So apparently there have been some tentative changes regarding who goes first. I was under the impression that you performed a straight random check to decide who goes first, which I like. But people at Gencon said that they changed that up, and now it is in fact a choice. Which feels worse to me on account of the fact that going second feels like a complete no brainer. Even without the free fate the mechanical advantages of being second to act far outweigh going first, but when you give an extra fate it just elevates it to make me wonder who in the world would actually choose to go first.

So here I am.

Are any of you ever choosing to go first? I absolutely hate it myself and never willingly put myself in that position. Do any of you? Why would you?

Unless they print mighty cards that triggers to breaking provinces or even winning conflicts, going second sounds more reasonable.

Currently the rules state to randomly select a player to be first player. If you win a high roll on dice, you are first player. You cannot choose to be second.

There are advantages to being the first player, but not on the first turn. Player 2 is given +1 fate automatically. This means they can either relax on province buying, knowing the worst situation is that they are even fate to their opponent with no rush, or they can rush their opponent and become +2 fate on them. That is a pretty sizable advantage in fate and in game board initiative. No rings have any fate on them, so there is no way for player 1 to make up that disadvantage.

I think they should remove the bonus fate for being player 2, and just give each player +1 fate when they pass the first dynasty. The current rules give player 2 all of the pressure during the first dynasty, and there isn't any real advantage to being player 1 that balances this out. Not only do they have the chance to get +2 fate on their opponent, but they also have 8 real fate to spend during dynasty. Even if player 1 passes first, player 2 had an extra fate to spend at that point. I understand that simply removing the fate from player 2 would create an imbalance for player 1, because player 1 does have a natural advantage to passing first... but giving player 2 +1 fate doesn't fix that problem, it only reverses it. I think just giving both players +1 fate when they pass on the first turn balances this situation far better. Neither is given unearned pressure on their opponent's buying, and neither can net a significant advantage.

Also in set up - only player 2 is guaranteed to know their opponent's clan when placing their province under their stronghold... In groups where you play frequently, or people do not conceal their clan its not a big deal - but at a larger event and if someone conceals their clan, the first player must place their province and stronghold blind

17 minutes ago, shosuko said:

There are advantages to being the first player, but not on the first turn. Player 2 gets guaranteed +1 fate on you, and if you don't pass first then they can be +2. That is a pretty sizable advantage. No rings have fate at that point, so you can't recoup any of that deficit there either. Its not a crippling disadvantage, but I don't think the +1 fate for going second is really warranted. Maybe if they just gave both players +1 fate the first turn when they pass, rather than only to the first person to pass - so that the 2nd player can't stack these two - it would be more fair. After the first turn the game board is more dynamic. Some rings may have fate on them, and some characters may stick around so at that point +1 fate for who passes first makes more sense. Right now I think its best to go second if you're given the choice.

Also in set up - only player 2 is guaranteed to know their opponent's clan when placing their province under their stronghold... In groups where you play frequently, or people do not conceal their clan its not a big deal - but at a larger even and if someone conceals their clan, the first player must place their province and stronghold blind.

Currently the rules state to randomly select a player to be the first player. That player is not given a choice. So if you are doing high roll on dice, whoever roles high is first player.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. Attacking first can be pretty sweet on the second turn. Giving the person who went second first another layer of advantage. Going first feels bad way past the first turn.

Is that true about the setup of the game? Me and mine just place down and roll like we don't give an Eff, but that's the technical way to do that is it?

Makes going first another level of derp right there.

13 minutes ago, shosuko said:

There are advantages to being the first player, but not on the first turn. Player 2 gets guaranteed +1 fate on you, and if you don't pass first then they can be +2. That is a pretty sizable advantage. No rings have fate at that point, so you can't recoup any of that deficit there either. Its not a crippling disadvantage, but I don't think the +1 fate for going second is really warranted. Maybe if they just gave both players +1 fate the first turn when they pass, rather than only to the first person to pass - so that the 2nd player can't stack these two - it would be more fair. After the first turn the game board is more dynamic. Some rings may have fate on them, and some characters may stick around so at that point +1 fate for who passes first makes more sense. Right now I think its best to go second if you're given the choice.

Also in set up - only player 2 is guaranteed to know their opponent's clan when placing their province under their stronghold... In groups where you play frequently, or people do not conceal their clan its not a big deal - but at a larger even and if someone conceals their clan, the first player must place their province and stronghold blind.

Currently the rules state to randomly select a player to be the first player. That player is not given a choice. So if you are doing high roll on dice, whoever roles high is first player.

The only gameplay reason I can think of to have the current system is to punish decks that are going wide for going first. But I have no idea, why the designer felt like this is necessary.

I like your idea way more than what we actually have.

Yeah if you check out the rules reference for setup you pick your deck, create the token bank, then determine first player and shuffle decks. The next step is to "In player order, each player secretly selects one of their provinces, places it facedown above their dynasty deck, and places their stronghold card on top of it."

1 minute ago, shosuko said:

Yeah if you check out the rules reference for setup you pick your deck, create the token bank, then determine first player and shuffle decks. The next step is to "In player order, each player secretly selects one of their provinces,m places it facedown above their dynasty deck, and places their stronghold card on top of it."

The more I play and read about L5R, the more I think that they missed the mark with the finetuning. Which is strange considering how many people playtested the game.

4 minutes ago, Ignithas said:

The more I play and read about L5R, the more I think that they missed the mark with the finetuning. Which is strange considering how many people playtested the game.

Yeah - I think they definitely have room for refinement in the rules. So far the cards seem okay enough... At least... only Hotaru / Toturi seem to need errata so far.

If they don't change this SH reveal, then I'm likely to cosplay Lion or Crab at any events I go do, and conceal my deck so they don't put Ancestral Lands under their stronghold, then I'm surprise scorpion lol.

I want to go first when being dishonored. That way I can grab dat Air Ring.

But on the first round? I think there's rarely a good reason to want to go first in the first round.

There may be an edge case where your opponent is kind of stupid and buys nothing but no fate guys and then one 1 fate guy.

Then Ring of Void may be worth snatching as first player. But otherwise...no. Going second is better 99% of the time in the first round.

If you can choose, I feel like I will usually always choose second.

I get +1 Fate, which can become +2 if I pass before my opponent. I get better knowledge of my opponent's actions. I can plan my defenses better and then counter attack safer.

THEN I get first player next turn when the rings now have fate on them, meaning I can get first pick of the available fate I have access to on the first attack.

If I'm playing phoenix, the extra fate allows me more ease if buying the powerful Shugenja I have access to, which in turn means I will probably be passing first for that +1 fate.

The only clans that really want to swing first would be clans or decks that want to ensure a ring first and early and have abilities that can allow them to swing first, and profit from it immensely. Like Unicorn who can straighten or Lion who have Matsu Bully or dishonor phoenix, who can swing early with Asako Inquisitor for fire and dishonor at least 2 personalities, neutering the counter attack. Most other clans would rather have the economic advantage, which makes all the difference.

For rush decks start first means a lot, like Lion or Unicorn agressive decks, for now if I can choose in most situations I'll choose that.

Yes I know that fate is the most precious resource in game, but also I've seen a couple of games where having 1-2 more fate didn't helped the looser at all.

There's a synchrony between bids/cards in hand and fate, so this is a little subjective question.

I go first and bring out free crab guy

You bring out anything with a fate investment

Way of the crab

Always fun...

As second player you have access to final conflict so you can also choose which ring you leave unclaimed to stack fate and grab it in first attack on round 2.

1 hour ago, TheItsyBitsySpider said:

If you can choose, I feel like I will usually always choose second.

I get +1 Fate, which can become +2 if I pass before my opponent. I get better knowledge of my opponent's actions. I can plan my defenses better and then counter attack safer. Ok, the normal situation is the first player pick that fate, If you want it you will have to bring just 1 guy and be vulnerable to loose 2 provinces in turn 1.

THEN I get first player next turn when the rings now have fate on them, meaning I can get first pick of the available fate I have access to on the first attack. This is very subjective, in games I've played the Void Ring usually is your first "choice", because you need to take that fate from your opponent cost 3, 4 or 5 guy, or just to protect your guys with fate.

Also there is: If you value that much the fate the second player get, imagine that your foe can bring his champ with two fates, pass, gain the fate and attack void, so in the next turn you will need to attack void first to get him out, and will not gain that fate on ring.

Ok so 2nd player seems to usually be better. But there may be a case that you want to go first.

If you choose, currently it is high roll goes 2nd, which is basically the same as high roll goes first. The only difference is that there may be a time where you don't want to be second.

Just now, L5RBr said:

Also there is: If you value that much the fate the second player get, imagine that your foe can bring his champ with two fates, pass, gain the fate and attack void, so in the next turn you will need to attack void first to get him out, and will not gain that fate on ring.

And then you let him take the province unprotected, bow, and then take two provinces uncontested in return since he doesn't have defenders. Its a huge gamble for the opponent to just throw out a champion and hope it works out for him.

1 minute ago, TheItsyBitsySpider said:

And then you let him take the province unprotected, bow, and then take two provinces uncontested in return since he doesn't have defenders. Its a huge gamble for the opponent to just throw out a champion and hope it works out for him.

Yes, this can happen, like I said this question is very subjective, not every clan can take 2 provinces in a turn, it depends what dynasty chars you have to bring, and what you will have in hand. Also to do that you probably have to spend almost all your fate, so in next turn your opponent have a champion with fate, that means 6 fate, and 8 more to spend, he can control the game and win the same way.

There's no best choice, it depends on who are you facing, wich clan, and the decks strategies.

I would choose to go second unless I have constructed my deck in a fashion that I would always be attempting to win by province destruction on turn 3, as I would want the first crack at winning the game.

My only exception to this would be when playing with Unicorn as they are able to both go second to get an extra fate on turn 1 and then retain the 1st player token with Way of the Unicorn to go first on turns 2 and 3.

I'm general I think it's more advantageous to start as the 2nd player, however, there will be exceptions to this and the balance of power could shift.

Also, going second to Crab can be bad in some situations. Getting forced into a potential Way of the Crab can hurt.

To note, they changed how first player works between Kiku Matsuri and the Friday Tournament, as well as changing the tie breakers slightly (And the change was related to tie breakers, to remove the possibility of ties). I thought I had heard that they intend to change them further, but I can't cite a source, so I might just be propagating a unsubstantiated rumor.

I expect we will see something in the next RR update, and before October, if this is the case.

6 minutes ago, Mirith said:

To note, they changed how first player works between Kiku Matsuri and the Friday Tournament, as well as changing the tie breakers slightly (And the change was related to tie breakers, to remove the possibility of ties). I thought I had heard that they intend to change them further, but I can't cite a source, so I might just be propagating a unsubstantiated rumor.

I expect we will see something in the next RR update, and before October, if this is the case.

How did the tiebreaker criteria for the tournaments?

Going first means having the choice to pass first, which means an extra fate. I'll be going first.

13 minutes ago, L5RBr said:

How did the tiebreaker criteria for the tournaments?

If I am parsing your question question:

(Paraphrasing, I might have missed something)

If you are still playing and go to time:

2 points for each broken province of your opponent

2 Points for having the most honor

1 Point for having the Favor

They added in, if still tied, the person who got to choose first/second loses.

Additionally, they added rules that if you have 5 more points than your opponent, you win, check your points, decide if you concede (Starting with First player) (If you do, its higher Strength of schedule, since a time win is less points than a 'real' win). Then Finish out the turn, and person with most points wins the timed-win.

Another note, the tie breaker of choosing is going to be rare. It will happen, but it will be rare, since that means no one ever took the favor the entire game.

1 hour ago, Mirith said:

If I am parsing your question question:

(Paraphrasing, I might have missed something)

If you are still playing and go to time:

2 points for each broken province of your opponent

2 Points for having the most honor

1 Point for having the Favor

They added in, if still tied, the person who got to choose first/second loses.

Additionally, they added rules that if you have 5 more points than your opponent, you win, check your points, decide if you concede (Starting with First player) (If you do, its higher Strength of schedule, since a time win is less points than a 'real' win). Then Finish out the turn, and person with most points wins the timed-win.

If I were in hardcore competitive mode, I would not be too keen on this method. I'd hate to have to call a judge to monitor stalling when province breaks/honor is tied and my opponent has the favor.

I'd really rather see a system that allows for ties if the game is not completed in time. It puts a lot less pressure on the judge to make a call for a dq. If someone is stalling all game to force a tie you will see a clear pattern of it. If you call a judge over to the table with 5 minutes left in the round after your opponent wasted 2-3 minutes whithout doing anything it will be hard for the judge to witness the actual stalling.

3 points for a win

1 point for a tie

If game goes to time and players cannot decide a clear winner amongst themselves, it's a tie. Strength of schedule should fix everything else when it comes down to ranking and it should push the pace of play as it incentivizes winning decisively instead of creating an artificial win condition of controlling the imperial favor when time is called.