I feel like I'm an outlier on this one. I'm not trying to whinge or cry or anything else, we're all grown ups and dorks here... But yeah, seriously, the entire way Holdings work in this game feels like a trap to me. I feel like I'm missing something, and in practice the cards not revealed might be effective/more effective than I'm giving them credit for. We ARE missing a lot of info. But at this point I just don't think they're worth permanently losing production. Even if that 'production' is actually just effectively cycling through your deck for your best guys, cause unless I'm mistaken, but doesn't having a holding on a province mean they don't even get to fill up any more?

Yeah man, I am very seriously not on holdings unless I will be forced to cause of the limited number of cards early on.

How do you guys feel about them? Feel very free to point out how wrong I am, cause like I said, I feel like I'm missing something here lol

1) treat Holdings like L5R CCG Events (especialy Ivory+ ones, that could stay into Province until you discard them or launch)

2) you will be allowed to discard them at the end of the turn

3) if Province will be broken, all cards in it (including Holdings or any other face-up cards) have to be discarded at the end of turn till end of game.

I think that holdings are going to be more useful than people think at this stage... The fate system is going restrict the number of bodies bought in every turn and thus having an ability on a holding that costs little to nothing and stays around may be a far better option. It will depend on discard of holdings though...

I'm quite fine with them. The Phoenix, as yet un-named, one seems reasonable - Costs a Dynasty card each turn in exchange for a Conflict card each turn, and a Province Strength bonus. Staging Grounds for the Lion is actually the opposite of what you say, since it effectively gives you an extra Dynasty card (one less 'draw' at the start of the turn, but two extra ones later on).

I'd also point out that it's not permanent - you can discard any card on a province at the end of the turn, and this includes

Wait, I thought holdings work more like Regions or Fortifications, thus stay attached to the province but do not hinder the card flow through it. Where is that information coming from that they will block that province for other dynasty cards coming from?

38 minutes ago, Tonbo Karasu said:

I'm quite fine with them. The Phoenix, as yet un-named, one seems reasonable - Costs a Dynasty card each turn in exchange for a Conflict card each turn, and a Province Strength bonus. Staging Grounds for the Lion is actually the opposite of what you say, since it effectively gives you an extra Dynasty card (one less 'draw' at the start of the turn, but two extra ones later on).

I'd also point out that it's not permanent - you can discard any card on a province at the end of the turn, and this includes

Yeah, just after I wrote that I thought that Staging Grounds has struck me as particularly... Effective.

And put me in the mind thay maybe in order to be worth their cost in output they need to be dumb? I don't know. I'm glad to be seeing peoples perspectives on these though. But I feel like they're either not going to be worth playing unless the card is essentially powerful or a complete gimmick...

12 minutes ago, Daigotsu Steve said:

Yeah, just after I wrote that I thought that Staging Grounds has struck me as particularly... Effective.

And put me in the mind thay maybe in order to be worth their cost in output they need to be dumb? I don't know. I'm glad to be seeing peoples perspectives on these though. But I feel like they're either not going to be worth playing unless the card is essentially powerful or a complete gimmick...

From a flavor perspective, though, they help set the stage mentally, way more so than the Province cards, interestingly enough.

Also remember that with the new economy and the cost of Conflict cards to be taken into account, most clans probably won't be buying all four provinces most turns. Having one or two with holdings with decent abilities on them shouldn't hurt things too much.

Still don't know a whole lot about them, but the way I'm looking at them is another "free" character that will be good at both military and political conflicts. They may also help you predict where your opponent's next attack will be by creating a funnel where your opponent will most likely attack provinces that don't have holdings.

I could see my self thinking, after a botched battle, " I sure wish I had a holding right about now". I'd feel a whole lot more confident not using holdings if province strength was 6 plus, but we haven't seen more than 4 (?)yet.

I think ccg players may be comparing to much.... you tried to get early (old style) holdings for economy, but ended with a gold ramp, where you wanted to be able to bring in 4 characters a turn later. With the new fate system, I just don't see that happening consistently unless you start pooling fate... Added to which you can get characters from conflict deck... you don't need to have 4 characters every turn. Obviously you don't want to have none either, but that is just balancing characters to other stuff in dynasty deck like always had to be done. I don't see holdings as a 2 of, I can see good holdings been played at about an 1/4 of deck, 8-12 of. Oh and the fact that you don't 'lose' use of provinces when broken helps.

I think it will also help if some of them can affect neighboring provinces with their actions as well.

Note all abilities shown so far are not conflict at that province specific... no rules of presence/location, unless specified on card.

2 hours ago, Drudenfusz said:

Wait, I thought holdings work more like Regions or Fortifications, thus stay attached to the province but do not hinder the card flow through it. Where is that information coming from that they will block that province for other dynasty cards coming from?

IIRC some of the design members (don't remember which one now) confirmed it on the first video when interviewed by the Team Covenant.

24 minutes ago, HirumaShigure said:

Still don't know a whole lot about them, but the way I'm looking at them is another "free" character that will be good at both military and political conflicts. They may also help you predict where your opponent's next attack will be by creating a funnel where your opponent will most likely attack provinces that don't have holdings.

I could see my self thinking, after a botched battle, " I sure wish I had a holding right about now". I'd feel a whole lot more confident not using holdings if province strength was 6 plus, but we haven't seen more than 4 (?)yet.

Ancestral Lands has a +5

I am apprehensive about holdings, but there is still a lot we need to learn about the game before I can pass any informed judgment on their place in the game.

However, the change from Old5R of not needing to purchase holdings on your first 1 or 2 turns definitely makes the idea of new holdings a lot more appealing. I think it'll be relatively common to purchase just 2 characters on turn 1, in which case having one holding out in play isn't that big of a deal. In fact, having your non-purchased provinces doing work for you during the conflict phase is kind of the perfect scenario, if you ask me. A character that goes unpurchased during the conflict phase offers no benefit for that turn, as far as we know (unless there are characters that can come into play from the provinces, like Akodo Ashiko)

My instinct tells me that your ideal turn 1 province set will be 2 to 3 low cost characters and a holding. That way, you can buy 2 of the low cost characters that will help you execute what you want to during this turn, save a little fate for the following turn and have a holding available to do whatever you need it to do. This goes doubly for Crab, who I suspect I'll play based on the limited previews we've gotten (Night's Watch player in AGoT :D)

My concern lies in the balance of the dynasty deck. If you include enough holdings to consistently have a holding out on turn 1, there's a relatively good chance of you having 2 holdings on turn 1, which will basically mean you only have 2 characters to choose from that turn. And, if one of those 2 characters is a big character that you can't afford that turn (or if you did, they would be the only character you bought that turn), then you're potentially falling behind early on to your opponent.

Luckily, your fate rolls over until next turn, so this may be minimized by allowing you to buy light on turn 1 and then ditching one of the holdings (I can't remember if it's been confirmed that you can ditch cards from provinces at the end of the turn, but I think I remember hearing that) and buying heavy on turn 2. But that could result in you losing a province on turn 1, which is not an ideal scenario.

Of course, characters coming from your conflict deck also abates this concern...

You know, the more I talk about it, the less I am concerned with holdings. It seems like, unless you get totally character deprived, your deck should run fine and actually benefit from early holdings. Very few things are better than free actions, especially in a game that goes back and forth until the actions stop haha.

Obviously, we can only do so much theory crafting with only ~30% knowledge of what's in the core set. But I am now...more optimistic? I talked myself out of my initial apprehension haha.

Two things to consider about holdings:

1) You will probably be limited on how many you can buy a turn. In the CCG, you got to the point where you were more limited by the number of cards you could buy, not the amount you could spend. This will probably not be the case with the LCG. You get 8 fate a turn. People cost 2-3. I don't think it is unreasonable to think that you will spend 4 fate per person. This is 2 people. On top of that, you need to save fate for conflict cards, so my estimate is high. You will always have 4 provinces to draw from. So a holding blocking a single province reduces your options, but does not push you behind like it did in the CCG.

2) Holdings themselves to me feel like a free, weak defensive body. They so far appear to add 1-2 province strength, and have some ability that might be relevant. On top of it, it is 'force' that cannot be bowed or sent home, though we might see some province discard stuff eventually, especially from scorpion. It is not a strong body, and the abilities aren't great in battle, but it will help you from losing a province. Given the level of force we've seen, I don't think the extra 1-2 is insignificant. Especially since its free. To be fair, if it shows up in a province that is already broken, it doesn't supply the force, but then you either don't risk it if its cool, like City of Lies, or you can discard it.

Someone said it earl

7 hours ago, kempy said:

1) treat Holdings like L5R CCG Events (especialy Ivory+ ones, that could stay into Province until you discard them or launch)

2) you will be allowed to discard them at the end of the turn

These two points need more attention. Holdings in this game will, in practice, behave almost exactly as Events did in the old game.

They flip up. You use their ability. You discard them. However, in this game, if you like the ability enough, you can choose to not discard it to be able to use the ability again during the following turn.

Events saw a lot of play in the CCG, where you had far fewer limitations on the number of things you could reasonably expect to buy in a turn. I do not see any reason that Holdings, and the free effects they provide, should see less play in the LCG than events did in the CCG. In fact, I would fully expect them to see more play since, again, your purchasing power is limited and you don't need to fill your deck with things that make resources.

It sounds like province management will actually be a pretty important part of the game, especially with the constantly changing board state. Knowing when to keep holdings and when to discard them to cycle through your deck more will be very important skills, and I'm starting to think it'll be rather fun figuring that bit out!

I feel okay because they represent locations and structures in places called PROVINCES and since you ditch them whenever you want, there's nothing not to like, lore or mechanicallywise.

I may have missed it, but, I don't remember anything being said that a holding can be discarded after it has been attached to a province. If the province is broken, the attacking player can discard the cards in that province but I couldn't find anything that implies you can discard one of your holdings after you attach it to your province. If this is incorrect I apologise and please point me towards the source so I can learn the correct rules.

All that aside, I think that holdings are more accurate thematically in Nu5R. An important holding should represent a valuable resource that you might want to devote troops to defending. It makes sense to me that investing in defending that holding at a particular province it could hinder you avbility to generate more troops there. Old5R holdings made sense in the mechanics that they were designed for, but, comparateively it seems kind of silly that holdings were something that were never really in danger, not felt important once you had enough gold to make the rest of your deck work.

I like FFG's approach to have holdings enhance a province's strength and/or provide a useful ability at the cost of reduced dynasty production at that province.

"...players discard unwanted faceup cards from provinces and immediately replace them with cards from the dynasty deck."

From the product page. There is a strong implication that has not been confirmed completely, and perhaps can be, that holdings just live in the province. There is no sense of "attachment" to it like a region from the CCG.

25 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

I may have missed it, but, I don't remember anything being said that a holding can be discarded after it has been attached to a province. If the province is broken, the attacking player can discard the cards in that province but I couldn't find anything that implies you can discard one of your holdings after you attach it to your province. If this is incorrect I apologise and please point me towards the source so I can learn the correct rules.

This card probably confirms that Holdings stay into Province instead attaching to it, becasue it could be really weird if you'll be able to switch it with fe Character.

http://l5r.gamepedia.com/Borderlands_Fortifications

Thanks Mirith and Kempy. I could see that as the interpretation of it. If want clarification of course but if holdings work like that then I'd say they are effectively better than I first thought and I already though they were good enough to include.

16 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

Thanks Mirith and Kempy. I could see that as the interpretation of it. If want clarification of course but if holdings work like that then I'd say they are effectively better than I first thought and I already though they were good enough to include.

I'm having a hard time wondering where you even came up with holdings attaching to provinces. There's no interpretation going on. FFG specifically stated that they flip in your province and take up that province slot.

1 hour ago, Ishi Tonu said:

Old5R holdings made sense in the mechanics that they were designed for, but, comparateively it seems kind of silly that holdings were something that were never really in danger, not felt important once you had enough gold to make the rest of your deck work.

There were enough cards that affected Holdings (destroying, weakening, taking control) and really strong or vital Holdings that were left in Province for buying next round were also a high priority target of attack to ultimate destruction (discarding after taking down Province).

1 hour ago, Ishi Tonu said:

not felt important once you had enough gold to make the rest of your deck work.

Plenty of Holdings had various abilities on them and they shined in midgame when pure gold production wasn't so important. They just increased your Open/Battle possibilities. And even in early games there were important decision to use them (often by bowing or sacrificing) or spend their gold production later this turn.

55 minutes ago, Sparks Duh said:

I'm having a hard time wondering where you even came up with holdings attaching to provinces. There's no interpretation going on. FFG specifically stated that they flip in your province and take up that province slot.

Clearly there is some interpretation going on...........my incorrect interpretation. Lol

I think I just heard someone use that terminology in one of the umteen million podcasts (not your of course) and ran with it. My bad.