Hey,

I've put together a short strategy article focusing on the Crane Clan cards we've seen so far. With the game so new and fresh it is mostly wild speculation and guesswork but it entertains me and hopefully, it will do the same for you!

http://imperialadvisor.com/wp/2017/05/28/clan-focus-the-crane/

If you have any feedback or suggestions please do post a comment.

Bazleebub

4 minutes ago, Bazleebub said:

Hey,

I've put together a short strategy article focusing on the Crane Clan cards we've seen so far. With the game so new and fresh it is mostly wild speculation and guesswork but it entertains me and hopefully, it will do the same for you!

http://imperialadvisor.com/wp/2017/05/28/clan-focus-the-crane/

If you have any feedback or suggestions please do post a comment.

Bazleebub

The Steward of Law is not a dynasty card... just saying.

Edit: I see it is mentioned that it is a conflict card, still looks clumsy that way.

Good point. I've changed the section head from Dynasty to Character cards. It's still a little clunky as I'm talking about the Province and Holding at the end but eh. Thanks for the feedback!

I would alter it to put Steward of Law with other conflict cards. It's main purpose is as a surprise to prevent dishonour, or to surprise swing challenge strength. It needs to be evaluated much differently from the other characters.

I like the write up but there are a lot of grammar errors - I'd reread and touch it up a bit. I'd be happy to help with this.

Please keep them coming!

I believe you gain a fate and not an honor from passing first in the dynasty phase. It's a big difference.

My only problem with a Hotaru on turn 1 is that whole Ring of Void effect and the variety of different removal cards. She's also not a Courtier! I'm waiting to use a For Shame! card on her with Kachiko on my side.

Edit: I also think you could have talked about a few other neutral cards like Spies at Court, Otomo Courtier, or Wandering Ronin. Not saying these are good cards for the Crane but always worth looking at all the options.

Thanks for the article, It was a good read. Some minor points though.

1) You gain fate, not honor from passing first during the dynasty phase.

2) Kaizen does not send everyone home when he wins. He leaves himself and his target at the battle. In addition when he loses he does not bow but only sends himself home.

3) Although the Artisan Academy can only be used during the conflict phase it can be used before the first conflict starts. (and therefor the card you revealed can be used aswell)

Very interesting strategy article and a lot of the analysis is pretty solid.

One thing that I think is off target is the discussion of dynasty buys in general. There is not much reason to put fate on 1 drops, and especially not 2 fate. There can be reasons to do it, but in general it is a bad call. Better to save cash for conflict cards, or put extra fate on more expensive characters.

My experience is that it is not practical to put half, or even more than half of your fate on characters. It makes you super weak early, and games can easily be over in 3 turns. Putting 2 fate each on a 2 and a 1 drop is a bad start. Better to buy the 1, buy the 2 with 1 fate, and then another 2 with 1 fate, for example. Or a 3 drop with 2 fate and a 1 drop.

If you are trying to build up to a big turn, it makes the most sense to put fate on only 1 powerful character rather than 2 weak characters. So, for a turn 3 peak, you want to say buy a 4 drop with 2 fate and a fateless 1 drop to help keep you afloat in the first turn.

1 hour ago, Eugene Earnshaw said:

Very interesting strategy article and a lot of the analysis is pretty solid.

One thing that I think is off target is the discussion of dynasty buys in general. There is not much reason to put fate on 1 drops, and especially not 2 fate. There can be reasons to do it, but in general it is a bad call. Better to save cash for conflict cards, or put extra fate on more expensive characters.

My experience is that it is not practical to put half, or even more than half of your fate on characters. It makes you super weak early, and games can easily be over in 3 turns. Putting 2 fate each on a 2 and a 1 drop is a bad start. Better to buy the 1, buy the 2 with 1 fate, and then another 2 with 1 fate, for example. Or a 3 drop with 2 fate and a 1 drop.

If you are trying to build up to a big turn, it makes the most sense to put fate on only 1 powerful character rather than 2 weak characters. So, for a turn 3 peak, you want to say buy a 4 drop with 2 fate and a fateless 1 drop to help keep you afloat in the first turn.

Where are you getting this experience? Is there a similar game you're referencing?

Thanks for all the feedback so far. I've incorporated most of the changes into the article so the next poor fools who read it will be slightly better informed

Eugene - I'm very interested in your point about buys. My reasoning had been that I want at least two characters on the board and I want to keep characters at least 2 or 3 turns. So spending the seven out seemed to make sense with a 1 cost and 2 cost both with 2 fate. I see what you mean about 1 cost characters, each invested fate point only gets you a 1 cost character in later turns whereas a fate point on a more expensive character would get a better return. Almost a why invest in a 1 cost character now when you could just spend the same later.

I clearly need to think some more about this.

This game is fun

8 hours ago, Eugene Earnshaw said:

Very interesting strategy article and a lot of the analysis is pretty solid.

One thing that I think is off target is the discussion of dynasty buys in general. There is not much reason to put fate on 1 drops, and especially not 2 fate. There can be reasons to do it, but in general it is a bad call. Better to save cash for conflict cards, or put extra fate on more expensive characters.

My experience is that it is not practical to put half, or even more than half of your fate on characters. It makes you super weak early, and games can easily be over in 3 turns. Putting 2 fate each on a 2 and a 1 drop is a bad start. Better to buy the 1, buy the 2 with 1 fate, and then another 2 with 1 fate, for example. Or a 3 drop with 2 fate and a 1 drop.

If you are trying to build up to a big turn, it makes the most sense to put fate on only 1 powerful character rather than 2 weak characters. So, for a turn 3 peak, you want to say buy a 4 drop with 2 fate and a fateless 1 drop to help keep you afloat in the first turn.

I'm not to sure for a few reasons. The first is that we don't know all of the 1 drops. Secondly, some of the 1 drops actually seem relatively effective. A fine example is the Asahina Artisan who can provide a sizable political skill buff without needing to be at the conflict, has solid stats after being honored, and is a wizard. There's also another thing about her, that 2 glory, and the ease of which she can simply act as a Imperial Favor gal. People really haven't looked into the Imperial Favor yet*.

* - Yeah, we're missing a few good IF cards to really push that angle.

It is not that it never ever makes sense to put fate on a 1 cost peep. It is just that you are gaining nothing in efficiency and losing immediate power and flexibility by reducing your fate pool. Generally speaking if you could put a fate in a 1 drop or a 2+ drop, why would you put it on the 1 drop? And in my experience it is not generally wise to tie up too much fate sitting on personalities early, especially cheap ones. Cheap guys are very vulnerable.

Something that is a big adjustment in Nu5r compared to old5r is that conflict cards are EXPENSIVE. If you put all your fate on your peeps, it feels bad when the other player drops a jade tetsubo or an Assassination and cleans it all off, gaining tempo and economy advantage. Meanwhile half or more of your hand is unplayable cuz you have no fate left over. Unless you are really just playing for the long game, you need your fate NOW -- and if you are playing for the long game, you are putting fate on 1 guy, not 2.

Just as a follow up: the expensiveness of Conflict cards is probably partly an artefact of the card pool we have seen thus far: the card numbering suggests there are several free generic events that could bring down overall conflict costs. Hard to know. But even if the overall expense in the conflict deck is less in the proper game than what we have seen, it is clear that some of the key cards are quite pricey and saving fate to spend on conflict cards will have a big impact.

46 minutes ago, Eugene Earnshaw said:

It is not that it never ever makes sense to put fate on a 1 cost peep. It is just that you are gaining nothing in efficiency and losing immediate power and flexibility by reducing your fate pool. Generally speaking if you could put a fate in a 1 drop or a 2+ drop, why would you put it on the 1 drop? And in my experience it is not generally wise to tie up too much fate sitting on personalities early, especially cheap ones. Cheap guys are very vulnerable.

Something that is a big adjustment in Nu5r compared to old5r is that conflict cards are EXPENSIVE. If you put all your fate on your peeps, it feels bad when the other player drops a jade tetsubo or an Assassination and cleans it all off, gaining tempo and economy advantage. Meanwhile half or more of your hand is unplayable cuz you have no fate left over. Unless you are really just playing for the long game, you need your fate NOW -- and if you are playing for the long game, you are putting fate on 1 guy, not 2.

With some of the removal cards out there, most characters are vulnerable. If a player wants to tap that Jade Tetsubo to give me a fate refund (yes, you get that fate back) for my character, I'd probably be fine with that since it does cost 2 fate to even play the attachment.

Let's say Assassination costs 3, since we don't know the cost,and targets my 1 drop with a fate on it. My opponent has overspent fate and potentially lost virtual card advantage with the dishonor they took.

With whether or not to put fate on a character and character efficiency, that just depends on the character itself and the situation itself. Sure, if the situation was either put 1 fate on Daidoji Nerishina or 2 fate on the Artisan, I might go with the unique because of what he does but I can easily see myself going with the Artisan to really push that political angle.

With conflict cards, some are expensive. There's some very effective 0 cost cards too. Whether or not a conflict deck will only feature those expensive cards is pretty doubtful.

4 minutes ago, Kubernes said:

With some of the removal cards out there, most characters are vulnerable. If a player wants to tap that Jade Tetsubo to give me a fate refund (yes, you get that fate back) for my character, I'd probably be fine with that since it does cost 2 fate to even play the attachment.

I'm not sure about that reading. It says "fate on that character" which is similar to the wording used to describe the additional fate that you put on a character to keep them into play longer. Do you have anything informing a reading that gives you a full refund for the fate spent? I just don't get that from reading the card at all.

The picture is on the read more section of the L5R site. You can also find it here on gamepedia. The text for the tetsubo is "Action: While attached character is participating in a conflict, bow this attachment, choose a participating character with lower skill – return all fate on that character to its owner's fate pool." When I see owner's fate pool, I see it as referring to the player's personal pool and not the general pool. Crafting a Dynasty does refer to the two different fate pools under Hands of Fate.

4 minutes ago, Kiseki said:

I'm not sure about that reading. It says "fate on that character" which is similar to the wording used to describe the additional fate that you put on a character to keep them into play longer. Do you have anything informing a reading that gives you a full refund for the fate spent? I just don't get that from reading the card at all.

Jade Tetsubo gives you back any additional fate on a character (but obviously not the original amount you had to pay for their base price).

7 minutes ago, Gaffa said:

Jade Tetsubo gives you back any additional fate on a character (but obviously not the original amount you had to pay for their base price).

Ok, that's the reading I got from it too, but it seemed that Kubernes was implying that you got the cost of the character back as well. I just wanted to clarify if we were reading the card differently or if I'd misread him.

Cool, didnt notice that about the Tetsubo. Makes it less nasty.

Assassination probably costs 0, based on the numbering system they seem to be using.

The choice is usually not whether to buy a 1 drop and put 2 fate on it or to buy a 2 drop and put 1 fate on it. You will be usually buying some other personality as well. So you put any fate you can spare on that guy, and put none on the 1 cost guy. Yeah, there might sometimes be a specific reason that you want the 1 cost more than a 2 3 or 4 2 turns for now... but not too often.

2 hours ago, Eugene Earnshaw said:

Cool, didnt notice that about the Tetsubo. Makes it less nasty.

Assassination probably costs 0, based on the numbering system they seem to be using.

The choice is usually not whether to buy a 1 drop and put 2 fate on it or to buy a 2 drop and put 1 fate on it. You will be usually buying some other personality as well. So you put any fate you can spare on that guy, and put none on the 1 cost guy. Yeah, there might sometimes be a specific reason that you want the 1 cost more than a 2 3 or 4 2 turns for now... but not too often.

But what if you want the 1 cost character out for a few turns? I could see very good reasons why the Lion might want a Matsu Berserker out for more than one turn. I'm sure Scorpion wants more than one turn out of their Bayushi Manipulator. Solemn Scholar seems like a really bad buy for Phoenix for just one turn. And Dragon doesn't even get the full value of the Togashi Initiate at just one turn.

The game is appearing far too fluid to be throwing down hard and fast rules about how much you should be investing in any sort of character. Some games it will be appropriate to only have the Solemn Scholar for 1 turn. Some games it will be appropriate to invest heavily in your Togashi Initiate. It will really depend on the board state, the other cards visible in the provinces, how much fate you have managed to save or earn previously, and everything else that has happened. Because of the large number of decisions purchasing every character will entail, that means this is a game that will heavily reward play skill and superior board reading over just jamming the latest Worlds Championship decklist and playing it. And that's good.

As for the OP's article, while a card by card analysis is always fun to read, you really seem stuck in some Old5R viewpoints -- in particular, you seemed to mainly judge the characters by how well they would do in a defensive fight.

That's not the game any more. You are going to want to go on the offensive and claim the rings you need to win. Politics can break provinces now; courtiers are supposed to get out there and mix things up. Purely judging Crane by the stay-at-home defensive mindset that honor running required of Crane in the old game isn't looking through all their options.

3 hours ago, Gaffa said:

But what if you want the 1 cost character out for a few turns? I could see very good reasons why the Lion might want a Matsu Berserker out for more than one turn. I'm sure Scorpion wants more than one turn out of their Bayushi Manipulator. Solemn Scholar seems like a really bad buy for Phoenix for just one turn. And Dragon doesn't even get the full value of the Togashi Initiate at just one turn.

The game is appearing far too fluid to be throwing down hard and fast rules about how much you should be investing in any sort of character.

Eugene's point isn't that you should never put Fate on a 1 cost character, it's that you shouldn't do it by default. He's quite clear in saying there are times you will still do so. Bazleebub's article was written with the automatic assumption that you would, rather than approaching it from a baseline of "is this guy actually worth it based on the board state?".

3 hours ago, Gaffa said:

As for the OP's article, while a card by card analysis is always fun to read, you really seem stuck in some Old5R viewpoints -- in particular, you seemed to mainly judge the characters by how well they would do in a defensive fight.

That's not the game any more. You are going to want to go on the offensive and claim the rings you need to win. Politics can break provinces now; courtiers are supposed to get out there and mix things up. Purely judging Crane by the stay-at-home defensive mindset that honor running required of Crane in the old game isn't looking through all their options.

I didn't read it that way at all. The strength of Crane in aggressive Political battles is mentioned numerous times, most notably in the summation.

Quote

One useful interaction we have seen so far is with the courtier card For Shame! as the owner is unable to choose dishonour they must choose to bow their character.

Is this true? It's intuitive, but I could see a bad-though-legal ruling where the player can freely choose dishonor over bow, and the character is perfectly safe.

A: "I choose Dishonor."
B: "He can't BE dishonored!"
A: "Exactly."
B: "...."

20 hours ago, Gaffa said:

As for the OP's article, while a card by card analysis is always fun to read, you really seem stuck in some Old5R viewpoints -- in particular, you seemed to mainly judge the characters by how well they would do in a defensive fight.

That's not the game any more. You are going to want to go on the offensive and claim the rings you need to win. Politics can break provinces now; courtiers are supposed to get out there and mix things up. Purely judging Crane by the stay-at-home defensive mindset that honor running required of Crane in the old game isn't looking through all their options.

For me, it looks like you need a mixture of offensive and defense. By offense, I don't necessarily mean breaking provinces but all sorts of different things: breaking the province, forcing the opponent to waste characters on defense, block certain rings, obtain extra fate from rings, 'scouting' provinces, or triggering abilities. Defense also hinges on the situation too but can focus on draining the opponent's conflict cards, trigger effects, stopping province breaking, or preventing certain rings from being claimed.

18 hours ago, twinstarbmc said:

Is this true? It's intuitive, but I could see a bad-though-legal ruling where the player can freely choose dishonor over bow, and the character is perfectly safe.

A: "I choose Dishonor."
B: "He can't BE dishonored!"
A: "Exactly."
B: "...."

I've been informed that FFG games generally require decisions to change the game state, which means they would need to choose one that has an actual effect. We won't for certain until we see the full rules, but if that's the precedent it seems likely they'll apply it to L5R.