I've seen various post that speculate what each clan will be good at. I'm all for that, but, something has been kind of bothering me.

When I say I'm playing Crab Military.....what does that mean though? In Old5R this would be pretty clear what the deck did. Now that we have military conflicts that can be declared to either attempt to break a province and get closer to destroying the opponent's stronghold, or simply just to win battles, claim rings and go for an honor or dishonor win.

Keeping in mind that Nu5R allows for much more variety of strategy, and the flexibility to change that strategy mid-game, can we try to come up with some aligned jargon for the deck descriptions so we all know what each other is talking about? I think this would allow us to help each other better when it comes time to deck design and strategy discussion.

For example:

Stronghold Blitz: A deck designed to break the opponent's stronghold. It will attempt to break provinces quickly, then destroy the opponent's stronghold. It may or may not focus on single conflict type.

Military Conflict: A deck with an emphasis on military characters. It may try to win by stronghold destruction or by honor/dishonor through primarly winning military conflicts.

Etc....

Or maybe it's best to just refer to the deck by the clan you are playing and drop the descriptions altogether. Nu5R seems to be much more of a game of capitalizing on the opportunities that present themselves. I might have a Crane deck that is built to try to win by honor, but, if the opportunity to win by Stronghold Destruction is more viable based on my opponent, then I would attempt that instead.

Thoughts?

I don't think we can or even should force jargon; it will evolve naturally once players grow in familiarity with the game. Due to the way currency now fuctions I believe "boxable" is going the way of the Ratling, but I could even be wrong about that.

9 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

Or maybe it's best to just refer to the deck by the clan you are playing and drop the descriptions altogether. Nu5R seems to be much more of a game of capitalizing on the opportunities that present themselves. I might have a Crane deck that is built to try to win by honor, but, if the opportunity to win by Stronghold Destruction is more viable based on my opponent, then I would attempt that instead.

I do think this game will be much more tactical than the CCG, so that changing course midstream will be much more achievable. I still think there will be different themes even within a clan (though maybe not many out of the Core), but to try to speculate what those could be at this point seems rather futile.

One potential danger with too much speculation in this regard is that archetypes should be descriptive, not prescriptive. If we start defining archetypes before we even know what strategies are feasible, some players are going to be worried more with trying to make a deck fit a particular archetype rather than experimenting with variety. As people learn what works and what doesn't, descriptions of the major (and minor) archetypes will occur naturally.

I have the feeling like to one-sided strategies could be kinda bad in the new game, thus building decks with just a single victory condition in mind might be a bad idea. I guess that most decks will go for an equilibrium and so the game could feel like the balance dance of a game of Go.

I kinda can't wait to see how the lexicon comes into being and evolves. I have no speculation on what it'll be though.

I personally prefer that just the clan name is given when describing a deck. I've just run into posts or podcasts that have something along the lines of "I'm gonna play Crab Military, what does everyone think?" I'd like to participate in those discussions but I find myself getting hung up with continually asking what that means and I end up passing on the discussion. Not saying my advice would be superhelpful, but, sometimes my incoherent reamblings sparks something in someone else and the discussion can evolve and grow.

I'd hate to see a constructive discussion get shut down before it can even get started for lack of understanding.

Or maybe this is me being lazy. Lol

41 minutes ago, Builder2 said:

I don't think we can or even should force jargon; it will evolve naturally once players grow in familiarity with the game. Due to the way currency now fuctions I believe "boxable" is going the way of the Ratling, but I could even be wrong about that.

Boxable may be leaving

But "box" is forever.

Just now, BayushiCroy said:

Boxable may be leaving

But "box" is forever.

I find myself struggling not to say "personalities" and a few other things.

4 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

I personally prefer that just the clan name is given when describing a deck. I've just run into posts or podcasts that have something along the lines of "I'm gonna play Crab Military, what does everyone think?" I'd like to participate in those discussions but I find myself getting hung up with continually asking what that means and I end up passing on the discussion. Not saying my advice would be superhelpful, but, sometimes my incoherent reamblings sparks something in someone else and the discussion can evolve and grow.

I'd hate to see a constructive discussion get shut down before it can even get started for lack of understanding.

Or maybe this is me being lazy. Lol

Personally, I'm just going to stick with Tsuruchi Archers. There may not be archers in the base set, and there almost certainly won't be any Tsuruchi, but that's what my deck'll be all the same!

Just now, JJ48 said:

Personally, I'm just going to stick with Tsuruchi Archers. There may not be archers in the base set, and there almost certainly won't be any Tsuruchi, but that's what my deck'll be all the same!

I'm calling all my decks "Corrupt -insert clan name here-" because all my decks will be Shadowlands based.

And there will be Shadowlands.........or else!

2 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

I'm calling all my decks "Corrupt -insert clan name here-" because all my decks will be Shadowlands based.

And there will be Shadowlands.........or else!

Even if they don't have the Shadowlands keyword, maybe they're just Tainted without realizing it?

20 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Even if they don't have the Shadowlands keyword, maybe they're just Tainted without realizing it?

Nothing that the mysterious and powerful "Sharpie of Fu Lang" can't fix.

I would look at what the clan will be leaning towards when we see most of the cards. For example, Lion Swarm speaks for itself, or Lion Bully that is based on personalities doing bad stuff to lower skilled individuals (i.e. Lion's Pride Brawler).

Thus far from available cards or theming

Lion - Swarm/Bully

Crane - Honored Shenanigans/Attrition

Dragon - Voltron (attachment focus)/Ring Theory (monks and ring tricks)

Phoenix - ???profit???

Unicorn - Cavalry (movement tricks and a throwback to the ccg style)

Crab - Shell Game (Holdings and Borderlands Fortifications)

Scorpion - Dishonor / Control /

2 minutes ago, Kubernes said:

Scorpion - Dishonor / Control /

Scorpion: Swimming Lessons

3 minutes ago, Kiseki said:

Scorpion: Swimming Lessons

Scorpion: Lifeguards or BayWatch for the family name pun.

We have the most lifeguards in the Empire

And the Crane find themselves woefully close to the water recently.

I get the impression from the little I've seen so far that the Phoenix toolbox might still be a thing.

10 hours ago, Builder2 said:

I don't think we can or even should force jargon; it will evolve naturally once players grow in familiarity with the game. Due to the way currency now fuctions I believe "boxable" is going the way of the Ratling, but I could even be wrong about that.

Every Character card we've seen so far is boxable.

As folks are saying this will inevitably occur over time. The jargon that gets established can be helpful for a frame of reference or touching stone. Though all the podcast/forum discussions about the new game in terms of the old games' archetypes is a little beyond new folks like me.

Can ingrained archetypes lead to derogatory discussion or approach to the game? Dependent on the individual I suspect.

What fascinates me is the potential dynamic nature of these mechanics. So many ways to play and interact regardless of core strategy, deck build, or cards drawn. This could make archetypes more a temple to explore than a pillar to be stood on.

"If the reason you give was provided by another, have you given a reason at all?"