3 hours ago, LordBlunt said:

Agreed.

Which allows me to believe that said mentioned Clans that mostly rely on either Military or Political conflicts as their forte might seriously be at a disadvantage versus the other Clans that have a more balanced Military/Political strengths. I am applying this belief to the Core set, not when some of the Dynasty packs get released further down the road.

I'm happy I ain't the only one thinking in this manner.

It could also be a case of "jack of all trades, master of none" isn't good enough in one to defend against a power in that one, and not good enough in the other to smash provinces. The balance may just serve to keep your provinces from being smashed sometimes, and not gain you much ground. The further reveal of cards will tell us.

57 minutes ago, Joe From Cincinnati said:

We will have to see how being first player works out. I could see it being an advantage, but it could also be a disadvantage in many cases. Being first player means you must initiate the first conflict (or pass and, presumably, give up a conflict that turn). That will allow your opponent to see what you're trying to do and defend (or not defend) accordingly, putting you in a position where you either did not commit enough to the conflict or committed way too much, wasting resources and opening yourself up to a particularly vicious counter attack.

Obviously, the other side of that coin is you get first dibs at ring choice, like you said. But with 5 options, it's not like there will be only one good thing to do in a round.

In a Game of Thrones, there are very specific times to go first. Those times are:

1. When you have an effect that will severely damage their board before they get the chance to attack (multiple kill effects or multiple kneel effects)

2. If you attack and win, you win the game before they get a chance to win.

3. You have cards that require you be first player in order to use them.

Outside of those conditions, it was almost always more beneficial to go second.

Different game, obviously, but I could see the thought process could be similar, especially now that FFG owns L5R and will likely print cards that are similar to those in A Game of Thrones.

I never played AGOT after FFG acquired them so I can't really draw any sort of comparison there. From what is known about L5R and the cards spoiled, in particular Way of the Unicorn, I could see there being an extended window of opportunity for Unicorn to leverage the advantage of the first player and inceased fate production.

I'm the early game where people are still feeling each other out and looking for opportunities to gain whatever advantages they can I see relatively little importance in going first, unless a clan has both cheap military and political characters and can swarm efficiently enough to threaten a quick win by province destruction.

As the game goes on going first seems to be more important as it gives the first player the ability to dictate so many things. If a player is playing from an advantage of fate as well, it forces certain responses from the player who goes second. To be able to retain the advantage of both those things could present the problem of the game snowballing in favor of one player, which, the design is not meant to do, so I question the games ability to level things out if a scenario like this comes up.

Let's say player one is Dragon and player two is Unicorn. Dragon goes first. Both players play some stuff but Unicorn passed first in the dynasty phase and earned that extra fate. Turn one comes to a close and we proceed to turn 2. Unicorn is up 1 fate and buys characters first. Dragon is now in a position of potentially being attacked in both political and military conflicts so they have to keep up with character purchases which allows Unicorn to pass dynasty first and again earn the extra fate. Then Unicorn attacks first and chooses the Ring with the extra fate......a total of +3 to fate so far. Regardless of the outcome, Unicorn plays Way of the Unicorn, keeping first player. By the time the 3rd conflict phase rolls around that fate advantage could be +5 for the Unicorn. That seems like a big deal. Especially when we see cards like Breakthrough to allow that first player to push that fate advantage further.

Still a lot to be revealed yet but this would be my guess as to starting clan strength based on what is known . I don't see any other clan with this potential advantage so I have to pick Unicorn as top clan until I know more.

26 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

I never played AGOT after FFG acquired them so I can't really draw any sort of comparison there. From what is known about L5R and the cards spoiled, in particular Way of the Unicorn, I could see there being an extended window of opportunity for Unicorn to leverage the advantage of the first player and inceased fate production.

I'm the early game where people are still feeling each other out and looking for opportunities to gain whatever advantages they can I see relatively little importance in going first, unless a clan has both cheap military and political characters and can swarm efficiently enough to threaten a quick win by province destruction.

As the game goes on going first seems to be more important as it gives the first player the ability to dictate so many things. If a player is playing from an advantage of fate as well, it forces certain responses from the player who goes second. To be able to retain the advantage of both those things could present the problem of the game snowballing in favor of one player, which, the design is not meant to do, so I question the games ability to level things out if a scenario like this comes up.

Let's say player one is Dragon and player two is Unicorn. Dragon goes first. Both players play some stuff but Unicorn passed first in the dynasty phase and earned that extra fate. Turn one comes to a close and we proceed to turn 2. Unicorn is up 1 fate and buys characters first. Dragon is now in a position of potentially being attacked in both political and military conflicts so they have to keep up with character purchases which allows Unicorn to pass dynasty first and again earn the extra fate. Then Unicorn attacks first and chooses the Ring with the extra fate......a total of +3 to fate so far. Regardless of the outcome, Unicorn plays Way of the Unicorn, keeping first player. By the time the 3rd conflict phase rolls around that fate advantage could be +5 for the Unicorn. That seems like a big deal. Especially when we see cards like Breakthrough to allow that first player to push that fate advantage further.

Still a lot to be revealed yet but this would be my guess as to starting clan strength based on what is known . I don't see any other clan with this potential advantage so I have to pick Unicorn as too clan until I know more.

If your only goal in the game is chasing fate, then going first may be an advantage but in your example, you kept skipping the conflict step, which is where I think being first player will be a major weakness. It'll all depend on play styles of course but if I'm using more dynasty actions, thus giving the unicorn player the additional fate, then I am, presumably, getting more characters. That makes my ability to attack and defend even greater and, in addition, I get to see how your first conflict unfolds before I decide how I am going to assign my characters. Fate advantage will be an important consideration during the game, but I don't think it will be an end all be all. Especially if I'm gaining that fate advantage at the expense of card advantage (playing Way of the Unicorn and Breakthrough from my hand), board position (fewer dynasty actions means fewer characters), conflict strength (If I'm spending card slots on out of conflict actions like Way of the Unicorn and Breakthrough, that is fewer Banzais, kneel effects, kill effects and other challenge manipulation conflict cards that will help me win conflicts and push my fate advantage) and knowledge of my opponent's board and decisions, allowing them to react to me rather than the other way around.

If First player ends up being worth all that you sacrifice to get that benefit, then Unicorn will be a good clan to splash into your deck. My concern, however, is that going first will be a "noob trap," like it was in A Game of Thrones. They too had a faction that was all about going first (Greyjoy). They were really good for the first few months, but once people learned how to play around it, those decks literally set themselves up to lose because they were investing so much of their 'economy' (Card advantage, card slots and gold) into doing something that was allowing their opponent to attack back and get 2 to 3 unopposed challenges, which exceeded the benefits they gained from going first.

1 hour ago, Joe From Cincinnati said:

If your only goal in the game is chasing fate, then going first may be an advantage but in your example, you kept skipping the conflict step, which is where I think being first player will be a major weakness. It'll all depend on play styles of course but if I'm using more dynasty actions, thus giving the unicorn player the additional fate, then I am, presumably, getting more characters. That makes my ability to attack and defend even greater and, in addition, I get to see how your first conflict unfolds before I decide how I am going to assign my characters. Fate advantage will be an important consideration during the game, but I don't think it will be an end all be all. Especially if I'm gaining that fate advantage at the expense of card advantage (playing Way of the Unicorn and Breakthrough from my hand), board position (fewer dynasty actions means fewer characters), conflict strength (If I'm spending card slots on out of conflict actions like Way of the Unicorn and Breakthrough, that is fewer Banzais, kneel effects, kill effects and other challenge manipulation conflict cards that will help me win conflicts and push my fate advantage) and knowledge of my opponent's board and decisions, allowing them to react to me rather than the other way around.

If First player ends up being worth all that you sacrifice to get that benefit, then Unicorn will be a good clan to splash into your deck. My concern, however, is that going first will be a "noob trap," like it was in A Game of Thrones. They too had a faction that was all about going first (Greyjoy). They were really good for the first few months, but once people learned how to play around it, those decks literally set themselves up to lose because they were investing so much of their 'economy' (Card advantage, card slots and gold) into doing something that was allowing their opponent to attack back and get 2 to 3 unopposed challenges, which exceeded the benefits they gained from going first.

I'm skipping the majority of the conflict step as the possible outcomes are infinite and ulimately pointless to argue. What is factual is that the first player has not only the first opportunity to pass the dynasty phase but also to declare the first attack and choice of ring. This puts them at a potentially significant fate advantage.

I'm not sure how you get the impression that the person with more fate would have less board presence and fewer card options than someone with less fate. I think that drawing comparisons to how AGOT values prority is a mistake. As far as I know characters in AGOT don't just go away after a certain period of time. Please correct me if I'm wrong aboutt this.

In L5R fate not only lets you but more stuff but also determined how long your stuff stays around. This created more advantageous opportunities for the player that can gain a significant fate advantage......so when the time comes where going first is advantageous, they can make the most of it. Splashing Unicorn may not be an option. I don't see any bamboo pips on any of the 'Way of' cards and as others with Netrunner expeience have pointed out this could mean it's not able to be used out of clan. Time will tell if this is a Unicorn thing only or not, but, I believe the advantage if going first and retaining that priority at the right time has been adequately demonstrated.

1 hour ago, Joe From Cincinnati said:

If your only goal in the game is chasing fate, then going first may be an advantage but in your example, you kept skipping the conflict step, which is where I think being first player will be a major weakness.

If Unicorn is as mobile as I hope, it might be possible to seriously under commit attackers in the first conflict. Imagine that I declare a conflict and then commit no attackers because I plan on (or just simply threaten) moving them into the battle. How does one defend? It is many uninformed choices for an opponent. If they commit no units, I could just move in guy and take an unopposed province. If they defend with one unit, do they suspect that I might play that Crane card that bows lone defenders before moving in my army? If they defend with more than one unit, could I just call it a day because I'm bowing so many of their people and pick things up next conflict?

I really hope Unicorn is this tricksy. It feels right.

5 minutes ago, Iuchi Toshimo said:

If Unicorn is as mobile as I hope, it might be possible to seriously under commit attackers in the first conflict. Imagine that I declare a conflict and then commit no attackers because I plan on (or just simply threaten) moving them into the battle. How does one defend? It is many uninformed choices for an opponent. If they commit no units, I could just move in guy and take an unopposed province. If they defend with one unit, do they suspect that I might play that Crane card that bows lone defenders before moving in my army? If they defend with more than one unit, could I just call it a day because I'm bowing so many of their people and pick things up next conflict?

I really hope Unicorn is this tricksy. It feels right.

You may still have to commit a unit, but I want Unicorn to do this.

37 minutes ago, Iuchi Toshimo said:

If Unicorn is as mobile as I hope, it might be possible to seriously under commit attackers in the first conflict. Imagine that I declare a conflict and then commit no attackers because I plan on (or just simply threaten) moving them into the battle. How does one defend? It is many uninformed choices for an opponent. If they commit no units, I could just move in guy and take an unopposed province. If they defend with one unit, do they suspect that I might play that Crane card that bows lone defenders before moving in my army? If they defend with more than one unit, could I just call it a day because I'm bowing so many of their people and pick things up next conflict?

I really hope Unicorn is this tricksy. It feels right.

31 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

You may still have to commit a unit, but I want Unicorn to do this.

You know, this is why the cavalry keyword in the CCG was so controversial. Shenanigans like this. It was fun for you, but a lot of people really hated it when on the receiving end.

1 hour ago, Iuchi Toshimo said:

If Unicorn is as mobile as I hope, it might be possible to seriously under commit attackers in the first conflict. Imagine that I declare a conflict and then commit no attackers because I plan on (or just simply threaten) moving them into the battle. How does one defend? It is many uninformed choices for an opponent. If they commit no units, I could just move in guy and take an unopposed province. If they defend with one unit, do they suspect that I might play that Crane card that bows lone defenders before moving in my army? If they defend with more than one unit, could I just call it a day because I'm bowing so many of their people and pick things up next conflict?

I really hope Unicorn is this tricksy. It feels right.

Shinjo Outrider seems to suggest Unicorn will have some way to move into battles but I'm pretty sure it was mentioned you had to declare an attacker when commiting to a conflict. You can still undercommit and move in/out but I don't think you can declare an attack with no characters. I could be wrong about that.

I'm pretty sure one of FFG's goals was to promote interaction and allowing someone to declare attacks without assigning anyone promotes the opposite of that.

Phoenix looks like it'll either be mind-bendingly excellent or an absolute dumpster fire...

So, you know, business as usual for us...

5 minutes ago, Mirith said:

You know, this is why the cavalry keyword in the CCG was so controversial. Shenanigans like this. It was fun for you, but a lot of people really hated it when on the receiving end.

I'm just speculating and trying to find ways to leverage advantage out of known cards. Currently: Breakthrough, the expensive Moto, and the 2PS province that only activates on reveal, are seriously somewhere between "meh" and "binder fodder." We are debating whether Unicorn's "Way of" is also "meh." I am trying to find another bright side to going first.

I certainly don't want my clan to be "meh." I wish you had had a better experience playing against Unicorn. My proposed scenario is very much a product of my previous experience playing as them. I understand the complaints and could proselytize about ye olde Cavalry strategies and counterstrategies for days except it no longer matters.

(Yes, that Shinjo Outrider does looks fantastic. More of that, please.)

19 minutes ago, Mirith said:

You know, this is why the cavalry keyword in the CCG was so controversial. Shenanigans like this. It was fun for you, but a lot of people really hated it when on the receiving end.

This!

I can count on 1 hand the number of times that this type of play was "fun" for an opponent playing against it.

No need to give examples on my part.

3 minutes ago, Iuchi Toshimo said:

I'm just speculating and trying to find ways to leverage advantage out of known cards. Currently: Breakthrough, the expensive Moto, and the 2PS province that only activates on reveal, are seriously somewhere between "meh" and "binder fodder." We are debating whether Unicorn's "Way of" is also "meh." I am trying to find another bright side to going first.

I certainly don't want my clan to be "meh." I wish you had had a better experience playing against Unicorn. My proposed scenario is very much a product of my previous experience playing as them. I understand the complaints and could proselytize about ye olde Cavalry strategies and counterstrategies for days except it no longer matters.

(Yes, that Shinjo Outrider does looks fantastic. More of that, please.)

I accepted it more than most, but before you go too far down that line, just wanted to point out that I'm pretty sure FFG took into consideration what people considered annoying from that. I think you will probably get more movement tricks than anyone else, and you should. I just wanted to warn you before a flame war started against you.

Or we could bring up old CCG Dueling. Everyone loves dueling! Don't you love dueling?

2 hours ago, Ishi Tonu said:

Shinjo Outrider seems to suggest Unicorn will have some way to move into battles but I'm pretty sure it was mentioned you had to declare an attacker when commiting to a conflict. You can still undercommit and move in/out but I don't think you can declare an attack with no characters. I could be wrong about that.

I'm pretty sure one of FFG's goals was to promote interaction and allowing someone to declare attacks without assigning anyone promotes the opposite of that.

Perhaps "chump attack" will join the card-gaming jargon that includes "chump block." Declare a chud as an attacker so that you can force your opponent to overcommit against your mobile army.

Clan starting strength will likely depend on a four factors: the clan stronghold, the dynasty card pool, how viable non-conquest victories paths are, and the splashable conflict cards. I didn't put the conflict card pool because if the dynasty card pool for a faction isn't there, I doubt the conflict card pool will even it out (pending on Scorpion )

We'll find out how good the overall Crane clan faction is on Wednesday, but the clan does have some decent personalities (both military and political).

4 hours ago, Ishi Tonu said:

I'm skipping the majority of the conflict step as the possible outcomes are infinite and ulimately pointless to argue. What is factual is that the first player has not only the first opportunity to pass the dynasty phase but also to declare the first attack and choice of ring. This puts them at a potentially significant fate advantage.

I'm not sure how you get the impression that the person with more fate would have less board presence and fewer card options than someone with less fate. I think that drawing comparisons to how AGOT values prority is a mistake. As far as I know characters in AGOT don't just go away after a certain period of time. Please correct me if I'm wrong aboutt this.

In L5R fate not only lets you but more stuff but also determined how long your stuff stays around. This created more advantageous opportunities for the player that can gain a significant fate advantage......so when the time comes where going first is advantageous, they can make the most of it. Splashing Unicorn may not be an option. I don't see any bamboo pips on any of the 'Way of' cards and as others with Netrunner expeience have pointed out this could mean it's not able to be used out of clan. Time will tell if this is a Unicorn thing only or not, but, I believe the advantage if going first and retaining that priority at the right time has been adequately demonstrated.

The possibly outcomes aren't infinite and I've already given multiple non pointless examples that could be discussed.

My point about having less board presence is, if you're prematurely ending your dynasty phase to ensure you get the additional fate, then you're probably playing fewer characters. Those characters may have more fate on them, but you still have potentially fewer characters overall. Say, you buy a character for 2 and then put 2 fate on them. Your opponent buys a 1 cost character with 1 fate. You buy a 1 cost character with 2 fate on them. They buy a 2 cost character with 2 fate on them. You pass to gain the additional fate. Well, now that they aren't racing you for the additional fate, they have the option to purchase a third character. Maybe a 0 or 1 cost character with 0 fate. Gaining board presence.

It won't always work out that way, obviously, but it's a possibility if you're consistently cutting your dynasty phase short to gain an additional fate

You're not wrong in that there's no Mono No Aware in Thrones.

And I'm not denying the value of fate. I'm just saying 1 to 2 additional fate at the cost of 1 to 2 cards doesn't sound like a good deal to me. Plus what I think will turn out to be a larger-than-you-expect weaknesss of going first in having to declare conflicts before your opponent. We'll see how it shakes out. Hopefully they program enough benefit into the game for going first as a way to help with the major disadvantage it causes.

3 hours ago, Iuchi Toshimo said:

If Unicorn is as mobile as I hope, it might be possible to seriously under commit attackers in the first conflict. Imagine that I declare a conflict and then commit no attackers because I plan on (or just simply threaten) moving them into the battle. How does one defend? It is many uninformed choices for an opponent. If they commit no units, I could just move in guy and take an unopposed province. If they defend with one unit, do they suspect that I might play that Crane card that bows lone defenders before moving in my army? If they defend with more than one unit, could I just call it a day because I'm bowing so many of their people and pick things up next conflict?

I really hope Unicorn is this tricksy. It feels right.

Now this is an argument that I can see as a specific way of making Unicorn very good at going first. It'll be interesting to see if you'll be allowed to declare an attack with no attackers. My guy tells me that you probably can't, based on other FFG games I've played, but maybe they make an exception since cavalry was such an important core mechanic for Unicorn in the CCG.

If I remember correctly, in the CCG, defenders didn't bow after resolution of a battle. They just stayed at the battlefield after resolution, allowing you to use those personalities during your turn, as they will remain unbowed for your attack phase. Correct me if I'm misremembering this.

So over committing on defense wasn't really a bad thing, especially if you expected to win.

I wonder how they'll handle movement in and out of battle as an attacker now that defenders bow.

Unicorn has the potential to be extremely powerful if they are able to exploit the fact that defenders bow after resolution in this game, potentially stripping the defender of the ability to assess their opponent's capabilities.

7 hours ago, HidaYama said:

It could also be a case of "jack of all trades, master of none" isn't good enough in one to defend against a power in that one, and not good enough in the other to smash provinces. The balance may just serve to keep your provinces from being smashed sometimes, and not gain you much ground. The further reveal of cards will tell us.

The important thing to bear in mind, though, is that there are three possible outcomes to a conflict: The defender claims the ring, the attacker claims the ring, and the attacker both claims the ring and breaks the province. Thus, the jack-of-all-trades can still benefit from generalizing without being overpowered.

Hypothetically, for instance, let's say that the Lion ends up with a Military focus, the Scorpion ends up with a Political focus, and the Dragon ends up supporting both equally. You'd expect, then, that a Lion/Scorpion matchup would end up with the Lions winning Military conflicts, the Scorpions winning Political conflicts, and both sides consistently breaking each other's provinces when they attack. A Scorpion defending against a Lion's armies wouldn't usually expect to win the ring, but they might be able to save the province, putting them one step ahead in the race to break the Stronghold.

By contrast, in a Lion/Dragon matchup, you'd still expect the Lions to win the Military conflicts while Dragons win Political ones, but they won't be breaking provinces as regularly. A Dragon defending against Lion armies might even be able to claim the ring occasionally (they won't trigger its effect, of course, but it could be handy for their arcane ring-based shenanigans).

@Joe From Cincinnati

Normally at this point I would just let this go as you've effectively illustrated my point about dealing in hypothetical and why it's a pointless exercise, however I feel that this is important enough to at least make one final attempt for you to understand me, as it's clear you do not.

If we are to argue with hypothetical then your example only goes far enough to support your opinion, which hypothetical arguments tend to do, without even addressing some important information. For example how many turns have I been able to retain the first player priority? What characters do we each have in play? What are out starting fate totals? Do I have any characters in my conflict hand to ambush with? Etc. Which is why I'm keeping my opinion to one that is only based on things we know to be facts.

It is factual that the player that passes first in the dynasty phase gains 1 extra fate. It is also a fact that the player who declares the first attack has the first option of declaring which ring will be contested and selecting a ring with fate on it, the attacking player gains the fate when the attack is declared. The player that has priority has the the first option to do both of these things, period. Additionally of the cards revealed, the Unicorn has the only cards available to manipulate the first player status. These are the factual reasons for my comment.

What happens in a game between the beginning of the dynasty phase and the end of the conflict phase is too varied from one turn to the next, and we know to few of the cards to try to argue hypotheticals. I'm not suggesting that a player end their dynasty early or only go after rings with fate on them. I'm not arguing that going first is better, only that we know this game will be about capatilizing in opportunities and Unicorn's ability to manipulate the first person priority can be turned into a significant fate advantage should the right opportunity present itself.

Hopefully this is more clear, but, if not I'd love.to see your response so you don't feel.cheated about getting the last word and we can take it to pm's.

I just hope they don't make the Unicorn a one trick pony *pun drums* concerning the First Player token. I agree going first, and manipulating First Player, can be an advantage but I also challenge the fact that it's a universal advantage.

If I'm second player and I see you're playing the Fate game I'll either a) establish presence and/or b) deny fate grabs via rings by grabbing fated rings myself - this is all a hypothetical vacuum and I agree trying to discuss with cards we know is irrelevant but I think it's safe to say there's ways to play around First Player token manipulation or Fate grabs.

Where I can see Unicorn truly excelling, and being very annoying tactical is in their targeted Breakthroughs and Way of the Unicorn play in conjunction with sound resource and board management. That's what I'd like to see out of Unicorn as a theme, rather than all-in on "HORSES R 2 FAST" strategies that lead to gimmicky play.

12 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

@Joe From Cincinnati

Normally at this point I would just let this go as you've effectively illustrated my point about dealing in hypothetical and why it's a pointless exercise, however I feel that this is important enough to at least make one final attempt for you to understand me, as it's clear you do not.

If we are to argue with hypothetical then your example only goes far enough to support your opinion, which hypothetical arguments tend to do, without even addressing some important information. For example how many turns have I been able to retain the first player priority? What characters do we each have in play? What are out starting fate totals? Do I have any characters in my conflict hand to ambush with? Etc. Which is why I'm keeping my opinion to one that is only based on things we know to be facts.

It is factual that the player that passes first in the dynasty phase gains 1 extra fate. It is also a fact that the player who declares the first attack has the first option of declaring which ring will be contested and selecting a ring with fate on it, the attacking player gains the fate when the attack is declared. The player that has priority has the the first option to do both of these things, period. Additionally of the cards revealed, the Unicorn has the only cards available to manipulate the first player status. These are the factual reasons for my comment.

What happens in a game between the beginning of the dynasty phase and the end of the conflict phase is too varied from one turn to the next, and we know to few of the cards to try to argue hypotheticals. I'm not suggesting that a player end their dynasty early or only go after rings with fate on them. I'm not arguing that going first is better, only that we know this game will be about capatilizing in opportunities and Unicorn's ability to manipulate the first person priority can be turned into a significant fate advantage should the right opportunity present itself.

Hopefully this is more clear, but, if not I'd love.to see your response so you don't feel.cheated about getting the last word and we can take it to pm's.

I can't argue with the facts. Those are the factual options for the first player to take, whether they choose to or not. And those options, if chosen, result in a bit more fate.

I think we're saying similar things here. You're saying that you speculate the advantages gained by going first outweigh the disadvantages. I'm speculating the opposite, but we're both leaving it open ended intentionally as there is still a lot about the game that we don't know.

You mistook my disagreement as lack of understanding and I think that's the big disconnect here. I'm sorry you took this conversation as an affront to your opinion. I've maintained that you may be right and that fate advantage may overcome the disadvantage of having to declare your first conflict before your opponent. It'll all depend on what we see going forward.

A last word or feeling cheated and all that isn't necessary. I'm just sharing ideas with you. That's the point of a message board, after all :).

12 minutes ago, Joe From Cincinnati said:

You're saying that you speculate the advantages gained by going first outweigh the disadvantages. I'm speculating the opposite.......

Sorry but still no. I actually clarified my stance in my last post. You even quoted it. I don't take your opinion as an affront to mine as you clearly don't know what my opinion is. I don't mind sharing of ideas but that's not what's going on. You're arguing against a stance I haven't taken. It is somewhat frustrating and clearly not worth pursuing further, so I'll just move on and look forward to our next interaction being more successful.

Sincere apologies to you and anyone else that got sucked into this.

4 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

Sorry but still no. I actually clarified my stance in my last post. You even quoted it. I don't take your opinion as an affront to mine as you clearly don't know what my opinion is. I don't mind sharing of ideas but that's not what's going on. You're arguing against a stance I haven't taken. It is somewhat frustrating and clearly not worth pursuing further, so I'll just move on and look forward to our next interaction being more successful.

Sincere apologies to you and anyone else that got sucked into this.

The first sentence of your first post:

"Without seeing everything, I speculate that Unicorn might have an early edge against the rest of the clans. "

Shown above: You clearly taking a stance, albeit an apprehensive one, about whether being first player will be an advantage or not.

I left that out of my response because I was trying to reach common ground with you, but it has become apparent that you're just a rude person haha. Noted for future interactions.

45 minutes ago, Reiga said:

I agree going first, and manipulating First Player, can be an advantage but I also challenge the fact that it's a universal advantage.

I agree with this part too. If only there were a clan that had the ability to leverage the advantages of being the first player, at the right time. I would certainly consider that clan to have a slight advantage over the rest of the clans, because of the fate advantage that can be leveraged from going first, at the right time.

42 minutes ago, Joe From Cincinnati said:

The first sentence of your first post:

"Without seeing everything, I speculate that Unicorn might have an early edge against the rest of the clans. "

Shown above: You clearly taking a stance, albeit an apprehensive one, about whether being first player will be an advantage or not.

I left that out of my response because I was trying to reach common ground with you, but it has become apparent that you're just a rude person haha. Noted for future interactions.

Ahh so I see what happened. You read my first sentence and decided what my opinion was without reading the rest. My bad, I shouldn't have mentioned the process by which Unicorn could go about creating fate advantage and just said they have potential to gain more fate and that would be an advantage in this game...as that is what I have been getting at. I just felt it was important to explain how Unicorn could go about doing that. I thought supporting ones opinion with facts whenever possible was a good thing.

I have no clue if going fist is better than going second and hopefully I didn't give anyone the impression that I was asserting one was better than the other.....I don't remember posting that one was better than the other so I'm unclear how this topic got derailed. I was only pointing out that going first presents certain opportunities to leverage a fate advantage and we have been told fate production will be relatively flat in this game. This leads me to the conclusion that being able to generate more fate than your opponent is clearly advantageous and if a clan can do this somehow, they should have an edge over the other clans. I'll try to be more clear in the future.

Thank you for trying to reach a common ground with me, but, I would prefer that you read the entirety of my posts if you'd like to have a discussion about my opinion. I mean it is after all my opinion and if I say that I feel like you're not understanding and I make the attempt to clarify....and then you respond by incorrectly telling me what my opinion is, on more than one occasion, then I think it's understandable that I could be a little snarky? Maybe not. It's really not my style, but, we all have our bad moments. I apologize to you for my behavior and hope that this one small interaction is not what you base the entirety of your opinion of me on. However if you think I'm a big ol' jerkface then I won't hold it against you because I have had some bad moments in this thread, heck even in this post.

The table is yours.

7 hours ago, Ishi Tonu said:

Ahh so I see what happened. You read my first sentence and decided what my opinion was without reading the rest. My bad, I shouldn't have mentioned the process by which Unicorn could go about creating fate advantage and just said they have potential to gain more fate and that would be an advantage in this game...as that is what I have been getting at. I just felt it was important to explain how Unicorn could go about doing that. I thought supporting ones opinion with facts whenever possible was a good thing.

I have no clue if going fist is better than going second and hopefully I didn't give anyone the impression that I was asserting one was better than the other.....I don't remember posting that one was better than the other so I'm unclear how this topic got derailed. I was only pointing out that going first presents certain opportunities to leverage a fate advantage and we have been told fate production will be relatively flat in this game. This leads me to the conclusion that being able to generate more fate than your opponent is clearly advantageous and if a clan can do this somehow, they should have an edge over the other clans. I'll try to be more clear in the future.

Thank you for trying to reach a common ground with me, but, I would prefer that you read the entirety of my posts if you'd like to have a discussion about my opinion. I mean it is after all my opinion and if I say that I feel like you're not understanding and I make the attempt to clarify....and then you respond by incorrectly telling me what my opinion is, on more than one occasion, then I think it's understandable that I could be a little snarky? Maybe not. It's really not my style, but, we all have our bad moments. I apologize to you for my behavior and hope that this one small interaction is not what you base the entirety of your opinion of me on. However if you think I'm a big ol' jerkface then I won't hold it against you because I have had some bad moments in this thread, heck even in this post.

The table is yours.

The weakness of communication in text form is the inability to sense tone. Most of your words indicate that you understand why this miscommunication occurred, but then certain things, that when spoken may be jokey, make it seem like you're being entirely sarcastic.

As I can't tell, I'll assume the benign version.

If your only point was that Unicorn can, when they need to, choose to be first to take advantage of the additional fate (which could end up being significant if a ring has been neglected for several turns) available to the first player, then fine. I accept your point. It appears as though I extrapolated from your posts that you believe going first is an advantage when your only point was having the option to be first twice in a row may turn out to be an advantage sometimes, in the right situation.

Way of the <Clan> cards will all provide an advantage and it'll be interesting to see which ones are best at pushing your clan to victory.

Of course, that may not be your opinion either, at which point I give up in trying to understand what this conversation is about.

I don't know you so I don't think you should worry what my opinion of you is. We all have our moments, especially online. I'm sure I will also be an *** to someone on this forum for a perceived slight or miscommunication. It happens.

Success!

It was a long bumpy ride, but, we got there Joe. Thanks for hanging in there with me.