I don't disagree with the sentiment of allowing ties versus not. It would also resolve tourneys faster. I personally am not super pleased by the fact that you can take a less useful option to edge out the tie win (Taking the 4th province, versus taking the stronghold). I wish it was "Provinces broken, up to 3". At the moment, I cannot think of a good reason to try and break a 4th province over trying for their stronghold, that isn't either tie breaker, or a delaying tactic. There are minor gains, and its better than not swinging, I guess, but it isn't something you would typically do to try and win, which the tiebreakers should cover.

If this was old L5R, people would be fuming over the whole Honor thing not counting (the current 'alternate' win conditions), but I think its fair in this game, since you are likely to break provinces while playing honor or dishonor.

Initially a tie resulted in a double loss in the Kiku Matsuri. I'm guessing they just didn't want ties.

It's not that honor doesn't count, it just doesn't count as much, when considering tie breaks.

This is one of the reasons why I prefer to leave it to the players to try and work it out and if they cannot or will not it's simply a tie and we all move on without having to result to a dice roll or some other subjective scoring system, that will always leave some group of players upset their preferred method of victory is not weighted enough, and is more open to abuse.

Me breaking three of my opponent's provinces and them finishing 1 higher on honor but only breaking two of my provinces with the tie breaker going to who has the favor doesn't really work imo. What were the honor totals at? Was my opponent close to an honor victory? We're there still conflicts to be resolved? What did the board state look like? What were the next dynasty flips going to be? Who was going to get the 1st players token? Etc. I would much rather see the players work this out then have a game that goes to time and have stalling for favor control be a possibilty.

One of my last tournaments for Old5R was the last Emerald Championship before the CCG was sold. My opponent was over 10 mins. late to sit down to play. I was already assured a win but I wanted to play anyways. The judge said if the game goes to time I would be the winner. We played and the game went to time, neither of us stalling and both of us going at one another. It was a great game. If we had the extra 10 mins. to play we could have finished. It looked to me like he was about to take control of the game had we been able to finish and I offered the concession. He said that it was close enough that I should take the win because he was late to the table. In the end I opted to take the normal tie breaker, a dice roll ,and lost, but, I won the sportsmanship award and made a new friend so I'm cool with that outcome.

The L5R community is not like most other communities and I'd like to believe that the returning players and the new ones that will be attracted to this game would be able to resolve ties on their own. I could be wrong, but, if FFG doesn't trust us to do the right thing, I think they should at least refine their points scale for tiebreaker so that it cannot be abused.

No, I pretty much can't see me ever wanting to go first. I'm sure the odd deck where it is wanted will come up, but going first is a significant penalty so far.

8 hours ago, Bayushi Shunsuke said:

omg thank you! I'm glad to see this, because the method in the RR was disturbing.

6 hours ago, Toxium said:

I go first and bring out free crab guy

You bring out anything with a fate investment

Way of the crab

Always fun...

Very sneaky, but knowing these hijinks I just don't buy a big guy first against crab. Thanks for letting me know before one of my crab friends pulled it on me lol.

12 minutes ago, shosuko said:

Very sneaky, but knowing these hijinks I just don't buy a big guy first against crab. Thanks for letting me know before one of my crab friends pulled it on me lol.

If you remember!

First choice of ring is pretty important, especially with high glory characters. I've certainly had many games that I've won as first player that would have gone completely different if I had gone second. First player also passes first if an equal number of actions are taken by both sides, negating the fate advantage. Play two characters and you're very likely to get the fate. I'd say I prefer to go first with just about every deck except for Crab; they're better at counter-punching.

Then again, this is all just personal conjecture until we see stats.

2 hours ago, Ishi Tonu said:

The L5R community is not like most other communities and I'd like to believe that the returning players and the new ones that will be attracted to this game would be able to resolve ties on their own. I could be wrong, but, if FFG doesn't trust us to do the right thing, I think they should at least refine their points scale for tiebreaker so that it cannot be abused.

I also had someone at GenCon offer, at the start of the match, to give me promos if I would concede. Then, when I pointed out that this was bribery, he asserted that, because nothing in the rules prohibited bribery, he was allowed to. So I'm going to have to come down on the "we need tournament rules" side of things. Unfortunately tournament rules can't be written assuming everyone is reasonable, fair, and will come to the same subjective conclusions about game state as their opponent.

(to be clear, I do not agree with the proposition that bribery is OK in the absence of a specific prohibition)

10 minutes ago, Daramere said:

I also had someone at GenCon offer, at the start of the match, to give me promos if I would concede. Then, when I pointed out that this was bribery, he asserted that, because nothing in the rules prohibited bribery, he was allowed to. So I'm going to have to come down on the "we need tournament rules" side of things. Unfortunately tournament rules can't be written assuming everyone is reasonable, fair, and will come to the same subjective conclusions about game state as their opponent.

(to be clear, I do not agree with the proposition that bribery is OK in the absence of a specific prohibition)

There is nothing in the rules that says my dog can't play L5R.

1 minute ago, Mirith said:

There is nothing in the rules that says my dog can't play L5R.

Would you discriminate against a being who has shown the capability to play as well as a human of reasonable mental capabilities?

15 minutes ago, Shu2jack said:

Would you discriminate against a being who has shown the capability to play as well as a human of reasonable mental capabilities?

There is nothing in my server host ToS that says I can't store a bee hive in the racks? (I can't find the XKCD)

30 minutes ago, Daramere said:

I also had someone at GenCon offer, at the start of the match, to give me promos if I would concede. Then, when I pointed out that this was bribery, he asserted that, because nothing in the rules prohibited bribery, he was allowed to. So I'm going to have to come down on the "we need tournament rules" side of things. Unfortunately tournament rules can't be written assuming everyone is reasonable, fair, and will come to the same subjective conclusions about game state as their opponent.

(to be clear, I do not agree with the proposition that bribery is OK in the absence of a specific prohibition)

I agree tournament rules are needed so I'm not sure how this ended up directed at me and somehow has me on the other side of your argument.

Sure we need rules. I just don't like the tiebreaker rules as they have been presented (if those are in fact the rules) as they create wiggle room for abuse, and at the very minimum encourage slow play.

It would be foolish for FFG to think that all games will reach a conclusion so something has to be put in place should time be called and a game is not finished. I suggest they default to awarding a tie, unless the players are able come to an agreement about who the winner was or should have been. If you don't want to discuss it with your opponent, you don't have to, you take the tie. And if FFG wants to include rules against colusion, bribery, intimitdatio, etc then they can add that too.

On 9/5/2017 at 2:02 PM, Mirith said:

There is nothing in my server host ToS that says I can't store a bee hive in the racks? (I can't find the XKCD)

Here you go

5 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

I agree tournament rules are needed so I'm not sure how this ended up directed at me and somehow has me on the other side of your argument.

Sure we need rules. I just don't like the tiebreaker rules as they have been presented (if those are in fact the rules) as they create wiggle room for abuse, and at the very minimum encourage slow play.

It would be foolish for FFG to think that all games will reach a conclusion so something has to be put in place should time be called and a game is not finished. I suggest they default to awarding a tie, unless the players are able come to an agreement about who the winner was or should have been. If you don't want to discuss it with your opponent, you don't have to, you take the tie. And if FFG wants to include rules against colusion, bribery, intimitdatio, etc then they can add that too.

Doesn't Magic have an issue where late in tournaments, due to the numbers, its better that you both just take the tie and move on, rather than actually play your games, due to having ties?

Just now, Mirith said:

Doesn't Magic have an issue where late in tournaments, due to the numbers, its better that you both just take the tie and move on, rather than actually play your games, due to having ties?

I think you are allowed 5 additional turns between both players after time is called.......but I could be wrong. I always play common only standard decks vs real standard decks so I've generally lost before it even gets close to time. Lol

4 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

I think you are allowed 5 additional turns between both players after time is called.......but I could be wrong. I always play common only standard decks vs real standard decks so I've generally lost before it even gets close to time. Lol

I more mean its better for both parties if you game the system and collude to a draw, rather than either of you taking the loss.

I want to go first.

I get to immediately try for the Void Ring to remove your fate advantage. Or, maybe you bought no one with fate and I'll have a more controlled board state next turn compared to your random guys. Then, on the fateless T1, I can just go after Water instead of Void to stymy your counterattack.

So, do you let me remove your +1 fate while I protect my investments or do you roll the dice on T1 and T2?

If you offer to let me go first, I will take it.

13 minutes ago, Mirith said:

I more mean its better for both parties if you game the system and collude to a draw, rather than either of you taking the loss.

Maybe I wouldn't know. Pro level events are something like 12+ rounds so I'm sure that becomes more of a possibility. It will.depend on the tourney structure. If FFG says only played with 5-0 records get hatamoto...then thing acomplishes nothing.

If two players are 4-0 entering the final round it will depend on what the requirement to advance is to the next round would be. If it's anything less than a perfect 5-0 record then 4-0-1 is likely going to end up being about the same as 4-1and both would likely qualify.

6 minutes ago, Iuchi Toshimo said:

I want to go first.

I get to immediately try for the Void Ring to remove your fate advantage. Or, maybe you bought no one with fate and I'll have a more controlled board state next turn compared to your random guys. Then, on the fateless T1, I can just go after Water instead of Void just to stymy your counterattack.

So, do you let me remove your +1 fate while I protect my investments or do you roll the dice on T1 and T2?

If you offer to let me go first, I will take it.

Considering player 2 gets +1 fate free - I don't think the Ring of Void gives you any advantage. It just means their +1 free bonus fate is removed, they still may have passed first or may take a ring of water next to ready the defender from the first attack.

In fact - this is something I didn't go over yet - but its another advantage of going second. If you fate up your characters turn 1 and buy just 2 characters you can use your second conflict to ready the one that defended in the first conflict letting 2 characters do more work. Compared to player 1 who finds RoW useless if you fated up your characters, and its too late to take it second conflict.

8 minutes ago, shosuko said:

Considering player 2 gets +1 fate free - I don't think the Ring of Void gives you any advantage. It just means their +1 free bonus fate is removed, they still may have passed first or may take a ring of water next to ready the defender from the first attack.

In fact - this is something I didn't go over yet - but its another advantage of going second. If you fate up your characters turn 1 and buy just 2 characters you can use your second conflict to ready the one that defended in the first conflict letting 2 characters do more work. Compared to player 1 who finds RoW useless if you fated up your characters, and its too late to take it second conflict.

I don't get it. First player usually finishes their dynasty phase first or at least should strongly consider it. In that case he gets 1 bonus fate which means both player 1 and 2 had 8 fate total to spend during the first turn. If second player didn't have 1 starting fate he would usually get only 7 fate to first players 8. Considering that the first player also gets his choice of ring I feel +1 fate at the beginning of the game looks like an easy enough solution for the "going second" problem(I would say the second player is very slightly favored but nothing close to first player if there was no bonus fate).

So getting the Void ring in fact gives the first player fate advantage if they want to choose this route.

The line of play you described is very weak to one of the most common cards right now - assasination(and multiple combat tricks such as mirumotos fury). Assasination on 2 cost character with 1 or more fate can be particularly juicy, especially if you gave up on defending void in hopes of getting your water.

55 minutes ago, BordOne said:

I don't get it. First player usually finishes their dynasty phase first or at least should strongly consider it. In that case he gets 1 bonus fate which means both player 1 and 2 had 8 fate total to spend during the first turn. If second player didn't have 1 starting fate he would usually get only 7 fate to first players 8. Considering that the first player also gets his choice of ring I feel +1 fate at the beginning of the game looks like an easy enough solution for the "going second" problem(I would say the second player is very slightly favored but nothing close to first player if there was no bonus fate).

So getting the Void ring in fact gives the first player fate advantage if they want to choose this route.

The line of play you described is very weak to one of the most common cards right now - assasination(and multiple combat tricks such as mirumotos fury). Assasination on 2 cost character with 1 or more fate can be particularly juicy, especially if you gave up on defending void in hopes of getting your water.

In 1 core - everyone should play assassinate. In multi-core I don't think I'll see it as often. I still use it, but as Scorpion I can offset the honor cost by taking it back from my opponent - considering I can play well even bidding low, I don't think anyone is going to want to get to that level of honor deficit. I can easily switch up from a MIL focus to dishonor focus if they bid their honor away.

Player 1 is incentivized to buy 3 characters on turn 1 because of player 2's access to the Ring of Water to ready a character from the first conflict. If player 1 only buys 2 characters and passes then player 2 can defend, go ring of water, and then get a free 2nd attack since player 1 has no more characters to attack or defend. I've taken several provinces against my opponents by sneaking in a final conflict after everything is bowed out either with conflict characters, or ring of water to ready someone used in the previous conflicts.

If player 1 buys 3 characters to counter the Ring of Water, and player 2 only buys 2 characters, the player 2 is at +2 fate going into the conflict portion.

Player 1 turn 1 feels a lot of pressure because their best case scenario is to balance the +1 the other player receives by passing first. Meanwhile player 2 can choose to either force that pressure by buying 2 and passing (or even buying 1 and using a conflict character) to take a stronger advantage, or relax and buy as they wish knowing their worst case scenario is a balanced 8 fate to each player.

1 hour ago, shosuko said:

Player 1 is incentivized to buy 3 characters on turn 1 because of player 2's access to the Ring of Water to ready a character from the first conflict. If player 1 only buys 2 characters and passes then player 2 can defend, go ring of water, and then get a free 2nd attack since player 1 has no more characters to attack or defend. I've taken several provinces against my opponents by sneaking in a final conflict after everything is bowed out either with conflict characters, or ring of water to ready someone used in the previous conflicts.

Wait what? I don't get you. If player 1 has 2 characters and declared one conflict he can still have 1 character left. And in the early game he still will. If you defended it doesn't mean you win the conflict either. It also doesn't mean that when you swing with water opponent won't defend and you wont lose. Also there are countless ways in which this plan can go wrong, like bad province flips, a lot of tricks in opponents hand, anything.

And if the second player by any chance has a 0 fate character the ring of water becomes pretty attractive for player 1 as well.

1 hour ago, shosuko said:

If player 1 buys 3 characters to counter the Ring of Water, and player 2 only buys 2 characters, the player 2 is at +2 fate going into the conflict portion.

Than player one should remember about this from the beginning of dynasty phase and plan accordingly.

1 hour ago, shosuko said:

Player 1 turn 1 feels a lot of pressure because their best case scenario is to balance the +1 the other player receives by passing first. Meanwhile player 2 can choose to either force that pressure by buying 2 and passing (or even buying 1 and using a conflict character) to take a stronger advantage, or relax and buy as they wish knowing their worst case scenario is a balanced 8 fate to each player.

Yes and player 2 should feel pressure from the fact that he can walk into his own conflicts with card disadvantage/dishonored character/bowed character/ or have the fate on the key one removed.

If player 2 passes early with just 2 characters it lets player 1 develop however he wants for the first conflict and nearly assures him winning it thus getting the ring that he wants(unless it is against scorpion who thanks to keeper of air and master of disguise can outvalue you. but there is no counter to that so too bad).

1 hour ago, shosuko said:

In 1 core - everyone should play assassinate. In multi-core I don't think I'll see it as often. I still use it, but as Scorpion I can offset the honor cost by taking it back from my opponent - considering I can play well even bidding low, I don't think anyone is going to want to get to that level of honor deficit. I can easily switch up from a MIL focus to dishonor focus if they bid their honor away.

Player 1 is incentivized to buy 3 characters on turn 1 because of player 2's access to the Ring of Water to ready a character from the first conflict. If player 1 only buys 2 characters and passes then player 2 can defend, go ring of water, and then get a free 2nd attack since player 1 has no more characters to attack or defend. I've taken several provinces against my opponents by sneaking in a final conflict after everything is bowed out either with conflict characters, or ring of water to ready someone used in the previous conflicts.

If player 1 buys 3 characters to counter the Ring of Water, and player 2 only buys 2 characters, the player 2 is at +2 fate going into the conflict portion.

Player 1 turn 1 feels a lot of pressure because their best case scenario is to balance the +1 the other player receives by passing first. Meanwhile player 2 can choose to either force that pressure by buying 2 and passing (or even buying 1 and using a conflict character) to take a stronger advantage, or relax and buy as they wish knowing their worst case scenario is a balanced 8 fate to each player.

That seems to be based on a certain context of which decks were played, which factions were splashed, which characters were flipped, and opening hand. For example, if one player is using a keeper deck and they flip an initiate or two, then they might have more leeway for possible buys. Maybe once a particular meta shows up, it may be easier for certain decks to want to go first or second, which character to mulligan for, and so on for particular matchups.

1 hour ago, shosuko said:

In 1 core - everyone should play assassinate. In multi-core I don't think I'll see it as often. I still use it, but as Scorpion I can offset the honor cost by taking it back from my opponent - considering I can play well even bidding low, I don't think anyone is going to want to get to that level of honor deficit. I can easily switch up from a MIL focus to dishonor focus if they bid their honor away.

Player 1 is incentivized to buy 3 characters on turn 1 because of player 2's access to the Ring of Water to ready a character from the first conflict. If player 1 only buys 2 characters and passes then player 2 can defend, go ring of water, and then get a free 2nd attack since player 1 has no more characters to attack or defend. I've taken several provinces against my opponents by sneaking in a final conflict after everything is bowed out either with conflict characters, or ring of water to ready someone used in the previous conflicts.

If player 1 buys 3 characters to counter the Ring of Water, and player 2 only buys 2 characters, the player 2 is at +2 fate going into the conflict portion.

Player 1 turn 1 feels a lot of pressure because their best case scenario is to balance the +1 the other player receives by passing first. Meanwhile player 2 can choose to either force that pressure by buying 2 and passing (or even buying 1 and using a conflict character) to take a stronger advantage, or relax and buy as they wish knowing their worst case scenario is a balanced 8 fate to each player.

I'm trying to think about this in my head......I played my first game last night in person...

If I'm going first and only buy two characters, I'm not worried about the water ring. I have one attack and one defense. My attack is probably my beefy character with fate on it. My defender will already be bowed after he defends the Water Ring conflict.

If my opponent has three characters I may choose to attack with the water ring first (I'm first player), just to bow that third guy.

Why don't we go with a more detailed example. This is 1x core set and after mulligans.

Player A (first player)

Stronghold - Isawa Mori Seido (phoenix) Splash - Crane Role - Seeker of Void

Province Flip - Naïve Student, Seppun Guardsman, Wandering Ronin, Isawa Masahiro

Hand - For Shame!, Grasp of Earth, Banzai!, Stewart of Law

Player B (second player)

Stronghold - Yojin no Shiro Splash -??? Role - Keeper of Earth

Province Flip - Akodo Gunso, Keeper Initiate, Favorable Ground, Lion's Clan Brawler

Hand - ???

Not know Player B's hand or splash, what would you do?

2 hours ago, Shu2jack said:

I'm trying to think about this in my head......I played my first game last night in person...

If I'm going first and only buy two characters, I'm not worried about the water ring. I have one attack and one defense. My attack is probably my beefy character with fate on it. My defender will already be bowed after he defends the Water Ring conflict.

If my opponent has three characters I may choose to attack with the water ring first (I'm first player), just to bow that third guy.

The Ring of Water would straighten the character player 2 used to defend against your first attack - so they would have a ready character after their first conflict, and you would not.

3 hours ago, BordOne said:

Wait what? I don't get you. If player 1 has 2 characters and declared one conflict he can still have 1 character left. And in the early game he still will. If you defended it doesn't mean you win the conflict either. It also doesn't mean that when you swing with water opponent won't defend and you wont lose. Also there are countless ways in which this plan can go wrong, like bad province flips, a lot of tricks in opponents hand, anything.

Yes and player 2 should feel pressure from the fact that he can walk into his own conflicts with card disadvantage/dishonored character/bowed character/ or have the fate on the key one removed.

If player 2 passes early with just 2 characters it lets player 1 develop however he wants for the first conflict and nearly assures him winning it thus getting the ring that he wants(unless it is against scorpion who thanks to keeper of air and master of disguise can outvalue you. but there is no counter to that so too bad).

Nothing ensures either of them will win either conflict. All things being equal if they all only tie, this still gives player 2 the advantage on the Ring of Water taking it to a 3rd conflict. Basically player 1 needs some trick to get ahead. Nothing means player 1 wins their conflict any more than player 2 winning theirs, but just the mechanics of Ring of Water are built to suit player 2, combined with the bonus 1-2 fate they have a stronger presence turn 1.

I don't think Player 2 passing early gives Player 1 any advantage. They only have the characters they flipped to buy, and they only have 7 fate total compared to their opponent's 9...