While the following article is almost 20 years old and pertains to MTG, I point it out as it's an excellent bit of gaming strategy that is relevant in almost all games. Ironically, I think the article will end up being more relevant to Nu5R, due to the design of the game allowing for more flexibility. If you can get past the MTG specific examples and get down to the meat of the post, I think you'll find it to be a helpful reminder when playing competitively.

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/fundamentals/3692_Whos_The_Beatdown.html

Basically it boils down to a player recognizing when they need to alter their strategy and take a different line of play, maybe even one they are not comfortable/good with, in order to increase their chances of winning. Nu5R's mechanics appear to allow players to adapt to each other on the fly, much more so than any other game I can remember. This is something I'm extremely excited about as should introduce us to a level of strategy many of us may have not experienced.

I've often heard the phrase "don't play the cards, play the man/woman." I don't think Old5R truely gave us many opportunities to do both. I think that saying will prove to be less cliche in Nu5R, so it should be important to familarize yourself with various types of play. The more comfortable/proficient you can become with them they better prepared you will be to adapt to your opponent.

Whenever I played Old L5R (I refuse to use the trendy slang all the cool kids are using; tried it and I felt like a Valley girl), I'd always find myself thinking wistfully of the idea that any deck could switch between victory conditions. I felt that that kind of flexibility and reactability could lead to some fun experiences. So I'm hoping with some fervence that this will actually be a reality in New L5R.

1 hour ago, Ide Yoshiya said:

Whenever I played Old L5R (I refuse to use the trendy slang all the cool kids are using; tried it and I felt like a Valley girl), I'd always find myself thinking wistfully of the idea that any deck could switch between victory conditions. I felt that that kind of flexibility and reactability could lead to some fun experiences. So I'm hoping with some fervence that this will actually be a reality in New L5R.

I prefer the term 'Classic L5r' myself.

Though I hope I haven't jinxed us into a New Coke, Classic Coke situation.

New Coke stank on ice.

39 minutes ago, Kuni Katsuyoshi said:

I prefer the term 'Classic L5r' myself.

Though I hope I haven't jinxed us into a New Coke, Classic Coke situation.

You Kuni are a curious sort. And curiosity can have repercussions!

26 minutes ago, Ide Yoshiya said:

You Kuni are a curious sort. And curiosity can have repercussions!

People have been adding vanilla to coke longer than either of us have been alive, so it has the weight of Tradition.

However, that orange Mtn. Dew carries the Taint. You have been warned.

I don't know why people don't just call it the CCG vs. the LCG.

On 6/17/2017 at 6:04 PM, Ide Yoshiya said:

Whenever I played Old L5R (I refuse to use the trendy slang all the cool kids are using; tried it and I felt like a Valley girl), I'd always find myself thinking wistfully of the idea that any deck could switch between victory conditions. I felt that that kind of flexibility and reactability could lead to some fun experiences. So I'm hoping with some fervence that this will actually be a reality in New L5R.

I always honor ran when I could in L5RCCG, so I obviously honor ran when trying proxy decks this weekend. Both lion and crane can honor run like crazy if you try, out of 3 games I ended all 3 above 20 honor (once with crane, twice with lion), and at game end there were always at least 3 broken provinces on each side. I went 1-2.

Ring of Air and honoring chars you intend to let die is huge for hitting 25, and honoring chars also helps you break provinces.

That "Who is the beatdown" article is a classic, but I wonder how applicable it is outside of Magic. In L5RCCG, for example, rarely was the main strategic question which deck had the advantage if the game went longer. In Military vs. Honour the question was moot, and in military vs. military the main strategic question usually revolved around which army would win an all-in fight. Sometimes that resolved into blitz vs. slow, but often not.

In L5RLCG thus far, it is mostly a matter of player decision and not deck construction whether their deck builds up slowly or attacks aggressively but falls off. The question of whether to buy characters for blitz or for build seems to be more of a tactical question: an advantage accrues to a blitz buy if it leads to a province advantage, otherwise an advantage goes to the slower build. Stretegically, the questions concern how viable the alternate victory conditions (honor, dishonor) are given the opponent's play, and how to ensure that you can make steady progress towards your victory condition while frustrating the opponent.

On ‎6‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 8:52 PM, Ide Yoshiya said:

You Kuni are a curious sort. And curiosity can have repercussions!

God, the only thing that makes me regret giving up soda.

On 6/17/2017 at 6:15 PM, Kuni Katsuyoshi said:

I prefer the term 'Classic L5r' myself.

Though I hope I haven't jinxed us into a New Coke, Classic Coke situation.

New Coke stank on ice.

New Coke was Totally Rad Dude! Don't bum me out with this whole knarly New Coke sucks talk....

-tpl

1 minute ago, tobinator said:

New Coke was Totally Rad Dude! Don't bum me out with this whole knarly New Coke sucks talk....

-tpl

There's always one isn't there?

dang stop calling it Nu5r

45 minutes ago, SoulKick said:

dang stop calling it Nu5r

I'm open to suggestions.

7 hours ago, Eugene Earnshaw said:

That "Who is the beatdown" article is a classic, but I wonder how applicable it is outside of Magic. In L5RCCG, for example, rarely was the main strategic question which deck had the advantage if the game went longer. In Military vs. Honour the question was moot, and in military vs. military the main strategic question usually revolved around which army would win an all-in fight. Sometimes that resolved into blitz vs. slow, but often not.

In L5RLCG thus far, it is mostly a matter of player decision and not deck construction whether their deck builds up slowly or attacks aggressively but falls off. The question of whether to buy characters for blitz or for build seems to be more of a tactical question: an advantage accrues to a blitz buy if it leads to a province advantage, otherwise an advantage goes to the slower build. Stretegically, the questions concern how viable the alternate victory conditions (honor, dishonor) are given the opponent's play, and how to ensure that you can make steady progress towards your victory condition while frustrating the opponent.

There's also the strategic consideration of not having an exponential economy. You don't have to worry about surviving the early game so you can dominate in the mid game because you're equally as capable of paying for all you tricks all the time.

Although since unspent fate doesn't go away at the end of the turn and there are some ways of getting more I suppose the economy just grows at a different rate.

10 hours ago, Kuni Katsuyoshi said:

I'm open to suggestions.

LCG

Just now, Kakita Shiro said:

LCG

No soul, No funk

12 hours ago, shineyorkboy said:

There's also the strategic consideration of not having an exponential economy. You don't have to worry about surviving the early game so you can dominate in the mid game because you're equally as capable of paying for all you tricks all the time.

Although since unspent fate doesn't go away at the end of the turn and there are some ways of getting more I suppose the economy just grows at a different rate.

The combination of nearly flat economy, no permanent cards, and combat not destroying cards makes such a huge difference to the way the game develops. You use board state to advance a victory condition, and you trade off weaker board state now for stronger board state in the future -- but that is a decision, not an aspect of deck construction, and even the stronger board state in the future is a temporary not a permanent thing.