11 hours ago, Zesu Shadaban said:

Or not, because Let Go would discard Ancestral Daisho, as the ancestral keyword only returns the item to your hand when the card it is attached to is discarded, it has no effect when the attachment itself is targeted for discard.

Are we certain this how it works? "When attached card leaves play" - the Daisho is the 'attached card' so I would assume it returns to hand.

2 minutes ago, Tam Palso said:

Are we certain this how it works? "When attached card leaves play" - the Daisho is the 'attached card' so I would assume it returns to hand.

It's unclear but that's also how I was reading it.

3 minutes ago, Tam Palso said:

Are we certain this how it works? "When attached card leaves play" - the Daisho is the 'attached card' so I would assume it returns to hand.

It is actually character that is "attached" if you look for example at the Togashi Kazue or Way of the Dragon.

1 minute ago, Bayushi Tsubaki said:

It's unclear but that's also how I was reading it.

Agreed if the text said "when the card this is attached to leaves play" then Let Go wouldn't work. But my reading of it is that the Daisho is the 'attached' item, it leaves play as a result of Let Go and then returns to play.

I see what you're getting with regarding the wording of "attached card", but if they meant Ancestral Daisho it would make more sense for them to say "this card."

3 minutes ago, BordOne said:

It is actually character that is "attached" if you look for example at the Togashi Kazue or Way of the Dragon.

Maybe. Will need clarification from a FAQ I think. A quirk of the word 'attached' which can imply a linked relationship between one object and another in either direction.

I can say I have 'attached my keys to my key fob' and equally my key fob is attached to my keys! ?

6 minutes ago, Tam Palso said:

Are we certain this how it works? "When attached card leaves play" - the Daisho is the 'attached card' so I would assume it returns to hand.

Full text is When attached card leaves play, return this card to your hand.

Although I agree the text is not 100% clear it would have been shorter if they wrote When this card leaves play, return it to your hand.

8 minutes ago, Tam Palso said:

Maybe. Will need clarification from a FAQ I think. A quirk of the word 'attached' which can imply a linked relationship between one object and another in either direction.

I can say I have 'attached my keys to my key fob' and equally my key fob is attached to my keys! ?

Pretty sure if they wanted ancestral daisho to come back to hand every time it leaves play they would just write "when this card leaves play return it to your hand". They refer to characters with attachements as attached characters in other games too(such as agot, in which all attachments work as if they have ancestral keyword and still can be destroyed by normal effects).

I believe the "attached card" referenced in Ancestral is actually referring to the character the attachment is on. When that character leaves play, you may return the Daisho or Kitsuki's Method to your hand. If the attachment is hit with Let Go, the attachment is still discarded.

The text is from the perspective of the card. If you read Togashi Kazue her ability is "Action: During a conflict in which attached character is participating..." So the sword saying "When attached card leaves play..." I assume both of these refer to the card they are attached to, not do themselves.

2 minutes ago, Mig el Pig said:

Full text is When attached card leaves play, return this card to your hand.

Although I agree the text is not 100% clear it would have been shorter if they wrote When this card leaves play, return it to your hand.

Perhaps I'm just indulging myself in the image of a Bushi spinning through combat, back flipping away (dropping his ancestral daisho) only for it to fall back into his hand at the opportune moment to slice through some unfortunate victim!

Just now, Tam Palso said:

Perhaps I'm just indulging myself in the image of a Bushi spinning through combat, back flipping away (dropping his ancestral daisho) only for it to fall back into his hand at the opportune moment to slice through some unfortunate victim!

To be fair - you can still do that! You can still do Let Go to drop a weapon, to then attach another. This helps get around the restricted limit (although NM has a limit of twice per round on his ability) you just need another weapon in your hand to play down. You just don't get the ancestral weapon back, so if you're going to drop a sword in combat DON'T DROP YOUR FATHERS SWORD! Drop the cheap one Taka sold you...

I think maybe they worded it that way to prevent it from returning to your hand if it was in play but not attached? Not sure how that would work since we haven't seen anything that would actually put an attachment in play without being actually attached. Probably futureproofing the card in case there is some sort of 'Weapon Rack' holding in the future that lets you put attachments into play on it for some sort of effect. The cards would then be in play but not attached.....But that's just speculation on my part

5 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

I think maybe they worded it that way to prevent it from returning to your hand if it was in play but not attached? Not sure how that would work since we haven't seen anything that would actually put an attachment in play without being actually attached. Probably futureproofing the card in case there is some sort of 'Weapon Rack' holding in the future that lets you put attachments into play on it for some sort of effect. The cards would then be in play but not attached.....But that's just speculation on my part

Or since it could potentially be attached to a future non-character card, resulting in the wording "attached card" instead of "attached character".

In all other LCGs, attachments that reference "attached card" are referencing the card that the attachment itself is attached to. The sword is attached to a character; when that character leaves play, the sword returns to your hand. If the sword itself leaves play, it's gone.

Of course, they might have different rulings only for L5R, but so far they haven't. The same fundamental LCG framework rules have applied.

I asked the question again in the #L5RLIVE thread. Hopefully they'll address it during the video and put the speculation to bed. I think it's more than likely "attached card" means the card we attached the attachment to (i.e. the character), but it would be nice just to hear it from Brad himself if they are soliciting questions anyway.

In game of thrones attachments go back to your hand if the character they are attached to leaves play. The exception being if the attachment itself is discarded from play or it has the keyword 'terminal'. In game of thrones they do have things that specifically target the attachment to discard it and it does not go back to your hand. Using that as an example when "let go" is played on an attachment the attachment will not bounce back to your hand as the personality it is attached to is still in play.

Also, considering that the text for the ancestral keyword uses the phrase "attached card" in the first clause, and the phrase "this card" in the other clause, it would be not only redundant and unnecessarily clunky if they were both referring to the same card, but also grammatically weird, as they use the article "the" in "THE attached card," whereas if they used that phrase for the purposes of future proofing or whatever they should have used the pronoun "this," as in "THIS attached card," if they really wanted to be clear about only working when the attachment is attached to something, as opposed to the very strange, and as of yet unused, design space of having attachments attached to nothing, as even in the holding example (admittedly not out of the realm of possibility, and potentially a really cool and useful card), the attachment would still be attaching to a card, just not in the usual way. All in all, I don't think the wording is in any way ambiguous, people who are insisting otherwise are trying to justify a rather broken play that results from a misunderstanding of the keyword when not looking directly at the exact wording of the rule.

As a dragon player, I agree that it would be really cool and useful to be able to do stuff like that, and I can imagine a much less broken version involving an event that allows directly bouncing your own attachments back to your own hand, but it would be way too powerful to have an entire subset of attachments be immune to attachment destruction entirely, as let go is highly unlikely to remain the only means of doing so for long, even if it is the only means of doing so in the core set. If this misreading of the relevant text was indeed correct, then if someone really wanted to get rid of my ancestral daisho or my kitsuki method, they would first need to break it, thus bouncing it back to my hand, and then they would need to discard it from my hand, of which there are currently rather limited means of doing so, most of which are randomized, so unless it was the only card in my hand or they have kitsuki investigator (who I think is the only currently revealed discard ability that lets you look at your opponent's hand and pick any one you like to discard, all others, to my memory, are either randomized or target's choice), they are unlikely to really get rid of it.

Yes, to be simple to say that if you or your opponent "Let Go" your "Ancentral Daisho" it is gone and doesn't bounce back to your hand.

Yeah, let's just let it go.

Now, who wants to go build a snowman?

Mountain Snowman deck archetype

Maybe it´s the expectations, maybe I believed the cards would keep the level of Mirumoto Prodigy, Niten Adept and Agasha Swordsmith, which I consider very good. But I expected more and better from this preview.

Mechanics can be subtle, and then I may be wrong, but the themes highlighted make me think Dragon decks are going to be quite difficult to handle, even maybe they can face some quite tricky problems:

1.- Concept: From the beginning, I have the though that attachments are not a great theme for a faction in this game, where mono no aware is one of the main and more important mechanics. I expected more cards in the dragon pool that could mitigate it, or maybe even some stronghold ability that, more than taking advantage of the attachments, made the theme more viable.

2.- Fate cost: we need to see it played, but I find all the pieces you need to play a good game are all costly. Not only the attachments, but the "pay one fate to a ring" tech is joining to make things apparently too expensive. Do you build a deck which allows a character to face all by himself alone? and what if you face a good control opponent? I am expecting some fine tricks from the bayushi and the Isawa... Or do you pay for multiple personalities and probably are left no fate for boosting?

3.- Conditional abilities: Some of the tricks, like Fire Mantra, Yokuni or even the extra fate for passing first, have a very good effect in the right circumstances, but at first glance it seems very easy for your rival to avoid them. This can be at a cost, of course, and a good dragon player can bring his rival before continuous "lesser of two evils" choices, but it seems hard to achieve at first glance.

4.- Quality: Some cards, I think, are not as good as they look like. Niten Master is one of them: It looks like he is not ready to face the world yet. With his high cost (for his stats), he has a very good ability, but I presume right now he is not going to use it very often. Maybe he will see better times when the card pool expands but now... even his glory plays against him, as I expect him to be dishonored more often than the contrary...

So, Dragon seems to be a though one to play. Tricky deckbuilding and critical game choices will make it a difficult challenge. The good thing is that this makes them of course much more interesting than other, more straightforward options. Also, maybe the cards will surprise us in game. For example: at first glance I thought Kitsuki Investigator was nice but not good: he has an good ability, but disconnected to the clan themes, it costs fate, and his stats are not brilliant at all... but then I though of him as a recurring defending tool, and now I feel more respect. Also, you can think Kizue is too expensive, but when you make the accounting, you see in fact she is not.

I hope my first impression is wrong, and the misterious dragon show a huge power, only when they consider it is necessary... maybe they need a second look. That would definitely make a good dragon theme...

I'm pretty excited to play Kitsuki Investigator against the Lion. Especially when attacking Earth conflicts. Force two discards on my opponent. If he wants to bid low for honor he will soon find himself playing with pretty much only a Dynasty Deck.

52 minutes ago, Shu2jack said:

I'm pretty excited to play Kitsuki Investigator against the Lion. Especially when attacking Earth conflicts. Force two discards on my opponent. If he wants to bid low for honor he will soon find himself playing with pretty much only a Dynasty Deck.

This guy is the only guy that scares me when I think about the Lion vs Dragon matchup. If that guy hits the table with money it can get ugly fast. Way of the Crane lets him trigger twice. Could be a sad sad day for the little simbas.