37 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

could go on to point out that since this is a subjective subject, and not an objective one, there is technically no right or wrong answer...

Hello RandomJC...

Three of my four points are not subjective. I am looking at the rules and the cards affected. The "honor dial" is not subjective, the "4 point honor swing" is not subjective and the "lack of presidence" is not subjective. So, there is a right and wrong on those points.

42 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

That spending 11 pages trying to defend a position seems largely fruitless endeavor much akin to tilting at windmills.

I agree, I feel like I am riding a donkey. But, I am unwilling to move until the arguments I brought up are objectively proven wrong. Once you prove those three objective points wrong, I will change my opinion...The story-line thing I can mostly deal with, but it goes to how the game does not mirror Rokugan. If you fix the other three, you will probably fix the last one by default.

So, where is the next windmill? I will honorably tilt at windmills.

8 minutes ago, Shiba Jaimi said:

So, where is the next windmill? I will honorably tilt at windmills.

You realise that by likening yourself to good old Don, you're admitting that you don't actually see things clearly and are wrong and/or ridiculous, right?

9 minutes ago, Ersatz Nihilist said:

Check out Theresa May over here.

I am arguing the rules should be changed...I have never backed away from it. I keep quoting the rules to people because, in that moment, they are saying things that are not in the rules or they are articulating interpretations of the dueling rules that are in the current dueling rules.

9 minutes ago, Shiba Jaimi said:

Hello RandomJC...

Three of my four points are not subjective. I am looking at the rules and the cards affected. The "honor dial" is not subjective, the "4 point honor swing" is not subjective and the "lack of presidence" is not subjective. So, there is a right and wrong on those points.

I agree, I feel like I am riding a donkey. But, I am unwilling to move until the arguments I brought up are objectively proven wrong. Once you prove those three objective points wrong, I will change my opinion...The story-line thing I can mostly deal with, but it goes to how the game does not mirror Rokugan. If you fix the other three, you will probably fix the last one by default.

So, where is the next windmill? I will honorably tilt at windmills.

I think you should clearly restate your points!

@RandomJC I had some free time at work, I'm sorry.

Just now, Shiba Jaimi said:

I am arguing the rules should be changed...I have never backed away from it. I keep quoting the rules to people because, in that moment, they are saying things that are not in the rules or they are articulating interpretations of the dueling rules that are in the current dueling rules.

Moo.

6 minutes ago, Shiba Jaimi said:

Hello RandomJC...

Three of my four points are not subjective. I am looking at the rules and the cards affected. The "honor dial" is not subjective, the "4 point honor swing" is not subjective and the "lack of presidence" is not subjective. So, there is a right and wrong on those points.

All three of these are subjective until you can actually show why they're issues. You have yet to show that its a problem that dueling "punishes" both the victor and the loser especially since you have yet to address the points that dueling only punishes the initiator as much as they are willing to be punished. You have yet to show why the 4 (or 11 lol) point honor swing is an issue, especially since the exact same thing applies to drawing cards. You have yet to show why it's an issue that you can lose the game by initiating a duel. There are many actions you can take in L5R that can be detrimental to winning, playing Assassination for instance. I had a game on Monday where my opponent was on 2 honor and almost declared his 2nd conflict leaving no defense, which would let me dishonor him out with an unopposed Air or Fire ring. Are Conflicts broken because of this?

Until then your entire stance is subjective, because you have not given us an objective reason as to why we should care.

1 minute ago, Ersatz Nihilist said:

you're admitting that you don't actually see things clearly and are wrong and/or ridiculous, right?

Obviously, I am thinking differently and I have a desire for things like honor to mean HONOR...so, I am parsing it as, I am taking up an idea that is not the norm and willing to do something passionate, like arguing for the dueling rules change, in the face of the majority of my peers. So, I am comfortable with the relationship.

Besides, he might be right...But he has to prove it. Until then, I will keep the joke...I like it.

5 minutes ago, Mirith said:

I think you should clearly restate your points!

@RandomJC I had some free time at work, I'm sorry.

Sure, here you go...

_____

Thesis: "The dueling rules are broken."

1.) Game Mechanics: No other action type in the game punishes the initiator of an action in the same way dueling does. "Route", "Outwit", "For Shame" and others, for example, do not "punish" the initiator. You pay a cost, sure. But that is not punishment. You are managing resources to achieve an effect on the game board. The cost of that effect is up front and everyone can see it before you the resolution of the event is made manifest. If we say there should be an element of randomness in a duel mechanic...and there should be...it should punish the losing character/player and reward the winning player/character. The current system, in the vast majority of duels, punishes BOTH sides. So, it is possible to win every duel and lose the game because of it.

2.) Game Balance: This game is made up of micro-conflicts. Each micro-conflict can have different win conditions, subjectively or objectively. Plus, because each player can have different methods for their "win condition" and "goals" for the action, the "win condition" can be obscured. This adds subtly to the game and it is a good thing. But winning each micro-conflict is supposed to get the winner closer to one of the possible win conditions not farther way, or rather, it should not contribute to the winner of the micro-conflict losing the game, directly. Under the current rules, it is possible for a player to initiate 4 duels, in a single combat phase, and lose the game at the end of the fourth duel, immediately. This gives a very slanted advantage to the loser of the duel and in so doing, unbalances the game.

3.) Effect of Honor Loss: No clan starts the game with more than 12 honor and, I think, more clans start a game with 10 honor, more clans start with 10 honor than any other value. Dishonor is a victory condition. There are cards that transfer "1" honor from one player to another, one clan to another clan. Character effects, a clan stronghold and the Air Ring can do this. But the dueling rules can force one player/clan to transfer "4" honor to the other player/clan and the transfer can be as high as "5" or "6" honor with other card effects. This is one-third to almost one half of a clan's starting honor, possibly in one duel. This means, the dueling rules can force transfers of honor, in one duel, more power than any clan champion ability, any stronghold, any single activation of a ring. No action in the game is this powerful. And, even if we came to the conclusion that any card/action should be this much power, because most duels are normally trigger against characters with lower duel stats than the initiating character, this transfer is more likely to go to the loser of the duel. So, the player initiating the duel is giving his opponent access to the most powerful action in the game, as far as honor transfers are concerned, but because of the math behind the challenger having a higher duel stat, the largest honor transfers will happen in favor of the player/character losing the duel. The reward is going in the wrong direction.

4.) Fictional Storyline: Rokugan is a realm governed by an honor component. This has duelists and the majority are supposed to honorable. Because the rules say, "you must enter a number on the dial of how much honor you are willing to lose", it makes gives every duel an element of dishonor. Honorable samurai/duelists would not want to be dishonorable, by definition. The dueling rules directly contradict the idea of honorable duelist, by definition. Because you always have to add the number on the dial (the amount of honor to risk) to your military stat. So, under this current system, every duel is DISHONORABLE, at some level, even when both players choose "1", because both characters are still RISKING "1" honor. That, by definition, is DISHONORABLE. Honorable characters would not do this.

This dueling system does all four of these things at the same time, and so, none of these points stand alone. And for these reasons the dueling rules should be changed.

_____

3 minutes ago, Shiba Jaimi said:

2.) Game Balance: This game is made up of micro-conflicts. Each micro-conflict can have different win conditions, subjectively or objectively. Plus, because each player can have different methods for their "win condition" and "goals" for the action, the "win condition" can be obscured. This adds subtly to the game and it is a good thing. But winning each micro-conflict is supposed to get the winner closer to one of the possible win conditions not farther way, or rather, it should not contribute to the winner of the micro-conflict losing the game, directly. Under the current rules, it is possible for a player to initiate 4 duels, in a single combat phase, and lose the game at the end of the fourth duel, immediately. This gives a very slanted advantage to the loser of the duel and in so doing, unbalances the game.

Man, what sort of idiots do you play with.

"Okay, I DUEL you. Ah, right - okay, I lost some honour, but I shall respond by challenging you to a DUEL. Crap. I bid high gain and appear to have lost some more honour. But that's okay, because I've been holding this DUEL action in reserve! Hah! Ah. Right, I see what you've done there. You've bid low and I've gone high. I've only got a couple of points of honour left. There's only one way to settle this...

... a DUEL!"

I mean seriously. Just because you you and your local cargo cult keep doing the same thing over and over, it's not the game's fault.

3 minutes ago, GoblinGuide said:

All three of these are subjective until you can actually show why they're issues.

I did that. I just re-posted the "Thesis" above...

4 minutes ago, GoblinGuide said:

You have yet to show why the 4 (or 11 lol) point honor swing is an issue

I took back the "11" point thing, because the scorpion player would have to do it to them-self. On the "4" point swing, look at the thesis.

6 minutes ago, GoblinGuide said:

especially since the exact same thing applies to drawing cards.

I agree it is a problem there also, but that is a subject for a different thread...

8 minutes ago, GoblinGuide said:

There are many actions you can take in L5R that can be detrimental to winning, playing Assassination for instance.

This was not my point. Read the Thesis.

9 minutes ago, GoblinGuide said:

I had a game on Monday where my opponent was on 2 honor and almost declared his 2nd conflict leaving no defense, which would let me dishonor him out with an unopposed Air or Fire ring. Are Conflicts broken because of this?

Under the current rules, 3 duels can end a game in the first turn, on the first conflict. Unlikely, but this should not even be possible. Nothing should be this strong. A conflict alone cannot do this. This situation is specific to the dueling rules. If you think this is not strong, ok... we disagree.

6 minutes ago, Ersatz Nihilist said:

Man, what sort of idiots do you play with.

"Okay, I DUEL you. Ah, right - okay, I lost some honour, but I shall respond by challenging you to a DUEL. Crap. I bid high gain and appear to have lost some more honour. But that's okay, because I've been holding this DUEL action in reserve! Hah! Ah. Right, I see what you've done there. You've bid low and I've gone high. I've only got a couple of points of honour left. There's only one way to settle this...

... a DUEL!"

I mean seriously. Just because you you and your local cargo cult keep doing the same thing over and over, it's not the game's fault.

Actually, someone else was triggering the duels against me and I used the broken dueling rules to win. But he was accurate when he said winning the duels should put him closer to winning, not further away.

1) How is spending honor to win a duel not paying a cost, like say Assassination? When you bid 5, you risk paying 4 honor to achieve your purpose. Or you Bid 1 and decide that your opponent chooses "Bow my guy or lose 4 honor". You should consider it a sunk cost, with the possibility of a refund. Whether or not it is a "Legal play" in terms of achieving your goal is a bit more murky, since you need to decide before hand what the possible costs are considering your opponents possible bids, and not choose poorly. I don't see this as "Punishment" I see this as "Cost". Same as Assassination. Or For Shame, where your opponent gets the choice. You can do things to force the choice, and it isn't as cut and dry as other mechanics.

2) You shouldn't play assassination if you are at 3 honor. You shouldn't bid 5 if you are at 4 honor. Again, you haven't expressed anything as long as you consider the honor bid to be a cost. The player making bad choices isn't a balance issue. Its a player issue. You shouldn't use Doji Gift Giver when you have 1 fate left you need for that Admit Defeat! If you can't pay the cost, or it actively moves you towards not winning, don't use the ability!

3) If you think that you need to bid high to use the ability, don't use it. Do I think duels are strong? No, they can be costly for negligible effects, if used wrong, and the right situation seems rare. I personally think Raigutsu is the only worthwhile duel at the moment, in terms of risk to game effect. I am on the fence on Duelist Training, since you can get a lot of interesting manipulation effects out of a high military clan like Crab or Unicorn, but I don't think it works out of Crane, and Kaezin seems only situational at best.

4) Honestly, I generally agree with you on the story aspect of how duels work, and even have stated so in old threads when it first was announced. I dislike that it basically implies cheating when you bid high. But given the depth of strategy and interesting effects to the game, I forgive it, and hope to see more powerful duel effects.

If I'm reading your arguments correctly, you want the game to not let you decide the risk for reward? You want it told to you. Perhaps you shouldn't use duels if you are risking dying first turn by making poor choices. I don't think duels are easy to use, but I think they could be very interesting and powerful. They add a bluffing aspect to the game that I really liked out of Netrunner, where you had to decide on what information your opponent is trying to hide or achieve.

Just now, Shiba Jaimi said:

Actually, someone else was triggering the duels against me and I used the broken dueling rules to win. But he was accurate when he said winning the duels should put him closer to winning, not further away.

The rules aren't broken. Your opponent is broken because he keeps doing the exact same thing to no benefit for himself. You're using silly hypotheticals where people will engage in self-damaging play to make your point, because it doesn't stand up on it's own.

Sure, I get it - not everybody is a rational decision maker, but what you're describing here is just crazy play.

6 minutes ago, Shiba Jaimi said:

I did that. I just re-posted the "Thesis" above...

I took back the "11" point thing, because the scorpion player would have to do it to them-self. On the "4" point swing, look at the thesis.

I agree it is a problem there also, but that is a subject for a different thread...

This was not my point. Read the Thesis.

Under the current rules, 3 duels can end a game in the first turn, on the first conflict. Unlikely, but this should not even be possible. Nothing should be this strong. A conflict alone cannot do this. This situation is specific to the dueling rules. If you think this is not strong, ok... we disagree.

This is my point though, you can't pretend that your Thesis is objective when all you have is a bunch of subjective ideas. Much like the 11 point swing the only way 3 duels is ending the game in the first conflict is if someone is doing it to themselves. Your thesis boils down to two points: Dueling mechanically doesn't match up with the flavor you imagine, and duels are not always positive for the initiator. The first is understandable, even if I disagree with it, but you are unwilling to acknowledge that the second is only a problem if you do it to yourself.

30 minutes ago, Mirith said:

I think you should clearly restate your points!

@RandomJC I had some free time at work, I'm sorry.

Is this the point where I admit to putting him on ignore, since he clearly didn't understand I wasn't going to read his replies?

1 minute ago, Ersatz Nihilist said:

The rules aren't broken.

Ok, refute the points in the thesis and I will change my mind.

1 minute ago, Ersatz Nihilist said:

Your opponent is broken because he keeps doing the exact same thing to no benefit for himself.

He did not understand how the dueling was broken. So, as he used it, I accentuated each loss. And I was deceitful about it, he didn't see me maneuvering him into situations where the duel would resolve, not in a 1-2 point honor lost...but rather 2-4 point s(normally 3 points honor loss).

And please respect my play group, you do not know them. I don't call you broken because we have a difference of opinion.

What can I say, I find the often brazen acts of a mad man appealing for only so little a time. I'd argue for people to stop responding to him, but then he might think he won.

4 minutes ago, Shiba Jaimi said:

He did not understand how the dueling was broken. So, as he used it, I accentuated each loss. And I was deceitful about it, he didn't see me maneuvering him into situations where the duel would resolve, not in a 1-2 point honor lost...but rather 2-4 point s(normally 3 points honor loss).

And please respect my play group, you do not know them. I don't call you broken because we have a difference of opinion.

Oh, so your argument hinges on somebody not understanding the functioning of the rules in practice. Riiiiiiight.

I get it now, your group aren't broken, they're just Terminators with the switch set to "don't learn".

52 minutes ago, GoblinGuide said:

This is my point though, you can't pretend that your Thesis is objective when all you have is a bunch of subjective ideas.

Please define "subjective". I now believe you don't know what that means.

52 minutes ago, GoblinGuide said:

Much like the 11 point swing

It is not in the Thesis...

52 minutes ago, GoblinGuide said:

only way 3 duels is ending the game in the first conflict is if someone is doing it to themselves.

First, the four point swing can happen to either party. It is the difference between someone bidding "1" and the other person bidding "5". No special cards or special plays need apply here. Three duels ending in a 4 point swing, going in the same direction, ends the game. Yes, it is unlikely, but my point is that IT SHOULDN'T BE POSSIBLE! If you think it should be, fine...we disagree.

52 minutes ago, GoblinGuide said:

Dueling mechanically doesn't match up with the flavor you imagine, and duels are not always positive for the initiator. The first is understandable, even if I disagree with it, but you are unwilling to acknowledge that the second is only a problem if you do it to yourself.

You have not thought of how it can happen yet. Others in this thread have described how it can happen. With respect, take a read and include the Thesis. I'll be here.

1 minute ago, RandomJC said:

What can I say, I find the often brazen acts of a mad man appealing for only so little a time. I'd argue for people to stop responding to him, but then he might think he won.

My entirely rational side put him on ignore like 9 pages ago.............my morbid curiosity gets the better of me from time to time to read some ignored posts when work is slow..............which sets off my inner ganstabeeotch..................... "Oh helllllllll no. Mofo said what?

2 minutes ago, Ersatz Nihilist said:

Oh, so your argument hinges on somebody not understanding the functioning of the rules in practice. Riiiiiiight.

No, he understands the rules, just not where they are broken. Read the thesis.

Just now, Ishi Tonu said:

My entirely rational side put him on ignore like 9 pages ago.............my morbid curiosity gets the better of me from time to time to read some ignored posts when work is slow..............which sets off my inner ganstabeeotch..................... "Oh helllllllll no. Mofo said what?

The feeling when it takes you a good 30 seconds, and had already opened up google before I realized what ganstabeeotch was.

I mean, I haven't really read anything, but it seems mostly based around "I won, why am I losing honor", but I don't really know. It's a lot of effort put forth about something that isn't going to change, that most people don't want to change.

1 minute ago, Ishi Tonu said:

My entirely rational side put him on ignore like 9 pages ago.............my morbid curiosity gets the better of me from time to time to read some ignored posts when work is slow..............which sets off my inner ganstabeeotch..................... "Oh helllllllll no. Mofo said what?

We are just arguing on the internet. but: https://xkcd.com/386/

12 minutes ago, Shiba Jaimi said:

Ok, refute the points in the thesis and I will change my mind.

I refuted your points, point by point, except for your "Subjective" one which I personally agree with. That is an opinion, and you are welcome to it, and is neither right nor wrong. However, your other points are still wrong.

I think I win a soda if we make it to 15 pages.

Just now, Shiba Jaimi said:

No, he understands the rules, just not where they are broken. Read the thesis.

So why is this genius falling for it over and over again? Has this actually happened to you? Have you been in or seen a game where a proper, rational, not drunk, not tripping on acid, functional human being declared a Duel and after getting tricked did the exact same thing again.

And again.

And again .

... and then blamed the game.

Oh god it's you isn't it. I see it now. The endless looping, the inability to learn. It makes sense now. Honestly though, I'm actually sorry if you really do have anterograde amnesia or something.