With sufficient food dye, all drinks are purple.

Purple food dye makes your p**p bright green

um... and with that... here we are

2 hours ago, Mirith said:

My final effort to be rational with you:

We have been, mostly, rational this entire time. Disagreement or not, I am not being a troll. I see legitimate issues here. I know you disagree, but this is not an ugly conversation.

2 hours ago, Mirith said:

Costs aren't just things printed on a card. There are many different kinds of costs. Perhaps you should take an economics class to learn about such things. In terms of the game, costs are what you pay to try and achieve a particular goal. Individual cards themselves have costs, which you pay, like the Fate cost, or the honor cost on Assassination. However, you also pay the opportunity cost of not having that card available to use later. Perhaps it would have been better used later, not now? Other opportunity costs are choices you didn't make.

The cost of initiating an action is ALWAYS clearly stated on the card. Bansai has a "0" cost and an option to spend a fate in the text box, Assassinate has a "0" fate cost and a three honor cost in the text box...holdings, events, character actions, attachments...everything has it's cost up front. None of the duel have a cost to activate them. Duelist Training has a cost to "attach" it, but that is not the cost for triggering the actual duel. But, I could be wrong. By all means, provide a list of cards that do not have their cost notated up front, to initiate the action.

2 hours ago, Mirith said:

For example, You can only afford one more character, and have two choices. A cost you pay is not buying the other.

You are not describing a cost from an action, you are describing a budget. The cost for both cards you want to bring into play from your provinces are clearly marked on the card. not being able to afford both is NOT a "cost".

2 hours ago, Mirith said:

Finally, there are a ton of other choices in choosing your conflicts. For example, if you commit Dude X to defend, you don't have him to attack. If you commit Dude Y to attack, you don't have him to defend. If you choose the Ring of Fire with No Fate on your first attack, then your opponent has the chance to choose the Ring of Air with 2 fate on their first conflict, costing you that fate (Even on top of that choice maybe mattering, as perhaps you are at 1 honor).

Now you are talking strategy. I can understand how you could think of them as a "cost", but that is a loose relationship to what options are available to you. It is NOT a "COST" for initiating an action. It is a decision. The cost for an action and the decision to take that action are two different things.

2 hours ago, Mirith said:

So in your choice of results from dueling, you need to either choose your duel in situations where you will ALWAYS get the result you want, IE bully dueling (Dueling from such a high skill your opponent can't win, so doesn't try), or you need to use your duels in situations where you feel like the result will get you what you want, even if it costs you something else.

But you still cannot name the cost before you initiate the duel, therefore, it is not the COST of the action itself. The action (duel) starts and the penalty is assessed in the resolution. Plus, you are still talking about strategy, not the cost of the action. Negotiating the broken rules is not the same as the rules not being broken.

2 hours ago, Mirith said:

If you had a card that said "While in a conflict where you have 3 participating Characters, your opponent has 2 participating character, and you are losing, Bow a character with more Military skill than one of your opponent's characters - Steal 4 honor from your opponent" Would you play it? That is the sort of specific situations where dueling is good.

Now you are talking TACTICS, this does not fix the broken rule. How you behave in the conflict is still different from the cost of the action, how strong the action actually is or whether an action is balanced in the game.

2 hours ago, Mirith said:

If you don't like the word "Cost" choose a different word, but the concept is ESSENTIAL to any sophisticated strategy game.

No. The rules are CLEAR. The COST of an action is on every card. You are talking about assessing risk...still two different things. I see how your mind is working with these things, and in watching how you are putting ideas together, you are not foolish. But I think the terms you are using are a bit loose. Not a big thing. But when the RULES stipulate a COST, those RULES are being very specific. Personal interpretation cannot enter into it, because everyone will have their own interpretation. That with I keep going back to what the RULES say.

2 hours ago, Mirith said:

And on your point of "Its too powerful!" That is because you are choosing your costs poorly. Don't choose duels where you have to bid 5 and potentially lose 4 honor. Bad play doesn't make rules broken. What you are describing is basically bad play. In Chess, you don't intentionally move your Queen where it is easily captured for no reason. In MtG, you generally don't swing with your 1/1 while you have no cards in hand if your opponent has a 3/3 that they can block with. You are basically arguing that bad choices makes the game unbalanced.

No. I am talking about what the mechanics of the dueling rules ALLOWS for, independent of anyone playing a game. An action that allows for a "4" point honor swing is a larger swing than any ring, clan champion, stronghold, holding, province, character, attachment or event. Clan champions cost "5" fate...Duelist Training costs "1". This is too powerful, specifically because of the dueling rules.

Let me help you out. Show me another single action that allows for a four point honor swing. Show me the card that does not have it's cost clearly printed on the card. Prove I am wrong about it being POSSIBLE to end a game in the first turn, in the first conflict, after the third duel (it can actually be done in two, but I am sticking with three for the moment). I am not talking about an individual game...I am talking about us stacking the deck, then show me another single action that can do that. When you can these things, then you are on the road to disproving the Thesis.

56 minutes ago, shosuko said:

Purple food dye makes your p**p bright green

um... and with that... here we are

Now all our poop will be green!

1 hour ago, Shiba Jaimi said:

We have been, mostly, rational this entire time. Disagreement or not, I am not being a troll. I see legitimate issues here. I know you disagree, but this is not an ugly conversation.

The cost of initiating an action is ALWAYS clearly stated on the card. Bansai has a "0" cost and an option to spend a fate in the text box, Assassinate has a "0" fate cost and a three honor cost in the text box...holdings, events, character actions, attachments...everything has it's cost up front. None of the duel have a cost to activate them. Duelist Training has a cost to "attach" it, but that is not the cost for triggering the actual duel. But, I could be wrong. By all means, provide a list of cards that do not have their cost notated up front, to initiate the action.

You are not describing a cost from an action, you are describing a budget. The cost for both cards you want to bring into play from your provinces are clearly marked on the card. not being able to afford both is NOT a "cost".

Now you are talking strategy. I can understand how you could think of them as a "cost", but that is a loose relationship to what options are available to you. It is NOT a "COST" for initiating an action. It is a decision. The cost for an action and the decision to take that action are two different things.

But you still cannot name the cost before you initiate the duel, therefore, it is not the COST of the action itself. The action (duel) starts and the penalty is assessed in the resolution. Plus, you are still talking about strategy, not the cost of the action. Negotiating the broken rules is not the same as the rules not being broken.

Now you are talking TACTICS, this does not fix the broken rule. How you behave in the conflict is still different from the cost of the action, how strong the action actually is or whether an action is balanced in the game.

No. The rules are CLEAR. The COST of an action is on every card. You are talking about assessing risk...still two different things. I see how your mind is working with these things, and in watching how you are putting ideas together, you are not foolish. But I think the terms you are using are a bit loose. Not a big thing. But when the RULES stipulate a COST, those RULES are being very specific. Personal interpretation cannot enter into it, because everyone will have their own interpretation. That with I keep going back to what the RULES say.

No. I am talking about what the mechanics of the dueling rules ALLOWS for, independent of anyone playing a game. An action that allows for a "4" point honor swing is a larger swing than any ring, clan champion, stronghold, holding, province, character, attachment or event. Clan champions cost "5" fate...Duelist Training costs "1". This is too powerful, specifically because of the dueling rules.

Let me help you out. Show me another single action that allows for a four point honor swing. Show me the card that does not have it's cost clearly printed on the card. Prove I am wrong about it being POSSIBLE to end a game in the first turn, in the first conflict, after the third duel (it can actually be done in two, but I am sticking with three for the moment). I am not talking about an individual game...I am talking about us stacking the deck, then show me another single action that can do that. When you can these things, then you are on the road to disproving the Thesis.

1 hour ago, Klawtu said:

*gives purple Gatorade* welcome to the party.

Too many people can’t seems to manage uncertainty/probability and yet blame it on something else

3 minutes ago, castertroyt said:

Too many people can’t seems to manage uncertainty/probability and yet blame it on something else

Or the mechanic is broken.

Definitely not because I made bad plays.

Yup... I definite do not make bad play. My wins were all skilled play, losses were all because of:

-bad luck on my

-opponent gets lucky draw

-opponent abuses bad mechanics

8 minutes ago, castertroyt said:

Yup... I definite do not make bad play. My wins were all skilled play, losses were all because of:

-bad luck on my

-opponent gets lucky draw

-opponent abuses bad mechanics

Better make a thread about it so FFG knows they have to change the rules for you.

Or better yet - take this one

My favorite purple drink is grape Fanta. Just because of the shady background.

13 hours ago, Shiba Jaimi said:

We have been, mostly, rational this entire time. Disagreement or not, I am not being a troll. I see legitimate issues here. I know you disagree, but this is not an ugly conversation.

The cost of initiating an action is ALWAYS clearly stated on the card. Bansai has a "0" cost and an option to spend a fate in the text box, Assassinate has a "0" fate cost and a three honor cost in the text box...holdings, events, character actions, attachments...everything has it's cost up front. None of the duel have a cost to activate them. Duelist Training has a cost to "attach" it, but that is not the cost for triggering the actual duel. But, I could be wrong. By all means, provide a list of cards that do not have their cost notated up front, to initiate the action.

You are not describing a cost from an action, you are describing a budget. The cost for both cards you want to bring into play from your provinces are clearly marked on the card. not being able to afford both is NOT a "cost".

Now you are talking strategy. I can understand how you could think of them as a "cost", but that is a loose relationship to what options are available to you. It is NOT a "COST" for initiating an action. It is a decision. The cost for an action and the decision to take that action are two different things.

But you still cannot name the cost before you initiate the duel, therefore, it is not the COST of the action itself. The action (duel) starts and the penalty is assessed in the resolution. Plus, you are still talking about strategy, not the cost of the action. Negotiating the broken rules is not the same as the rules not being broken.

Now you are talking TACTICS, this does not fix the broken rule. How you behave in the conflict is still different from the cost of the action, how strong the action actually is or whether an action is balanced in the game.

No. The rules are CLEAR. The COST of an action is on every card. You are talking about assessing risk...still two different things. I see how your mind is working with these things, and in watching how you are putting ideas together, you are not foolish. But I think the terms you are using are a bit loose. Not a big thing. But when the RULES stipulate a COST, those RULES are being very specific. Personal interpretation cannot enter into it, because everyone will have their own interpretation. That with I keep going back to what the RULES say.

No. I am talking about what the mechanics of the dueling rules ALLOWS for, independent of anyone playing a game. An action that allows for a "4" point honor swing is a larger swing than any ring, clan champion, stronghold, holding, province, character, attachment or event. Clan champions cost "5" fate...Duelist Training costs "1". This is too powerful, specifically because of the dueling rules.

Let me help you out. Show me another single action that allows for a four point honor swing. Show me the card that does not have it's cost clearly printed on the card. Prove I am wrong about it being POSSIBLE to end a game in the first turn, in the first conflict, after the third duel (it can actually be done in two, but I am sticking with three for the moment). I am not talking about an individual game...I am talking about us stacking the deck, then show me another single action that can do that. When you can these things, then you are on the road to disproving the Thesis.

And I'm done. You do not understand my point at all. I wish you the best in your games. Also, you are wrong.

We made it to page 15! Wooo!

Just now, Mirith said:

We made it to page 15! Wooo!

*gives purple drink*

Welcome. now if we get to 18, we can get the hard stuff.

Is it just me or does anyone else see a wall of 'Shiba Jamiai' text and just ignore it only to read the responses of those brave enough to actually argue?

I started reading them but learned through bitter experience that the pain was not worth it.

14 hours ago, Shiba Jaimi said:

Prove I am wrong about it being POSSIBLE to end a game in the first turn, in the first conflict, after the third duel (it can actually be done in two, but I am sticking with three for the moment). I am not talking about an individual game...I am talking about us stacking the deck, then show me another single action that can do that. When you can these things, then you are on the road to disproving the Thesis.

If your opponent is so terrible at making decisions that they actually lose the game due to bidding too high on a bunch of duels in the first conflict (and then losing the duels anyway... somehow) I am pretty sure they have no business playing or winning a game of L5R.

Can this happen? Yes.

Can this happen against an opponent that doesn't actively have a railroad spike driven into whatever part of the brain is used for proper decision making? No.

7 minutes ago, Yogo Gohei said:

If your opponent is so terrible at making decisions that they actually lose the game due to bidding too high on a bunch of duels in the first conflict ( and then losing the duels anyway... somehow) I am pretty sure they have no business playing or winning a game of L5R.

Can this happen? Yes.

Can this happen against an opponent that doesn't actively have a railroad spike driven into whatever part of the brain is used for proper decision making? No.

Wait was that apart of the argument?

If I'm getting an 4 point swing against me, and I still lost? Meaning I bid 5, my opponent bid 1, and I didn't have enough to beat them?

And some how this is the game fault because I couldn't do basic math?

1 hour ago, Matrim said:

Is it just me or does anyone else see a wall of 'Shiba Jamiai' text and just ignore it only to read the responses of those brave enough to actually argue?

I started reading them but learned through bitter experience that the pain was not worth it.

I kind of did that in my arguments. Its why I had him rewrite his points in a semi-concise manner. His formatting is awful and makes it really hard to read.

Just now, Yogo Gohei said:

If your opponent is so terrible at making decisions that they actually lose the game due to bidding too high on a bunch of duels in the first conflict (and then losing the duels anyway... somehow) I am pretty sure they have no business playing or winning a game of L5R.

Can this happen? Yes.

Can this happen against an opponent that doesn't actively have a railroad spike driven into whatever part of the brain is used for proper decision making? No.

To be a little fair, this isn't the best attitude towards such players. If you play them in a tourney, you get a free win. You don't have to play them in a casual game. If they are having fun with the game, don't judge them too much. Just judge the guy who thinks the option of making a bad play is a good reason to change rules.

Didn’t bother reading his wall of text... just glancing through it tells me enough that he’s missing the point.

You know nothing John Snow

35 minutes ago, castertroyt said:

Didn’t bother reading his wall of text... just glancing through it tells me enough that he’s missing the point.

You know nothing John Snow

Get out, this is L5R, not Game of Thrones. You have your own forums.

OK lets change the duel rules:

1st - All duels are to death, so our Shiba friend could be satisfied.

2nd - A duelist can only chalenge another bushi, preferably another duelist, if the target is not a duelist, dishonor your char.

3rd - If you challenge a char with less skill, loose an amount of honor equal to the diffence between skills, and dishonor your char.

4rd - If the challenged refuses the duel, dishonor him.

Now we can have some Scorpions dueling hehehe, lets change this s*%¨t now!

13 hours ago, RandomJC said:

*gives purple Gatorade* welcome to the party.

Mmmm tastes like victory and purple. If we get it to 18 I wonder if I can get the ceremonial Gatorade pour.

8 minutes ago, L5RBr said:

OK lets change the duel rules:

1st - All duels are to death, so our Shiba friend could be satisfied.

2nd - A duelist can only chalenge another bushi, preferably another duelist, if the target is not a duelist, dishonor your char.

3rd - If you challenge a char with less skill, loose an amount of honor equal to the diffence between skills, and dishonor your char.

4rd - If the challenged refuses the duel, dishonor him.

Now we can have some Scorpions dueling hehehe, lets change this s*%¨t now!

As a Scorpion who already throws in Duelist Training yes please! I did laugh when the option to pay 2 honor was presented as a "less painful option" if you decline a duel seeing how if that was a thing I'd be playing 3 copies of that all day every day. I'm really interested to see what will happen when they make cards with political duels, gotta practice those Sadane skills.

Ahem.

It's spelled "Purple Drank"

45 minutes ago, Klawtu said:

Mmmm tastes like victory and purple. If we get it to 18 I wonder if I can get the ceremonial Gatorade pour.

*brings out keg of Gatorade* Then let's do this!

3 hours ago, RandomJC said:

*gives purple drink*

Welcome. now if we get to 18, we can get the hard stuff.

RELEASE THE KRAKEN!