1 minute ago, Ultimatecalibur said:

The C and D marks should do that fine anyways. 3 sleeve colors (Dynasty, Conflict and Province/Stronghold) should allow players to keep cards apart as well.

Okay but what I was getting at is that - without the C and D marks which I did not catch earlier - template-wise, a dynasty character when sleeved in an opaque deck protector is identical to a conflict character. I was looking for something on the face of the card, and while it's way more subtle than I would hsve liked, it should suffice.

6 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I tend to use two colors based on the particular clan I'm building for. Crane decks were light blue/dark blue; Spider were White/Black; Lion were Gold/Brown etc.

Phoenix red/orange

Don't worry having two decks is easy.

5 minutes ago, Builder2 said:

Okay but what I was getting at is that - without the C and D marks which I did not catch earlier - template-wise, a dynasty character when sleeved in an opaque deck protector is identical to a conflict character. I was looking for something on the face of the card, and while it's way more subtle than I would hsve liked, it should suffice.

Faction Conflict cards should also have Bamboo pips on them (outside of some of the Way of X cards we seen). Also, it is probably a good idea to sleeve the decks using different colors to prevent confusion.

Someone please understand my concern has nothing to do with how one sleeves one's decks - in fact I'd be surprised if FFG didn't make sleeving the two decks distinctly a mandatory thing. My issue was solely with how - it appeared to me - that the two card types shared an identical template, so that you'd have to look at the card back to verify it was decked correctly. It seems that is not the case, though, because of the C and D markings.

There are a lot of Military buffs. I think compared to Political conflict, Military will have higher strength total. This will naturally cause Military to be better at breaking provinces. Political Conflict will likely focus more on trickery such as bowing to mess with an opponent's strength.

I am disappointed we didn't get to see Isawa Masahiro burninate an attacking personality. Pacifism and occasional burnination; these are the things I crave from my Phoenix.

All joking aside, we did get to see our first spell, which works like an O5R kiho. Of course, this doesn't necessarily rule out attachment spell "scrolls;" I wonder if they have attachments with the Spell keyword as well.

Also, interesting to note that this spell only requires you to control a shugenja. Of course we don't know if this is the norm, but I thought it curious that 1) the action is performed by the player, not by the character card and 2) the shugenja wasn't required to be at the conflict. Will this hold true if a spell requires bowing? I guess we'll have to wait for more previews.

One thing this article suggests to me is that Phoenix will be able to build dedicated honour running decks. The Shiba Peacemaker is great if you don't care about busting provinces. But even more than that, the Seeker of Knowledge can guarantee that you can do an air conflict even if you are the second player. That is huge -- 2 points of honour when it probably takes 13 or 14 to win is like 5 in Ol5R.

I am so excited for this game! Release more FFG! I want the rule book!

It looks like you can flash in units at any time during conflict. A couple questions on this:

- Can I bring a guy into play before declaring a conflict?(ie, during the action window that exists between conflicts)

- If I bring a guy into play during a conflict does it have to participate in that conflict?

- Can I flash in guys from my destiny deck(the ones on provinces) or is that restricted to conflict cards only?

soo Agasha Swordsmith is there anything to stop me from using it's ability multiple times int he same round? It doesn't seem to be bowed by using it?

9 minutes ago, Lukez said:

soo Agasha Swordsmith is there anything to stop me from using it's ability multiple times int he same round? It doesn't seem to be bowed by using it?

Just speculating, but it seems like action abilities on cards can only be triggered once per turn.

@Builder2

I think I understand what you are saying. I asked myself this very question a week ago and I caught this: the mon on Dynasty cards appears on the left, whereas in Conflict cards it appears on the right, so this should be another (and more visibile) way to distinguish Dynasty cards from Conflict ones.

For example, look at the Ancestral Daisho and the Togashi Initiate in the same picture (today's article). Basically the layout is inverted.

11 minutes ago, Lukez said:

soo Agasha Swordsmith is there anything to stop me from using it's ability multiple times int he same round? It doesn't seem to be bowed by using it?

Actions can only be triggered once per turn.

Quote

Character abilities may only be used once per round, unless otherwise specified

https://drafts.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2017/5/3/the-conflicts-of-rokugan/

Just now, Danwarr said:

Actions can only be triggered once per turn.

https://drafts.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2017/5/3/the-conflicts-of-rokugan/

Thanks for finding that!

4 minutes ago, Eu8L1ch said:

@Builder2

I think I understand what you are saying. Iasked myself this very question a week ago and I caught this: the mon on Dynasty card appears on the left, whereas in Conflict cards it appears on the right, so this should be another (and more visibile) way to distinguish Dynasty cards from Conflict ones.

Are you referring to the Clan Mon? I don't believe this is the case.

The first card is a Dynasty Card, the second card is a Conflict Card. Only real difference appears to be the D/C notation and the Bamboo Influence pips on Seeker of Knowledge.

Yeah, Danwarr you're clearly right. Maybe the different layout has to do with Attachments vs Characters then?

2 minutes ago, Eu8L1ch said:

Yeah, Danwarr you're clearly right. Maybe the different layout has to do with Attachments vs Characters then?

It is. Also, all attachments are Conflict cards so there would be no mistaking them as Dynasty cards.

EDIT: Here is a link with all of the known spoilers sorted. I do not think the cards from today have been added yet though: http://imgur.com/a/UbOx2

Also, this:

"This concludes our overview of the general rules of Legend of the Five Rings: The Card Game, but be sure to check out the Fantasy Flight Games Facebook page this Friday at 11 a.m. CST for our first Facebook Live Stream! Tweet your Legend of the Five Rings: The Card Game questions to @FFGames on Twitter with the hashtag "#L5Rlive" to have them answered by Story Lead Katrina Ostrander and Designers Brad Andres and Nate French live on air!"

Takeaways:

1) General rule stuff is finished.

2) No mention of "see us next week," implying there is no date set for the next article yet

3) More Q&A on Friday!

Just now, Suzume Tomonori said:

Also, this:

"This concludes our overview of the general rules of Legend of the Five Rings: The Card Game, but be sure to check out the Fantasy Flight Games Facebook page this Friday at 11 a.m. CST for our first Facebook Live Stream! Tweet your Legend of the Five Rings: The Card Game questions to @FFGames on Twitter with the hashtag "#L5Rlive" to have them answered by Story Lead Katrina Ostrander and Designers Brad Andres and Nate French live on air!"

Takeaways:

1) General rule stuff is finished.

2) No mention of "see us next week," implying there is no date set for the next article yet

3) More Q&A on Friday!

The speculation around that is FFG didn't want to detract from the Live Q&A Friday. "Are there going to be more articles" is certainly a question to ask Katrina, Nate, and Brad on Friday though. However, given that they haven't done any clan previews, reviewed dueling, or given any insight into deck building I would expect many more articles between now and Gen Con.

2 hours ago, Kubernes said:

@Ishi Tonu: It's just an example conflict so I don't expect stellar plays or decisions. You should look up the combat examples in some of the old MtG rulebooks.

Yes the article is fine at showing the back and forth interaction we will see during conflicts, however they could have shown that same type of interaction and better lines of play. FFG is only responsible for giving us a taste of what the game will be like and they did that just fine. Not everyone here has experience with L5R or even CCG/LCG in general. As someone who wants to play this game and prefers to have my games be as competitive as possible, it's up to me ,and other like minded players, to point out opportunities to improve the quality of play and encourage discussion about it.

Now please don't take this as me being so serious about myself that I can't just enjoy more spoilers. I absolutely appreciate that FFG has been consistent in releasing new information about the game, and done so in a manner that has made it exciting and accessible to players of all kinds. If we want to help FFG make the game as successful as possible we should all try to contribute where we can. I simply thought I would do that. It's a minor critique and really not meant to undermine FFG in any way. Only to help others see the different lines of play they might have missed while they were all hyped up about getting new information.

What I wanted out of the article:

1) An explanation of how the rules of presence and location work, possibly using the Isawa personality as an example.

2) A duel, with one or more examples of cards that both initiate and interact with duels.

Needless to say, I came away dissapointed.

20 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

Yes the article is fine at showing the back and forth interaction we will see during conflicts, however they could have shown that same type of interaction and better lines of play. FFG is only responsible for giving us a taste of what the game will be like and they did that just fine. Not everyone here has experience with L5R or even CCG/LCG in general. As someone who wants to play this game and prefers to have my games be as competitive as possible, it's up to me ,and other like minded players, to point out opportunities to improve the quality of play and encourage discussion about it.

Now please don't take this as me being so serious about myself that I can't just enjoy more spoilers. I absolutely appreciate that FFG has been consistent in releasing new information about the game, and done so in a manner that has made it exciting and accessible to players of all kinds. If we want to help FFG make the game as successful as possible we should all try to contribute where we can. I simply thought I would do that. It's a minor critique and really not meant to undermine FFG in any way. Only to help others see the different lines of play they might have missed while they were all hyped up about getting new information.

I thought it was equal parts amusing and thought provoking. I've had experienced players look at me in coaching games and tell me to change the order of cards so I'd win. I've done the same thing for others. Seems like a productive angle to look at the cards to me.

Just now, Yogo Gohei said:

What I wanted out of the article:

1) An explanation of how the rules of presence and location work, possibly using the Isawa personality as an example.

2) A duel, with one or more examples of cards that both initiate and interact with duels.

Needless to say, I came away dissapointed.

Those were both things I hoped we'd see either drilled into or completely swept away. If a personality like the Isawa could use his action without being present, why wouldn't he? That was my first thought on seeing the card previewed. "I wonder if this guy can use his action in a battle from home."

Have we seen explicit references to the old concepts of presence and relevance in any way?

20 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

Yes the article is fine at showing the back and forth interaction we will see during conflicts, however they could have shown that same type of interaction and better lines of play. FFG is only responsible for giving us a taste of what the game will be like and they did that just fine. Not everyone here has experience with L5R or even CCG/LCG in general. As someone who wants to play this game and prefers to have my games be as competitive as possible, it's up to me ,and other like minded players, to point out opportunities to improve the quality of play and encourage discussion about it.

Now please don't take this as me being so serious about myself that I can't just enjoy more spoilers. I absolutely appreciate that FFG has been consistent in releasing new information about the game, and done so in a manner that has made it exciting and accessible to players of all kinds. If we want to help FFG make the game as successful as possible we should all try to contribute where we can. I simply thought I would do that. It's a minor critique and really not meant to undermine FFG in any way. Only to help others see the different lines of play they might have missed while they were all hyped up about getting new information.

There is the streaming game on their facebook to look forward to. Maybe we'll see some more 'optimal' plays? I'm probably more interested in the questions asked and answered. And more cards!

@Yogo GoheiI only went into the article wanting to see a few new cards. We still have quite a number of weeks till Gencon and many more previews to come. It wouldn't surprise me if duels were explained much later in an appropriate clan article.