i just don't see avoiding a sacrifice cost with Stand Your Ground or Reprieve how you are paying the cost. I think those card are intended to save characters from effects or lack of date end of turn not from costs.

I think we can all agree we will need an FAQ or atleast a L5R Live answer about Reprieving a sacrifice or any similar pay cost and cancellation effects.

Neither Stand Your Ground nor Repreive actually cancel the sacrifice. They both just say that when the character would die you lose a different game element instead. There's precedence in other games for mechanics to work in this way where it works.

8 minutes ago, kiramode said:

Neither Stand Your Ground nor Repreive actually cancel the sacrifice. They both just say that when the character would die you lose a different game element instead. There's precedence in other games for mechanics to work in this way where it works.

In all other LCGs, sacrifices to pay a cost for an effect cannot be canceled (and, in fact, they explicitly ignore any in-play effects that would stop the sacrifice from happening). You cannot get out of paying the sacrifice cost for effects.

Such effects work just fine if your opponent's ability is making you sacrifice a card, however.

Other games have specific wording on sacrificing cards like"cannot be saved" to make it explicit. Other times games will simply make a distinction between sacrifice, discard, and destroy. All of those fall under the blanket of "leaving play". But then card effects get worded in a way where they only prevent destruction of cards(inherently not allowing for saving sacrifices). We have yet to see any wording that would say otherwise in this game. There would have to be specific rules language that we have no indication of for the combo not to work.

43 minutes ago, kiramode said:

Other games have specific wording on sacrificing cards like"cannot be saved" to make it explicit.

Actually this is not true(I assume you are talking about agot here). "Cannot be saved" is used with effects that kill a character or remove it from play in another way(for example move it to your hand) to make sure that you cannot just remove dupe off of it and make it stay in play. Sacrifice effects don't ever have this clause and sacrificing a character must remove it from play for effect to work.

35 minutes ago, BordOne said:

Actually this is not true(I assume you are talking about agot here). "Cannot be saved" is used with effects that kill a character or remove it from play in another way(for example move it to your hand) to make sure that you cannot just remove dupe off of it and make it stay in play. Sacrifice effects don't ever have this clause and sacrificing a character must remove it from play for effect to work.

As far as I remember in thrones sacrifice as an effect has the text of cannot be saved built in. I know star wars does not have such text.

2 minutes ago, kiramode said:

As far as I remember in thrones sacrifice as an effect has the text of cannot be saved built in. I know star wars does not have such text.

Yup. I expect them to go with agot model since it is newer one and similarities between clans and houses.

It's not an issue of whether or not you can save the sacrifice, in this case. The issue is IF you do save the sacrifice, and it was a cost, the cost has not been paid and the ability does not go off. This is the precedent I understand from basically all other LCGs. For example, using Sacrificial Construct on Clone Chip in Netrunner does nothing but cost you the Construct because the cost on Clone Chip wasn't paid (trashing it), pretty much a perfect analogy for Reprieve and a Sacrifice cost here.

1 hour ago, kiramode said:

As far as I remember in thrones sacrifice as an effect has the text of cannot be saved built in. I know star wars does not have such text.

These are the Sacrifice rules from Got 2.0

Quote

Sacrifice When a player is instructed to sacrifice a card, that player must choose a card in play that he or she controls and that matches the requirements of the sacrifice, and place it in his or her discard pile.

• If the chosen card does not leave play, the sacrifice is not considered to have been made.
• Sacrificing a card does not satisfy any other means (such as “kill” or “discard”) of a card leaving play.
• A sacrificed card cannot be saved.

These are the Sacrifice rules from Warhammer 40k Conquest

Quote

Sacrifice When a player is instructed to sacrifice a card, he must choose and discard a card in play that he controls and that matches the requirements of the sacrifice.

• If the chosen card does not leave play (if it is, for example, saved by an interrupt), the sacrifice is not considered to have been made.
• A warlord unit cannot be sacrificed.
• Sacrificing a card does not destroy the card, and destroying a card does not sacrifice it.

I feel pretty confident that FFG is going to use similar rules for L5R given that Nate was the lead on the GoT reboot and both Brad and Nate worked on 40k Conquest.

I think Stoic Gunso and Reprieve "could work", in that it seems to fit a theme for Crab of "undoing" effects. (But likely follows Danwarrs description)

Having said that the clans we have seen so far tend towards having two 'styles' of play (e.g Crane going for political conflicts or an honour win).

Then Stoic Gunso / Reprieve relationship might be an indication that Crabs focus is on characters (as opposed to Fate, honour, card draw etc) and *either* pitching them for effects or keeping them on the battlefield.

Edit: having been 'called out' by Danwarr in Discord I have edited my comment to be clearer. But that experience suggest this community may not be for me. Hope the game develops well for all of you. Peace out ✌️

1 hour ago, Tam Palso said:

Edit: having been 'called out' by Danwarr in Discord I have edited my comment to be clearer. But that experience suggest this community may not be for me. Hope the game develops well for all of you. Peace out ✌️

Well, this is unfortunate to hear. Does this mean you won't be playing the game? Or that someone on Discord was too toxic?

Wow this has gotten weirdly personal.

I will say that the discord moderates more than these boards and that passive aggression and tone policing isn't tolerated by either party.

It's also silly for either of them to think the other reflects the community as a whole or in part.

2 hours ago, Tam Palso said:

Edit: having been 'called out' by Danwarr in Discord I have edited my comment to be clearer. But that experience suggest this community may not be for me. Hope the game develops well for all of you. Peace out ✌️

Having been there when this happened, there was no 'call out' by Danwarr and a certain individual had a very toxic attitude toward not only the aforementioned Mr. Warr but everyone else in general.

It's probably best to pivot off of this topic at this point and settle it with a 'we'll see when the rulebook comes out' and refrain from personal attacks, which are uncool and a violation of the ToS.

5 minutes ago, Badmojojojo said:

Well, this is unfortunate to hear. Does this mean you won't be playing the game? Or that someone on Discord was too toxic?

I was disappointed to see my earlier comment quoted out of context on Discord (ironically I agreed with Danwarr but was open to other interpretations as we don't have the rule book). I challenged that comment, pointing out we don't have specific rules, but was swiftly warned by a moderator.

No issue with the mod, it's a difficult job - my comment could have been taken badly and I realise now that Danwarr is also a r/L5R mod on Reddit so kind of unlikely any ruling would go my way.

As a 'newbie' to L5R and LCGs I think I hadn't realised that there is maybe a pre-existing community that's perhaps harder to 'break into'?

I shall still follow the game, as I'm interested in game design in the round but have learnt my lesson to keep stum in future ?

3 minutes ago, Reiga said:

Having been there when this happened, there was no 'call out' by Danwarr and a certain individual had a very toxic attitude toward not only the aforementioned Mr. Warr but everyone else in general.

It's probably best to pivot off of this topic at this point and settle it with a 'we'll see when the rulebook comes out' and refrain from personal attacks, which are uncool and a violation of the ToS.

Apologies - I didn't intend to come across as toxic, and apologise unreservedly to anyone who felt offended in any way. I shall bow out.

17 minutes ago, Tam Palso said:

Apologies - I didn't intend to come across as toxic, and apologise unreservedly to anyone who felt offended in any way. I shall bow out.

I don't think that's really necessary, the intent isn't 'you're wrong so go away!' by any means. Lots of these rules questions are going to come up, even if there's previous precedent in other FFG games. It's mainly an issue in delivery.

This thread has massively derailed now but all players and all opinions are valid, if that even needs to be stated. There's going to be (many) times where disagreements of interpretation arise until a true rulebook comes out (and even then there will be disputes). Let's just be respectful to one another and have fun, I think that's why everyone wants to play in the first place! More players is always better as long as there's respect!

Massively derailed! Deck lists please! Anyone who has been playing please post something - here or as its own topic. I haven't been following as intently to all the new rules and would like to get some decks together to start figuring it out!

3 minutes ago, The Laughing Monk said:

Massively derailed! Deck lists please! Anyone who has been playing please post something - here or as its own topic. I haven't been following as intently to all the new rules and would like to get some decks together to start figuring it out!

I will post my deck list when I get home. Happy fourth!

9 minutes ago, BayushiCroy said:

I will post my deck list when I get home. Happy fourth!

Thank You!