Just now, Mirith said:I agree on the general 0-1 per turn thing. Though more blitzy decks might get 2 if they are lucky. Though the stronghold will be extra fun. Another thing to keep in mind is you bow as defender as well. So you can't generally attack with the guys you just defended with.
Who is my supervisor?
(Mallory) "CHERYL! ...I swear to God, you people..."
(Cheryl) "Oh, riiight."
Okay, I should stop now, I would just end up Archerizing the thread waaaay too much.
5 minutes ago, Isawa Tasatu said:Characters seem to have a force of avg 2 highest 4 (I think) thus far shown, needing a decent number to threaten a 5/6 force province... and its not like the old days where you end up with 40 force on the 6 force province cause personalities get removed now. You can also only take one province a turn as far as I`ve seen.... I just think people are looking at the old CCG game interactions and thinking meh!
Possibly two if you have the strength in both military and politics, if you can get you weaker area unopposed, flip a conflict or creature a 2nd conflict etc....
Holdings seem to make sense to limit to 1-2 per deck with some decks venturing up to maybe 3-4, which is a bit frustrating. They fill basically the same role in deckbuilding now that regions used to, unless there is something we're missing.
8 minutes ago, Isawa Tasatu said:You can also only take one province a turn as far as I`ve seen....
In theory a player could break two provinces in one turn, one with military and one with political. But realistically I think most decks will end up focusing on one stat or the other and shoot for one. Even Dragon, who go for balance, will probably end up attacking primarily with one stat or the other, just picking which one based on where the opponent is weaker.
11 minutes ago, Kiseki said:Holdings seem to make sense to limit to 1-2 per deck with some decks venturing up to maybe 3-4, which is a bit frustrating. They fill basically the same role in deckbuilding now that regions used to, unless there is something we're missing.
I would point out that without holdings for gold, this may not be the case anymore, and there is more space for non-characters. I could see crab running 8-10 if they are trying to do the whole holding manipulation thing. Unless you meant different ones.
Just now, Mirith said:I would point out that without holdings for gold, this may not be the case anymore, and there is more space for non-characters. I could see crab running 8-10 if they are trying to do the whole holding manipulation thing. Unless you meant different ones.
No, I meant holdings as we've seen so far. The issue is that because a holding permanently blocks a dynasty flip and characters are constantly cycling out, running too many holdings leaves you in a place where you might have 3 holdings in provinces and a maximum of one potential flip. It just seems like a really risky proposition to me.
1 minute ago, Kiseki said:No, I meant holdings as we've seen so far. The issue is that because a holding permanently blocks a dynasty flip and characters are constantly cycling out, running too many holdings leaves you in a place where you might have 3 holdings in provinces and a maximum of one potential flip. It just seems like a really risky proposition to me.
From the product page's description of the Crab, "As builders who excel at living off the land, holdings are important to the Crab to protect their provinces and power their characters."
While I'm sure this doesn't mean a Crab player's deck will be nothing but holdings, it does sound like the intention is for the Crab to include more than one or two. I think it's reasonable to conclude, therefore, that there will be some way to manage holdings.
2 minutes ago, Kiseki said:No, I meant holdings as we've seen so far. The issue is that because a holding permanently blocks a dynasty flip and characters are constantly cycling out, running too many holdings leaves you in a place where you might have 3 holdings in provinces and a maximum of one potential flip. It just seems like a really risky proposition to me.
agreed, but i think they could also be disposable, like strategies: i.e. you use the action then they are discarded. losing province production ends the game as it is essentially province destruction. unless the particular deck utilizes holdings, as crab seems to from their brief introduction, i think they may not be permanent. it may even be tied to the crab stronghold- i,e, something like "you may refill your provinces even if occupied by holdings, etc"
.
Just now, Isawa Syd said:agreed, but i think they could also be disposable, like strategies: i.e. you use the action then they are discarded. losing province production ends the game as it is essentially province destruction. unless the particular deck utilizes holdings, as crab seems to from their brief introduction, i think they may not be permanent. it may even be tied to the crab stronghold- i,e, something like "you may refill your provinces even if occupied by holdings, etc"
.
Yeah, I realize that there's a lot of wait and see involved, and I've been imagining ways that it might be mitigated. I hadn't thought that holdings might be one shot dynasty cards though.
So no Gheisa House, I'm reconsidering my future purchase ò_ó
2 minutes ago, Barbacuo said:So no Gheisa House, I'm reconsidering my future purchase ò_ó
the city of lies is a whole city of them, so... maximize your entertainment?
13 minutes ago, Kiseki said:No, I meant holdings as we've seen so far. The issue is that because a holding permanently blocks a dynasty flip and characters are constantly cycling out, running too many holdings leaves you in a place where you might have 3 holdings in provinces and a maximum of one potential flip. It just seems like a really risky proposition to me.
Remember that we also now have personalities in our conflict decks as well. I think it's also a fair assumption that crab will be a clan that would invest more long term in personalities than say lion who wants to just flood the board for short term gains. I do think the rng of running too many holdings could be troubling to the point that you run so few holdings that you also risk not drawing any for the entire game. Either way, I do really like what ffg seems to be doing mechanically with the game!
Edited by MoZi
Art still great and I also like the fate for passing first and the duplicate uinique discard to add fate to a unique. Makes deck building with uniques far more useful and both provide extra little ways to gain small advantages when you might be behind.. 
Just now, MoZi said:Remember that we also now have personalities in our conflict decks as well. I think it's also a fair assumption that crab will be a clan that would invest more long term in personalities than say lion who wants to just flood the board for short term games. I do think the rng of running too many holdings could be troubling to the point that you run so few holdings that you also risk not drawing any for the entire game. Either way, I do really like what ffg seems to be doing mechanically with the game!
To be clear, I'm not complaining, just trying to shift my paradigm. Overall I'm pretty happy with the way it's shaping up. I'm ok with holdings being a 0-4 inclusion card, I was just checking to see if I was the only one who'd gotten that impression too, or if there were things I might not have considered. Isawa Syd pointed out one that I hadn't thought of, so I'm back to Wait and See (tm) mode on that.
I understand that the new game is more about characters taking part in and parting from the "story" narrated by the match, instead of a game of building your territory and army. But I expected to keep some kind of "permanent spell" on board, as holding used to be. Now they look more crippling than anything and I'm worried it could encourage aggro decks above anything, because that was what killed Invasion prematurely. I'm more of a control guy.
and even if they happen to be permanent, relegated to the 2-4 slot status, i would place safe money on being able to discard them in the newly spoiled "regroup" phase. there doesn't seem to be any associated cost so hopefully this is the case. getting a flip of all your holdings, mathematically improbable as that is, would end the game immediately. okay in a local group, table-flipping at a kotei (figuratively, i never saw or heard of any violence at an l5r tourney, at least, not as a thing).
8 minutes ago, Kiseki said:To be clear, I'm not complaining, just trying to shift my paradigm. Overall I'm pretty happy with the way it's shaping up. I'm ok with holdings being a 0-4 inclusion card, I was just checking to see if I was the only one who'd gotten that impression too, or if there were things I might not have considered. Isawa Syd pointed out one that I hadn't thought of, so I'm back to Wait and See (tm) mode on that.
I don't like that holdings take the Province and characters can't come out of it. That bothers me. This my only complaint about the game so far.
2 minutes ago, Barbacuo said:I understand that the new game is more about characters taking part in and parting from the "story" narrated by the match, instead of a game of building your territory and army. But I expected to keep some kind of "permanent spell" on board, as holding used to be. Now they look more crippling than anything and I'm worried it could encourage aggro decks above anything, because that was what killed Invasion prematurely. I'm more of a control guy.
come on over to the fire chickens, baby. we've got all the scrolls and controls.
Edited by Isawa Syd
Unicorn looks hyper aggressive so far, between our "Way of" letting us go first, the action "Breakthrough" letting us do both of our conflicts in a row, and our "Border Rider" which seems designed to straighten and participate in two battles.
god help the 'rally cry' type affect you may get, or 'brave new world' your entire army over to another province in homage to old assignment rules. to be clear, this is high speculation. i am not a void shugenja. i am water, and i didn't take divination, i specialize in movement 
3 minutes ago, Barbacuo said:I understand that the new game is more about characters taking part in and parting from the "story" narrated by the match, instead of a game of building your territory and army. But I expected to keep some kind of "permanent spell" on board, as holding used to be. Now they look more crippling than anything and I'm worried it could encourage aggro decks above anything, because that was what killed Invasion prematurely. I'm more of a control guy.
The game already pseduo-encourages aggro decks in my opinion simply based on the Fate/Fading mechanic. It's going to be difficult to impossible to build any board presence and that's sort of the point behind the games Mono No Aware philosophy.
The designers were pretty adamant in the interview that they wanted lots of player interaction via conflicts as well so I don't know how well typical "control" style decks are going to work or work at all.
Just now, Danwarr said:The game already pseduo-encourages aggro decks in my opinion simply based on the Fate/Fading mechanic. It's going to be difficult to impossible to build any board presence and that's sort of the point behind the games Mono No Aware philosophy.
The designers were pretty adamant in the interview that they wanted lots of player interaction via conflicts as well so I don't know how well typical "control" style decks are going to work or work at all.
they also emphasis phoenix control. control will take a different form than the ccg, but it will still be control. look at mori kuroi, and we've yet to see the phoenix stronghold. but the in the interview ring control was emphasized
.
4 minutes ago, BayushiCroy said:I don't like that holdings take the Province and characters can't come out of it. That bothers me. This my only complaint about the game so far.
I was iffy about this at first, but on second thought, holdings give potentially (no idea what the official rules are yet) permanent actions that can be used in the game in a setting where impermanence seems to be the only constant. For instance, being able to discount an event cost by one fate every turn essentially lets you place an extra fate on a character ever turn, increasing their sticking power.
I suspect holdings will be minor inclusions in otherwise personality heavy decks, with no more than 2-4 copies on average. Perhaps in Voltron style decks it becomes worth it to sacrifice two 'character slots' in your provinces for lasting effects that support your fewer number of characters.
Excited to see how it all shapes up!
Just now, Isawa Syd said:they also emphasis phoenix control. control will take a different form than the ccg, but it will still be control. look at mori kuroi, and we've yet to see the phoenix stronghold. but the in the interview ring control was emphasized.
That's still within the context of Conflicts though. You're going to need to be able to win a Conflict at some level.
Just now, Danwarr said:That's still within the context of Conflicts though. You're going to need to be able to win a Conflict at some level.
absolutely. and i think phoenix will excel defensively, chasing honor, etc.