Just now, Etaywah said:

Ok, just answer me this: What is lethal about a military duel? Because currently it doesn't exist.

Why does it need to be lethal?

Just now, Mirith said:

Why does dueling need to be an involved process? It was pretty involved old L5R and it was generally considered pretty terrible. I had to repeatedly teach people how to duel in Kotei, which means that it wasn't commonly used. This is simple and lets everyone have a chance to use it without having to build your deck around it. Meanwhile, participating in a duel is very impactful to board state. Either honor changes hands or the results of the duel happens (or both).

Why do you need to be able to refuse? Why does this need to be an innate thing?

I feel like you just answered your own question. You just admitted it was considered terrible, yet you're defending the system.

Just now, Etaywah said:

I feel like you just answered your own question. You just admitted it was considered terrible, yet you're defending the system.

I did give a reason, and my point was the new system is better? I thought the old system was not good.

17 hours ago, AradonTemplar said:

Out of curiosity, do you have a system in mind as a mechanic that could function as a duel instead?

Since you ask, YEAH...I have an idea in mind. It allows for nuance in dueling. It allows for cheating. Cheating will give a player an advantage but punishes that player for doing it. It rewards the victor of the duel. It does all that and most important, no duel between two nominal characters is a forgone conclusion. There is no GUARANTEED WIN, for ANYONE! Let's call it, because I am a Phoenix Clan player, the "Shiba Method"...just to give it a name.

The setup:

• Each player is given a Chō-Han cup
• Each player is given a six-sided Clan Die
  • Note - These dice can be any color other than black.
• Each player is given a black four-sided Dishonor Die

The steps:

1. an initiating character and a target are identified
2. both players place their own Clan Die into their own cup
   • Note - Each player has the option to add the Dishonor Die to the cup at this point.
3. Both cups are shaken for five seconds, placed upside down on the playing surface and slid forward (to dislodge stacked dice)
4. Once both cups have stopped moving, the cups are removed (without disturbing the dice underneath), revealing the result.
   • Note - regardless of the outcome of the duel, the amount shown on the Dishonor Die is given to the opposing player, in honor tokens, at this point and the player using the Dishonor Die must dishonor the character they control. No card text can stop this dishonoring, at this point.
5. The amount of the die (or dice) controlled by the player are added to the martial stat of the character controlled by the same player.
6. The player controlling the character with the higher total wins the duel and triggers the duel action.

With this method, any player can choose to be dishonorable, or not. Dishonorable behavior is punished. The result is not fixed. The character with the higher stat has an advantage, but it is not a guaranteed win, with nominal characters. THIS IS A FAIR DUELING MECHANIC!!

But...this is just one idea. I am not crazy about the possible amount of honor that can be swung, but the transfer goes in the right direction. And I am not opposed to having someone come up with a completely different idea...as long as there is not an "auto-win", cheaters are punished for cheating, the character with the higher dueling stat has an advantage but either nominal character can still win the duel.

What do you think?

8 minutes ago, Mirith said:

Why does it need to be lethal?

Duels are typically to the death or to the blood. Sending the audience back home doesn't make a lot of thematic sense.

2 minutes ago, Etaywah said:

Ok, just answer me this: What is lethal about a military duel? Because currently it doesn't exist.

MIL duels don't have to be lethal. The flexibility of the rules is their strength. The most basic concept is defined in the rules. You bid, and then compare your stat + bid. The winner "wins," the loser "loses," unless there is a tie. If one player bid higher than another, they pay that honor to the lower biding player.

The rest is up to the duel - is a character a killer like Raitsugu? or is he a perfectionist like Kaezin? Is the duelist a wrestler? in which case the duel might use the stat minus any equipment bonuses.

Its best most of the rules be put on the cards so that we can have many card options for very different duels, and that people will be able to be involved with them without building their deck around them.

2 minutes ago, Mirith said:

Why does dueling need to be an involved process? It was pretty involved old L5R and it was generally considered pretty terrible. I had to repeatedly teach people how to duel in Kotei, which means that it wasn't commonly used. This is simple and lets everyone have a chance to use it without having to build your deck around it. Meanwhile, participating in a duel is very impactful to board state. Either honor changes hands or the results of the duel happens (or both).

Why do you need to be able to refuse? Why does this need to be an innate thing?

Exactly ^ What was good about the old system is that there were many different types of duels. Some could be refused, some focused mainly on honor gains / losses. Some were to the death, or just to bow. The variety was great!

The problem of course was focusing cards. Take that out, and the old system was great.

Without getting into convoluted arguments about theme, this is my argument, and I cannot be persuaded away from it:

1) Winning a duel should grant you honor, not cost you honor.

2) Losing a duel should cost you honor, not be the recipient of it.

3) Duels take 2 people to agree to the duel, otherwise it's murder.

For those 3 reasons I do not like the current dueling system.

3 minutes ago, Shiba Jaimi said:

Since you ask, YEAH...I have an idea in mind. It allows for nuance in dueling. It allows for cheating. Cheating will give a player an advantage but punishes that player for doing it. It rewards the victor of the duel. It does all that and most important, no duel between two nominal characters is a forgone conclusion. There is no GUARANTEED WIN, for ANYONE! Let's call it, because I am a Phoenix Clan player, the "Shiba Method"...just to give it a name.

The setup:

• Each player is given a Chō-Han cup
• Each player is given a six-sided Clan Die
  • Note - These dice can be any color other than black.
• Each player is given a black four-sided Dishonor Die

The steps:

1. an initiating character and a target are identified
2. both players place their own Clan Die into their own cup
   • Note - Each player has the option to add the Dishonor Die to the cup at this point.
3. Both cups are shaken for five seconds, placed upside down on the playing surface and slid forward (to dislodge stacked dice)
4. Once both cups have stopped moving, the cups are removed (without disturbing the dice underneath), revealing the result.
   • Note - regardless of the outcome of the duel, the amount shown on the Dishonor Die is given to the opposing player, in honor tokens, at this point.
5. The amount of the die (or dice) controlled by the player are added to the martial stat of the character controlled by the same player.
6. The player controlling the character with the higher total wins the duel and triggers the duel action.

With this method, any player can choose to be dishonorable, or not. Dishonorable behavior is punished. The result is not fixed. The character with the higher stat has an advantage, but it is not a guaranteed win, with nominal characters. THIS IS A FAIR DUELING MECHANIC!!

But...this is just one idea. I am not crazy about the possible amount of honor that can be swung, but the transfer goes in the right direction. And I am not opposed to having someone come up with a completely different idea...as long as there is not an "auto-win", cheaters are punished for cheating, the character with the higher dueling stat has an advantage but either nominal character can still win the duel.

What do you think?

I think... all you've done is add more randomness to the duel. I don't think that works well because dueling is a skill. You've taken the ability to make a decision about waging honor into a complete random loss.

Losing that control, and giving so much to chance is horrible imo. I don't want to decide an L5R LCG game by rolling dice. The last thing we want are random factors. Every decision should be clear and purposeful.

In deck construction / shuffling we have our only form of randomness. From that point on everything is fixed. Randomness even in deck construction / shuffling has plagued L5R and other card games. Lacking mana or gold holdings has been a strong point of criticism having a game won or lost on a lucky draw. Having multiple cards of what we want in the deck, taking the gold OUT and putting a fixed gain of FATE into the game, and even controlling the card draw so you can risk some honor to draw deep if you are lacking options all give players more direct control over the game, focusing on player skill and interaction, not chance and luck.

Literally the only difference between your system you propose, and the system we have is that 1) you add 2 completely random chance values to each duelis, each of which could eclipse most characters just in chance, and 2) add the option to be immune to dishonor.

I do not see any way in which adding random chance to a duel represents a contest of skill with a sword.

Pffffffffbt.

Focusing cards was the best part. You're crazy. Where are my fellow Crane duelist players at? Having to deck build and walk that line between crippling your options and having enough focus value/focus effects was fun and felt different than everything else. sort of like playing enlightenment, the value you're looking at is different than for most decks.

some people seem to have a super specific idea of what a 'duel' is. you really need to just let that go. a duel in l5r just means two characters are fighting each other. that is all. the rest is down to the specifics.

it represents one on one, where the target has some say in the outcome. instead of a melee/ranged/fear attack which more represents someone being attacked in the middle of a skirmish and not necessarily having any ability to respond.

2 minutes ago, Etaywah said:

Without getting into convoluted arguments about theme, this is my argument, and I cannot be persuaded away from it:

1) Winning a duel should grant you honor, not cost you honor.

2) Losing a duel should cost you honor, not be the recipient of it.

3) Duels take 2 people to agree to the duel, otherwise it's murder.

For those 3 reasons I do not like the current dueling system.

As with ol5r each duel will allow you to refuse or not based on its own reasoning. In many ways a strong element of drama is in the inability to decline a duel because of the situation in which you have become entrapped so it is fitting that these are on a case by case basic.

Winning or losing the duel will give you the effects of winning or losing as stated on the card. Some duels could give you honor for winning, but that isn't something that always happens with duels. Not every duel is for the honor of the duelist, sometimes a 1on1 challenge is simply the pragmatic way to resolve a battle, and then everyone just goes home.

Winning and losing does not currently decide who gains or loses honor. What you bid does. You can gain honor and win, or lose honor and lose, depending on the choices made.

5 minutes ago, shosuko said:

I think... all you've done is add more randomness to the duel.

There is randomness in a duel.

6 minutes ago, shosuko said:

I don't think that works well because dueling is a skill.

The player with the higher dueling stat has an advantage.

7 minutes ago, shosuko said:

You've taken the ability to make a decision about waging honor into a complete random loss.

Yes, but you will always be give at least "1" extra point toward the resolution of the duel. Cheating will always give a player an advantage, at a cost.

9 minutes ago, shosuko said:

Losing that control, and giving so much to chance is horrible imo.

I agree, but duels are supposed to be dangerous.

11 minutes ago, shosuko said:

1) you add 2 completely random chance values to each duelis, each of which could eclipse most characters just in chance

The value of the revealed die (dice) comes to ONE value added the the character's skill. But the character with the higher skill has the advantage, before the die roll...as it should be.

13 minutes ago, shosuko said:

2) add the option to be immune to dishonor.

No. Honorable characters/players can CHOOSE to be honorable. The instant the dishonor die revealed under the cup, that player is penalized or it.

15 minutes ago, shosuko said:

I do not see any way in which adding random chance to a duel represents a contest of skill with a sword.

Because there is a chance in every duel that the strongest duelist can lose. He has an advantage, but that is not guaranteed.

27 minutes ago, Etaywah said:

1) Winning a duel should grant you honor, not cost you honor.

2) Losing a duel should cost you honor, not be the recipient of it.

3) Duels take 2 people to agree to the duel, otherwise it's murder.

For those 3 reasons I do not like the current dueling system.

Exactly!!! I no longer feel crazy.

you can lose honorably.

and you can win dishonorably.

to force a certain narrative is frankly, stupid. let the cards dictate exactly what kind of duel it is and what the outcome means.

the use of 'duel' in l5r does not mean gentlemen fighting. it's the more general use of two parties engaged in a contest.

23 minutes ago, Etaywah said:

Without getting into convoluted arguments about theme, this is my argument, and I cannot be persuaded away from it:

1) Winning a duel should grant you honor, not cost you honor.

2) Losing a duel should cost you honor, not be the recipient of it.

3) Duels take 2 people to agree to the duel, otherwise it's murder.

For those 3 reasons I do not like the current dueling system.

1) In the most famous American duel ever, between Hamilton and Burr, Burr won. He is not remembered fondly and certainly not with honor.

2) Losing, even at the cost of your life, can bring honor in at least one major religion I'm familiar with. It's a common theme in the lives of saints, not to mention the person the religion is named after...

3) True for some value of agreement, but it doesn't have the be freely given. The rules of society may not allow them to say no. That still counts as agreement.

This is unlikely to convince you to like the current dueling system, I grant. Just trying to come up with counter-examples to your point. My games have been limited, but so far I like the dueling mechanic. It's uncertain enough to be fun, fits the theme well enough for my tastes, and best of all (especially compared to old L5R) it's fast to play out.

1 minute ago, Tebbo said:

the use of 'duel' in l5r does not mean gentlemen fighting. it's the more general use of two parties engaged in a contest.

Then don't call it "dueling". The definition of a "duel" directly implies adherence to a set of rules, that sets the standard of what is honorable behavior. Duels where normally done between honorable combatants adhering to those rules..

2 minutes ago, agarrett said:

1) In the most famous American duel ever, between Hamilton and Burr, Burr won. He is not remembered fondly and certainly not with honor.

That was only one duel.

2 minutes ago, agarrett said:

2) Losing, even at the cost of your life, can bring honor in at least one major religion I'm familiar with. It's a common theme in the lives of saints, not to mention the person the religion is named after...

If that person acted honorably, sure. But if that person's opponent also acted honorably, they can BOTH bring honor to their clan/family/themselves.

4 minutes ago, agarrett said:

This is unlikely to convince you to like the current dueling system, I grant.

Not because I am closed minded...it is unlikely because the dueling rules are so bad.

5 minutes ago, agarrett said:

It's uncertain enough to be fun, fits the theme well enough for my tastes, and best of all (especially compared to old L5R) it's fast to play out.

I hear you, and respect your position. But there are other ways to have dueling and it be fun. There is more than one way to skin a cat. It just takes imagination.

52 minutes ago, Etaywah said:

Without getting into convoluted arguments about theme, this is my argument, and I cannot be persuaded away from it:

1) Winning a duel should grant you honor, not cost you honor.

2) Losing a duel should cost you honor, not be the recipient of it.

3) Duels take 2 people to agree to the duel, otherwise it's murder.

For those 3 reasons I do not like the current dueling system.

#1 and #2 are only looking at one aspect of the samurai. I'm not sure why people seem to think only honorable samurai win duels, this is so far from actual history. Here's a quote from a developer:

Quote

On the historical side of things, a lot of the "honorable samurai" stuff comes from the Tokugawa era. At that time you had many professional soldiers (the samurai) with no wars to fight. So they wrote a lot about how the "sword is the soul of the samurai" and the honorable code they all follow.

Samurai of the sengoku jidai ("warring states" period) and earlier were much more like Musashi: you do what you need to do to survive the battle, whatever that may be.

That said, Rokugan takes inspiration from both eras. With the duels, if you are more skilled than your opponent (higher inherent skill), you can afford to act honorably (bid low). Otherwise, it's a question of "what is winning worth to me?" and how high are you willing to bid.

If the dueling system was visceral and challenging and thematic and rewarding from a strategic standpoint then this wouldn't even be a topic.

It's not, so here we are.

Edit: Every single other aspect of this game is spot-on. I just love this game so much I wish this part of it was also equally as perfect as the rest of the game.

10 minutes ago, Etaywah said:

If the dueling system was visceral and challenging and thematic and rewarding from a strategic standpoint then this wouldn't even be a topic.

It's not, so here we are.

Edit: Every single other aspect of this game is spot-on. I just love this game so much I wish this part of it was also equally as perfect as the rest of the game.

It's a simple base mechanic to teach people how to duel in the core set. I'm sure it will be expanded upon in numerous ways. It's a perfect start.

2 hours ago, Etaywah said:

Duels are typically to the death or to the blood. Sending the audience back home doesn't make a lot of thematic sense.

Getting bowed or sent home only means thematically the duel was not lethal. Duel to first blood should thematically be the most common form of dueling and I think we are seeing that reflected in this game. Getting bowed could meant the character is being treated for their injuries or could mean the character was otherwise prohibited from participating as a consequence of the duel. Getting sent home could just mean the conflict was being decided by that duel and not through bloody battle by the armies in attendance. It's just saying something thematically about the stakes of the duel and those stakes could literally be anything. I could see a perfectly reasonable case for all of the following for example: duel to honor a character, duel to dishonor a character, duel to steal honor from your opponent, duel to change the battlefield, duel to take control of an opponent's character, duel to take control of an opponent attachment, duel to negate an event, duel to steal fate from your opponent, duel to take the imperial favor, duel to pull a character into the conflict...

T

1 hour ago, Etaywah said:

If the dueling system was visceral and challenging and thematic and rewarding from a strategic standpoint then this wouldn't even be a topic.

It's not, so here we are.

Edit: Every single other aspect of this game is spot-on. I just love this game so much I wish this part of it was also equally as perfect as the rest of the game.

I feel like it is very strategic. You need to decide what you will bid vs what your opponent will bid, based on board state and consequences. If this isn't strategic or part of the Challenge, what is? Are there 25 different meaningful combinations you can choose in a duel, no? Are there at least 4? In most situations yes, except when one character vastly outranks the other (IE Bully dueling).

I don't 100% agree with the theme, but mechanically I feel like it is reasonably thought out. I do think it isn't a "Core mechanic" of the LCG, and is instead built on top of it, but I am also okay with that, since again, in the CCG it felt like it was a core mechanic (See Focus Values printed on cards), but only 2.5 clans would ever really use it.

I don't really get the visceral thing, since when I think visceral in a card game, I sort of end up with Assassinate... Which is a one sided thing, which you have basically stated that you don't want.

2 hours ago, Shiba Jaimi said:

Then don't call it "dueling". The definition of a "duel" directly implies adherence to a set of rules, that sets the standard of what is honorable behavior. Duels where normally done between honorable combatants adhering to those rules..

There is a Steven Spielberg movie that will *blow your mind*.

Contingency Plan works with dueling correct?

6 minutes ago, Togashi Bey said:

Contingency Plan works with dueling correct?

Yes, you can use Contingency Plan any time you reveal your bid.

4 minutes ago, shosuko said:

Yes, you can use Contingency Plan any time you reveal your bid.

So if both players had it in their hand, in what order would it be resolved?