1 minute ago, YasukiKaito said:

I don't mean for this to sound dismissive - But I am truthfully at a loss for how 3 extra influence/the opportunity to double up on a province type if you want to (+ free fate) doesn't give a player more freedom in deck building.

Thats the actual mechanic: they are reducing limitations on your deck.

True enough. But there are 10 of them. Unless you think there is absolutely no difference between them, then different roles will suit different decks better. If I have an idea that requires extra influence in a Phoenix deck but the Phoenix have the commonly-agreed best option from a Seeker role, I'm SOL. I might have an idea for a deck that could benefit from the fate bonus from an Air role, but Phoenix took Void, so I can't use that.

Yes, they reduce limitations, but they do so in a way that I have no control over.

8 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

I think the impact of the roles will be larger than you expect... Once they do, the restrictive nature of roles will make it worse.

I cannot speak to the cynicism presented, but I can speak mathematically about the impact.

All Keeper roles providing the same benefit of broader card pools effect all Keeper roles equally. It's basically zero-sum, but the Ring is different. Now, FFG has repeatedly told Unicorn players that we are better when aggressive and I hope very much Unicorn doesn't get a role that provides extra fate while defending. I would be a sad pony.

Seeker is the touchy one, I'm guessing. It comes down to province choices and basically only province choices. One or two fate per game is very nice, though I suppose Keeper has the potential for even more. Still, just this extra fate alone (and one fate guaranteed) seems very strong.

Now, math. Skip to the tl;dr if you want.

-Base set baseline combinations of provinces is 3*2*2*2*2 representing the 3 different choices within your clan's province element and 2 choices for each other element. This provides 48 possible combinations that the non-Seeker is stuck with.

-If you are Seeker for an element that doesn't reflect your clan's province, then we have 3 choices for the clan's province element, 2 choices for the Seeker element, 2 choices for both non replaced rings, and 3 remaining choices for the last ring, since the leftover Seeker element province is an option. That's 3*3*2*2*2 or 72 choices. However, if they wish to maximize fate gain by using two provinces of the same element, they only have 24 options, since the last province has only 1 choice instead of 3.

-In the above scenario, we might consider replacing our clan's province element with the Seeker element. That gives us 2^4 for each other province ring, and leaves us 4 options (3+1) for the final province. That's 64 choices, or a paltry 8 options if you want to use both Seeker element provinces like this. Two of the provinces are spoken for, and 2^3 options fill out the remaining. Bleh.

-If your clan's province and the Seeker element overlap, the we get 3 for clan element, 2^3 for remaining provinces, and have 4 options (2+2) for the final province. That's 96 choices. However, if they wish to maximize the fate gain, the last province should be replaced with the Seeker element, effectively turning 4 options back into 2. That's a return to the 48 baseline options.

Hypothetical: Assume all amounts are doubled, representing the release of future provinces. Baseline is 1536 different options. Matching seeker/clan province element is 3456 options, but only 1920 of those use shared rings. The role improves as more cards are released. The proportion of fate-maxed, ring matched Seeker choices to normal Keeper choices will progress like:

(# in-clan and neutral provinces of Seeker element minus one) / (# of neutral provinces of each element)

This assumes all province elements are released at an equal rate and demonstrates the the Seeker role is not doing much for deck building besides offering extra fate until a clan receives another in-clan province of the same element type.

tl;dr: So, if your clan gets a Seeker role that mirrors their clan province, they double their province load-out options. However, if they want to maximize their Seeker fate gain potential, they -must- replace one element with their Seeker element. That takes them back to the original, pre-Seeker number of options, but with some extra fate coming their way every game. Taking a Seeker ring that does not match a clan's exclusive province ring actually reduces options at the moment, assuming one wishes to maximize the fate gain. As long as a clan only has one ring of any one element exclusive to their clan, Seeker has no real impact on the number of deck building options (again assuming one wants to maximize fate gain.)

Just to throw a bit more gas on this fire, apparently there are actual cards in the game with text in them that's something like "Seeker/Keeper role only"...

Either way I'm excited.

People seemed worried about the meta for this game changing too slowly and getting stagnant. Well, on a yearly basis the playing life of the tournament hound, and especially those of us with our eyes on Hatamoto Glory will change a lot.

I am so very looking forward to this game. The meta structure and tournament programme is unlike anything I've seen in 15 odd years of this, and I love it.

7 hours ago, YasukiKaito said:

Hm, that could be pretty cool if they allow anyone to play with one of the unchosen roles. Then story wise it could represent a faction of that clan following its own path rather than that of the clan as whole.

That's the one thing that worries me about the role cards having story significance. One of the key features of the setting is that the Great Clans are not monolithic, but are a group of families with a historical relationship who have chosen to act more or less in accord with one another. What the Utaku daimyo says the Unicorn's role is at a given time, is not necessarily a view held by every member of the Ide family on the best day, for example.

9 hours ago, Buhallin said:

I also don't have any faith in FFG's ability to maintain game balance, and this is going to make it worse.

.........

That's hypothetical, but I do have faith in FFG to screw it up - probably sooner rather than later. Once they do, the restrictive nature of roles will make it worse.

.....

So why are you playing again?

4 hours ago, Ide Yoshiya said:

That's the one thing that worries me about the role cards having story significance. One of the key features of the setting is that the Great Clans are not monolithic, but are a group of families with a historical relationship who have chosen to act more or less in accord with one another. What the Utaku daimyo says the Unicorn's role is at a given time, is not necessarily a view held by every member of the Ide family on the best day, for example.

You could say the same about individual characters and families being clan aligned, though.

I assume if the role cards do have apparent story significance, it will be in the priorities of clan leadership, rather than in the hopes and dreams of every clan samurai who comes along.

7 hours ago, Daigotsu Steve said:

I am so very looking forward to this game. The meta structure and tournament programme is unlike anything I've seen in 15 odd years of this, and I love it.

I agree. I've been pretty firmly in the, "FFG is going to do things the way FFG does things, and that's for the best," camp since the announcement, and this is a great development. I really like that there are clear, achievable goals with specific and defined impact on gameplay, and that both the Hatamoto and Role systems seem to be designed to promote clan loyalty among those who care for it, but are easily ignored by those who don't.

2 hours ago, Shu2jack said:

.....

So why are you playing again?

Oh. Look. Generic Fanboy Burn #17. Yawn. But sure, let's play.

Because FFG is very good at high-concept design. They excel at making fun and original games. Where they fall down is in the fine-grained execution. Their playtesting is rough and uneven, stories of them ignoring playtester input (which then turn into imbalance) are rife, and things just go right off the rails as far as balance goes. But the high concept is usually very good, and it's especially good here. There are several new ideas here that I find very interesting mechanically, and want to see explored. I also like the L5R world.

And who knows? Maybe this time will be the one where FFG learns all the lessons from previous games, and doesn't repeat the same mistakes for the 7th time. However awful I may think this idea is, they're at least doing a lot more with community support than they usually do, which is also good to see.

But really, the basic answer is that there are options between "Drooling obsessive love and support that might inspire a restraining order" and "Don't play, speak of, think about, or look upon the game ever".

41 minutes ago, BD Flory said:

both the Hatamoto and Role systems seem to be designed to promote clan loyalty among those who care for it, but are easily ignored by those who don't.

I doubt this is going to work out like this. Sure there will be the die-hard clan loyalists but if the role cards really do have impact, and that impact is uneven, you're going to see most players flowing to whichever clan is in the most advantageous position.

4 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

Oh. Look. Generic Fanboy Burn #17. Yawn. But sure, let's play.

Because FFG is very good at high-concept design. They excel at making fun and original games. Where they fall down is in the fine-grained execution. Their playtesting is rough and uneven, stories of them ignoring playtester input (which then turn into imbalance) are rife, and things just go right off the rails as far as balance goes. But the high concept is usually very good, and it's especially good here. There are several new ideas here that I find very interesting mechanically, and want to see explored. I also like the L5R world.

And who knows? Maybe this time will be the one where FFG learns all the lessons from previous games, and doesn't repeat the same mistakes for the 7th time. However awful I may think this idea is, they're at least doing a lot more with community support than they usually do, which is also good to see.

But really, the basic answer is that there are options between "Drooling obsessive love and support that might inspire a restraining order" and "Don't play, speak of, think about, or look upon the game ever".

While I agree with your assasment (because I play and played previous LCGs), I think calling comeone generic fanboy burn #17 is uncalled for and not helpful for the discussion.

Just now, Ignithas said:

While I agree with your assasment (because I play and played previous LCGs), I think calling comeone generic fanboy burn #17 is uncalled for and not helpful for the discussion.

Reference was to the comment. "Why don't you just quit" comment is about as generic as it comes. If you want to start with something that's not helpful to the discussion, we should start there.

Just now, Buhallin said:

Reference was to the comment. "Why don't you just quit" comment is about as generic as it comes. If you want to start with something that's not helpful to the discussion, we should start there.

I also think that they are uncalled for and I previously wrote against them. If we want people to respect our arguments, we shouldn't get personal with our posts.

I want to play a clan I don't like and pick the worst role possible.

I want to be the villain rokugan deserves not the one it needs.

1 minute ago, Bayushi Curtin said:

I want to play a clan I don't like and pick the worst role possible.

I want to be the villain rokugan deserves not the one it needs.

You are probably not alone, judging from the people that like Shadowlands.

Honestly, it feels like the horse was dead 4 pages ago at least...maybe we can stop beating it? Sure, the community can keep rehashing their points, clearly there's strong opinions from passionate players on both sides of the argument. I don't see a consensus likely to be reached on the question of the announced role card implementation, let alone anyone on either side of the debate changing their mind at this point. Maybe it would be best to table the issue for now, maybe allow some time (and real world application of role cards) pass before coming back to it. In the meantime, I think it would be awesome to discuss the cards themselves. Seems like there's little chatter aside from the "obvious" choices for Crab and Phoenix, what about other clans? Or which roles do folks think they would personally get the most utility from, for what deck/strategy, and why?

44 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

Oh. Look. Generic Fanboy Burn #17. Yawn.

But really, the basic answer is that there are options between "Drooling obsessive love and support that might inspire a restraining order" and "Don't play, speak of, think about, or look upon the game ever".

It wasn't a burn. It was a question.

And you are right. There are more than two options. I look forward to your post with in-depth analysis on the role cards as well as the balance issues the factions currently have in order to support your position.

And no, I don't care about their past games. I want to know about this game.

50 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

I doubt this is going to work out like this. Sure there will be the die-hard clan loyalists but if the role cards really do have impact, and that impact is uneven, you're going to see most players flowing to whichever clan is in the most advantageous position.

I don't see what part of that isn't covered by what I said. Clan loyalty is rewarded, but players who don't care can easily ignore it.

14 minutes ago, Zesu Shadaban said:

Honestly, it feels like the horse was dead 4 pages ago at least...maybe we can stop beating it? Sure, the community can keep rehashing their points, clearly there's strong opinions from passionate players on both sides of the argument. I don't see a consensus likely to be reached on the question of the announced role card implementation, let alone anyone on either side of the debate changing their mind at this point. Maybe it would be best to table the issue for now, maybe allow some time (and real world application of role cards) pass before coming back to it. In the meantime, I think it would be awesome to discuss the cards themselves. Seems like there's little chatter aside from the "obvious" choices for Crab and Phoenix, what about other clans? Or which roles do folks think they would personally get the most utility from, for what deck/strategy, and why?

Scorpion are obviously going to play best with Keeper of Fire to gain all the fate from people trying to re-honor their characters lol

15 hours ago, Buhallin said:

The problem for me is that I don't like that - I want to actually be creative with my decks, win or lose.

I addressed that in my first statement. I feel for you. But I believe you may be overreacting. Every card game has restrictions on deckbuilding, and you make the best deck with those restrictions in mind. The roles just introduce another deckbuilding restriction, and you have the freedom to come up with the best deck that abides by those restrictions, just like everyone else who is playing with that clan. The origin of that restriction is meaningless; yes, it COULD have been different, but that's irrelevant. Yes, the restrictions are different for differing clans, and that may change the meta, but how is that a problem? It could level the playing field as opposed to separating it further, we really have no idea.

3 hours ago, Buhallin said:

I doubt this is going to work out like this. Sure there will be the die-hard clan loyalists but if the role cards really do have impact, and that impact is uneven, you're going to see most players flowing to whichever clan is in the most advantageous position.

Most probably will do that but I imagine the Hatamotos won't, which is to say that the best/most dedicated won't. So there could well be a healthy enough meta just within that upper circle.

Those ronin might be numerous, but they lack honor...

4 hours ago, Buhallin said:

I doubt this is going to work out like this. Sure there will be the die-hard clan loyalists but if the role cards really do have impact, and that impact is uneven, you're going to see most players flowing to whichever clan is in the most advantageous position.

I think that will have much more to do with the performance of the clan as a whole than it does with their specific role card.

I'm having a difficult time processing the flavor behind what the Seeker roles do mechanically. I understand why the Keepers, "those clans who build up their defenses, cement their alliances, and cleave to tradition" receive higher influence and that defensive benefit. But why in the world do " those clans determined to forge ahead, launching gambits and searching for new possibilities" have a role that is all about their starting provinces and no offensive benefit?

Any Vorthos/Nedly/Bilbotastic players that understand this, please enlighten me because it's a sticking point in a play element I'm otherwise rather enthusiastic about.

10 hours ago, Casanunda said:

Every card game has restrictions on deckbuilding, and you make the best deck with those restrictions in mind.

Yes there is restrictions on deck building. No, there are none that is player defined. Obviously all roles are playtested with evey clans so its not a balance issue as well. Its just for flavor, like not allowing Crane to splash Lion because they are at war in the fiction.

16 hours ago, Buhallin said:

Reference was to the comment. "Why don't you just quit" comment is about as generic as it comes. If you want to start with something that's not helpful to the discussion, we should start there.

They did not recommend you quit; they asked why you are playing. The distinction is subtle, but vast.

Just now, Ide Yoshiya said:

They did not recommend you quit; they asked why you are playing. The distinction is subtle, but vast.

So every player who's disappointed that the Spider aren't a clan are asked why they're playing? Everyone who looks at a card and says "This is going to be useless" gets asked? Every player who saw the early Lion spoilers and freaked about the military power they could generate was grilled on why they were still sticking with the game?

No, they weren't. "Why are you still here" means entirely and only "You don't belong here because you're not loyal enough, please leave" There was no actual interest in why I am interested in the game, as evidenced by the person who asked the question completely ignoring everything I actually said in my response. He might have asked how long it took the promise of FFG's good high-concepts to fade. Could have asked how long I'd been a fan of L5R, and if I thought it would be different. Could have even asked how many times I've been through this dance with FFG (8) and how many of their games I'm still playing (3). If he actually cared, he might have found out that 2 of those 3 are cooperative so it's easy enough for us to ignore or fix the standard balance bumbling, and the third (Destiny) has already seen the meta collapse due to incompetent balance and playesting after a whole ONE expansion.

None of that was relevant though, because the guy who asked the question doesn't actually care why I'm still playing anything from FFG, or why I'm interested in L5R. He could have asked "If you're that worried about balance, what appeals enough about the game to take that risk?" or "What's your experience been with FFG communities that leads you to think this won't work?" Those would have been interesting discussion starters. That wasn't what we got.