Multiplayer L5R was abysmal to play. How anyone would find that enjoyable is beyond me!

3 minutes ago, Sparks Duh said:

Multiplayer L5R was abysmal to play. How anyone would find that enjoyable is beyond me!

War of Honor or/and Siege.

Rulebook multiplayer was awful.

Also @Sparks Duh take a note, that multiplayer in first editions was much more flavour than later. You alliance was determined by Rokugan map and nobody could ally with Shadowland player. Some people found it just like RPG game with cards instead a typical card game.

1 minute ago, kempy said:

War of Honor or/and Siege.

Rulebook multiplayer was awful.

Also @Sparks Duh take a note, that multiplayer in first editions was much more flavour than later. You alliance was determined by Rokugan map and nobody could ally with Shadowland player. Some people found it just like RPG game with cards instead a typical card game.

Well... I was referring to standard multiplayer setup. Not the separate box sets that were made for multiplayer. Although, I didn't like the War of Honor game very much. Siege was alright.

On 3/30/2017 at 10:30 AM, cielago said:

i'll eat a flock of crows if the lcg brings back one of magic's least popular mechanics of all time.

Too funny to not bring back up. Hope you have a big appetite.

2 hours ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

Too funny to not bring back up. Hope you have a big appetite.

Cumulative upkeep. Yep.

At least eating a MURDER of crow would be thematic for L5R. I guess...

It's not really cumulative upkeep, though. It's just upkeep that you pay in advance. It would be cumulative if you removed one fate the first turn, two the second, and so forth.

It's not cumulative upkeep, it's Fading.

13 hours ago, SavageTofu said:

*Snip*

If there's no multiplayer... I may not buy much beyond the core set.

Well, you could always just homebrew a set of multiplayer rules. Shouldn't be too hard, I suspect.

2 minutes ago, fyrm said:

Well, you could always just homebrew a set of multiplayer rules. Shouldn't be too hard, I suspect.

I expect some homebrew multiplayer ones to be available within a week of the full rules becoming available.

Just now, Tonbo Karasu said:

I expect some homebrew multiplayer ones to be available within a week of the full rules becoming available.

I expect it to be available within an hour of the full rules/card list to be released, or at least viewed by me. lol.

16 minutes ago, fyrm said:

Well, you could always just homebrew a set of multiplayer rules. Shouldn't be too hard, I suspect.

Agree.

I may do this with two player rules as well. A varient where you choose what you want extra cards or honor. Kinda like they did with Eve ccg. You could choose not to claim Isk to draw extra cards in EVE. Isk was gold/mana.

I don't like the bidding for honor/draw. That alone could ruin competitive play for me. I'll have to see what it all looks like soon. I'd prefer just a preset number. Likewise with character fate counters. I'd prefer just a preset number. When they die, they die.

27 minutes ago, SavageTofu said:

*snip*

I don't like the bidding for honor/draw. That alone could ruin competitive play for me. I'll have to see what it all looks like soon. I'd prefer just a preset number. Likewise with character fate counters. I'd prefer just a preset number. When they die, they die.

Assuming matchups like old L5R, I predict:

Mil. vs. Mil. Everybody draws 5 every turn. No honor changes hands. Obviously this is the weakest theory. The Imp. Favor or something may encourage more diverse strategies.

(Dis)Hon. vs. (Dis)Hon. These players -want- to have the lower bid, to some extent, in order to get/take honor. Complicated mind games will ensue. Also, they will prefer Earth/Air ring effects.

Mil. vs. (Dis)Hon. Unknown. Mil is hungry for cards but that accelerates Hon deck. Constant High bids versus Low bids would very quickly decide the game for the (Dis)Honor player. Mil would be forced to slow their roll or use sub-optimal ring effects.

Honor players get the advantage of practice here. They know what their deck does and they force other strategies to play by their cryptic rules.

Dueling rules revealed in the reddit AMA:

Dueling involves a challenge between two characters based on those character's stats (military or political). Each player will make a bid on their honor dial to add to their participant's stat. This works just like the bid in the draw phase: the higher bidder gives honor equal to the difference to the lower bidder. The character with the higher total stat at the end wins, with consequences determined by the card that started the duel. -ED

2 hours ago, Iuchi Toshimo said:

Assuming matchups like old L5R, I predict:

Mil. vs. Mil. Everybody draws 5 every turn. No honor changes hands. Obviously this is the weakest theory. The Imp. Favor or something may encourage more diverse strategies.

(Dis)Hon. vs. (Dis)Hon. These players -want- to have the lower bid, to some extent, in order to get/take honor. Complicated mind games will ensue. Also, they will prefer Earth/Air ring effects.

Mil. vs. (Dis)Hon. Unknown. Mil is hungry for cards but that accelerates Hon deck. Constant High bids versus Low bids would very quickly decide the game for the (Dis)Honor player. Mil would be forced to slow their roll or use sub-optimal ring effects.

Honor players get the advantage of practice here. They know what their deck does and they force other strategies to play by their cryptic rules.

The one thing we don't know is if there are limits on your conflict deck side. Do you get to reshuffle if you use all of your cards? Deck size is 40-45 cards (According to the AMA). So you will deplete your deck eventually (Though according to the AMA, game length is 3-6 rounds). I except there is no reshuffling as a normal mechanic.

The other note is with Mil vs Mil, depending on other honor gains, one side may resort to drawing less than the other (or both) as one or both nears 25 (or 0).

I find it curious there's a maximum deck size. There's been no obvious given reason for that yet.

2 decks of 40 plus provinces and stronghold is a lot of cards.

Political Military might play very differently than traditional Military as well. Look at that half of a fashion card we can see; it adds +4(!) to someone's Political value. That would let a 0 Politics person take a province alone, if unopposed.

I like the duel mechanic for the same reason I like the honor dial for card drawing. You're in a duel - the honorable thing to do is let skill contest skill, and may the better duelist win. But if you're willing to cheat, to stretch the bounds of honor a bit, you could gain an advantage and win.

7 minutes ago, Smobey said:

I find it curious there's a maximum deck size. There's been no obvious given reason for that yet.

Facilitate deckbuilding maybe? I always made minimum deck size anyways.

6 minutes ago, Ryric said:

Political Military might play very differently than traditional Military as well. Look at that half of a fashion card we can see; it adds +4(!) to someone's Political value. That would let a 0 Politics person take a province alone, if unopposed.

I like the duel mechanic for the same reason I like the honor dial for card drawing. You're in a duel - the honorable thing to do is let skill contest skill, and may the better duelist win. But if you're willing to cheat, to stretch the bounds of honor a bit, you could gain an advantage and win.

I actually imagine that the fact you bid honor is not a flavor, but because they needed to make it cost something to win a duel, and it was either Honor or Fate, and honor makes a little more sense. It actually feels counter-intuitive to the flavor of dueling (most honorable/righteous/what-have-you wins as decided by the kami). You usually gain honor for being right, not lose it to the losing side. That being said, I do like this idea for duels, due to the meta game for this and I hope they are a little bit more pervasive than the CCG.

Meta Game I'm referring to:

Your duelist is a 4, their dude is a 3. Lets assume ties are ties and not wins for this case. Do you bid 5 guaranteeing the win, and does your opponent then bid 1 for the honor gain? But then you can bid 2 or even 1, and not give your opponent any honor, but your opponent may then bid 5 and win the duel... and...

You can see where this goes. It is also a little bit different in thought process than the card bidding, since you will always get cards, where-as the duel is "Give opponent 4 honor and win, or make it risky".

2 minutes ago, Mirith said:

I actually imagine that the fact you bid honor is not a flavor, but because they needed to make it cost something to win a duel, and it was either Honor or Fate, and honor makes a little more sense. It actually feels counter-intuitive to the flavor of dueling (most honorable/righteous/what-have-you wins as decided by the kami). You usually gain honor for being right, not lose it to the losing side. That being said, I do like this idea for duels, due to the meta game for this and I hope they are a little bit more pervasive than the CCG.

Meta Game I'm referring to:

Your duelist is a 4, their dude is a 3. Lets assume ties are ties and not wins for this case. Do you bid 5 guaranteeing the win, and does your opponent then bid 1 for the honor gain? But then you can bid 2 or even 1, and not give your opponent any honor, but your opponent may then bid 5 and win the duel... and...

You can see where this goes. It is also a little bit different in thought process than the card bidding, since you will always get cards, where-as the duel is "Give opponent 4 honor and win, or make it risky".

I'd imagine the Duelist keyword would actually matter in some way. Like, maybe most Conflict cards that let you initiate a duel come with a stipulation that all cards with the "duelist" keyword gain an effective +2 to their strength for the purpose of the duel.

But really, I think that flavour-wise, if you bid 1 and your opponent bids 5, it represents your opponent just blatantly cheating in some way. Poisoning your drink before the duel, blackmailing you and forcing you to throw it, anything of the sort. It's not really a situation where a fair duel happens in that case.

Just now, Smobey said:

I'd imagine the Duelist keyword would actually matter in some way. Like, maybe most Conflict cards that let you initiate a duel come with a stipulation that all cards with the "duelist" keyword gain an effective +2 to their strength for the purpose of the duel.

But really, I think that flavour-wise, if you bid 1 and your opponent bids 5, it represents your opponent just blatantly cheating in some way. Poisoning your drink before the duel, blackmailing you and forcing you to throw it, anything of the sort. It's not really a situation where a fair duel happens in that case.

That could be part of it, but in practicality, a player will bid 5 when they absolutely want to win a duel. Flavor wise, this doesn't make sense. They are giving up their morally superiority for victory, which I think, to some extent taints the idea. I'm not saying it isn't done, but it doesn't really reflect the ideal, but rather to some extent the sordid reality. And the other part as I write this I realize is that your "honor" in the old system was your Family Honor. It is much more traditional to give up your personal honor to benefit your family's honor. It is highly frowned upon to do the reverse.

PS: I still like the duel mechanic. My complaint is story-wise, and just a discussion point.

The way I see it, if both participants are fighting fair, they both choose 1 on the dial and the person with the best innate skill wins. Choosing a higher number means you're willing to sacrifice your honor in pursuit of victory, or in the avoidance of defeat. Since we have no idea what the consequences of losing a duel might even be, it's hard to speculate on why you would pay up to 4 honor in order to win.

The whole honor in duels is a bit strange but no big deal. Either your duelist is confident in the result and plays honorable (1) or he has doubts and does something that is not as honorable as it should be. The "family honor" change would be like some change in reputation based on the purity of the duelists involved.

I kind of imagine betting 1 honour is the standard, unless the duel's something that's absolutely gonna make or break game for you. If you bet 1 and your opponent bets 5, you might lose, but your opponent has most likely severely messed up their card draw for the future, or worse. I can't imagine the duel's outcome would be more important than +/- 4 honour.

Seems like a built in poisoned weapon rule to me. You can cheat in the duel, but it's going to cost you.