Could someone with some experience in game design or in the old l5r explain to me the design significance of the term "Max 1 per conflict", as found on cards like Banzai! and Fallen In Battle? My assumption is that it means the user can only use one copy of that exact card per conflict, and it doesn't stop the opponent from playing it.

In the short term, I could see that having an impact on gameplay in that it limits your ability to use a certain effect multiple times, but eventually won't there be many in-battle pumps that you can insert 1ofs instead of extra copies of Banzai? And similarly, I doubt they will never again print a card that roughly fills the role of Fallen In Battle.

So it would seem that either I'm reading it wrong and it actually does something else (maybe you can only play 1 "max 1 per conflict" card of any kind, or maybe it stops your opponent from playing the same card) or that it creates a design space where creating very similar cards with different names will actually increase their effective power. Any help?

Quote

Limits and Maxima
“Limit X per [period]” is a limit that appears on cards that remain in play through the resolution of an ability’s effect. Each copy of an ability with such a limit may be used X times during the designated period. If a card leaves play and re-enters play during the same period, the card is considered to be bringing a new copy of the ability to the game.
“Limit X copies per [card/game element]” is a limit that appears on attachment cards, and restricts the number of copies of that card (by title) that can be attached to each designated card or game element.
“Max X per [period]” is a maximum that appears on cards that do not enter or remain in play through the resolution of their effect. (An event card, for example.) Such a phrase imposes a maximum number of times that ability can be initiated from all copies (by title) of cards bearing the ability (including itself), during the designated period. Initiating an ability on a card counts towards the maximum for all copies of that card.
• All limits and maxima are player specific.
• If the effects of a card or ability with a limit or a maximum are canceled, it is still counted against the limit/maximum.

This is how limits and maxima work in AGoT 2nd edition. If L5R uses these rules, playing Banzai! during a conflict would prevent you (but not your opponent) from playing another copy of Banzai! during the same conflict, and it wouldn't prevent you from playing Fallen in Battle.

Even in the long term, I doubt that FFG is likely to print cards too similar to ones in the core set, which are legal forever. There may be some that perform a similar function but have a different cost (bowing a character vs paying fate, for instance), or one that is a little better but exclusive to a specific clan (probably a clan that wouldn't likely be playing the original card normally), but I certainly hope they don't print flat-out upgrades or replacements that are legal at the same time as the original card, like AEG did at times (Spirits Essence Dojo vs Small Library or Archer's Position vs Higher Ground, for instance).

In A Game of Thrones, this limitation was put on particularly powerful effects, in order to limit how many times a person can trigger them.

For example, there was a card, Tears of Lys, that killed a character after you won an intrigue challenge. This was limit one per challenge because if you were able to kill, say, 3 characters after winning one challenge, it would be incredibly difficult to balance. By limiting the effect to once per challenge, it basically limited it to once per round, unless you had a special card that allowed to initiate a second challenge of that type in the same turn.

Fallen in Battle is a re-skin of a card in Game of Thrones called Put to the Sword that was also limit once per challenge for the same reason.

Multiple cards with "Max once per conflict" do not interact with each other, so if you have two cards that say max once per conflict, you can still play both of them in the same conflict.

In this game, it will almost certainly work the same. It is a limit on the person playing it, not the challenge itself. It is done to allow powerful effects, such as increasing the strength of a character by up to 4 strength, without allowing you to play 3 of them in one turn, and making a conflict unwinnable for your opponent.

48 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Spirits Essence Dojo vs Small Library

vs Famous Bazaar

Being on different cost, gold production, rarity and containing various keywords make them completely different cards made for concrete tasks. Also none of them share same expansion or (sometimes even edition), because rotation also affects card design in ccgs.

48 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Archer's Position vs Higher Ground, for instance.

Yeah, this is an example of lazy design, but both cards were meant to exist in same edition only for 6 months.

Anyway, FFG tries to not duplicate cards within one game because of this whole "eternal" legality (but from to time uses nearly identical designs from other games).

Yes, I believe it means YOU may play max of 1 per conflict. I'd think you may also play other "max 1 per conflict" cards in that conflict.

There's already a "once per turn" keyword in the form of "Limited".

5 hours ago, kempy said:

vs Famous Bazaar

Being on different cost, gold production, rarity and containing various keywords make them completely different cards made for concrete tasks. Also none of them share same expansion or (sometimes even edition), because rotation also affects card design in ccgs.

Hence why I compared the two I did rather than Famous Bazaar. SED and SL were both commons that were legal through Onyx and produced 3 gold. The only difference being that SED cost one less (3 vs 4) and was a Dojo rather than a Library. Seeing how few things triggered off the Library keyword, that doesn't really seem like a justifiable trade-off to me. It was essentially a straight upgrade for the vast majority of decks using the card, and I sincerely hope FFG doesn't go down that same route.

8 hours ago, JJ48 said:

Hence why I compared the two I did rather than Famous Bazaar. SED and SL were both commons that were legal through Onyx and produced 3 gold. The only difference being that SED cost one less (3 vs 4) and was a Dojo rather than a Library. Seeing how few things triggered off the Library keyword, that doesn't really seem like a justifiable trade-off to me. It was essentially a straight upgrade for the vast majority of decks using the card, and I sincerely hope FFG doesn't go down that same route.

There was Library/Kharmic/Refill gold scheme to be developed later and it was one of it's puzzles.

There were something like 5 Library Holdings in EP alone, last official expansion released after sell.