40 minutes ago, Joe From Cincinnati said:

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.

That's the gist of it.

29 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

That's the gist of it.

One of my biggest annoyances with A Game of Thrones is how bad it feels being first player. It nearly ruined the game for me until I found a faction that could circumvent what I perceived to be the worst part of the game.

I know you can't relate to that, but that's why I feel the way I do.

14 hours ago, Mirith said:

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

I loved old Lotus edition FORCE dueling!

11 minutes ago, Joe From Cincinnati said:

One of my biggest annoyances with A Game of Thrones is how bad it feels being first player.

Isn't this rather circumstancial. Against some decks I want to go first, against other's I prefer to go second. Since you often don't lose anything by attacking you often can make your opponent overextend against a 1/2 Strength attack. Especially if you still got gold or other tricks on the board.

6 minutes ago, Mig el Pig said:

Isn't this rather circumstancial. Against some decks I want to go first, against other's I prefer to go second. Since you often don't lose anything by attacking you often can make your opponent overextend against a 1/2 Strength attack. Especially if you still got gold or other tricks on the board.

I've played A Game of Thrones for a long time. I almost never want to go first. Unless I can win that round. The problem with going first is, unless you have some very specific cards that will ruin your opponent's board (like a Put to the Sword or other strong kill effects) I will be able to get a larger return from my challenges once you're done.

I don't know your experience level in Thrones and it'd be too hard to go into all the details here, especially since this isn't even a Game of Thrones message board but, based on my own feelings and discussions I've had with other Game of Thrones players, the general attitude about going second is "I generally want to go second except in certain circumstances, such as being able to win before my opponent can counter attack."

14 minutes ago, Joe From Cincinnati said:

I don't know your experience level in Thrones and it'd be too hard to go into all the details here, especially since this isn't even a Game of Thrones message board but, based on my own feelings and discussions I've had with other Game of Thrones players, the general attitude about going second is "I generally want to go second except in certain circumstances, such as being able to win before my opponent can counter attack."

Started playing the LCG about 3/5 months before the release of the Greyjoy set. But I mainly played casual and multiplayer (where title selection can also be an additonal incentive) so my mileage varies.

I don't think the, perceived, problem will be so severe in this game though.

1) Possible fate advantage for the first player

2) First pick for the element.

3) Back and Forth mechanic.

15 hours 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.

Cavalry were really frustrating in the CCG but I think they'll probably be much better this time around, even if they get a lot of the same tricks. In the CCG, you had multiple provinces you had to potentially defend, and not having presence at a province prevented you from playing most of your actions. In the LCG, movement will only be in and out of battle, not between provinces, and it seems like more actions will be available even without defenders. I still expect Unicorn to have quite a bit of fun maneuvering, but it shouldn't be as frustrating to play against as it once was.

10 hours ago, Reiga said:

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.

I'm thinking Unicorn are going to be one of the more complex clans to play. I think they'll have a lot of movement and turn order tricks, but the tricks won't really work too well unless you know what you're doing and make the most of the opportunities. That is, a lot of their cards probably won't give you a ton of benefit on their own, but will set up other cards to be played.

1 hour ago, Joe From Cincinnati said:

One of my biggest annoyances with A Game of Thrones is how bad it feels being first player. It nearly ruined the game for me until I found a faction that could circumvent what I perceived to be the worst part of the game.

I know you can't relate to that, but that's why I feel the way I do.

That was one of my big complaints in L5R during Ivory/20F. With certain clans, going first lost you a considerable advantage.

4 hours ago, Joe From Cincinnati said:

One of my biggest annoyances with A Game of Thrones is how bad it feels being first player. It nearly ruined the game for me until I found a faction that could circumvent what I perceived to be the worst part of the game.

I know you can't relate to that, but that's why I feel the way I do.

Of course I can relate. While I can't draw the same comparisons from AGOT I've certainly had my fair share of negative experiences with a variety of card games in the past 2+ decades that have left me biased towards game mechanics, rules, art etc.

It's a completely understandable reaction based on your past experience. AGOT is after all a FFG game and we have already seen some similarities. So I think your concerns and analysis are quite relevant.

What I think will save L5R from falling into the same trap as what you describe in AGOT is that board states are largely temporary and should be changing rather regularly in L5R. Turn to turn there should be more swings in board state so players will see the first player priority change but the board may not be in a state that is beneficial for them to be first or second.

You can't always count on your characters being around when you want them to be so their will need to be much more planning. Going all in on fate advantage and constantly keeping the first player token would be rather foolish, as you suggest. I see it being much more about timing and I wouldn't be surprised to see a sequence where a player (probably Unicorn) spiked +4 to +7 fate over a 2-3 Turn exchange and put themselves in a great position to win, if they did it at the right time and correctly anticipated the future board state.

Splashing Breakthrough might be enough for another clan to mimic this a lesser degree, but, Way of the Unicorn is what puts it over the top, imo, and I get the impression that card will not be splashable.

6 hours ago, Ishi Tonu said:

Of course I can relate. While I can't draw the same comparisons from AGOT I've certainly had my fair share of negative experiences with a variety of card games in the past 2+ decades that have left me biased towards game mechanics, rules, art etc.

It's a completely understandable reaction based on your past experience. AGOT is after all a FFG game and we have already seen some similarities. So I think your concerns and analysis are quite relevant.

What I think will save L5R from falling into the same trap as what you describe in AGOT is that board states are largely temporary and should be changing rather regularly in L5R. Turn to turn there should be more swings in board state so players will see the first player priority change but the board may not be in a state that is beneficial for them to be first or second.

You can't always count on your characters being around when you want them to be so their will need to be much more planning. Going all in on fate advantage and constantly keeping the first player token would be rather foolish, as you suggest. I see it being much more about timing and I wouldn't be surprised to see a sequence where a player (probably Unicorn) spiked +4 to +7 fate over a 2-3 Turn exchange and put themselves in a great position to win, if they did it at the right time and correctly anticipated the future board state.

Splashing Breakthrough might be enough for another clan to mimic this a lesser degree, but, Way of the Unicorn is what puts it over the top, imo, and I get the impression that card will not be splashable.

Here's hoping. Considering roughly half of the game will be spent as first player, I really don't want to feel like it will always be a disadvantage. The fact that you go back and forth helps.

The thing I love about this game is how many moving parts are in the game. Decision points that define how the game will go.

But right now I really want to know what all the strongholds and Way of clan cards do. Those seem to be two of the major indications of what the designers intend each clan to do out of the core box :D.

15 hours ago, Joe From Cincinnati said:

Here's hoping. Considering roughly half of the game will be spent as first player, I really don't want to feel like it will always be a disadvantage. The fact that you go back and forth helps.

If going first is a disadvantage, why do the Unicorn cards want to keep the Unicorns going first?

3 minutes ago, Gaffa said:

If going first is a disadvantage, why do the Unicorn cards want to keep the Unicorns going first?

He's not saying it is. He's saying he hopes it won't be.

Traditionally the Unicorn Clan has been about everything but going first: seeing where the opponent is defending and then going somewhere else to attack.

As a long-time Netrunner player, since day 1, let's remember that right out of the gate NBN was seen as exceptionally weak. And as any player can tell you, since the first cycle, they've been the dominant force in driving the game. So however strong or weak any core set faction is, don't count on that lasting past a couple card packs.

On ‎5‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 0:42 PM, Ide Yoshiya said:

Traditionally the Unicorn Clan has been about everything but going first: seeing where the opponent is defending and then going somewhere else to attack.

The way Cavalry was handled in 'OldL5R' certainly worked thematically.

However, going first, and chaining two attacks in a row are also very thematically appropriate for the Unicorn. In many stories (from both the RPG and CCG), the 'Children of the Wind' were able to get to the strategically important places faster than anyone, and not just because they have the vast majority of genuinely good horses. They also used magic to speed up their travel at times. That, combined with the iconic 'cavalry charge', means that Unicorn having a theme "of hitting first, and then hitting first again" is a great fit.

Heck, Chags had an entire army teleport past the defenders in their path... meaning they got there, that's right kids, first.