4 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

(could realistically even get the Ring of Air into play?

It was in decks as 4FV Open/Battle straightening card. Honestly, in IvE+ i saw RoA rarely put in play and after technical change of Imperial Summons it was nearly absent (except enlightenment decks).

4 minutes ago, kempy said:

It was in decks as 4FV Open/Battle straightening card. Honestly, in IvE+ i saw RoA rarely put in play and after technical change of Imperial Summons it was nearly absent (except enlightenment decks).

Good point. I may have to look into throwing it into my Tsuruchi deck.

I find the first post quite interesting. The point of view is drastically different from mine I guess as I see whole re-designing as truly in favor of :

more interaction ( alternate dynasty and conflict, plus honor/dueling mechanic, plus rings mechanic... oh wow - a lot)
clear/modern design (no economy being a huge part of deck , no build-up, etc)

As far as numbers go, I believe that you can settle your concerns a bit.
I guess there will be no huge honor swings in cards, the highest for now I believe is 3 (assasination) and that one is justified.

As for honor - yes, goals have been adjusted to the numbers on the cards as well as to dials.
Take in mind that if 3-4 skill ( old- force) is "high" now, it used to be pretty much low.
The same goes for honor, what it was to gain/lose 30 honor, may be very well 12-15 now

We need to see way more cards and an actual gameplay to be able to evaluate.
Still an interesting topic though.

Yeah, RoA was gross. And if your Unicorn opponent wasn't careful RoE was super easy to put into play.

11 hours ago, terryfuller said:

For example thematically, imagine paying $20 to see a feature film which depicts ruthless ninjas attacking pacifist, Enlightenment-seeking monks.

What, like Seven Samurai?

3 hours ago, JJ48 said:

Oddly enough, this is exactly the complaint many had concerning Old L5R. Honor decks pretty much just sat back and did everything they could to avoid any actual conflicts, while Military decks had to race to get enough people out that they couldn't all be sent home. If you had Honor vs Honor, or Honor vs Enlightenment, both sides pretty much just did their own thing until eventually someone won. In the new system, even honor gains seem to be mostly driven by actions played during conflicts or Rings won from conflicts, so everyone has incentive to actually be involved.

And this is one of the reasons I loved playing Mantis-Kitsune Honor. We show up for fights. And I got to see that wonderful look on my opponent's face when they see that I'm defending.

IDK, the LCG seems to force a lot more interaction than the CCG did. One of the things I didn't like about the CCG was that sometimes it seemed like we're playing vaguely connected games of solitaire foelrost of the game.

I do generally disagree with the premise of the first post.

I feel like the LCG forces more interaction: Two types of conflicts to cover both military and poltical sides of things, interaction via bidding for cards, fading forcing you to attack, many actions requiring you to be in conflict to be useful. Before most CCG decks wanted to minimize the amount of interaction with your opponent, including most military decks. There are exceptions, but you really just wanted to swing at a province with as little resistance as possible until you could gain card/province advantage, then have it out in one or two final battles. Even the military/honor Switch decks, this was their preferred method, and then either honor out rather than take the last province.

In terms of the numbers for honor/dishonor, we don't have many cards yet, so we don't know how this scales. The numbers themselves are arbitrary. You could just multiply everything (Glory, honor gains/losses, etc) by 2.4, and you'd get around the same game (if we ignore rounding will be a bit of an annoyance), and then you'd have the 60 honor scale. It doesn't quite work perfectly, but its just a matter of tuning. I bet they didn't solidify on the 25 number until they did some significant testing. I actually bet that the win/loss/starting points are mostly just defined as to what is reasonable given people's glory vs province strength and by the whole bidding system more than anything. Everything else could just fall out from those.

I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of complaining from former honor players given that their preferred playstyle seems to have essentially been removed from the game. Political conflicts seem to be pretty much just a reskin of military ones ("I give my courtier a +4 kimono and swing at your province" as another poster put it) and I don't think we've seen any cards so far that give passive honor gains.

Just now, Yoritomo Reiu said:

I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of complaining from former honor players given that their preferred playstyle seems to have essentially been removed from the game. Political conflicts seem to be pretty much just a reskin of military ones ("I give my courtier a +4 kimono and swing at your province" as another poster put it) and I don't think we've seen any cards so far that give passive honor gains.

I think that even the most dedicated honor and dishonor players realize that their playstyle was often detrimental to the fun of the game. I am not opposed to dedicated decks for either win existing, I just hope that neither devolves into solitaire.

1 minute ago, Yoritomo Reiu said:

I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of complaining from former honor players given that their preferred playstyle seems to have essentially been removed from the game. Political conflicts seem to be pretty much just a reskin of military ones ("I give my courtier a +4 kimono and swing at your province" as another poster put it) and I don't think we've seen any cards so far that give passive honor gains.

I think honor players are waiting for more information before they start complaining. We don't really have a feel for how those decks work yet (We've not seen any primary means of honor gains, like proclaiming, holdings or from winning a conflict besides Ring of Air). That being said, I think most honor players would agree that the typical honor or dishonor play style was really that good for the CCG.

6 minutes ago, Yoritomo Reiu said:

I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of complaining from former honor players given that their preferred playstyle seems to have essentially been removed from the game. Political conflicts seem to be pretty much just a reskin of military ones ("I give my courtier a +4 kimono and swing at your province" as another poster put it) and I don't think we've seen any cards so far that give passive honor gains.

We haven't seen any but there has to be other ways of gaining honor, otherwise military decks could prevent their honor opponent from ever achieving an honor victory.

I guess we could do some math on the whole honor game:

Start at 11 honor for crane, lets assume no honor loss per turn. That is 14 honor you need to gain.

Ring of Air can get you 2 honor a turn.

Ring of Fire can get you 1 honor, assuming you have a person to asplode each turn.

That is 5 turns (3 per turn) of the estimated 3-6, but it seems reasonable to see 4 honor a turn for a successful deck (Win by turn 4, just as they are about to take your last province?). Though this is assuming you win 2 conflicts a turn with your preferred ring, or can otherwise honor up a person each turn.

You could also gain honor via card draw. However, I feel like that isn't reliable, since anything you gain early on from not drawing could be lost again when you realize you are losing all of your provinces and need cards, and you need to win battles at least to get the Ring of Air.

However, given these numbers the honor game may be based mainly on letting honorable guys die, but that doesn't seem to be just enough to win. There will probably either be ways to directly gain honor by performing certain events, or by trying to monkey with card draw and dueling bids.

I doubt we will have any sort of recurring honor gains, unless it is very specific and costly (On the level of Ring of Air difficult.)

Dishonor seems a lot more iffy at this point.

PS: I think Military is still going to hate honor runners, since then Military is going to have to put a LOT of thought into how they draw, or risk losing the game early on because they let the honor player have 4 extra honor on turn 2.

Edit, I can't read, so my assumptions are wrong. Rewritten my post.

4 minutes ago, Mirith said:

That is 4 turns of the estimated 3-6, so it seems reasonable to see 4 honor a turn. Though this is assuming you win 2 conflicts a turn with your preferred ring, or can otherwise honor up a person a turn who has 2 glory each turn.Yo

Just to note, you only gain 1 honor for losing an honored character, regardless of his glory. He gains his glory as a bonus to his military and political strength, but you only gain 1 honor when he leaves play, regardless (of course, that's also true if he had 0 glory.) Anyway, I'm otherwise on board with your numbers, and don't expect too much, if any, direct honor gains.

2 minutes ago, agarrett said:

Just to note, you only gain 1 honor for losing an honored character, regardless of his glory. He gains his glory as a bonus to his military and political strength, but you only gain 1 honor when he leaves play, regardless (of course, that's also true if he had 0 glory.) Anyway, I'm otherwise on board with your numbers, and don't expect too much, if any, direct honor gains.

So you are correct, I keep missing that for some reason.

It would be probably for the best if direct honor gains and losses were omitted. They hurt the game's interactivity in the past.

15 minutes ago, Serazu said:

It would be probably for the best if direct honor gains and losses were omitted. They hurt the game's interactivity in the past.

I think recurring honor gain/loss is the problem, not single shots. If it costs you a card to gain 1-2 honor, that is a lot different than if you just have to bow 2-4 gold each turn. Or if you have to do something like "Win a battle at this province!", in which case you have to somehow force your opponent to go there, and then win it.

it may not be unreasonable that honor gain cards will require you to do something first. Like winning a duel or having to bow an honored character or two. It would be balanced by the fact you have to possibly spend honor to draw the cards from the decks or spend honor to win duels.

I'll be really surprised if there won't be cards like this, i mean destroying your own guys (honor) to defend Province.

1 minute ago, kempy said:

I'll be really surprised if there won't be cards like this, i mean destroying your own guys (honor) to defend Province.

Something along the lines of: Lion, 0F, "Action: Honor your character with at least one fate them, and remove all fate from that character".

4 hours ago, kempy said:

I'll be really surprised if there won't be cards like this, i mean destroying your own guys (honor) to defend Province.

We do have the Crane card "Noble Sacrifice" in the product page. We don't know the actual text but it might be very similar.

Edit. Oops I did not know how old this thread is. Maybe I should wake up more before posting.