I played Conquest. I was told told abought L5R to replace my loved game Conquest . You can imagine my attitude towards L5R as a result.

I am now a Destiny player. But, I do like a secondary game. I am looking for a fantasy duel game. A fantasy Reskin of Conquest would be perfect. While L5R isn't the theme I would have picked I always did like samurai when I was young so if the game play is similar to Conquest I will be all in.

What was combat like in the old L5R I wonder. I don't like the I have 6 strength you have 5 strength so I win. I like dealing damage and taking damage, till there's one man standing style of combat.

so if comabat is action your action my action style combat, I'm likely in

I think you would have liked the battles where there was more than one personality in an army and you bow, kill or send home cards until your opponent doesn't have anything else they can do and you crush their remaining army and/or province. You probably wouldn't have liked dueling.

Fights took place at specific locations, and the game starts with 4 for each player. When you lose all 4 the game. This meant that choosing where you fought became very important and knowing who to assign to which battlefield, versus your opponents characters, whoi could defend any or none in any combination of assigning characters, was a big deal.

Characters had 2 stats, Force and Chi. Chi was used for other stuff, and rarely in fights except to specific effects. It was primarily focused on Force. Once the armies engaged each other at the battlefield, players would take turns performing actions or passing. These actions were used to lower characters total force, or to bow characters so they didn't contribute their force to the total, or to kill certain characters, or to move people into or out of the battlefield. That was used to bring high threat cards to the fight to kill, or to remove large force threats from the fight so you would win.

There were kill effects, and they didn't involve damage, they resolved in the way you didn't like. I do an attack of 5 and you are 5 or lower so the character is dead. But there were many ways to see it coming, or to get bigger than the attack, or to remove the character who is about to do the attack etc...

Quick note: passing in battlefield was a lot like the main game of Destiny. Passing once didn't lock you into passing forever like claiming the battlefield.

After both players pass consecutively , then the force totals of each army are calculated. Whichever army has more force win and the loser kills all characters in the fight.

This is a pretty basic idea on how fights worked without at all going into strategy of: Cavalry, Naval, melee/ranged, movement, chi death, battle dueling, honor rockets, dishonor control, temporary battlefields for ambushes, terrain, Rule of Location, Rule of Presence, etc...

2 hours ago, muzouka said:

I think you would have liked the battles where there was more than one personality in an army and you bow, kill or send home cards until your opponent doesn't have anything else they can do and you crush their remaining army and/or province. You probably wouldn't have liked dueling.

Would've detested dueling...

First - there's completely no evidence what new L5R will copy from CCG version so it's also possible that whole Battle mechanic will be completely different. There's also possibility there won't be any battles, just some variation of challenge system from A Game of Thrones or Call of Cthulhu LCGs.

But...

Personally when CCG (officially) hit the dust i started to looking for some other card game. I've found that besides WH40K lore i like Conquest has a familiar battle system like L5R with all these back and forth chain of actions with plenty of units at the battlefield. But whole damage and straighten after round mechanics make Conquest conflicts more different. Anyway depend of edition battles in L5R were more or less deadly. In some editions they were really similiar to Conquest becasue most effects just killed cards with one swing. Other were completely different becasue of some Force reductions or bowing. And notice that L5R battles was made of one Combat Round of Conquests (there's no rulebook straightening) where winner takes everything. Also it's worth to add that Battles occured at every Province in order dictated by attacker that was popular to spread forces and attack various Provinces in same moment. In Conquest terminology you deploy all units at HQ, and in Attack Phase Attacker then Defender can commit any unit to any Planet.

It brings completely different flow especially with Cavalry and movement tricks.

On 2017/3/19 at 11:21 AM, Ywingscum said:

What was combat like in the old L5R I wonder. I don't like the I have 6 strength you have 5 strength so I win. I like dealing damage and taking damage, till there's one man standing style of combat.

When they were first designing L5R, they didn't put in a damage system for whatever reason. I feel that CCGs at the time avoiding using tokens a lot (or, at least did not use them as much as some modern LCGs.) If you don't use tokens, you have two options: do a Magic-style combat system where you deal damage to blocking creatures etc., or make combat all or nothing, which is what the designers end up going with. (That reasoning is just conjecture on my part, though.)

The result in L5R was that using actions became the method of providing interaction and attrition in battles, and it (most of the time?) work satisfactorily, though the amount of interaction and attrition did depend a lot on what edition you were playing.

I recall that a lot of players, especially those coming from games with damage dealing systems, would get the impression from their first few games that a damage dealing system was "missing" from the game. If you looked at an attack phase as just a comparison of raw numbers on the cards then yes, the system is kind of boring and one-sided. But the "all or nothing" battle resolution was based on the assumption that players would be playing actions from both cards in play and in their hands to change the state of the battle, whether by giving force bonuses/penalties, moving units around, or destroying followers and units via the various means available. Most battles became a contest of actions going back and forth with each side trying to gain the advantage (though like I said, the amount of interaction and the varieties of interaction did depend a lot on the edition you were playing in.)

I think once most people started playing the game they picked up on the action-centered nature of L5R rather quickly, but if you came to L5R from a game where damage was dealt, your first reading of the rules (and maybe even the first few games) would often make you think that it was pointless to engage in a battle where you didn't have the force advantage. Once you got a hang of how actions shaped the game I think a lot of the strategy came from understanding the cards you and your opponent had on the table and how those card abilities would interact, as well as looking at the options you had in your hand, thinking about what the opponent might have in their hand, thinking about what the opponent thought you might have in your hand, trying to figure out how much they were bluffing, etc. All of this made the battle system about trying to calculate risk versus reward, and choosing your battles carefully. Even then, from time to time you would just throw a defender into a battle to die in order to save your province or force your opponent to use resources to eliminate the defender. Thus even with the "all or nothing" system of battle resolution participation in the battle could still be meaningful, but you had to make judgments about when it was useful to lose personalities like that.

The all or nothing nature of L5R battles made each battle a bit more intense because of the increased stakes, and that was in a way part of the excitement of the game; participating in a battle was a risk but you could swing a game with a timely battle victory.

And sometimes you would end up with a game coming down to one, epic battle. I personally liked to avoid that, but if neither side got a clear advantage early game you would sometimes end up with a huge battle with most of each side's forces present. It would end up with one side having the force advantage and the other side getting completely wiped out, basically deciding the game. But that was part of the fun of L5R - sometimes it all came down to one final, massive confrontation, with the complete destruction of the enemy forces facilitating a quick end to the game. (These large pitched battles did not usually happen in tournament games, though.)

tl:dr - On paper it looked like a lack of a damage system made the game boring and one-sided, but actual experience is that battles and attrition were all about trading actions back and forth.

@Suzume Tomonori Excellent summary!

Thank you for explaining the combat system, i can see how actions can alter the combat. I am also ok with big battles at the end. It will be interesting to see we're ffg goes with combat, they do like their tokens.

Big battles were a pain because keeping up with the force total calculations over the course of the engagement could be complicated, but to be honest with you they were often a lot of fun.

One thing I hope they keep is multiple battlefields. In old L5R there would be a battle at each of the defender's provinces each attack phase (so usually four at the beginning of the game, but usually decreasing as the game went on.) Things like splitting up forces to threaten multiple provinces or concentrating defenders at the most likely place to win, perhaps while giving up another province as lost, were a part of the strategy that I really liked. You could win at one province but lose at another in the same phase, which is another way the attrition would work itself out. There was also all sorts of movement effects that could move units between provinces or to and from the home area that made you feel like you were maneuvering forces, which is an aspect of the game I really liked. I hope that is something that they keep in the game, but we shall see.

I loved movement tricks too, my favourite crane deck was a harrier deck full of peeps and actions that did damage and left or moved back in again. One of my best wins ever was against a ratling spawn deck that had something like 80 ratlings in a province. I used the terrain that made every player bow everyone bar one person then moved daidoji ran in, win the combat and gained an instant 160 honour winning the game. Sweet.

long time ago now so cards may be hazily remembered.

the deck was not a world beater but win or lose was a blast to play.

1 hour ago, Matrim said:

I loved movement tricks too, my favourite crane deck was a harrier deck full of peeps and actions that did damage and left or moved back in again. One of my best wins ever was against a ratling spawn deck that had something like 80 ratlings in a province. I used the terrain that made every player bow everyone bar one person then moved daidoji ran in, win the combat and gained an instant 160 honour winning the game. Sweet.

long time ago now so cards may be hazily remembered.

the deck was not a world beater but win or lose was a blast to play.

Sounds like a blast! I enjoy doing much the same (barring massive honor gains) with my Tsuruchi archer deck. Send enough force that if they refuse to defend, I take a province. Then, if they defend, shoot several of them and run away because we're cowards to maintain a respectable yumi fighting distance.

it was, if crane goes pure defensive honor I may switch factions to a more movey one (like eldar in conquest) , my son has also stated he wants to play crane so that may reduce the sets needed...

1 hour ago, Suzume Tomonori said:

Big battles were a pain because keeping up with the force total calculations over the course of the engagement could be complicated, but to be honest with you they were often a lot of fun.

One thing I hope they keep is multiple battlefields. In old L5R there would be a battle at each of the defender's provinces each attack phase (so usually four at the beginning of the game, but usually decreasing as the game went on.) Things like splitting up forces to threaten multiple provinces or concentrating defenders at the most likely place to win, perhaps while giving up another province as lost, were a part of the strategy that I really liked. You could win at one province but lose at another in the same phase, which is another way the attrition would work itself out. There was also all sorts of movement effects that could move units between provinces or to and from the home area that made you feel like you were maneuvering forces, which is an aspect of the game I really liked. I hope that is something that they keep in the game, but we shall see.

multiple battlefields and movement tricks gave rise to what i think is one of the cleverest designed strongholds the game ever had

http://imperialassembly.com/oracle/showimage?prefix=printing&cardid=8316&nestid=1&class=details&tagid=34&hash=65/2b,428,600,image/jpeg

TSL was unlike nearly everything else, forced a BUNCH of different of decks into existence, and required a sophisticated level of play. its a great example of l5r doing what it did best.

Interesting. As long as you control a ninja (which for this deck must be easy) you have effective Province Strength 9, and if you're defending, they still can't bring their full force to bear.

Does sound like it makes for a very special game.

5 minutes ago, Myrion said:

Interesting. As long as you control a ninja (which for this deck must be easy) you have effective Province Strength 9, and if you're defending, they still can't bring their full force to bear.

Does sound like it makes for a very special game.

Yeah, and you could play a wonderful game of attrition because you could always fe send home your unit(s) attacking enemy Province.

And don't forget it's just kind of experienced ancestor of this Stronghold: http://imperialassembly.com/oracle/#cardid=8013,#hashid=309e420d494fd34c1ab4c94f6f422247,#cardcount=0

The more recent version is a serious nerf of the the orginal, mostly because it can only be used once per battle. So Wyrmbone Katana works against the more recent version, while it wouldn't have worked against the original.

19 minutes ago, Khudzlin said:

The more recent version is a serious nerf of the the orginal, mostly because it can only be used once per battle. So Wyrmbone Katana works against the more recent version, while it wouldn't have worked against the original.

In defence. But TSL works also in attack that is much more versatile for military builds. Most common tactic was sending whole bunch of 0-1F Courtiers home then move-in huge ninja with Help from the Shadows or A Brave New World to snipe Province.

25 minutes ago, Myrion said:

Interesting. As long as you control a ninja (which for this deck must be easy) you have effective Province Strength 9, and if you're defending, they still can't bring their full force to bear.

Does sound like it makes for a very special game.

well, the thing was it was once per battle, and the part you actually want to focus on is the "9 force worth unopposed or one opposed unit" bit. note that the opposed unit is not conditional on force, and neither is conditional on defense. the deck therefor was catnip to movement tricks. assign everyone to P2, use sendhome at P1 to clear province, send in enough force to take P1, use sendhome at p2, fight a bit, send whoever you don't need to P3, etc. and yeah. wyrmbone was one of a series of cards that was straight goofballs with the box. there was a deck that i BELIEVE was the creation of @Sparks Duh that was called Water Ninjas or something to that effect that used Onchi and the other ninja shugs and gave them water via Temple to the Elements. The water spells at that time were just slippery as all getout. it was a brilliant deck, and probably one of the best decks we'd had since Breeder, but insanely unforgiving. the 0 prov strength meant punishment for mistakes was dire.

2 hours ago, Suzume Tomonori said:

Big battles were a pain because keeping up with the force total calculations over the course of the engagement could be complicated, but to be honest with you they were often a lot of fun.

One thing I hope they keep is multiple battlefields. In old L5R there would be a battle at each of the defender's provinces each attack phase (so usually four at the beginning of the game, but usually decreasing as the game went on.) Things like splitting up forces to threaten multiple provinces or concentrating defenders at the most likely place to win, perhaps while giving up another province as lost, were a part of the strategy that I really liked. You could win at one province but lose at another in the same phase, which is another way the attrition would work itself out. There was also all sorts of movement effects that could move units between provinces or to and from the home area that made you feel like you were maneuvering forces, which is an aspect of the game I really liked. I hope that is something that they keep in the game, but we shall see.

I just hope that if battles work at all similarly to AEG's L5R that FFG puts careful consideration into what can buff whom. One guy in our group uses Heavy Infantry Dojo in his Unicorn deck to dance around taking whatever provinces he pleases. The fact that HID 1) doesn't require an opposed unit and 2) can target cavalry (it's an infantry dojo for crying out loud!) means that if he hasn't taken at least 2 provinces before I can guarantee actually having defenders in the right spot, something has gone horribly wrong with his deck.

1 minute ago, JJ48 said:

I just hope that if battles work at all similarly to AEG's L5R that FFG puts careful consideration into what can buff whom. One guy in our group uses Heavy Infantry Dojo in his Unicorn deck to dance around taking whatever provinces he pleases. The fact that HID 1) doesn't require an opposed unit and 2) can target cavalry (it's an infantry dojo for crying out loud!) means that if he hasn't taken at least 2 provinces before I can guarantee actually having defenders in the right spot, something has gone horribly wrong with his deck.

That's why i loved Cavalry change in Ivory+.

17 minutes ago, cielago said:

well, the thing was it was once per battle, and the part you actually want to focus on is the "9 force worth unopposed or one opposed unit" bit. note that the opposed unit is not conditional on force, and neither is conditional on defense. the deck therefor was catnip to movement tricks. assign everyone to P2, use sendhome at P1 to clear province, send in enough force to take P1, use sendhome at p2, fight a bit, send whoever you don't need to P3, etc. and yeah. wyrmbone was one of a series of cards that was straight goofballs with the box. there was a deck that i BELIEVE was the creation of @Sparks Duh that was called Water Ninjas or something to that effect that used Onchi and the other ninja shugs and gave them water via Temple to the Elements. The water spells at that time were just slippery as all getout. it was a brilliant deck, and probably one of the best decks we'd had since Breeder, but insanely unforgiving. the 0 prov strength meant punishment for mistakes was dire.

This "water" was only for Skipping the Puddle afaik. I've played this build enough to notice, that with Temple of Purity in environment, there was huge urge to to play great silver bullet - Interference (and Gaining Advantage for tutor) that many times just was enough to finish ninjas with swarm of any form.

One of the last (GoC) versions of TSL ninja was something like this (Sparks one):

1 The Shadow's Lair

# Dynasty (40)

# Events (6)
1 Disgrace
1 Glory of the Shogun
1 Imperial Gift
1 Times of Strife
1 On
1 Rejected Mediation

# Celestials (1)
1 Jurojin's Blessing

# Regions (3)
3 Low Market

# Holdings (9)
3 Platinum Mine
3 Temple to the Elements
1 Temples of Gisei Toshi
2 Prosperous Village

# Personalities (21)
3 Yamazaki
2 Goju Yurishi
1 Goju Yurushi - exp
3 Ninube Hajime
3 Ninube Onchi
3 Ninube Shiho
3 Ninube Tsukau
1 Shosuro Aroru - exp2
1 Takasho
1 Taishuu - exp

# Fate (40)

# Strategies (25)
3 Help from the Shadows
3 Shinobi Assault
3 Sly Deceiver
3 Strength in the Earth
2 A Brave New World
1 Closing the Gap
3 Improper Papers
2 Inexorable
2 Skipping the Puddle
3 Retribution

# Items (13)
1 Renyu's Wrath
3 Sankaku-Yari
1 The Pearl-Encrusted Staff of the Cobras - exp
3 The Victor
2 Tsuruchi Daikyu
3 Wyrmbone Katana

# Spells (2)
2 Flame Lash

yeahhhh thats right. skipping the puddle was the one that motivated the whole water thing. i'd forgotten that. SUCH A FUN DECK. plus it had the onyx champ in it. what not to love?

7 minutes ago, kempy said:

That's why i loved Cavalry change in Ivory+.

Considering pretty much all my experience is in Ivory and 20F, I can't even imagine what it must have been like prior to that.

4 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Considering pretty much all my experience is in Ivory and 20F, I can't even imagine what it must have been like prior to that.

Touche. Honestly, i rarely seen HID in Ivory, i remember this card mostly from Celestial.

55 minutes ago, kempy said:

This "water" was only for Skipping the Puddle afaik. I've played this build enough to notice, that with Temple of Purity in environment, there was huge urge to to play great silver bullet - Interference (and Gaining Advantage for tutor) that many times just was enough to finish ninjas with swarm of any form.

Except for the fact that Interference didn't do anything to stop my deck. And it was played a LOT (suspiciously) against me from my top 8 opponents. You know, after pairings were up and we had a little break between swiss rounds and top 8.

But yeah... I've had three played against me in a single game and still won. So Interference didn't do anything.

Also... Conq + Flame Lash meant my opponent NEVER had attachments! hehe It was so broken with old Conq mechanic!