I don't know how to phrase this one concisely, so I'll just take a stab at it: does each player get one opportunity to declare each type of attack, or do they alternate opportunities to declare until either they've taken both or both passed?

Example

Player A and Player B go to conflict phase. Player A is first player. Which of the following is true:

Player A passes first option to attack. Player B attacks political. Player A attacks military. Player B attacks military. Player A attacks political.

OR

Player A passes first option to attack. Player B attacks political. Player A cannot now declare an attack since they passed once. Player B attacks military.

11 hours ago, rmunn said:

I just answered that one in the other thread, but I don't mind repeating it here. We've seen in the rules revealed so far that "Character abilities may only be used once per round, unless otherwise specified, like the Wandering Ronin (Core Set, 127)." (Emphasis mine). My conclusion is that they do not have such inherent once-per-turn restrictions on Strongholds, or Attachments for that matter -- note how the Jade Tetsubo requires you to bow the attachment in order to use its ability. And therefore, bowing the Stronghold is a way to limit the ability to once per turn, unless you have an ability that can ready a Stronghold card. (No such ability has been revealed so far.)

Taking it a different direction, maybe other cards require the player to bow their stronghold as a cost or perhaps require an unbowed stronghold as a condition. Alternatively, perhaps having a bowed stronghold has some other gameplay impact (ex: negating) province strength boost).

10 minutes ago, the eigensheep said:

Taking it a different direction, maybe other cards require the player to bow their stronghold as a cost or perhaps require an unbowed stronghold as a condition. Alternatively, perhaps having a bowed stronghold has some other gameplay impact (ex: negating) province strength boost).

This could also be true: they've done similar things in other games. For example, in the LotR LCG, the One Ring card is permanently in play in the scenarios that follow the plot of the books (and if it leaves play, the players lose the game). It always has an ability that reads "Exhaust the One Ring to _____", which changes from scenario to scenario but is always beneficial to the players. However, lots of enemy cards have effects like "If the One Ring is exhausted, this enemy gains +2 Attack and +2 Defense". So exhausting the Ring is a gamble: is it worth the cost?

Likewise, I could see bowing Strongholds to be a situational gamble. If there's some effect that makes having a bowed stronghold be less effective on defense, then bowing your stronghold when you already have two broken provinces would become a big gamble: it would be saying "I'll be able to prevent you breaking a province in your first attack, so I know your second attack won't be on my stronghold." And your opponent, of course, would then try their best to prove you wrong. :-)

10 hours ago, rmunn said:

It always has an ability that reads "Exhaust the One Ring to _____", which changes from scenario to scenario but is always beneficial to the players.

The One Ring doesn't have an ability; the Ringbearer usually has an "exhaust The One Ring to X".

20 hours ago, Yogo Gohei said:

For those with knowledge of the GoT card game, do any of the other questions have equivalences there??

I have played quite a few of FFG's other games (AGoT is the closest analog, and I'm playing it, so that helps), so I'll take a stab at it.

1) In AGoT, you need both a participating character and a total conflict value above 0 to win a challenge (the equivalent to conflicts), so its possible that neither player wins one.

2&3) Such restrictions are written on cards rather than in the rules in FFG's games. Shrewd Yasuki's ability specifies that he must be participating, while Masahiro's and Cloud the Mind don't, so I'm confident it'll be the case in L5R as well.

4) Other FFG games put usage limits on the cards themselves, so there's no obvious equivalent. However, they tend to make rules consistent across cardtypes.

5) This is tricky, so I don't expect to get the answer before the rulebook is published.

6) Such cards can be played throughout the conflict phase in their other games and they do not automatically become participants in conflicts, unless their text says otherwise.

7) The controller of an optional effect is usually required to make decisions that actually impact the game state. The other players might or might not. So, waiting for the rulebook for this one, too.

8) Same as 2&3. Border Rider's ability can only work while the character is bowed.

9) Very tricky, so waiting for the rulebook. The closest I can think of is challenge icons in AGoT: they are required to be declared as a participant to a challenge, but not to count their strength at resolution. However AGoT characters have only one strength value, not one for each icon. Based on that, my guess is that the character will continue participating, but won't contribute.

12 hours ago, Kiseki said:

I don't know how to phrase this one concisely, so I'll just take a stab at it: does each player get one opportunity to declare each type of attack, or do they alternate opportunities to declare until either they've taken both or both passed?

Example

Player A and Player B go to conflict phase. Player A is first player. Which of the following is true:

Player A passes first option to attack. Player B attacks political. Player A attacks military. Player B attacks military. Player A attacks political.

OR

Player A passes first option to attack. Player B attacks political. Player A cannot now declare an attack since they passed once. Player B attacks military.

I think the wording on the product page, "You may even choose to pass your first conflict, waiting to see how your opponent acts, and then commit your full strength to your second conflict later," implies option three:

Player A passes their first conflict opportunity.

Player B attacks.

Player A attacks.

Player B attacks.

Conflicts end since both players had two conflict opportunities. If it works like this, I am imagining a brief staring contest if both players want the other to go first. However, I am just inferring this scenario due to the usage of words like "first/second" and the lack of a word like "opportunity."

4 minutes ago, Iuchi Toshimo said:

I think the wording on the product page, "You may even choose to pass your first conflict, waiting to see how your opponent acts, and then commit your full strength to your second conflict later," implies option three:

Player A passes their first conflict opportunity.

Player B attacks.

Player A attacks.

Player B attacks.

Conflicts end since both players had two conflict opportunities. If it works like this, I am imagining a brief staring contest if both players want the other to go first. However, I am just inferring this scenario due to the usage of words like "first/second" and the lack of a word like "opportunity."

Thanks, I'd had option three in my head before I started typing, but my brain was working at half speed.

Just now, Kiseki said:

Thanks, I'd had option three in my head before I started typing, but my brain was working at half speed.

I think it's a strange scenario for veteran players because "pass pass fight fight" appears to be an option. We both passed, phase over, right?

1 minute ago, Iuchi Toshimo said:

I think it's a strange scenario for veteran players because "pass pass fight fight" appears to be an option. We both passed, phase over, right?

Yeah, there is going to be some untraining involved for sure.

I suspect Pass/Pass will end the conflict phase based on AGOT rules.

31 minutes ago, Kakita Shiro said:

I suspect Pass/Pass will end the conflict phase based on AGOT rules.

"Each player has the option to declare up to two conflicts during the conflict phase. Players alternate declaring conflicts, and each player can initiate one military conflict and one political conflict. You may even choose to pass your first conflict, waiting to see how your opponent acts, and then commit your full strength to your second conflict later."

above is from FFG in its initial article. It sounds to me that you will be able to pass and than may choose to declare an attack after seeing what your opponent does (whether passing or not). I don't think we can assume AGOT rules for the conflict phase of this game

After the facebook live event, some of these were answered. Original post has been edited accordingly.

For question 5, it has been clarified that the 3 states Unclaimed, Claimed and Contested exist and are all distincts.

1 hour ago, KerenRhys said:

For question 5, it has been clarified that the 3 states Unclaimed, Claimed and Contested exist and are all distincts.

Updated. Thanks!

May have missed this, and suspect its not possible. But given the potential of characters from hand, has it been made clear if can you claim a ring/declare a conflict without any assigned attackers or eligible attackers on board? I can imagine the value of potentially claiming fate on a ring, denying a ring effect, and having your opponent defend and bow compared to the possibility of a claimed ring in defense.

On second thoughts this would also entirely negate the danger of scouting provinces and be even less unlikely. But my curiosity remains, presumably you need to have and assign at least one eligible attacker to claim/declare.

My current questions:

1) Is there an honor penalty for losing a province? It's implied in the following text, but never explained further:

"You must choose which characters will participate in the conflict, while carefully ensuring you have enough characters left to defend against your opponent, because undefended provinces are easily broken and you’ll lose honor for failing to defend your lands."

-We almost got an answer from Brad on this, but pests chased him away.

2) Is there any restriction or requirement on attaching attachments to opponents' characters? A couple valid reasons to do so come to mind, one is to get them to a certain stat level to trigger an effect, and another would be to attach a weak attachment with the "restricted" keyword to prevent a stronger one from being attached that you know they just drew.

-I'm not sure how I feel about exploding potato potentially being a thing.

3) We know that a shugenja can cast Cloud the Mind on a character in battle from a player's home. Can they cast Cloud the Mind on a character in the other player's home (either from home or from battle)?

-If this is a valid play. Whoa. Just whoa.

9 minutes ago, Kiseki said:

My current questions:

1) Is there an honor penalty for losing a province? It's implied in the following text, but never explained further:

"You must choose which characters will participate in the conflict, while carefully ensuring you have enough characters left to defend against your opponent, because undefended provinces are easily broken and you’ll lose honor for failing to defend your lands."

-We almost got an answer from Brad on this, but pests chased him away.

2) Is there any restriction or requirement on attaching attachments to opponents' characters? A couple valid reasons to do so come to mind, one is to get them to a certain stat level to trigger an effect, and another would be to attach a weak attachment with the "restricted" keyword to prevent a stronger one from being attached that you know they just drew.

-I'm not sure how I feel about exploding potato potentially being a thing.

3) We know that a shugenja can cast Cloud the Mind on a character in battle from a player's home. Can they cast Cloud the Mind on a character in the other player's home (either from home or from battle)?

-If this is a valid play. Whoa. Just whoa.

1) That phrasing sounds to me more like you'll get an honor penalty for simply failing to muster any sort of defense at all (or if all your defending characters get discarded or bowed before the battle resolves). FFG did something similar in Star Wars, where you dealt bonus damage to an undefended objective.

2) Any restrictions would be on the card itself, so it looks like you could play Ancestral Daisho on an enemy if you wanted. We still haven't seen the official rules for the Restricted keyword, though; it's possible that the rulebook says something like "If a character ever has more than two Restricted attachments, its controller chooses and discards the excess," which would prevent that sort of shenanigans. Also, I have no idea what an exploding potato is; is that something from the CCG?

3) The spell doesn't have any keywords, nor does the card itself list any restrictions beyond having a Shugenja in your control, so I presume you can attach it to anyone. You could even attach it to one of your own characters, if their text box is detrimental.

11 minutes ago, rsdockery said:

1) That phrasing sounds to me more like you'll get an honor penalty for simply failing to muster any sort of defense at all (or if all your defending characters get discarded or bowed before the battle resolves). FFG did something similar in Star Wars, where you dealt bonus damage to an undefended objective.

2) Also, I have no idea what an exploding potato is; is that something from the CCG?

3) The spell doesn't have any keywords, nor does the card itself list any restrictions beyond having a Shugenja in your control, so I presume you can attach it to anyone. You could even attach it to one of your own characters, if their text box is detrimental.

It's just strange that we haven't seen that referenced anywhere but that single line. Nowhere else is it hinted at.

I don't remember where I picked that term up. Basically it's like hot potato, but it explodes. You hand someone a force pump and then penalize them for having too much force.

Specifically what I'm getting at with the third question is if you can engage in a battle and then use the spell from a character not at the battle to target a character not currently at the battle. If so, shugenja have a pretty huge leg up so far on the other "classes". You could snipe a champ's text box with virtually no risk to yourself. With what we know of the rules so far, there is nothing to prevent this, even if it does sound silly.

4 minutes ago, Kiseki said:

Specifically what I'm getting at with the third question is if you can engage in a battle and then use the spell from a character not at the battle to target a character not currently at the battle. If so, shugenja have a pretty huge leg up so far on the other "classes". You could snipe a champ's text box with virtually no risk to yourself. With what we know of the rules so far, there is nothing to prevent this, even if it does sound silly.

Cloud the Mind is basically just Milk of the Poppy from Game of Thrones (and actually it's strictly worse than Milk of the Poppy, as it requires a particular character trait in play before you can play it; Poppy can just be played any old time). Milk is quite strong, yet players keep playing their "clan champions" in that game. They do so because: 1. Your opponent doesn't always have Milk in hand, or if they do they can't always afford to play it and keep up a board state; 2. Your opponent can only have 3 Milks. There are a *lot* of annoying text boxes to blank in Game of Thrones. They will run out. 3. "Clan champions" in Thrones still have crushing conflict strengths, and can still totally mess you up even if Milked. 4. Attachment control is a thing in Game of Thrones, and it wouldn't surprise me if anti-attachment cards show up in L5R.

I don't see this as shugenjas having a leg up on other character traits. If anything, Cloud the Mind shows the risk decks who want to run spells will get. Here's a very not difficult board state to achieve:

You start the game with a Cloud in your grip and one shugenja showing in your provinces. You buy the shugenja, draw into a second Cloud, but your opponent manages to duel or otherwise remove your shugenja from play before the first conflict. You now have two completely useless cards in your hand. And they'll remain useless until you get a shugenja onto the field. Which hopefully won't be difficult -- you did make the deck with a reasonable percentage of shugenja we can hope. But it's not a guarantee.

Yes, it's a good card. But requiring a shugenja in play to play it isn't a boost to shugenja; it's a penalty to Cloud the Mind.

1 hour ago, Gaffa said:

Yes, it's a good card. But requiring a shugenja in play to play it isn't a boost to shugenja; it's a penalty to Cloud the Mind.

Unless, of course, your deck is all or primarily shugenja... cough, phoenix, cough, cough.

6 hours ago, Kiseki said:

My current questions:

1) Is there an honor penalty for losing a province? It's implied in the following text, but never explained further:

"You must choose which characters will participate in the conflict, while carefully ensuring you have enough characters left to defend against your opponent, because undefended provinces are easily broken and you’ll lose honor for failing to defend your lands."

-We almost got an answer from Brad on this, but pests chased him away.

Well in AGoT the attacker gets a bonus if he wins a challenge unopposed, so it's not that far fetched that here the loser may have some kinda of penalty if he loses an unopposed Conflict. Tying that to Honor is quite thematic also. It would be quite dishonorable to leave your lands totally undefended...

5 hours ago, C3gorach said:

Well in AGoT the attacker gets a bonus if he wins a challenge unopposed, so it's not that far fetched that here the loser may have some kinda of penalty if he loses an unopposed Conflict. Tying that to Honor is quite thematic also. It would be quite dishonorable to leave your lands totally undefended...

Yep. I'm just suggesting it gets added to the "things we don't know for sure" thread, since it was implied in that one place.

So. when you break a province, you have the option to make the defender discard the card in that province. Aditionally, at the end of the turn all cards in broken provinces are discarded... have they said what happens when you spend all your dynasty cards? Do you reshuffle? Is there any penalty?

They said that a game would take 3-6 turns.

With 40 cards in the deck it would take 6 to 7 cards draw per turn (minimum). I find it pretty unlikely.

But we'll see.

6 minutes ago, MrMenthe said:

They said that a game would take 3-6 turns.

With 40 cards in the deck it would take 6 to 7 cards draw per turn (minimum). I find it pretty unlikely.

But we'll see.

Just because something isn't likely to happen often doesn't mean that it won't or can't happen. It'd still be good to know what the rules say happen.