I am a fan of in-game solutions when it comes to deck building games. Doomtown had a cool mechanic called Grifter, where players could start a single card with that keyword, whose ability would trigger at the beginning of the game only. Some grifters had mulligan abilities (both full-hand flush and select cards), others had thematic ones, while still others had economic incentives. These cards could all be costed accordingly and forced creative deck-building decisions. The most utilitarian Grifters were allowed across factions, while the more thematic ones were faction specific.

Not sure how this would translate into L5R (because we know nothing, as Crawd pointed out), but I could see a variation on the bamboo harvester theme allowing for neat design space: choose a holding which grants either mulligan, economy, honor, special ability, etc. The point being that mulligan could become a cost/benefit analysis as opposed to a structural guarantee.

Personally, I always liked the Babylon 5 approach. Choose 3 cards. Put them in your hand. Only one copy of any card, and only one card per card type. Also, you start with an Ambassador in play. I would love to see L5R take a similar approach, with allowing you to start with certain resources in play. You just need to design the game where gameplay wins over card combos.

26 minutes ago, sndwurks said:

Personally, I always liked the Babylon 5 approach. Choose 3 cards. Put them in your hand. Only one copy of any card, and only one card per card type. Also, you start with an Ambassador in play. I would love to see L5R take a similar approach, with allowing you to start with certain resources in play. You just need to design the game where gameplay wins over card combos.

yeah, i can see how this would require very careful design. in l5r this would basically make for gamebreaker combos. like, T2-3 GG.

Starting with an ambassador (courtier) in play appeals greatly to the dishonor play in my blood.

58 minutes ago, cielago said:

yeah, i can see how this would require very careful design. in l5r this would basically make for gamebreaker combos. like, T2-3 GG.

To be fair, this is true only in L5R as you know it. With a reboot, "very careful design" restrictions are possible, if risky.

As for myself, being a relatively casual player (some of my friends might snicker here), I delight in some random chance. Granted, first turn gold screws have always sucked, but that element of randomness adds spice and acts as somewhat of a leveling agent. I like games that require/reward careful calculation while also relying on a "role of the dice". The degree to which a game excludes chance is relative to its accessibility. I'm hoping the new L5r allows for ample flex in either direction.

48 minutes ago, FunTimeTeddy said:

To be fair, this is true only in L5R as you know it. With a reboot, "very careful design" restrictions are possible, if risky.

As for myself, being a relatively casual player (some of my friends might snicker here), I delight in some random chance. Granted, first turn gold screws have always sucked, but that element of randomness adds spice and acts as somewhat of a leveling agent. I like games that require/reward careful calculation while also relying on a "role of the dice". The degree to which a game excludes chance is relative to its accessibility. I'm hoping the new L5r allows for ample flex in either direction.

Even with any kind of mulligan, the chances are still there that you don't get the optimal draw and careful calculation STILL exists even IF you happen to get an optimal hand in most games. Just because you mulligan in to your best hand ever doesn't mean you automatically win the game. And just because your opponent mulligans in to their best hand, doesn't mean you automatically lose the game either. Mulligans help alleviate NPE out of the game. Many times, people just give up (in their heads) if they don't see anything that helps them win the matchup in the first turn. Mulligans help those people (and others) in not giving up. Nobody likes to be despaired while playing a game. If they mulligan and they STILL get a poor draw, at least they can say they were VERY unlucky and most likely not give up on the game.

52 minutes ago, Sparks Duh said:

Even with any kind of mulligan, the chances are still there that you don't get the optimal draw and careful calculation STILL exists even IF you happen to get an optimal hand in most games. Just because you mulligan in to your best hand ever doesn't mean you automatically win the game. And just because your opponent mulligans in to their best hand, doesn't mean you automatically lose the game either. Mulligans help alleviate NPE out of the game. Many times, people just give up (in their heads) if they don't see anything that helps them win the matchup in the first turn. Mulligans help those people (and others) in not giving up. Nobody likes to be despaired while playing a game. If they mulligan and they STILL get a poor draw, at least they can say they were VERY unlucky and most likely not give up on the game.

So where does this logic end? If we're talking about player perception, then the sky is the limit. NPE is relative to matchup: skilled players appreciate their ability to tutor into known cards/combos, while beginners can resent skilled player's ability to do so.

So what's the difference between 1, 2, or 3 mulligans? Why not just stick with an opening hand? Build the best deck you can, and see what happens. Right?

18 minutes ago, FunTimeTeddy said:

So where does this logic end? If we're talking about player perception, then the sky is the limit. NPE is relative to matchup: skilled players appreciate their ability to tutor into known cards/combos, while beginners can resent skilled player's ability to do so.

So what's the difference between 1, 2, or 3 mulligans? Why not just stick with an opening hand? Build the best deck you can, and see what happens. Right?

What? The difference between 1,2, or 3 mulligans is probability. Like... You get that right?

5 minutes ago, BayushiCroy said:

What? The difference between 1,2, or 3 mulligans is probability. Like... You get that right?

Yes. You missed the point. Why have luck, as a component of the game, if you go to great lengths to alleviate luck?

My assertion is that there is a sweet spot with luck/strategy, which balances casual and competitive gaming. Otherwise we could all be playing thematic yahtzee or chess.

1 hour ago, FunTimeTeddy said:

So where does this logic end? If we're talking about player perception, then the sky is the limit. NPE is relative to matchup: skilled players appreciate their ability to tutor into known cards/combos, while beginners can resent skilled player's ability to do so.

So what's the difference between 1, 2, or 3 mulligans? Why not just stick with an opening hand? Build the best deck you can, and see what happens. Right?

Look, I actually agree with you about not having mulligans, but as a player and as someone who likes to see the player base grow, I know that not having a mulligan will turn more players away from the game. It's more of a mind set than actual tactics. The new player comes in to the game and says 'I can't win a game because I keep getting the crappiest starts and there's no mulligan so I'm not gonna play anymore.' The same player may say 'I keep getting the crappiest starts, but at least I can mulligan and maybe get a better start so I'm gonna keep playing.'

There's some actual deck building tactics that go along with having mulligans as well. If there was no mulligan, you would build every deck to be optimal on turn 1. If there is a mulligan, you can splash in more late game cards and not worry about it. So it opens up more cards to use in deck building, imo.

2 hours ago, Sparks Duh said:

Look, I actually agree with you about not having mulligans, but as a player and as someone who likes to see the player base grow, I know that not having a mulligan will turn more players away from the game. It's more of a mind set than actual tactics. The new player comes in to the game and says 'I can't win a game because I keep getting the crappiest starts and there's no mulligan so I'm not gonna play anymore.' The same player may say 'I keep getting the crappiest starts, but at least I can mulligan and maybe get a better start so I'm gonna keep playing.'

There's some actual deck building tactics that go along with having mulligans as well. If there was no mulligan, you would build every deck to be optimal on turn 1. If there is a mulligan, you can splash in more late game cards and not worry about it. So it opens up more cards to use in deck building, imo.

The secomd paragraph is especially true. Mulligans produce choices and options, and that is never bad.

2 hours ago, Sparks Duh said:

Look, I actually agree with you about not having mulligans, but as a player and as someone who likes to see the player base grow, I know that not having a mulligan will turn more players away from the game. It's more of a mind set than actual tactics. The new player comes in to the game and says 'I can't win a game because I keep getting the crappiest starts and there's no mulligan so I'm not gonna play anymore.' The same player may say 'I keep getting the crappiest starts, but at least I can mulligan and maybe get a better start so I'm gonna keep playing.'

There's some actual deck building tactics that go along with having mulligans as well. If there was no mulligan, you would build every deck to be optimal on turn 1. If there is a mulligan, you can splash in more late game cards and not worry about it. So it opens up more cards to use in deck building, imo.

I agree with the second part, re: mulligans opening up deck space for late game cards. That is a distinct advantage. As well as allowing the inclusion of diversified meta, which can then be flushed through if not applicable.

As for the first, I see what you're saying, but my experience is contrary. When it comes to knowing one's deck (and general cardpool), an experienced player will *almost* always be able to gain leverage from cycling abilities. I guess the difference being "why do YOU always get such perfect starts?" instead of "why do I get such crappy ones?"

Earlier in the thread, I did site a mulligan design which I've come to like: that of Doomtown Reloaded, where the option is given as a deck-building preference, with associated costs. Is it perfect? No. Is it functional and flavorful? I'd say so.

Anywho, all idle thoughts as we bide our time. I'm of the persuasion that lcg lf5 is definitely no mistake.

How about cribbing from Dominion, which is essentially Deck-Building: The Game and limiting the possible starting hands?

So you build your deck as normal but before you shuffle and begin the game, you separate out ten (two turns worth, anyway) cards that make up your starting hand. Obviously, there would have to be restrictions on which cards could be in there, but saying "has to be X% resource production + no cards costed more than X" would be simple enough and could be made to work.

The cards after that are random, so no guarantee that this "perfect" starting hand is a T3 win (and a T2 win just shouldn't be possible with the allowed cards) but you can completely get rid of resource starvation.

You can still draw **** after, but you're set up with a minimum of resources ensuring that you can always play the game and never just sit there for several turns, waiting for you opponent's killer combo to finish you off.

In MtG, it's happened to me a few times that I started off with 3 mana, thought "yeah, that'll work" then didn't draw any more mana until the game ended. In Dominion, I've played badly, I've sometimes had bad luck with drawing in the endgame and my opponent buys the last province just before I can - but I never had several turns in a row where I just couldn't play.

Of course, this can be played with. Everyone starts with some holdings in play or part of the starting hand is fixed and the rest random etc...

What do you guys think?

7 hours ago, Myrion said:

Of course, this can be played with. Everyone starts with some holdings in play or part of the starting hand is fixed and the rest random etc...

This reminds me of Magi Nation Duel where every Magi had a list of starting cards that they could start play with in the players hand.

In L5R this could be a list of X cards on the stronghold (possibly modified by your sensei) you can then chose Y and add them to your hand up to hand size of Z.

For example:

Lion would have on the list: Fan of Command, A clan item, a couple of spells with the ancestor keyword, and a couple of specific followers

Mantis would have on the list: Kobune, Kobune Crew follower, a couple of specific types of arrows, a couple of specific spells.

As has been stated before this is all conjecture until FFG releases their version of l5R.

There is still the challenge of Tempo and "Who Goes First?" impacting the game.

The post Onyx SHs that got spoiled had an interesting solution. If you go 2nd, you get a more powerful stronghold which comes with an action that flips your stronghold to the weaker side.

7 minutes ago, sndwurks said:

The post Onyx SHs that got spoiled had an interesting solution. If you go 2nd, you get a more powerful stronghold which comes with an action that flips your stronghold to the weaker side.

This "Action" = Once Per Game gold boost.

Well, yes, that might be an issue, but again, there are solutions. Like the stronger Stronghold or Magic's "the guy who begins can't draw a card on his first turn". Although that too would likely mess with tempo, some guaranteed way of generating resources could also work, similar to Netrunner's clicks for cash.

I do think that having a (semi-)fixed starting hand would help a lot and eliminate the main problem with randomness in these card games. I mean, randomness is often fun[1] but resource starvation isn't. Even as a newb, playing badly, I don't want to win because my opponent simply doesn't get to play and losing because I got resource starved isn't just boring and wastes my time.

So I hope that that's something that doesn't happen in the new L5R.

[1] Though, as video game designers learned, humans are terrible at probabilities. "It said 80% chance of winning, how could I possibly lose?!" and so they tend to cheat and give you better probabilities or try to limit streaks of bad luck.

It's a small thing, but one of my favorite things about l5r was the in game way to almost always expect turn order, that being honor on boxes.

What was that keyword that only activated if you had gone second? Courtesy?

Correct. Or as it should probably have been called, 'added Spider bonus'

I also liked the idea of Strongholds with two playable sides, depending on whether you were starting the game or not.

I think there was some more room for improvement, but these were steps in the right direction. Well, of course, you could argue those steps were needed because of bad design and the resulting huge impact being the starting player had, but once you were

57 minutes ago, Ser Nakata said:

I also liked the idea of Strongholds with two playable sides, depending on whether you were starting the game or not.

I think there was some more room for improvement, but these were steps in the right direction. Well, of course, you could argue those steps were needed because of bad design and the resulting huge impact being the starting player had, but once you were

The only thing I didn't like about the two-sided strongholds was that it gave the second player an advantage across the board. The second-player side was always better than the first, sometimes by quite a bit (you never really appreciate that two extra gold as a Mantis until you're forced to go first...) I would have preferred one of two alternatives:

1. Give each stronghold a preferred and non-preferred side (like they have), but vary it depending on the clan. Lower honor clans could prefer going second and be punished for going first, whereas higher honor clans could prefer going first and be punished for going second.

or

2. Balance both sides of each stronghold, but have them play differently. For instance, Mantis may get a one-time 2 gold for going second, but get +1 province strength and "Tireless" for their stronghold ability if they go first. Now, perfect balance is pretty much purely theoretical, but having some sort of trade-off would at least help a bit.

Considering going first is an incredibly strong advantage, you have your trade-off right there. The whole point of extra abilitites was to offset the penalty of going second.

18 minutes ago, Tetsuhiko said:

Considering going first is an incredibly strong advantage, you have your trade-off right there. The whole point of extra abilitites was to offset the penalty of going second.

What "incredibly strong advantage"? What "penalty of going second"? Even if you get personalities out first, the second player has a chance to get some out before you can actually use them for anything, negating any advantage in being first. You're only really gaining an advantage if the opponent's deck has given them either no gold or all gold and no personalities. In either case, this has far more to do with the randomness of the decks than it does to whether one went first or second.

Y ou have one whole turn more than your adversary! Which means one more limited phase for actions. (for military control, honor, dishonor and enlightenment, this means the world). Against Blitz deck, it means you have twice as many personalities when you are forced on the defensive on turn 2. More gold, sooner than your opponent to pay for open actions. It's huge. I might not be the best one to explicitly state all the boons of going first, since I'm a Spider player and never really fully wrapped my mind about going first, but I,m sur eothers can add things.