Maybe instead of a zero on the dial, a way for duelists to not bid honor during a duel and have the honor dial count as a - (value is a 0 that can't be modified) until the duel is over. That way is shows the duelist has more finesse and control during a duel due to their training. I think there are too many things that interact with the honor dial for it to straight up have a 0.

3 hours ago, Togashi Gao Shan said:

That isn't "historical" at all.

Samurai weren't paragons of Bushido in real life. "Bushido" wasn't even an actual thing. It was invented by a Japanese-American immigrant named Inazo Ito, in a mostly fabricated book about Samurai. Not only did westerners eat it up, but many Japanese people adopted the idea that it was a real thing. This was in 1900.

In most eras of medieval Japan, a Samurai would cut down a peasant that offended him with whatever he felt like using. The only reason it wasn't usually a katana is because katana were actually not the primary weapon of Samurai. For most of their history, bows and spears were.

All that said, the dueling mechanics of this game do reflect the themes of the romantic depiction of samurai common to most media, and that certainly includes Rokugan's samurai.

Your correct about the Bushido, in part. Samurai did not follow this code. Your origins are a bit askew though.

In many Eastern cultures (and Japan takes it to an extreme in the eyes of most Westerners) to exert any more effort than is needed to win a game or battle is to dishonor yourself. This is why sports look very different in Japan than they do here. Back in the 80s, when professional baseball was first starting, it has comical to Americans how differently the Japanese were playing it.

I teach Asian Humanities and mythology for a college. Much like this game, Westerners often romanticize Eastern culture without truly understanding the purpose behind the actual Eastern thought. Etiquette is important and very different in Japan. Another example you can apply to the Eastern concept of dueling is how to play the game Go. In this chess like game, at any point if an opponent wants to take back moves (any number, including starting over) it is considered rude and poor form to not allow them.

Outside of a formal duel, these rules do not apply. If a person who was not a member of the warrior or ruling class offended a samurai, they would be butchered without warning or hesitation.

8 hours ago, shosuko said:

Nice! I didn't know there was a live action Rurouni Kenshin. Shishio looks funny tho lol.

I liked them. No substitute for the equivalent manga or anime arcs, but it does open up the possible audience for the story to people who wouldn't be interested in the TV series or the comics. The first movie is really quite good in my opinion. There were a few omissions of minor characters or details, but otherwise it's a pretty good retelling of the Megumi/Jin-E storyline. The second and third which cover the Kyoto arc probably try and cover too much ground in the time given. Also I think they made a pretty poor decision on how to wrap up the second movie and lead off into the third movie. Still worth seeing because the actors all do a really good job portraying their characters and the costumes and set design are all really good. The movies really love Saitō Hajime. You get way more of him than you ever got in the other adaptations. I think the guy who plays Cho The Sword Hunter does a real good job. Also the guy who plays Seta Sojiro I think really understood the character.

39 minutes ago, phillos said:

I liked them. No substitute for the equivalent manga or anime arcs, but it does open up the possible audience for the story to people who wouldn't be interested in the TV series or the comics. The first movie is really quite good in my opinion. There were a few omissions of minor characters or details, but otherwise it's a pretty good retelling of the Megumi/Jin-E storyline. The second and third which cover the Kyoto arc probably try and cover too much ground in the time given. Also I think they made a pretty poor decision on how to wrap up the second movie and lead off into the third movie. Still worth seeing because the actors all do a really good job portraying their characters and the costumes and set design are all really good. The movies really love Saitō Hajime. You get way more of him than you ever got in the other adaptations. I think the guy who plays Cho The Sword Hunter does a real good job. Also the guy who plays Seta Sojiro I think really understood the character.

It shows more Saito? Then I think I'll watch it haha. I loved the RK OVA trust / betrayal, but wasn't as much a fan of the anime. The first season was fun, the 2nd had a decent storyline but was a bit over the to with some characters in an odd way. The 3rd season turned to garbage and I had to force myself to finish it... Things just got bad...

The third season is definitely bad. After the Kyoto arc they ran out of manga to adapt so they came up with their own stories. They all were pretty lackluster when compared to the Kyoto arc (and too fantastical in my opinion). They should have just ended it there with Kenshin's question of whether they did the right thing as the stinger for the series. The Trust and Betrayal stuff in the TV series all sets up for the next arc in the manga after the Kyoto arc which was never adapted in the TV series since it was being written concurrently so it's also weird because it appears and then is abruptly dropped. They later made an anime movie which goes into it, but the movie wasn't that good in my opinion. Though the actual OVAs for the Trust and Betrayal backstory was great.

Yes definitely more Saito. He's even in the first movie well before he's introduced in the original story. The movies love the guy. He was elevated to main character status pretty much. Of the three movies the first is definitely my favorite and I'd recommend you watch that one at least.

The second and third movies omit some of the more over the top stuff so you might appreciate that, but at the same time I think they executed portions of the story poorly when compared to the source material so it's a give and take I guess.

To: Zesu Shadaban
"So if I have the straight of it, you don't like dueling in its current state because it involves risking honor to resolve. And because this is a completely fictional setting not bound to any particulars of Japanese culture, FFG can (as described above with dragons) do whatever they want with it. EXCEPT institute a dueling system that doesn't meet your expectations."
- No, FFG can absolutely institute a dueling system that is fair to honorable and dishonorable duelist BECAUSE it is fiction. They just haven't done it yet. And more than one of you guys has made my point(s). The only question in my mind is, "How broken is it?" And since the defense of the current dueling system is "dishonorable people need a way to win," That is kind of a weak defense. I do not get a recourse to "route" or "Spies at Court." If I am a duelist, if I were to think of it brutally, challenging a worthy non-duelist to a duel, I should win. That is what I built the deck around. Phoenix builds decks around shugenja and magic, but no one complains about that. But, if they made the duels refusable, that would be their win. If they put a "0" on the dial, it would still suck, but at least I could be honorable. I like the inclusion of the dial, but I hate the justification for it. Every reason FFG gave for it is always wrong. It is always about "risking honor". Honorable characters in the game would not "risk losing honor." Honor is supposed to amazing, and they built most of the game to make honoring/honorable characters awesome. They put dishonor in the game, ok fine...always was a nice touch...but if dishonorable characters are allowed to be dishonorable, then let honorable characters be honorable. This should be a really simple idea. I am not trolling you guys, I am just saying...to honorable characters...HONOR is worth dying for. That is why my characters challenge opposing characters to a duel in the first place.

To: Joelist
"Remember that at least for now every time the Honor Dial is used it is used by both players. Add in that Honor only gets paid by one player to the other when the dialed values are different and the '1' effectively acts like a zero - no Honor is lost."
- I say to you the same thing I have been saying this whole time on this subject.With respect, "1" is never "0", even when "1" is where you start counting from. A "1" on the dial is saying, "I am not trusting my skill alone. I am going to be a little dishonorable." Why? Because even if you select "1" on the dial, you are still adding "1" to your dueling stat. Give me a "0" on the dial and let me be honorable.

To Matrim
"rubbish. it is a nice troll but why not post with your primary account?"
- This is my primary account, I just created it to address issues with the game. If the game "perfect" I wouldn't need an account.

From: Shosuro Onigatsu
"Maybe instead of a zero on the dial, a way for duelists to not bid honor during a duel and have the honor dial count as a - (value is a 0 that can't be modified) until the duel is over. That way is shows the duelist has more finesse and control during a duel due to their training. I think there are too many things that interact with the honor dial for it to straight up have a 0."
- Thank you, Shosuro-sama. This could be a start of a good rework. And if they wanted to mess with the "honor" in the duel, FFG can make the cards for it, just like they did with the "Assassinate," "Bayushi Manipulator" and "Contingency Plan." I mean, make a card titled "Dishonor Statagem - Action: Lose 3 honor, cancel the duel." Simple!

Maybe I missed it, I didn't think anyone was opposed to more duel customization or cards. My only thought is that your approach is way more role play than is intended for the card game. Practically speaking, short of your opponent using Contingency Plan you reduce their bid to 0, just setting a bid of 1 isn't really risking/ sacrificing any honor. Even then, thematically the Contingency Plan use could represent some action on your opponent's part to make you look dishonorable, like a sports pro intentionally getting a personal foul called against an opponent.

But, we can always agree to disagree.

To be blunt, the only real issue the OP seems to have is complete ignorance of math.

and what those numbers mean, its almost hilarious he is getting offended by a game device that only exists in his own head. This thread is the most colossal vanity straw man thread possible , concerning rules...

5 hours ago, KineticOperator said:

To be blunt, the only real issue the OP seems to have is complete ignorance of math.

3 hours ago, Matrim said:

and what those numbers mean, its almost hilarious he is getting offended by a game device that only exists in his own head. This thread is the most colossal vanity straw man thread possible , concerning rules...

The main issue I caught was that he feels he must bid 5, and then is mind-blown that his opponent bid 1... Unless he's only played this chap once and is simply soaking in salt from it, surely he would have thought "I can bid just 1 because he will bid just 1" at which point he would have won the duel and lost 0 honor. Then when he duels again he might lose the duel but GAIN honor because his opponent might bid enough to win after seeing him bid just one...

It just amazes me the simplicity of his anecdote for dueling. I have had many tense moments when setting dials for a duel with words exchanged to bluff or tell the opponent to try and sway their bid to perhaps the wrong one. I like going over the math of the duel and commenting on what my bid should be to always win, or what my honor gain might be if they win, depending on which I want them to bid for. Its a fun point in the game.

Ok guys, just to beat a not-so-dead horse...

I just took a day and introduced the game...deep-dive gaming session...to three of my friends. I have known these people for over 15 years (I have lived with one of them), so in this group, we are all fearless with our opinions.

On the issue of dueling, I played a Scorpion Deck against a Military-Dragon. It was ugly. In-experience taken into account, these people were negotiating their decks pretty well. They quickly put strategies together, changed them on the fly and they were using a lot of deception. But, ultimately, in this match, dueling was the death of the dragon. Mirumoto Raitsugu was the duelist in question. Here he is:

My opponent did the thing that the effect of this duel ask for (win the duel, kill the loser if it is without fate), he placed 2 fate on him. He attached monks to him and a weapon. This guy was RIDICULOUS!! He would attack, win a challenge and my opponent would keep him standing. He would defend, my opponent moved him into battles. He was dueling EVERYONE! Now, I will not make you wait, Mirumoto won every duel, except 1. And the one exception, we tied. My opponent used this character to killed 5 to seven of my characters. And, he lost this game because of dishonor. As the Scorpion Clan player how much honor did I have? 16-19...I was close to honor running. At points I ran out of characters to dishonor, but it took three turns. Three turns... I dishonored the Dragon Clan, not because of excellent play, not because of the "luck of the draw", not because I was Scorpion Clan. My opponent, killed all those characters, won almost every battle this character was in and lost the war...completely. It was so bad, at the end, the player tried to Assassinate one of his own characters out of spite. He couldn't. Why? He didn't have enough honor (2 Honor left). This is how bad the dueling is broken. The math on the first post held.

I did not tell him anything other than how the dueling mechanics worked. I did not share my opinions with him. In the conversation we had after playing the game. He lamented;

"My character was bad ***. Every conflict he was in, standing at conflict resolution, he won. Even when that character was bowed at resolution, we tied the conflict. But the rules of "dueling" punishes the duelist for winning. I killed almost every character I dueled, but losing 2-3 honor per duel (* Note - No, he almost never selected "5" on his dial) in all those duels I won, lost me the game."

DUELING IS BROKEN! I do not say this as a challenge to anyone. I won a game against a player that won the majority of challenges, in general, because of dueling rules. As a matter of fact, even playing dueling decks myself, I have yet to see a deck, that fully relied on dueling (consistently used dueling as a vehicle to win conflicts) wins games regularly. As a person that has built decks that duel, I end up NOT dueling characters, because HONOR is a direct win/loss condition and I kept losing to much honor dueling characters...and I would win, **** near, every duel in the games. DUELING IS BROKEN!

It sounds like your friend should have figured out at some point that you were never contesting him on his duels and should have started bidding 1 until you did.

edit: To be a little less flippant: Imagine if Raitsugu's ability was just "Pay 2 honor - Kill/Defate a dude with less Mil skill than Raitsugu". If your opponent uses that ability all the way down to 2 honor and then loses an uncontested Air ring it's not Raitsugu's fault, that's your opponent making a pretty serious misplay.

54 minutes ago, Shiba Jaimi said:

"My character was bad ***. Every conflict he was in, standing at conflict resolution, he won. Even when that character was bowed at resolution, we tied the conflict. But the rules of "dueling" punishes the duelist for winning. I killed almost every character I dueled, but losing 2-3 honor per duel (* Note - No, he almost never selected "5" on his dial) in all those duels I won, lost me the game."

I assume you bid just 1 as Scorpion every time. Why did he not also bid 1? He would have won every duel with a bid of 1 and lost 0 honor, yes?

I feel your misconception is rooted in 2 things.

1) A Duelist "should" win every duel

2) Duels should be straight forward.

In response -

1) A duelist has an advantage in every duel, but that is by no means an assurance of victory. If you and I draw a sword, even though I've done some swords combat before that is by no means an assurance that I will walk away. When 2 people draw blades against each other any small thing can mean the difference. If their MIL was 6 and you were 1 then we can say a character is so skilled that no small thing can change the outcome, but any closer than that and you must accept that there is some chance of losing even though you field a skilled duelist.

2) If duels were straight forward, they wouldn't be duels. They would be actions. Continually you appeal to the fact that you "must bid x amount to win" committing to the oversimplification. You do not need to bid x to win, you need to bid x to assure your win . You can bid a 1 and win if you have a higher MIL and your opponent bids just 1. You can take that risk and save your honor.

It sounds like several duels occurred in this game, and you claim your opponents were very savvy and adaptable in their play - yet you claim they failed to recognize that your repeated bid of 1 means they do not need to bid any higher than 1 themselves.

Honestly - I just don't buy it. If you were supposed to simply guess a number equal to or greater than the number I reveal, and your goal was to bid as close as you could without bidding under, and I proceeded to reveal the number 1 again, and again, and again - I don't think it would take too long for you to just reveal 1 as well, until such time that it didn't work.

Reads less like the mechanic is broken, and more like he broke the mechanic.

3 hours ago, Blackbird888 said:

Reads less like the mechanic is broken, and more like he broke the mechanic.

Or he wants the mechanic broken for the sake of flavor.

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 7:31 PM, Saltystig said:

The dueling mechanic is a mind game. The dial is how much you would give up to win. If you absolutely need to win a duel, bid 5 for sure. Or duel with the intention of losing for honor. Or consider that your opponent will bid one and counter appropriately.

Even in the story, some samurai duel knowing they will lose, or die on purpose so they don't suffer some other fate. Losing a duel can also be non-fatal. Some duels are just for ceremonial purposes. And in some circumstances, it can be dishonorable to win.

Using the sun to blind an opponent would cost you at least 3 honor.

6 hours ago, shosuko said:

I assume you bid just 1 as Scorpion every time.

No, I didn't. Occasionally, when I understood the part that the duel played in the over-all strategy, I played appropriately.

6 hours ago, shosuko said:

Why did he not also bid 1? He would have won every duel with a bid of 1 and lost 0 honor, yes?

Because he would have lost the duel and his duelist, and only attack/defender of that challenge, would have been discarded. Plus, he would have left me with an additional person to attack/defend with. He could not just bit "1" and win all of the duels, because I was not just bidding "1".

6 hours ago, shosuko said:

1) A Duelist "should" win every duel

No, if a duelist wins a duel, he should not be punished. Every duel is NOT dishonorable, but the rules state other wise. According to the way duels work, there is no such thing as an honorable duelist, and I reject that premise.

6 hours ago, shosuko said:

2) Duels should be straight forward.

Duels are straight forward. Win the duel, trigger the effect in your favor. Penalizing the winner is foolish.

6 hours ago, shosuko said:

If you and I draw a sword, even though I've done some swords combat before that is by no means an assurance that I will walk away.

As I have stated here, countless times, I agree there SHOULD be an element of randomness. But it should not punish the winner.

6 hours ago, shosuko said:

You do not need to bid x to win, you need to bid x to assure your win .

But a duelists do not get into duels to death in order to lose. That makes no sense. Mirumoto's duel is basically, to the death. Walking into a duel, having superior skill, only to lose is not participating in a duel...it is committing suicide, by participating in a duel. The duelists became duelist in the effort of doing everything honorable they know to do in order to WIN the duel.

7 hours ago, shosuko said:

You can bid a 1 and win if you have a higher MIL and your opponent bids just 1. You can take that risk and save your honor.

And get your character killed...because you do not know ahead of time what your opponents bid will be. And due to an action, you triggered, trying to set more of the board conditions in your favor, but instead, the duel made it worse. How does that feel? Fair? Playing "Assassinate" would be better than any duel, according to your argument. At least my OPPONENT would NOT get the honor I lose. But, under your thought, dueling would be the worst play you could make..."go home" and "bow" actions normally don't cost honor. "I Can Swim" does not cost honor. The vast, overwhelming, number of actions that change the ready state or presence state of an opponent would be better to play.

7 hours ago, shosuko said:

It sounds like several duels occurred in this game, and you claim your opponents were very savvy and adaptable in their play - yet you claim they failed to recognize that your repeated bid of 1... Honestly - I just don't buy it. If you were supposed to simply guess a number equal to or greater than the number I reveal, and your goal was to bid as close as you could without bidding under, and I proceeded to reveal the number 1 again, and again, and again - I don't think it would take too long for you to just reveal 1 as well, until such time that it didn't work.

You said, "Honestly - I just don't buy it." GOOD!! You shouldn't buy it, because that is not what happened. I didn't bid "1" every time, but he lost honor in almost every duel he won. You are not completely understanding me. "Just bid 1" was not the strategy here.

2 hours ago, Robin Graves said:

Using the sun to blind an opponent would cost you at least 3 honor.

This is NOT blinding your opponent with the sun. The sun had to be someplace, passing in front of it is not dishonorable. Reflecting the sun INTO you opponents eyes...THAT is dishonorable!

3 hours ago, Robin Graves said:

Even in the story, some samurai duel knowing they will lose, or die on purpose so they don't suffer some other fate.

I am not talking about the rare instance, I am talking about ALL the duels and every duelist under the rules that binds them.

34 minutes ago, Shiba Jaimi said:

And get your character killed...because you do not know ahead of time what your opponents bid will be. And due to an action, you triggered, trying to set more of the board conditions in your favor, but instead, the duel made it worse. How does that feel? Fair? Playing "Assassinate" would be better than any duel, according to your argument. At least my OPPONENT would NOT get the honor I lose. But, under your thought, dueling would be the worst play you could make..."go home" and "bow" actions normally don't cost honor. "I Can Swim" does not cost honor. The vast, overwhelming, number of actions that change the ready state or presence state of an opponent would be better to play.

Yup - either get your character killed by betting low, or risking honor by betting high.

Sounds like you understand it perfectly. Next realize that you aren't punishing the duelist for "winning" you are punishing them for "bidding high." You can bid high, lose honor, and still lose the duel. You can also bid low, win the duel, AND gain honor for it. The point is that you must read your opponent, both literally in placing the bid for the duel, and metaphorically as a duelist would read their opponent. At risk of sounding rude, it honestly sounds like you and "your friends" aren't that great at reading opponents. I recommend you simply don't build decks around dueling if it isn't working for you. There will (and should) always be a risk involved with dueling. You are experiencing frustration at losing to that risk, either by losing honor or losing duels.

If you don't like the gamble, don't bet your money. There are other ways to play the game.

7 minutes ago, shosuko said:

Yup - either get your character killed by betting low, or risking honor by betting high.

Sounds like you understand it perfectly. Next realize that you aren't punishing the duelist for "winning" you are punishing them for "bidding high." You can bid high, lose honor, and still lose the duel. You can also bid low, win the duel, AND gain honor for it. The point is that you must read your opponent, both literally in placing the bid for the duel, and metaphorically as a duelist would read their opponent. At risk of sounding rude, it honestly sounds like you and "your friends" just suck at that part of the game. I recommend you simply don't build decks around dueling any more, it isn't working for you.

Yeah, this whole complaint (in two threads now no less) makes less sense to me the more I hear it. If he has a Duelist rigged out with attachments how is he needing to constantly bid up the Honor to win? Why did this player not stop at least temporarily Dueling once he saw he was hemorraging Honor? And so on and so on.

This sounds like players playing poorly then claiming the game mechanic is broken as deflection.

10 minutes ago, Joelist said:

This sounds like players playing poorly then claiming the game mechanic is broken as deflection.

I do think they are dueling unwisely, but I believe you are misconstruing their motivation. In the previous version dueling was more powerful and you could build decks around it. It’s likely they just want to see dueling returned to its previous stature.

Just now, Starbane said:

I do think they are dueling unwisely, but I believe you are misconstruing their motivation. In the previous version dueling was more powerful and you could build decks around it. It’s likely they just want to see dueling returned to its previous stature.

Sadly - dueling was quite problematic in the previous game because a deck built for dueling would win every duel, but duels were balanced for risk. Hopefully this game doesn't scale to having constant assurance of win without any risk.

So your complaint is that there is a risk/cost component to removing characters with a repeatable ability?

5 hours ago, shosuko said:

Sounds like you understand it perfectly. Next realize that you aren't punishing the duelist for "winning" you are punishing them for "bidding high." You can bid high, lose honor, and still lose the duel. You can also bid low, win the duel, AND gain honor for it. The point is that you must read your opponent, both literally in placing the bid for the duel, and metaphorically as a duelist would read their opponent.

Ok, let's try it this way. The player initiates the duel against a character with a lower duel stat. This is the norm. The duelist is Mirumoto. So, can we agree, the player controlling Mirumoto wants to use the duel's outcome to discard a character (or a fate off of a character)? This is an ability printed on Mirumoto's card. So, someone expects Mirumoto to discard characters and fate off of characters, as a result of the duel. But, you may have another idea in mind. If you do, say so.

So, the duel is initiated, against a lower military stat character. And the player wants to discard the target of the duel...that's why he triggered the duel in the first place. On the "honor" dial, someplace, there is a number between "2" and "5" that insures this happens. Mirumoto has a military stat of "3", freshly fielded and untouched. So, we are talking about someone with a military stat between "0" and "2", normally. Let's say "0" and let's say there are only two characters in this political air ring challenge over a province. Now, why should the player controlling Mirumoto NOT pick "3"?

4 hours ago, Starbane said:

I do think they are dueling unwisely, but I believe you are misconstruing their motivation. In the previous version dueling was more powerful and you could build decks around it. It’s likely they just want to see dueling returned to its previous stature.

I am not advocating going back to the old method. You can't, there are no focus values on cards. I want dueling to be an honorable pursuit in the game. As it sits right now, no duelist trusts his skill alone. You cannot select "zero" on the dial, there isn't one. So, players playing honorable clans and, supposedly, honorable characters that can duel must always, risk losing honor in order to win duels that they trigger. The game turns alternate. In challenges where there is only one character on each side of a challenge, the current action could be the last action of the challenge. So, when both players decide to commit to winning these challenges, they would not want to "waste" an action. So, a player initiating the duel does not want to "tie" with his opponent. The action window, the space to act in, is too valuable. So, in the example I use with Shosuko above, which is a common occurrence, tell me why would the player controlling Mirumoto NOT choose "3"?

I don’t think you want to copy the old system just the feel and power level. Duels in the old system were a more powerful mechanic and posed such a small amount of risk to initiate as to be almost risk free.

In the LCG dueling is not a guaranteed prospect unless you are willing to pay a potentially steep cost, Therefore, you can’t duel with impunity.

6 hours ago, Shiba Jaimi said:

This is NOT blinding your opponent with the sun. The sun had to be someplace, passing in front of it is not dishonorable. Reflecting the sun INTO you opponents eyes...THAT is dishonorable!

Hmm I guess positioniong yourself so to give yourself an advantage is proper tactics.

Yeah I didn't find a gif or video of the whole duel from Shogun Assassin, but Lone wolf's infant son has shiney ornament on his headband wich reflected the sun's rays back at their attacker, distracting him and... well, you saw the result.