I think the idea of making fate cards that cause or beta duels low focus is clever. Much like printing antiduel meta on a high focus card with a good alternate battle action.
doesn't matter though as this and the existence or not of the fate deck has already been decided...
1 hour ago, Suzume Tomonori said:Shiba Aikune would have been Emerald Champion if it wasn't for those meddling Scorpion!
But that story was the exception, not the rule (and he still would have had to face Yasuki Hachi, who was like half Crane or something?)
Back in the day of my Phoenix duelling deck, he frequently was. And Misao was the Jade Champion.
And it would trample over anything that wasn't focused duelling or anti-duelling. At the time it was quite fun, but I'm not sure how fun it was to play against.
What I am sure of is that I would be disappointed if there wasn't some sort of duelling aspect to the game.
Here's an interesting thought. What about a Yojimbo keyword? When another character is challenged to a duel, you may bow a Yojimbo to accept the duel in their stead.
I'd also note that we don't even know that there are going to be Force and Chi stats on the cards. It might be an interesting idea to have 3. One for Bushi*, one for Courtiers and one for Shugenja.
*Please make Bushi the fighting types, not Samurai: Samurai covers all nobles.
Well, if there's only one deck, every card could have a focus value.
And why not focusing randomly from the top or bottom of the deck, for example? This leaves ways for design to favor duelists (pick 2, keep one;or choose from either the top or the bottom, or even discard first pick and draw another one, etc.), and deck manipulation becomes an interesting tool for some decks.
34 minutes ago, Tonbo Karasu said:Here's an interesting thought. What about a Yojimbo keyword?
Spoken like a true Phoenix player.
Some have talked about 4 or 5 clans having cards to set up duel decks, however if we talk about really competitive decks, probably 2 or 3.
But there aren't 2 or 3 of 9 because we have to consider that each clan has at least 2 or 3 versions of different competitive decks, meaning that it would be somewhere around 3 for maybe 20 possibilities of competitive decks in a tournament for example.
I really like the duels and I really hope the FFG does a good job with that so they make it really exciting, but I understand our friend's frustration with the duels and at some point I agree, I've played l5r since the gold edition, I don't know how many times I was challenged to duel, maybe 100 times or more, but I only remember winning 2 times, and in both situations just because my opponent was very reckless and I had to discard good cards from my hand for that. In the rest was to be called to duel and put the character in the discard pile.
Some may have had fun playing the mantis deck with the dark naga (last strong duel deck I saw), but whoever played against it certainly did not like it, it was not fun to play at all. And it was not yet a very competitive deck for a tournament since faced against a defensive deck it was generally inefficient.
I don't care to win or lose in the game, of course I like to win but for me the most important thing is an engaging game with twists and actions. Sometimes you are devastating your opponent and he change the game against you, for me this is the most incredible aspect of l5r, and i heard it from other players when i started many years ago "never give up a match".
Playing a game that you take all the actions and your opponent just watch you with no chance of reaction is soooo boring, but some players seems to like it, and keep playing only the strongest versions of decks, just to win, don't caring about fun at all.
I would point out that the issue with Dueling generally isn't that it was, like you described, a high risk/high reward, that required more concise deck construction. That is perfectly fine, assuming it isn't overbalanced, which it can be. The issue is with the duel itself and the generally negative experience non-dueling decks had with it.
In general, I think non-dueling decks would have preferred: "Target your duelist with equal or higher chi than another target, <something happens>". Then they don't have to participate in the terrible experience, its just another ranged attack. It is the participation in a mini-game they generally felt they had no chance of winning.
As for the "High Risk/High Reward" it becomes really hard to balance that, since once the reward is high enough, you just build out your deck so that you minimize the chance of failure, at least on a competitive level. And if you can't balance it properly, it is either too weak to be useful, or too powerful to be fair. My understanding of CCG competitive deck building philosophies is that if you can't control what your deck will do, its generally considered bad, unless the reward is "win the game". If you aren't sure you are going to win the duel, then you probably shouldn't engage in it.
I think the mention of Netrunner's Jinteki Gambling game is an example on how this is done well, so I have hope. However, the one downside is that mini-game is balanced so the house (Corp) is more likely to win, given randomly chosen options. The mind game, however, involved is great, until your opponent figures you out.
Admittedly this is a bit of navel gazing on our part. My only real point is that L5R CCG dueling was a flawed system.
9 minutes ago, Mirith said:I would point out that the issue with Dueling generally isn't that it was, like you described, a high risk/high reward, that required more concise deck construction. That is perfectly fine, assuming it isn't overbalanced, which it can be. The issue is with the duel itself and the generally negative experience non-dueling decks had with it.
In general, I think non-dueling decks would have preferred: "Target your duelist with equal or higher chi than another target, <something happens>". Then they don't have to participate in the terrible experience, its just another ranged attack. It is the participation in a mini-game they generally felt they had no chance of winning.
As for the "High Risk/High Reward" it becomes really hard to balance that, since once the reward is high enough, you just build out your deck so that you minimize the chance of failure, at least on a competitive level. And if you can't balance it properly, it is either too weak to be useful, or too powerful to be fair. My understanding of CCG competitive deck building philosophies is that if you can't control what your deck will do, its generally considered bad, unless the reward is "win the game". If you aren't sure you are going to win the duel, then you probably shouldn't engage in it.
I think the mention of Netrunner's Jinteki Gambling game is an example on how this is done well, so I have hope. However, the one downside is that mini-game is balanced so the house (Corp) is more likely to win, given randomly chosen options. The mind game, however, involved is great, until your opponent figures you out.
Admittedly this is a bit of navel gazing on our part. My only real point is that L5R CCG dueling was a flawed system.
Nonsense! If your cause is truly righteous, your blade will strike true and you will win the duel. To doubt this is nothing short of cowardice.
Just now, Builder2 said:Nonsense! If your cause is truly righteous, your blade will strike true and you will win the duel. To doubt this is nothing short of cowardice.
I bow to your wisdom and honor. I shall go meditate upon this, by gazing into my navel.
Well, the thing is Duels should always be refusable, but at a price depending of the duel.
Because honestly, if you challenge a hulking Crab attacking your house, all you're going to win is a strike of a tetsubo on the head...
3 minutes ago, Ser Nakata said:Because honestly, if you challenge a hulking Crab attacking your house, all you're going to win is a strike of a tetsubo on the head...
Well... at least challenging a crab makes sense. I fail to see any kind of reasoning how a crane challenges an oni to a duel and the oni has to accept and play out the duel.
Just now, Sparks Duh said:Well... at least challenging a crab makes sense. I fail to see any kind of reasoning how a crane challenges an oni to a duel and the oni has to accept and play out the duel.
Unless the Oni carries a Katana, it's true I don't see why you could Engage a nonhuman in a duel. At least not in a Iajutsu duel. In fact, I even think it would be dishonorable to do so.
17 minutes ago, Builder2 said:Nonsense! If your cause is truly righteous, your blade will strike true and you will win the duel. To doubt this is nothing short of cowardice.
Right on! Believe in the Heart of the Cards!
...oh, is that not what you were going for?
28 minutes ago, Mirith said:I would point out that the issue with Dueling generally isn't that it was, like you described, a high risk/high reward, that required more concise deck construction. That is perfectly fine, assuming it isn't overbalanced, which it can be. The issue is with the duel itself and the generally negative experience non-dueling decks had with it.
In general, I think non-dueling decks would have preferred: "Target your duelist with equal or higher chi than another target, <something happens>". Then they don't have to participate in the terrible experience, its just another ranged attack. It is the participation in a mini-game they generally felt they had no chance of winning.
As for the "High Risk/High Reward" it becomes really hard to balance that, since once the reward is high enough, you just build out your deck so that you minimize the chance of failure, at least on a competitive level. And if you can't balance it properly, it is either too weak to be useful, or too powerful to be fair. My understanding of CCG competitive deck building philosophies is that if you can't control what your deck will do, its generally considered bad, unless the reward is "win the game". If you aren't sure you are going to win the duel, then you probably shouldn't engage in it.
I think the mention of Netrunner's Jinteki Gambling game is an example on how this is done well, so I have hope. However, the one downside is that mini-game is balanced so the house (Corp) is more likely to win, given randomly chosen options. The mind game, however, involved is great, until your opponent figures you out.
Admittedly this is a bit of navel gazing on our part. My only real point is that L5R CCG dueling was a flawed system.
I can understand the frustration, and again, I agree it shouldn't be implemented the exact same way AEG had it, but I just want to repeat that if someone found the mini-game aspect annoying, s/he could (almost) always just strike and get it over with. If you decided to play the mini-game, that's on you.
It was fun to even focus some cards knowing that you would most likely miss out.
Killing the whole unit , that was always the problem, and without even having to bow the char.
1 hour ago, JJ48 said:Right on! Believe in the Heart of the Cards!
...oh, is that not what you were going for?
I can understand the frustration, and again, I agree it shouldn't be implemented the exact same way AEG had it, but I just want to repeat that if someone found the mini-game aspect annoying, s/he could (almost) always just strike and get it over with. If you decided to play the mini-game, that's on you.
I think even the interaction of having to draw 3 focus cards then say "Strike" was actually a negative play experience for people. It broke the flow of the game to some extent, even when done streamlined.
You should always believe in the heart of the cards. That is how I won games.
7 hours ago, Tonbo Karasu said:[...]Here's an interesting thought. What about a Yojimbo keyword? When another character is challenged to a duel, you may bow a Yojimbo to accept the duel in their stead.[...]
As much as I find it fitting for a Yojimbo to be able to stand in for their charge in any duel (one of their purpose), but I'd much rather have the smallest number of rule-bound keywords as possible, at least in the beginning of the game.
If Bushi, Shugenja, Courtier, Yojimbo, Monk, Kensai, Scout, etc. all have rules attached, that's unnecessary complexification of the rules at the launch of the game.
Keep in mind the aim of the game is not only to please the players who played the ccg for years, but also to attract a lot of new players. That's why the rule set should be kept as simple as possible in the beginning, with the introduction of new keywords with the Dynasty packs and/or cycles.
I never really enjoyed dueling when it came up in my games. If challenged I would almost always just strike immediately because the loss was typically a forgone conclusion. And if I was silly enough to focus, I was probably advancing their win condition by allowing them to get focus effects off.
That said, I would hope that the concept of duels are represented somehow. I just didn't care for the way they worked mechanically, before.
6 hours ago, JJ48 said:but I just want to repeat that if someone found the mini-game aspect annoying, s/he could (almost) always just strike and get it over with. If you decided to play the mini-game, that's on you.
Before Lotus, yes, but in Lotus you always had to draw a focus pool when challenged. (Did they ever change that back?)
While the focus pool was a good faith attempt on the part of design to entice people into participating in duels, it at the least often meant more hassle for the challenged to draw three cards and put them on the bottom of the deck. One could point out that it wasn't a huge hassle, but I felt it broke the flow of the game a bit and against a dedicated dueler you ended up doing it a lot.
Edit: Just saw Mirith's post. Basically what he said.
Edited by Suzume Tomonori23 minutes ago, Suzume Tomonori said:Before Lotus, yes, but in Lotus you always had to draw a focus pool when challenged. (Did they ever change that back?)
Yep. They removed static Focus Pool. You could just add, as Focus, card to initial 0 card Focus Pool from top of Fate deck or hand. Or just say Strike to skip this one.
If you played many card with Discipline keyword you could also Focus from Fate deck to hope to put them into discard to create "hand" advantage. Discipline allowed to play card from discard pile.
Edited by kempy13 hours ago, Sparks Duh said:Well... at least challenging a crab makes sense. I fail to see any kind of reasoning how a crane challenges an oni to a duel and the oni has to accept and play out the duel.
I'm pretty sure it works a lot like this:
Quote
"Demon! Show yourself. I am Toturi, and I challenge you for the lives of my warriors." Three oni died beneath his sword as he bellowed the challenge. Another looked backward toward its commander and died with the back of its shell split. Two more tried to take Toturi's arms, but he tripped them and sliced them without slowing his steps. The oni in front of him melted away from his sword and his glowing aura.
One demon stepped forward. Eight feet tall. Red armor plates overlapping on muscles rippling like an avalanche. Four huge arms, one casually carrying a great no-dachi. A high head filled with spines like a crown, a long mustache over eyes that Toturi looked away. He made it a habit never to look into an oni's eyes.
The great creature waved its troops back, and the sounds of war died as all present gathered in two semicircles - one small, one huge.
Toturi looked into the oni's eyes.
Well, to be fair, the Onisu were not really your everyday demon... They had a name, a personality, and the adequate ego.
Toturi would never have challenged any of the other oni mentioned dying under his blade.
1 hour ago, Ser Nakata said:Well, to be fair, the Onisu were not really your everyday demon... They had a name, a personality, and the adequate ego.
Toturi would never have challenged any of the other oni mentioned dying under his blade.
Well, it's not like he knew what an Onisu was when he issued the challenge. If I'm not mistaken, that battle was the first anyone in the empire encountered one.
But other oni have shown distinct personalities as well, such as the Oni Lords, or Pekkles. And Ryokaku no Oni was known to fight duels.
Is challenging an oni to a duel common? No. But can it happen? Yes.
3 hours ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:Well, it's not like he knew what an Onisu was when he issued the challenge. If I'm not mistaken, that battle was the first anyone in the empire encountered one.
But other oni have shown distinct personalities as well, such as the Oni Lords, or Pekkles. And Ryokaku no Oni was known to fight duels.
Is challenging an oni to a duel common? No. But can it happen? Yes.
It was better to challenge the Oni to a Duel of Haiku. They responded better and got more engaged by the poetry.
5 hours ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:Is challenging an oni to a duel common? No.
It was against a dueling deck.
I am not sure why people keep focusing on dueling as being so problematic. If anything dueling required the biggest focus on card selection than almost any other theme. All of your dynasty and fate cards had to be geared towards the duel victory. It regularly cost the player more cards to win a duel than a simple terrain card being played that could achieve more lethal results. Calvary was even less fun for me to play against than anything else, nothing like having to meta just to get an opportunity to fight.
5 minutes ago, Silverfox13 said:I am not sure why people keep focusing on dueling as being so problematic. If anything dueling required the biggest focus on card selection than almost any other theme. All of your dynasty and fate cards had to be geared towards the duel victory. It regularly cost the player more cards to win a duel than a simple terrain card being played that could achieve more lethal results. Calvary was even less fun for me to play against than anything else, nothing like having to meta just to get an opportunity to fight.
Dueling is more thematic to L5R lore wise and involved more involvement from both players. A lot of the mechanics had their own problems, but a lot more people would say "This isn't L5R because it doesn't have dueling" than "This isn't L5R because it doesn't have Cavalry". Not that Cavalry isn't a major theme of Unicorn.
I guess this does lead to a more relevant question of what makes quintessential L5R? And then we can grade FFG when they get it wrong!
To me the core is:
Magical Samurai Theme
Multiple Factions (Clan loyalty is a big appeal for this game. Magic players don't have the same alignment to say "White" than Mantis players do to their clan).
Multiple Win conditions/ ways to achieve a win (If Military, Dis/Honor and Enlightenment all promote gaining some common win points, I would have no issue with this)
Character centered game play (Your personalities perform the action, are required to do things, etc)
Action back and forth in battles with a set order(IE: I do an action, you do an action), with preferably a significant array of options as to actions you can perform.
Most of the other stuff is fluff. Dueling would fall in the "Magical Samurai Theme", but doesn't (to me) need separate rules.