6 minutes ago, Hinomura said:Out of curiousity, how do you mute someone on here?
Well I'm on mobile, but I press
Hamburger, account, ignored users, type in name of person
I wish there was a way to do that through their profile. Seems dumb that I can't.
3 hours ago, Ryric said:Pshh, Banding wasn't even the worst form of Banding. Back in Legends there was the ability Bands with Other. It gave Banding, but only with other creatures that had the exact same Bands with Other. Note that the actual creature listed in the ability was immaterial - if you imagine a Santa card that had Bands with Elves, he wouldn't have Banding if you put him with Elves, but he would band with other Santas. Yeah.
I won some sealed deck tournaments back in the day with Cumulative Upkeep cards. The key was to use them as 1-2 turn game changers then let them go.
Old Banding (Alpha to pre-Ice Age) was f'ing awful but there have been so many gimmicky keywords in MtG that might be on the same level: Level Up, Miracle, Dethrone, Fateseal, Shadow, and so on. One of the very worst was Phasing.
It's still not as bad as contraption (look it up), which was featured on one card and does nothing.
3 hours ago, Hinomura said:Out of curiousity, how do you mute someone on here?
In the upper right corner, you'll see your username. Click on it to bring up a menu that has "Ignored Users". On the subsequent page type the name of the user you want blocked.
Yep, got it. Thanks guys!
3 hours ago, Hinomura said:Yep, got it. Thanks guys!
I am now imagining you just muting everyone and talking to yourself.
15 hours ago, Kubernes said:Old Banding (Alpha to pre-Ice Age) was f'ing awful but there have been so many gimmicky keywords in MtG that might be on the same level: Level Up, Miracle, Dethrone, Fateseal, Shadow, and so on. One of the very worst was Phasing.
It's still not as bad as contraption (look it up), which was featured on one card and does nothing.
Oh, come on now! Most of those keywords are cool! Specially Dethrone! I have fond memories of my Marchesa commander deck...
Hello, I'm not intimately invested in the game and haven't done a proper read through of this thread, but I did have one thought I would like to share.
I remember one complaint about how the traditional system made battles very all or nothing, and that you risk losing vital personalities. What about making a sort of Wound/Disability system for personalities which works in tandem with a dishonor system. So a character can be Wounded in battle or in a duel which makes them incapable of acting until the Wound is healed. Likewise, a character could suffer grave dishonor in court, barring them from service until their honor is restored. This not only allows personalities to be negated by both war and peace but also encourages risk taking because a personality can survive a loss.
Then different clans have different ways of dealing with this. The Crane might be defensive trying to avoid sticky situations and perhaps having ready healing. Lion could send dishonored personalities to the field of battle. Scorpion, well the dishonorable can't show there face in public, but all sorts of things can happen behind a mask. The Dragon would, perhaps, be able to return their personalities to the hand or deck. Thematically a monastic retreat from the perils of the world. The Crab, well, they are tough. They fight on through the pain of their wounds. They smile as they mock social mores, apathetic to their reputations.
Also, one other thought, about factions. Maybe make it so that each deck is built around a single major clan. But they have a limited number of allies , lesser personalities and various supporting cards all taken from a single alternate faction. And this would help define the minor clans as alliance factions.
Dishonor would probably be OP if being dishonored prevented you from assigning.
I don't like the idea of not being able to run Personalities from other Great Clans. All of my dishonor decks have run at least a few Scorpion/Spider cards.
I do like how Crab can just ignore both of your new forms of board control.
I'm probably just crazy, but I always thought the game would have been better if playing out of clan personalities was easier / more practical, but that's from more of a flavor viewpoint. Done poorly, it could result in every deck looking the same.
6 minutes ago, Suzume Tomonori said:I'm probably just crazy, but I always thought the game would have been better if playing out of clan personalities was easier / more practical, but that's from more of a flavor viewpoint. Done poorly, it could result in every deck looking the same.
We didn't have occasion to see first multiclan Sensei from The Blackest Storm in action.
Are you talking about this one?
12 minutes ago, Suzume Tomonori said:Are you talking about this one?
No, a Sensei that allowed to choose one additional clan (from the list) to be aligned with. TBS was set that was meant to be released after Evil Portents.
Edited by kempyGotcha. I wasn't playing at the end so the newer set names are fuzzy for me.
10 hours ago, shineyorkboy said:Dishonor would probably be OP if being dishonored prevented you from assigning.
I don't like the idea of not being able to run Personalities from other Great Clans. All of my dishonor decks have run at least a few Scorpion/Spider cards.
I do like how Crab can just ignore both of your new forms of board control.
Truthfully I don't know enough about the game to know how Dishonor has typically worked. An important factor is that Dishonor wouldn't only come from specific cards but also from losing some form of social confrontation, though I again I don't have detailed mechanical ideas.
For the allied personalities what I was trying to say was that major characters, such as the clan champions, would be exclusive. So you wouldn't see Iuchiban showing up in a Lion deck. Perhaps instead the really important personalities would take the place of the Clan Strongholds.
Last, I imagine the crab as either ignoring the negative effects of the board control until they have to commit seppuku or die. Or that they would rely on something akin to Toughness from the Call of Cthulhu LCG. So they aren't debilitated until the have X wounds or have embarrassed themselves so many times.
On 4/4/2017 at 0:54 PM, Gyrstorm said:Truthfully I don't know enough about the game to know how Dishonor has typically worked. An important factor is that Dishonor wouldn't only come from specific cards but also from losing some form of social confrontation, though I again I don't have detailed mechanical ideas.
For the allied personalities what I was trying to say was that major characters, such as the clan champions, would be exclusive. So you wouldn't see Iuchiban showing up in a Lion deck. Perhaps instead the really important personalities would take the place of the Clan Strongholds.
Last, I imagine the crab as either ignoring the negative effects of the board control until they have to commit seppuku or die. Or that they would rely on something akin to Toughness from the Call of Cthulhu LCG. So they aren't debilitated until the have X wounds or have embarrassed themselves so many times.
There was personality dishonor and clan/family dishonor in the game. A dishonored personality has no personal honor (important for some game effects) and causes honor loss for a player if that personality dies.The generic term Honor was used to represent how honorable a clan was . Having a very low Honor, -20, can cause a player to lose the game.
For major characters, a number of them were exclusive and the card database is a good place to find out which ones were.
A friend of mine had a Scorpion deck back in the day that would borrow your personalities, then dishonor them while gaining benefits, then return them to you dishonored. Next she would nail you with family honor loss cards for having dishonored personalities.
The really nasty thing about dishonor is that it can nearly shut down your whole deck since many personalities have minimum family honor to bring into play.
7 minutes ago, Ryric said:A friend of mine had a Scorpion deck back in the day that would borrow your personalities, then dishonor them while gaining benefits, then return them to you dishonored. Next she would nail you with family honor loss cards for having dishonored personalities.
The really nasty thing about dishonor is that it can nearly shut down your whole deck since many personalities have minimum family honor to bring into play.
So that's why they tried with called Blood Money in Samurai Edition (you could buy every Personality 2GC more if you didn't meet honor requirements) and in Ivory/Twenty Festivals there was rulebook effect that if you ever lost honor from opponent you could ignore Honor Requirements till the end of game.
15 hours ago, Kubernes said:There was personality dishonor and clan/family dishonor in the game. A dishonored personality has no personal honor (important for some game effects) and causes honor loss for a player if that personality dies.The generic term Honor was used to represent how honorable a clan was . Having a very low Honor, -20, can cause a player to lose the game.
For major characters, a number of them were exclusive and the card database is a good place to find out which ones were.
Look for the Loyal keyword.
2 hours ago, kempy said:... in Ivory/Twenty Festivals there was rulebook effect that if you ever lost honor from opponent you could ignore Honor Requirements till the end of game.
Only in-clan Personalities.
1 minute ago, Kakita Shiro said:Only in-clan Personalities.
Yeah, but those were usually the bulk of your personalities.
I'd always liked the idea of making the Rings neutral cards that were not a part of your deck. They'd function somewhat like the Imperial Favor. Accomplishing certain things would shift them to your control or from an opponent's control back to neutral.
8 hours ago, PlaguedOne said:I'd always liked the idea of making the Rings neutral cards that were not a part of your deck. They'd function somewhat like the Imperial Favor. Accomplishing certain things would shift them to your control or from an opponent's control back to neutral.
The only issue on that is for enlightenment, would not having to tutor for the rings unbalance things? Especially for something like Ring of Void. Of course you could balance the rings by making them weaker, etc.
It also makes extra fiddly bits for people to have to keep around if the rings are not part of your deck.
On 03/04/2017 at 11:32 PM, Gyrstorm said:Hello, I'm not intimately invested in the game and haven't done a proper read through of this thread, but I did have one thought I would like to share.
I remember one complaint about how the traditional system made battles very all or nothing, and that you risk losing vital personalities. What about making a sort of Wound/Disability system for personalities which works in tandem with a dishonor system. So a character can be Wounded in battle or in a duel which makes them incapable of acting until the Wound is healed. Likewise, a character could suffer grave dishonor in court, barring them from service until their honor is restored. This not only allows personalities to be negated by both war and peace but also encourages risk taking because a personality can survive a loss.
Then different clans have different ways of dealing with this. The Crane might be defensive trying to avoid sticky situations and perhaps having ready healing. Lion could send dishonored personalities to the field of battle. Scorpion, well the dishonorable can't show there face in public, but all sorts of things can happen behind a mask. The Dragon would, perhaps, be able to return their personalities to the hand or deck. Thematically a monastic retreat from the perils of the world. The Crab, well, they are tough. They fight on through the pain of their wounds. They smile as they mock social mores, apathetic to their reputations.
Also, one other thought, about factions. Maybe make it so that each deck is built around a single major clan. But they have a limited number of allies , lesser personalities and various supporting cards all taken from a single alternate faction. And this would help define the minor clans as alliance factions.
very interesting, I liked it, it would be a different model that combines with the history of the l5r. Only that it would be annoying to have to use cards to heal the characters ... perhaps healing with the focus value of the card..
With respect to the battles being "all or nothing" I still think that the YU system was little used, it was a way to balance a little the resolution of the battle, and also one troop not to leave unharmed of the confrontation while the other side was annihilated.
2 hours ago, Mirith said:The only issue on that is for enlightenment, would not having to tutor for the rings unbalance things? Especially for something like Ring of Void. Of course you could balance the rings by making them weaker, etc.
It also makes extra fiddly bits for people to have to keep around if the rings are not part of your deck.
You would need to perhaps make gaining control of the rings a bit more difficult since you no longer need to hope to draw them. I also don't believe the rings need to have strong effects whist you control them. Generally speaking, I dislike tutoring in games and would never design that kind of effect. I've always found that it breaks the flow of the game.
Completly random idea. Why not tie all victory conditions to the rings, in a way not unlike War of Honor
Set all five Rings on the board, each tie to a specific conditions (Earth=Defeat opposing armies, Fire=Win duels under specific conditions, Air=Honor or dishnor a certain number of personalities, Water=play a certain numbers of actions uninterrupted in a turn, Void=Discard a certain number of cards, which may be done intentionally )
Everytime you complete the prerequisite actions (once per turn), you add one of your tokens on the Ring (FFG loves tokens after all). You may remove tokens at any time to use the actions (repeatable) on the ring, and first player to reach either 7 tokens on a ring or 3 tokens on each rings wins the game.