of l5r is dynamic, printing a personality with a fixed clan alignment, which is going to last 2 or so years will just lead to cards that feel "old" very very quickly. There is also the issue that in terms of deck themes and mechanics, some of the storyline alliances would not translate into the game so well. The cards in question would essentially have to serve 3 tasks, synergy with its own clan, the allied clan(s) and in a deck consisting of both out of both factions stronghold(or whatever distinguishes clans in the future.). Which while is of course possible, is really beginning to ask a lot out of a card.

For me the sensei/stronghold solution is the best way to do it, particularly if it is something that would go into an LCG core set. Something with a penalty significant enough to make it an actual choice, rather than "oh I will play the best guy from each clan".

For me the 2 gold penalty is a good approach.it is enough of a deterrent to stop people adding personalities willy nilly, but not so punitive that it is impossible to play them. Is it that people find it too difficult with this gold penalty and want it easier than that? I see a lot of back and forth and argument, but not much in way of people actually coming up with what they think it *should* be instead of the 2 gold penalty.

And btw, yo pick up on the whole "if you dont get it or understand, then just don't post" paragraph, there is a simple answer. There have been A LOT of suggestions thrown at FFG over the last couple weeks, which is great, discussion is fantastic. However, there has also been a lot of stuff that in my opinion has been very reactionary and at times misguided. These points being made are people's opinions which are valid, but that does not mean it would be a good approach to a new L5R. If there was no counterargument to those opinions, then it might look like it was the prevailing feeling amongst players, which I doubt it is. Also...if you don't understand what someone is saying or asking for, then the way to find out is to probe and enquire, which I have been doing a little, but I still don't actually know what BDFlory wants, and I am not convinced he does either (enlighten me if I am wrong and you do actually know), which is fine, but it makes it go around in circles a little.

The thing is, and the reason why this discussion has absolutely no traction whatsoever is because you are using very loose terms and being extremely vague, you are yet to say what you think would be a solution for this in L5r.

As stated many many times now, this is not just about L5R, it's about card games in general, and what's gained and lost monofactioning vs. multiclanning. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be at this point. It's also not really about what the best way to balance the two is, though examples of that can creep in when discussing the fact that mono/multi does need to be balanced.

A general discussion like that, by necessity, is going to be loose and general in some areas, but some people have brought examples of various games (yourself included) that do mono and multi factioning in various ways. That's great! Likewise, some people discuss it primarily in terms of L5R, because it's a familiar touchstone. That's fine, too, but it's easy to get caught up in the, "but it's L5R and story matters," trap. More below...

And btw, yo pick up on the whole "if you dont get it or understand, then just don't post" paragraph, there is a simple answer. There have been A LOT of suggestions thrown at FFG over the last couple weeks, which is great, discussion is fantastic. However, there has also been a lot of stuff that in my opinion has been very reactionary and at times misguided. These points being made are people's opinions which are valid, but that does not mean it would be a good approach to a new L5R. If there was no counterargument to those opinions, then it might look like it was the prevailing feeling amongst players, which I doubt it is. Also...if you don't understand what someone is saying or asking for, then the way to find out is to probe and enquire, which I have been doing a little, but I still don't actually know what BDFlory wants, and I am not convinced he does either (enlighten me if I am wrong and you do actually know), which is fine, but it makes it go around in circles a little.

First, FFG is not AEG. I'm fairly certain they'll do what they do regardless of what's said or not said in these forums. They're well aware of the difference between vocal internet partisans (whether for mechanics or story or whatever) and what actually constitutes their wider player and customer base. They're huge, in terms of this industry. They do market research. If you really think that I or anyone who posts in this thread is going to change their minds with general discussions about what's gained and lost in different mechanical styles in various games, I'm quite sure you're mistaken. They have plenty of their own games, and play plenty of other games, to figure out the kind of game they want to do for L5R.

That said, when I literally ask, "What is gained by a monofaction game, taking story and setting and theme aside?" that seems like a good opportunity to say, "Hey, here's what I like about monofactioning, and regardless of what happens with the story or setting (because that was the premise of the thread), here's why I think it's important," don't you think? And that can then be discussed. In fact, if you want a game that leans toward monofactioning more than FFG's games (which are aggressively multifaction and becoming more so as time goes on, it seems, I would think this would be a good opportunity to make a case, should you believe it'll make a difference, on a purely mechanical level. There are certainly plenty of threads where people have discussed the importance of story and such, and if that argument's going to be convincing to FFG, I'm sure it will be.

This thread is not an assertion that L5R should be a non-story game. It is not an assertion that theme or setting shouldn't matter. It is not a statement on any of that. It also shouldn't be read as a, "what I want," thread, so it's unsurprising that based on this thread you can't conclude what I want.

I know some of the things I want from the new L5R, and I know some that I definitely don't. Some I've stated in other threads, to varying degrees of controversy. There are other things about the new L5R that I haven't formed an opinion on yet, partly just because it's so far away and we know so little (although that doesn't stop a little freewheeling speculation). Some if it I just don't care about. None of that's relevant to the basic premise of the thread, which is why I haven't brought it up here.

Some of the things you've brought up have been on point considering the premise of the thread, and I appreciate that.

And yet the pattern has been, you respond in terms of L5R mechanics (reluctantly, I would add, so getting back to the, "Why post?" issue). But that's fine! Like I said, it's a common reference point. I discuss your points, generally taking care to avoid story stuff. Some I agree with, some I don't; frequently pointing to other games for cases and examples. Inevitably, you (or someone else) falls back, on, "But L5R is a story game!" once again torpedoing the discussion of the pure mechanics -- the *math* of the game.

Would the game be awful and boring if it were actually *published* as a math problem on cards without any of the other stuff? Of course. I think everyone can agree that would be stupid. But that doesn't mean we can't talk about the math and game theory behind the cards without reference to the setting and story and theme. The assertion that we can't do so is ridiculous.

I do understand why people, given what they love about L5R and their perspective on the game, might not *want* to discuss that. That the numbers don't matter to them without the names and places and memories and what have you. That's fine. Plenty of threads for all that stuff, and as I suggested a couple of times, if there's not a thread covering the specific area you want to discuss? Go start one. I promise I won't disrupt it with my mechanics divorced from story meanderings.

The reason it would be non-story primarily is that the storyline of l5r is dynamic, printing a personality with a fixed clan alignment, which is going to last 2 or so years will just lead to cards that feel "old" very very quickly. There is also the issue that in terms of deck themes and mechanics, some of the storyline alliances would not translate into the game so well. The cards in question would essentially have to serve 3 tasks, synergy with its own clan, the allied clan(s) and in a deck consisting of both out of both factions stronghold(or whatever distinguishes clans in the future.). Which while is of course possible, is really beginning to ask a lot out of a card.

I think the legal life of a card thing is an interesting subject, but maybe for another thread. It's going to be very different than what L5R players are used to. More like 5+ years, with core box and deluxe box cards being legal for the life of the game. Or at least that's the standard LCG plan. Maybe I'll start another thread on that, and even invite discussion on how it will impact storytelling in the LCG.

Story aside, addressing the card design comment of serving three tasks:

I don't think opening up the environment to some form of multifactioning doesn't necessarily require every card to be designed across so many axes. Of course, a card should usually have synergy within its clan, and probably be able to serve in multiple decks of its clan, and that should be a primary design goal. I expect each clan will see a couple of types of abilities that are common to that clan, though it's hard to say what those'll be without knowing the game design yet.

Going cross faction, though, shouldn't generally be a case of "these cards are designed to work together," so much as, "these cards are complementary because of niche they hold in the overall design."

So, as an example from AGoT (and I'm just spitballing, this may not be a great deck): Greyjoy as a faction big on aggro. They have a bunch of cards that benefit from them attacking first, as well as cards and abilities that help them slip in single guys for big gains -- stealth lets them name characters who can't block; and they have a bunch of cards that give them additional benefits for an attack being unopposed (basically meaning undefended). You can build a very effective deck just with Greyjoy cards leveraging abilities common to Greyjoy cards.

But looking at another faction, we see Baratheon, who have many cards that Kneel (Bow) enemy cards. One of Greyjoy's problems is when there get to be a lot of potential defenders, stealth can only skip over one of them. More importantly, stealth can't skip over another character with stealth. One solution is to bring in cross faction Baratheon cards so you can Kneel potential stealth defenders and slip in your attack. Seems like it could be a pretty good combo, though I haven't tried it out yet. I'm just starting with the game.

But in order to combine these factions, you have to give up either 5 loyal Greyjoy cards or 5 loyal Baratheon cards, because you can only play loyal in your own House. Some of them are the most powerful characters in the game (think clan champions), whereas others are simply characteristic mechanics. Greyjoy has great location hate, for example, but they lose one of the best location hate cards in the game if you take them as allies via a Banner (sensei).

Greyjoy and Baratheon cards weren't explicitly designed to work together -- many of their abilities don't key off each other, for example. But the general mechanics that were assigned to the Houses were complementary. Sometimes this will be the case, sometimes not. Greyjoy loves to go first, but Martell likes to go last, so that's a rough fit. But each House also has a couple of different design focuses, so maybe there's something in a Greyjoy Martell alliance I haven't seen yet. I'd guess there probably is.

Likewise, at risk of someone complaining that they hate each other, a Lion military rush duck could gain some advantage from a contingent of scorpion cards that bowed possible defenders, whereas Lion as a clan might generally tend to just rely on high force. Those Scorpion were designed to do their own thing and synergize within their own clan, but who doesn't love bowing defenders? It's a clan focus that can nicely complement aggro military. (Reemphasizing here; this is just an example! Doesn't matter if Lion and Scorpion hate each other for the sake of this discussion.) This kind of design thinking can be easily extended to strongholds, but it won't always result in a great deck. A straightforward Lion stronghold that gets some benefit for winning by X amount of force would love to be able to bow opposing personalities to reach that threshold, but a scorpion box that bows their personalities to bow opposing personalities may not bother with high force lion peeps for obvious reasons. On the other hand, they might looooove to team up with a clan that brings them unbow tech. But again, that unbow tech was designed primarily with intraclan synergy in mind, and might not be as efficient when taken out of clan.

The trick is, when you allow that, you also have to balance it with disadvantages like House-restricted abilities, which AGoT does quite well. You're also required to take a Banner Agenda, which will be an increasing opportunity cost as it locks out new agendas released in expansions. In addition, the banners require you to take a minimum number of the allied house, which is sometimes harder than it looks if you really only want one specific card or combo. And, as mentioned, Loyalty locks out some cards -- I believe 5 in each House -- from being played via a banner agenda, so some uniquely characteristic mechanics are preserved to the House. Greyjoy, for example, has a lot of pillage, which mills cards from the top of an opponent's deck, but only their loyal cards a) send locations to discard from play (easily) and b) steal locations from discard that have been pillaged or sent their from play.

So design doesn't become *too* much more difficult, I don't think. You mostly design factions unto themselves and with internal synergy in mind, and ensure that whatever it is they do is important enough to the game that they'll be attractive allies to at least a few other decks. Actually, I think this has the side benefit of being a good litmus test for faction mechanics. If they don't bring anything to the table as allies, they probably need work.

Now *playtesting* all those combinations? That's a bit more difficult.

Just going to point out that you do not state in your OP that this is is about LCGs in general concerning mono-factions vs multi-factions, and that there is a sub-forum for LCGs in general.

No matter how you twist it though, L5R has in the past had many options to include out-of-clan personalities, and even without those options people have still done it, either for reasons of powerful deck design, thematic build or even for story purposes. Subodei and others have brought up good examples of other ways to handle OoC Personalities other than what has been in the past (from Events to increased Gold Cost).

Was actually thinking just now. A good way to try and implement this a little is the use of unaligned personalities. There are many many minor clans that are not used, and they could be used as a way to bridge and pad out personalities for themes. The beauty of using "unaligned" minor clans this way is that it could also be used as a mechanism to influence story. EG. Unicorn player wins a tournament with a boar clan personality, he can choose to have the boar clan become closer with the Unicorn. This could be represented by printing a Unicorn clan card of a boar personality. This doesn't infringe on Clan alignments/Rivalries but also adds an element of having multiple clans in your deck.

One of my favourite parts about Ivory and 20f was the popularity of the Bat Clan chick Komori Taruko, (sp?) . Such a great unaligned personality that loads of decks could use. That kind of stuff is 100% story prize/line fodder.

This is all assuming that FFG take up the story driven aspect of the game.

Except if i missed something BD you've already work for AEG, isn't it, i've seen some product written by a 'BD Flory' selled by AEG ? I remember this when you said you're a game designer above.

So apart to be a complete out of this world guy's you should probably know L5R and how it works ?

If it's not, why don't you get into a shop a take some time to play the game ? May be i've missed something but i don't remember read you talking about having playing L5R. This may explain all your questions.

So design doesn't become *too* much more difficult, I don't think. You mostly design factions unto themselves and with internal synergy in mind, and ensure that whatever it is they do is important enough to the game that they'll be attractive allies to at least a few other decks. Actually, I think this has the side benefit of being a good litmus test for faction mechanics. If they don't bring anything to the table as allies, they probably need work.

Now *playtesting* all those combinations? That's a bit more difficult.

Do the math. It is exponentially more difficult and a much larger task, that is the main design benefit from mono clan. The effort to result tradeoff is so much slimmer when you start adding a ferocious amount of deck options into the mix.

I am thinking of this with playtest in mind. It would be an absolute nightmare to try to balance it all, it's hard enough to balance a game with 9 factions as it is, adding alliances as deck arctypes on top of that would be a massive pain in the arse and would draw attention away from improving the game in other ways.

To maybe get back on topic. The mechanical benefits of monoclan approach (even though L5R has not this way inclined.)

1- Card Slots: Less themes/deck types means less cards needed to support them in the environment. Card slots in sets are gold dust to a designer. Encouraging a monofaction approach cuts this out.

2- Support : You can easily and directly power up or power down a clan or deck type quite easily with subsequent expansions. If every clan had access to a card intended to give extra strength to the clan then it would be pointless..and not possible,

3- Homogeny : If cards were equally accessible to all 9 great clans for example, then you would just have a meta of the best X personalities. This leads to an unexciting and homogenous environment that lacks variation.

4- Restrictions encourage Ingenuity : This one applies to great deck builders, like Greg Wong for example, who can see the potential in cards despite most people only seeing a drawback. Restrictions encourage problem solving, which in essence is what people enjoy about card games. You want to challenge players into building decks, but they wont be challenged without restrictions. A massively accessible card pool eats into this ingenuity as choices just become far more obvious with less restrictions.

5- Individuality: Separating out cards amongst clans actually encourages their own unique feel. This is what players like when they play a deck. If other clans had access to those cards just as equally, it just takes away the uniqueness of the theme.

6- Story: I know BD doesnt want this one part of the discussion, but when talking about L5R it is impossible to extrapolate the story from it. A story deriven game, about warring factions, benefits greatly from a monofaction approach. Helps to establish us and them. No game is purley about mechanics or story, but a marriage of both.

7- Balance: The tighter the rules, the easier it is to design. It is so much easier to balance a game when there are clan restrictions in place. Even though it does not make it impossible to take a very liberal approach to which cards can float into other decks, it is a complication that does not provide something to the game that is not already there without it. Playtest takes a lot of time...and I do mean...a lot of time. More time to playtest a tighter design base leads to a better quality product. Try to do too much and quality will begin to drop off. Less is more.

Those are just some off the benefits of designing with mono faction in mind off the top of my head. It is all based off my own experience and involvement with L5R.