7 hours ago, Heimdall Ulf said:

Maybe I missed it, but the Deck Building section in these rules doesn't say anything about the "3 copies of each card" limit. I guess we all need to buy 45 Core Sets for a true full playset. Moneygrubbing FFG!

(I know it's just an oversight, lol)

Technically, they also don't say you can only choose cards from only one other clan too, only that you can have influence up to what is on your stronghold from out-of-clan.

I agree they don't need to print the deck building rules in this, but they should either be consistent between the two documents OR just point at the Rules Reference.

Can the game state ever be rolled back in a tournament? I was under the impression that once an action has been taken it is done. It is, after all, the responsibility of both players to know what is going on and amiably resolve any disputes. Otherwise, call a judge.

24 minutes ago, Mirith said:

Technically, they also don't say you can only choose cards from only one other clan too, only that you can have influence up to what is on your stronghold from out-of-clan.

I agree they don't need to print the deck building rules in this, but they should either be consistent between the two documents OR just point at the Rules Reference.

You are correct. I wonder if this is an oversight, or intended.

"...Each conflict deck must contain a minimum of 40 and a maximum of 45 cards. A conflict deck can include in-clan and neutral cards. It can also include out-of-faction cards up to the maximum influence allowed on the player’s chosen stronghold. A conflict deck cannot include more than 10 character cards total..."

Maybe they have changed the rules but not updated the Rules Reference document?

32 minutes ago, GmanSix said:

You are correct. I wonder if this is an oversight, or intended.

"...Each conflict deck must contain a minimum of 40 and a maximum of 45 cards. A conflict deck can include in-clan and neutral cards. It can also include out-of-faction cards up to the maximum influence allowed on the player’s chosen stronghold. A conflict deck cannot include more than 10 character cards total..."

Maybe they have changed the rules but not updated the Rules Reference document?

This would be a massive massive change if so. I'm guessing it is an oversight, same as yours.

Is there a way to call mods to a thread? I think this should be addressed by the rules governing body.

rules reference page 4

'an "in-clan" card bears a card symbol that matches the clan symbol on its controllers stronghold card'

so with that in mind can I ask what the problem is?

10 hours ago, Tokhuah said:

The funny thing is, if you really want to cheat and are pro at it you can do it just as easy with opaque sleeves. In fact, you can also strategically mark key opponent's cards under the guise of cutting.

Edit: I just realized that the scoring system allows for a Russian chess situation. Bring a crew of 8 headed by 1-2 clear best players. The crew plays methodic and slow in every game to make them all go to time and refuse to ever concede, meaning opponent's are not scoring higher than 6, and often less. Whenever the crew plays the top player they artfully lose as quickly as possible. Team Russian Crew FTW!

How about you focus on playing the game honestly.

17 minutes ago, GmanSix said:

Is there a way to call mods to a thread? I think this should be addressed by the rules governing body.

Not really. Just write them an email.

13 minutes ago, Matrim said:

rules reference page 4

'an "in-clan" card bears a card symbol that matches the clan symbol on its controllers stronghold card'

so with that in mind can I ask what the problem is?

Tournament rules contradict Rules Reference. It is almost definitely an oversight.

The actual issue is:

Quote

It can also include out-of-faction cards up to the maximum influence allowed on the player’s chosen stronghold.

Does not have the "One Clan" restriction.

I would like to note that the sentiment of "It is just common sense" often doesn't apply to all competitive players. Some are perfectly willing to rules lawyer as much as possible to get a competitive advantage. And given that TOs are often just store owners/managers who don't play/barely play the game, they might not really realize the difference or will just look at the Tourney Rules.

Emailing customer support is probably the best plan.

1 minute ago, Mirith said:

Tournament rules contradict Rules Reference. It is almost definitely an oversight.

The actual issue is:

Does not have the "One Clan" restriction.

There isn't a contradiction because it doesn't change anything the core rulebook says. This says that you are allowed out- of - faction cards up to your influence, The core rules says the same thing, then specifies that you can only run one clan as a splash within the rules.

This is a supplemental addition to create a "framework" for tournaments, it does not need to specify exactly how the game fully plays, that is what the rules tell them to do.

Quote

I would like to note that the sentiment of "It is just common sense" often doesn't apply to all competitive players. Some are perfectly willing to rules lawyer as much as possible to get a competitive advantage.

That would not be "rules lawyering" that would be flat out cheating.

Quote

And given that TOs are often just store owners/managers who don't play/barely play the game, they might not really realize the difference or will just look at the Tourney Rules.

Then they will read in the tournament rules that players are expected to play by the rules and so forth consult the actual rule book and then the problem is solved. That is a pretty anecdotal and foolish scenario to imagine.

3 minutes ago, TheItsyBitsySpider said:

There isn't a contradiction because it doesn't change anything the core rulebook says. This says that you are allowed out- of - faction cards up to your influence, The core rules says the same thing, then specifies that you can only run one clan as a splash within the rules.

This is a supplemental addition to create a "framework" for tournaments, it does not need to specify exactly how the game fully plays, that is what the rules tell them to do.

That would not be "rules lawyering" that would be flat out cheating.

Then they will read in the tournament rules that players are expected to play by the rules and so forth consult the actual rule book and then the problem is solved. That is a pretty anecdotal and foolish scenario to imagine.

Your optimism is adorable, though I feel like you maybe just are trying to pick a fight with me.

In the grand scheme of things, this won't happen. Major tournaments will have people running it who know the rules. However, given small scale tournaments, depending on who is running it, how do they decide which rulebook takes precedence? This sort of thing is supposed to be very very structured so there is as much clarity for everyone as possible.

A reasonably valid argument can be made that the Tournament rules, which clearly don't have the single clan restriction, takes precedence over the Rules Reference, which does state it, given that the tournament rules are more recent that the Rules reference. Why include the deck building rules unless they were intended to be different?

Additionally, the Tourney rules has a rule that absolutely contradicts the Rules reference:

Rules Reference:

"Determine first player. Randomly select a player. That player will be the first player. Place the first player token in front of this player. The player that is not randomly selected to be the first player gains 1 fate from the general token pool and adds it to their fate pool."

Tourney Rules:

"Players determine who is first player. This should be done by flipping a coin, rolling a die, or another random process. The winner decides who is first player and place the first player token in front of this player. The other player starts the game with one additional fate in his or her fate pool."

And the Tourney Rules clearly takes precedence, since it impacts the tie breakers. Why doesn't the tourney rules take precedence in the case of deck building?

15 hours ago, ayedubbleyoo said:

I don’t like the requirement for opaque sleeves, hides all the great-looking cards. I really like to use one opaque deck and one clear one.

Maybe if I promise I won’t cheat...

I too am disappointed (and use FFG's clear sleeves). Sadly, this is the way they run all of their card game tournament rules. I suspect it is two fold:

1. Promo cards are often printed in-house and are not guaranteed to be of identical quality as the normal product.
2. You need to ensure that your sleeves are unmarked and consistent. This effectively doubles when you need to do this with sleeves and the cards inside.

6 hours ago, rmunn said:

I wonder why the rule about not taking notes during play exists. Is it just to save time (because writing down every card your opponent plays would be time-consuming and you'd be sure to go over 60 minutes)? I understand not being allowed to bring in external reference material besides the rules, but what's the purpose of the "no taking notes" rule? It seems to me that it could help detect certain kinds of cheating: e.g., if you've written down that you saw your opponent's clan champion come up three times already, when you see that card come up a fourth time (assuming the opponent hasn't played any fetch-from-discard-pile effects), you'd raise your hand and call for a judge. But if you're not taking notes, you'll have a harder time being certain: did I really see that card three times already, or is my memory playing tricks on me?

I ask this because a while ago, I read http://l5rcheaters.blogspot.com/ , which pointed out in http://l5rcheaters.blogspot.com/2010/07/intentional-cheating-part-2-majors.html that you should always write down changes in the game state, so that if your opponent lies about what happened two turns ago you're not relying on your fuzzy memory. With the "no taking notes during tournaments" rule, this recommendation is now illegal. Why, I wonder? I can understand if it's to keep the game moving, but if it's for another reason, I don't see the drawback in allowing people to take notes. Anyone have an idea?

Primarily it slows down the game (and rounds are already longer than FFG wants them), the other reason is card counting. The latter just feeds into an unfair advantage to whomever can count cards in their head.

3 hours ago, Evilgm said:

Except that for the rounds that such scouting would payoff (i.e. after the cut) you have to show your opponent your decklist anyway.

I'm not seeing that in the TR, am I blind?

2 hours ago, Dydra said:

Some thoughts on the Token rules.

We have a player in our group, close friend, who plays L5R with dice to count STR during conflicts. While I don't mind whatsoever for casual play ( and even the so called Relaxed tournaments), I could see it being a problem for certain occasions.

Today, we both read the document and he states that there is nothing (worded here) that prevents him from using dices for the above stated purpose.
I argue, that in fact there is, therefore if his opponent objects to using dice - he shouldn't.

In Netrunner, there was exact ruling for this (afraid I can't quote though) that because DICE are NOT resistant to accidental modification, people could deny their opponent the use of dice. Because we've always been there - the tournament, the time, the pressure ... and that "accidental" save on a credit or Virus/Generic counter.

While I know the way he plays is fairly strict, I can imagine a situation where he by mistake (or accident) puts the dice on the wrong number and they resolve the conflict looking at the dice ... To avoid such situations, for Formal and Premier events, I'd rule that his opponent must agree to him using dice for this. Or alternatively, ask him count his dice number somewhere on the side, rather than in front of the participating in the conflict cards.

What is your reading on this? Or I'm being way too strict?

"...not resistant to accidental modification..." is referring to existing uses for tokens, say fate. If I use dice to mark that I have 2 fate on Hōdan no Ejiki Jones, and I move into attack, it's liable to get changed from that 2 at some point (in the example in my mind, I'm using d10s for reasons I'm not going into here ). They want to ensure that there is no confusion or errors in being able to read the table.

What you (and by proxy he (she?)) are describing, using dice to count scores, are in addition to the existing game. You are still expected to recite out loud what the difference in strength is through the round. The dice are not replacing actual score keeping (or acting as tokens), they are just a visual way of tracking it. There should be no reason why he (again, she?) couldn't do this. It's honestly the only note taking that should be allowed (and by the blanket statement isn't): conflict tallying. If their opponent does not consent to it, then they would likely not be allowed to use them, but I don't see that as something that can't be done in a Relaxed tournament. Shoot, it might even be allowable in a bigger one.

16 hours ago, Sometimes Y said:

Maybe I'm way off base with this, but I feel like 60 minute rounds is going to be meta shaping in the worst way. Wanna play Scorpion or Phoenix dishonor? Better hurry up, because the clock is ticking. Honestly, it seems super prohibitive to control heavy decks, or decks that simply aren't focused with breaking provinces to win the game. Doesn't make sense at all (to me at least) to attempt a play style like the ones above that you're unlikely to be achieve unless both players are operating at remarkable speeds, which really hinders viable, competitive options for certain clans.

The first day of GenCon tournaments was a debacle. I believe that the matches were originally set at 40 min. They bumped to 50, but due to very few having played the new game before (mostly by proxies if they had), there were still a high number of games that went to time. They have announced* that they intend to make tournament rounds 10 extra minuets for the first 3 months, which brings us to 60. So, get ready to play for keeps.

*For the life of me I can't find the source of this.

This was my single biggest issue with the first game - that tournament rounds were short and the game was long. I promise the game is noticeably shorter, but it is still a battle against time.

9 minutes ago, Mirith said:

Your optimism is adorable, though I feel like you maybe just are trying to pick a fight with me.

In the grand scheme of things, this won't happen. Major tournaments will have people running it who know the rules. However, given small scale tournaments, depending on who is running it, how do they decide which rulebook takes precedence? This sort of thing is supposed to be very very structured so there is as much clarity for everyone as possible.

No, this will never happen because the Tournament rules do not change the rule in the main rules that specifies that when spending influence those cards must be of the same other faction. This only says that your allowed to get Out-Of Faction characters, then the rulebook tells you what that means.

The sheer idea, that anyone could use this to try to justify building a completely illegal deck, then try to sway a judge instead of reading the actual rules to the game, while other players are there that can simply open a rulebook on an absurdly publicly known rule... that is an idiotic scenario that gives no credence to any concerns. Its just trying to whip up drama with an added, "B-but what if someone doesn't know the rules, the judge doesn't know the rules, and there is no rulebook?" added at the end with no marker at the end.

Quote

A reasonably valid argument can be made that the Tournament rules, which clearly don't have the single clan restriction, takes precedence over the Rules Reference, which does state it, given that the tournament rules are more recent that the Rules reference. Why include the deck building rules unless they were intended to be different?

Because this document isn't an errata to the main rulebook. The document states that it is playing by the Legend of the Five Rings rules.

They are not detailing an additional rule, because this rule doesn't change the requirement that your splash must be the same faction as stated by the rulebook, it states that influence can be spent on out-of-faction cards, which is correct . The rulebook says this, then explains this process while also specifying that they must be the same faction. There is nothing contradictory, they just mentioned what the rulebook already laid out as legal. If the Tournament pack specified that they did not have to be from the same faction, then you have a case. The rule doesn't change because they only mention part of how influence works, your responsibility as a player is to read the rules and understand how the process works. Rules only change if they are ACTUALLY contradict or state that a rule is changed, not only partial written and the specifics of it omitted.

"B-but this doesn't say it has to be only one faction!"

Yep, because the main rulebook already tells you that, thanks for playing. Just because they don't mention it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, rules don't work that way. They are expecting you to read the rules, as they clearly say.

Quote

Additionally, the Tourney rules has a rule that absolutely contradicts the Rules reference:

Rules Reference:

"Determine first player. Randomly select a player. That player will be the first player. Place the first player token in front of this player. The player that is not randomly selected to be the first player gains 1 fate from the general token pool and adds it to their fate pool."

Tourney Rules:

"Players determine who is first player. This should be done by flipping a coin, rolling a die, or another random process. The winner decides who is first player and place the first player token in front of this player. The other player starts the game with one additional fate in his or her fate pool."

And the Tourney Rules clearly takes precedence, since it impacts the tie breakers. Why doesn't the tourney rules take precedence in the case of deck building?

Because unlike just mentioning the normal rule in the case of influence, they are specifically changing the wording.

They are specifically giving the tournament's way of resolving that roll to see what goes first in a way that changes the rule entirely. They aren't saying, "Roll to see who goes first" and then leaving you to see what that actually means in the rulebook. They are telling you flat out how the process works in a way that is different from the rulebook. Thus this is an ACTUAL contradiction, because Contradictions involve actually being worded in opposition to another source.

The out-of-faction cards argument isn't in contradiction, because the sources agree that you can spend influence on these cards, the rule book just throws the additional specification that they all have to be from the same clan. There is no contradiction, because omission isn't negation. Wording has to change and a difference has to be shown, like it is with determining first player.

4 hours ago, Dydra said:

Some thoughts on the Token rules.

We have a player in our group, close friend, who plays L5R with dice to count STR during conflicts. While I don't mind whatsoever for casual play ( and even the so called Relaxed tournaments), I could see it being a problem for certain occasions.

Today, we both read the document and he states that there is nothing (worded here) that prevents him from using dices for the above stated purpose.
I argue, that in fact there is, therefore if his opponent objects to using dice - he shouldn't.

In Netrunner, there was exact ruling for this (afraid I can't quote though) that because DICE are NOT resistant to accidental modification, people could deny their opponent the use of dice. Because we've always been there - the tournament, the time, the pressure ... and that "accidental" save on a credit or Virus/Generic counter.

While I know the way he plays is fairly strict, I can imagine a situation where he by mistake (or accident) puts the dice on the wrong number and they resolve the conflict looking at the dice ... To avoid such situations, for Formal and Premier events, I'd rule that his opponent must agree to him using dice for this. Or alternatively, ask him count his dice number somewhere on the side, rather than in front of the participating in the conflict cards.

What is your reading on this? Or I'm being way too strict?

While I don't care about dice being used, there is a clear way to show that they cant be used.

You cant use dice because they aren't replacing tokens, they are outside material you are using to take notes.

Under the Outside Material's section,

"Players cannot take notes or reference outside material or information during a tournament round. However, players may reference official rule documents at any time or ask a judge for clarification from official rule documents. Official rule documents include all rules documents and inserts available on the Legend of the Five Rings: The Card Game page of our website, those found in a Legend of the Five Rings: The Card Game product, or any portion thereof."

What this means is that any outside material or information that you would reference you cannot have. If you are using dice to track the Force totals at a fight, then they are outside material you are using to take notes on game state with. They aren't replacing the Fate, Honor, or other tokens that are used in the game as there are none.

The game has it where after each action the players specify the force totals, this means you have to keep that in mind and be able to read the board to understand. It's inconvenient at times, but this is the memory portion of the game and you can ask your opponent at any time to clarify. Using dice would be bringing outside material into the game to track information.

This is the wording that would prevent him from using dice. However there is a way he can. Now, because the Marshal is involved in determining legality they can allow indicators of board presence if they approve it as shown in the Token's section.

So the answer is normally no, unless the Marshal allows it, taking the considerations of the opponent into factor as well.

I got an reply to my email (quick turn-around by FFG!) and an update to the issue being discussed:

Quote

Hello,

Thanks for the message.

The deckbuilding rules in the rules reference should be observed. I will ask the events team to update that section of the tourney rules to add the missing details.

Thanks!

Nate French
Senior Game Designer
Fantasy Flight Games

2 hours ago, Matrim said:

suddenly the reason for the lack of 'likes' comes into startling focus.

look lets treat this more simply.

if you played me and lied about the conflict count (lets assume misscounted) and then claimed my pass could not roll back then I would just concede, slag you off online and never play you again. Life is too short to play with idiots.

now I am not saying you would but you are nailing your colors to a rather anal rules interpretation that breaks the number one game rule of 'dont be a ****'

the only way your interpretation would count is if you are willing to piss off every opponent.

nothing is perfect and no tcg rules system is ironclad. There is no point generating hot air about something as petty and inconsequential as this.

I've said my piece and I wish you every luck , especially if I have horrifically misjudged your view and I shall bow and step away from the fray.

Go bowed then to your home area

"...not resistant to accidental modification..." is referring to existing uses for tokens, say fate. If I use dice to mark that I have 2 fate on Hōdan no Ejiki Jones, and I move into attack, it's liable to get changed from that 2 at some point (in the example in my mind, I'm using d10s for reasons I'm not going into here ). They want to ensure that there is no confusion or errors in being able to read the table."

Yes exactly my point. Instead of reading the table properly, if you focus on some dice number instead that "accidently" or not is displaying game state ( yes conflict STR is a game state when it is modified by events, attachment and other effects ) - bad things could happen.

if it's so harmless to track that state in such manner... with the same success you can make the argument that you can write down the current STR in each conflict on a piece of paper in the middle of your playarea.

53 minutes ago, TheItsyBitsySpider said:

No, this will never happen because the Tournament rules do not change the rule in the main rules that specifies that when spending influence those cards must be of the same other faction. This only says that your allowed to get Out-Of Faction characters, then the rulebook tells you what that means.

The sheer idea, that anyone could use this to try to justify building a completely illegal deck, then try to sway a judge instead of reading the actual rules to the game, while other players are there that can simply open a rulebook on an absurdly publicly known rule... that is an idiotic scenario that gives no credence to any concerns. Its just trying to whip up drama with an added, "B-but what if someone doesn't know the rules, the judge doesn't know the rules, and there is no rulebook?" added at the end with no marker at the end.

Because this document isn't an errata to the main rulebook. The document states that it is playing by the Legend of the Five Rings rules.

They are not detailing an additional rule, because this rule doesn't change the requirement that your splash must be the same faction as stated by the rulebook, it states that influence can be spent on out-of-faction cards, which is correct . The rulebook says this, then explains this process while also specifying that they must be the same faction. There is nothing contradictory, they just mentioned what the rulebook already laid out as legal. If the Tournament pack specified that they did not have to be from the same faction, then you have a case. The rule doesn't change because they only mention part of how influence works, your responsibility as a player is to read the rules and understand how the process works. Rules only change if they are ACTUALLY contradict or state that a rule is changed, not only partial written and the specifics of it omitted.

"B-but this doesn't say it has to be only one faction!"

Yep, because the main rulebook already tells you that, thanks for playing. Just because they don't mention it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, rules don't work that way. They are expecting you to read the rules, as they clearly say.

Because unlike just mentioning the normal rule in the case of influence, they are specifically changing the wording.

They are specifically giving the tournament's way of resolving that roll to see what goes first in a way that changes the rule entirely. They aren't saying, "Roll to see who goes first" and then leaving you to see what that actually means in the rulebook. They are telling you flat out how the process works in a way that is different from the rulebook. Thus this is an ACTUAL contradiction, because Contradictions involve actually being worded in opposition to another source.

The out-of-faction cards argument isn't in contradiction, because the sources agree that you can spend influence on these cards, the rule book just throws the additional specification that they all have to be from the same clan. There is no contradiction, because omission isn't negation. Wording has to change and a difference has to be shown, like it is with determining first player.

You do realize I posted this to raise the concern that I wanted concrete rules to avoid this sort of argument in the first place, not that I expect it to happen a vast majority of the time? Clarity and consistency in tournament rules makes everyone happy to avoid awkward situations like this. Even Nate French, who agrees.

Yay Nate!

1 hour ago, TheItsyBitsySpider said:

They are not detailing an additional rule, because this rule doesn't change the requirement that your splash must be the same faction as stated by the rulebook, it states that influence can be spent on out-of-faction cards, which is correct . The rulebook says this, then explains this process while also specifying that they must be the same faction. There is nothing contradictory, they just mentioned what the rulebook already laid out as legal. If the Tournament pack specified that they did not have to be from the same faction, then you have a case. The rule doesn't change because they only mention part of how influence works, your responsibility as a player is to read the rules and understand how the process works. Rules only change if they are ACTUALLY contradict or state that a rule is changed, not only partial written and the specifics of it omitted.

"B-but this doesn't say it has to be only one faction!"

Yep, because the main rulebook already tells you that, thanks for playing. Just because they don't mention it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, rules don't work that way. They are expecting you to read the rules, as they clearly say.

*sad face* Darn. And here I was hoping to build me a Dragon deck with 20 Yokunis and 20 Way of the Dragon since the tournament rules never say that I can only have three copies of each card in my decks.

5 hours ago, qwertyuiop said:

How about you focus on playing the game honestly.

Thanks Dad!

16 hours ago, Tokhuah said:

Edit: I just realized that the scoring system allows for a Russian chess situation. Bring a crew of 8 headed by 1-2 clear best players. The crew plays methodic and slow in every game to make them all go to time and refuse to ever concede, meaning opponent's are not scoring higher than 6, and often less. Whenever the crew plays the top player they artfully lose as quickly as possible. Team Russian Crew FTW!

Why is this called Russian chess? I tried googling but didn't find anything (on the first page of search results).

The Russians used similar tactics for years to maintain dominance on the world stage. They were already T1, this just made sure nobody else was. It worked until a certain quirky American entered the scene... What they would do is bring a team with certain members instructed to never resign, play for draws and/or steer games into complicated variations to lower opponent's win rates and drain their energy and then roll over against their own top tier players. Intentionally drawing out a game and then not resigning a lost position to score 0-6 would be something the Russians would be proud of. Also, all Russians would currently play Scorpion!

Is this documented anywhere online? I'd like to read about it.

15 hours ago, Tokhuah said:

Thanks Dad!

Just trying to keep you from getting punched in the teeth in the event you think about giving in to the temptation to pull any of the nonsense you were talking about

3 hours ago, mplain said:

Is this documented anywhere online? I'd like to read about it.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/products/legend-of-the-five-rings-the-card-game/

-> Tournament Resources (text and fancy graphics version)