From the little that we know Hoturi/Hotaru seems a direct port of one character to the other. The familial relations are the same (father, siblings). On the other hand, other parts of her backstory will by force need to be changed (Dairyu).

Do we know anything else about the case of Yokatsu/Altarnasai? Is she also a more or less direct port, or a completely new character? If it is the first, will she come with a Dark Secret, too?

Know one knows about Altansarnai at this point.

Fun fact: if you Google "mongolian names", Altansarnai is the very first name in the very first hit. I kinda laughed upon noticing this .

Altansarnai's bow is way to big

5 minutes ago, Jedi samurai said:

Altansarnai's bow is way to big

But the magical, glowy-eyed wind horse seems legit.

2 minutes ago, Iuchi Toshimo said:

But the magical, glowy-eyed wind horse seems legit.

well ya, you see that all the time.

I hate this argument. Just because someone is a fantasy world doesn't mean ALL logic is out the window. If Aragorn in LotR fought while holding the pointy end of his sword and someone pointed out it was wrong would you say "by the giant flying eagles are legit"? (implying that its a fantasy world with some fantastic elements, so why can't he fight with his sword upside down?).

Altansarnai is still firing a bow from a horse, if she wanted to fire straight a head or behind or turn to her left she'd have to turn her to maneuver it around her horse's body. The Mongol bow is short so the rider/archer and easily maneuver it around the easily, giving them a much faster and wider firing arc. That is something logically the Unicorn should have/be aware of.

1 minute ago, Jedi samurai said:

Altansarnai is still firing a bow from a horse, if she wanted to fire straight a head or behind or turn to her left she'd have to turn her to maneuver it around her horse's body. The Mongol bow is short so the rider/archer and easily maneuver it around the easily, giving them a much faster and wider firing arc. That is something logically the Unicorn should have/be aware of.

We could wear shoes on our heads but that would be silly.

Magic does allow us to defy logic and reason because any presumption we create is not falsifiable.

My presumption: That horse appears to be made out of air. I'd wager the bow passes right through air.

1 minute ago, Iuchi Toshimo said:

We could wear shoes on our heads but that would be silly.

Magic does allow us to defy logic and reason because any presumption we create is not falsifiable.

My presumption: That horse appears to be made out of air. I'd wager the bow passes right through air.

It looks like a real horse to me, just running through mist.

Is every Unicorn horse made of air?

2 minutes ago, Jedi samurai said:

It looks like a real horse to me, just running through mist.

Is every Unicorn horse made of air?

Traditionally yes, but occasionally they'd make them out of Methane or Neon in a pinch.

It looks kind of like a yumi. I'd have expected a nomadic horsebow or an assymetric daikyu (which, IIRC, has the short end at the bottom so you can fire it from horseback and the kneeling position),

Maybe she has multiple bows and she's just using the big'un in this one instance.

Don't spoil the fun too much

I don't think you can compare them without knowing anything about them. Abandon all you knew, etc, try to approach this as a new standalone story.

18 minutes ago, Tebbo said:

Maybe she has multiple bows and she's just using the big'un in this one instance.

Don't spoil the fun too much

I can buy that

Except she's using the wrong one while riding.

44 minutes ago, Jedi samurai said:

Altansarnai is still firing a bow from a horse, if she wanted to fire straight a head or behind or turn to her left she'd have to turn her to maneuver it around her horse's body. The Mongol bow is short so the rider/archer and easily maneuver it around the easily, giving them a much faster and wider firing arc. That is something logically the Unicorn should have/be aware of.

Maybe Unicorn horses are like an AC-130: you circle around the battlefield and only fire from the one side?

1 minute ago, JJ48 said:

Maybe Unicorn horses are like an AC-130: you circle around the battlefield and only fire from the one side?

not a great tactic for the Empires best Cavalry.

Just now, Jedi samurai said:

not a great tactic for the Empires best Cavalry.

Yeah, it probably works a lot better when done from high in the sky after establishing air superiority.

More seriously, though, if we want to try to explain it without just assuming it's a mistake, maybe her horse bow broke, so she rode down an enemy archer and took his bow? The fact that she can use a longbow from horseback at all just shows how skilled she is.

Just now, Jedi samurai said:

I can buy that

Except she's using the wrong one while riding.

Yeah but this is just one depiction in one instance. If you assume there's a reason, there is since it's not real.

Even if it was real, people do/use unpractical things all the time in order to get something done. Maybe her bow broke and that's someone else's. Maybe she yoinked it from some guy on foot just for that shot. etc.

3 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Yeah, it probably works a lot better when done from high in the sky after establishing air superiority.

More seriously, though, if we want to try to explain it without just assuming it's a mistake, maybe her horse bow broke, so she rode down an enemy archer and took his bow? The fact that she can use a longbow from horseback at all just shows how skilled she is.

why can't we just assume it was a mistake, which it almost certainly was? the artist didn't know the the advantage/logistics of using a long Japanese or English style bow vs a mongol bow on horse back.......

5 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

More seriously, though, if we want to try to explain it without just assuming it's a mistake

Here is an explanation: she is not in a dedicated mounted archer unit, just taking an opportunity shot as part of a flanking/strafing maneuver. She does not have a quiver either, so she is definitely not up to a lot of archery business. She just pulled out her magical bow to frag someone before switching back to her scimitar to run her enemies down.

5 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:

Here is an explanation: she is not in a dedicated mounted archer unit, just taking an opportunity shot as part of a flanking/strafing maneuver. She does not have a quiver either, so she is definitely not up to a lot of archery business. She just pulled out her magical bow to frag someone before switching back to her scimitar to run her enemies down.

maybe the quiver is on the other side of the saddle.....

Just now, Jedi samurai said:

why can't we just assume it was a mistake, which it almost certainly was? the artist didn't know the the advantage/logistics of using a long Japanese or English style bow vs a mongol bow on horse back.......

Because if we assume it's a mistake, then we just ignore it and that's the end of it. It can be more fun to come up with explanations for such things, and if the story team does the same thing, it can actually lead to a lot more deep story.

Look at Tolkien, for instance. He would often notice a discrepancy in his story (or have it pointed out to him), then come up with an explanation that either meant it wasn't a mistake or else explained how the mistake was made within the context of the story. Most famously was probably the first edition of The Hobbit, which told a very different story of how Bilbo had found the Ring. When Tolkien went to write The Lord of the Rings, he realized he'd have to change that chapter to make it fit, and then actually used the "fact" that Bilbo's initial account was wrong as proof within the story that something was wrong with Bilbo.

A well-done retcon can do quite a bit to help develop a setting!

5 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Because if we assume it's a mistake, then we just ignore it and that's the end of it. It can be more fun to come up with explanations for such things, and if the story team does the same thing, it can actually lead to a lot more deep story.

Look at Tolkien, for instance. He would often notice a discrepancy in his story (or have it pointed out to him), then come up with an explanation that either meant it wasn't a mistake or else explained how the mistake was made within the context of the story. Most famously was probably the first edition of The Hobbit, which told a very different story of how Bilbo had found the Ring. When Tolkien went to write The Lord of the Rings, he realized he'd have to change that chapter to make it fit, and then actually used the "fact" that Bilbo's initial account was wrong as proof within the story that something was wrong with Bilbo.

A well-done retcon can do quite a bit to help develop a setting!

the difference is this isn't the creator and "master" of a fantasy world fixing his creatation. Its a single artists who didn't know that a mounted warrior (espically one with Mongol influences) would use a short bow for many practial reasons and made a mistake.

And as I pointed out above - any "created solution" can be knocked down.

It's not real. It's an illustration.

Rule of cool. If the FFG art director for L5R had wanted it to be explicitly historically inspired they would have told that to the illustrator and had them correct it. They did not. L5R is not historical. There are numerous other instances of this across L5R, do you complain about all of them?

2 minutes ago, Jedi samurai said:

the difference is this isn't the creator and "master" of a fantasy world fixing his creatation. Its a single artists who didn't know that a mounted warrior (espically one with Mongol influences) would use a short bow for many practial reasons and made a mistake.

I will erect a shrine for FFG if their artists can make a proper and consistent representation of the setting. And not have something like six different era-specific armors in circulation.

Bow looks cool to me. Not sure what the fuss is about with something that's meant to look cool, and not be realistic.