I’m following this from regional Australia where I moved as part of my wife’s career. Currently I’m still waiting for my core sets to show up and it’s a four hour drive to the nearest town with a play group.

I would love to go to worlds and represent (and have been playing Scorpion since Jade), and yet right now that isn’t really an option. In fact it’s probably one of the most awkward spots to be if you want to get to a US con.

So all that being said take this with a grain grain of salt.

One of my best friends played Lion and whilst he may have felt that breach of etiquette was the most npe in the game; I felt that Gohei+charge was that most npe thing in the game.

My point being that experience is relative and some mileage will vary based upon position and perspective.

I’m still reserving judgement on whether I’m upset by this decision or supportive. The main reason being that personally I feel (in L5r particularly) a player should attempt to further the aims and objectives of the faction that they most resonate with.

For a Dragon player in particular the decision is felt more keenly as Dragon and Scorpion have always been strongly allied together.

That of course is all relative as I don’t really know enough about new5r to hold a valid opinion on the mechanical side.

So if in their way Dragon wisdom has opened a new and interesting path then that’s great. If on the other hand the decision was born from a sense of hubris then that is not so great.

Shiba Aikune chooses once more nay?!

7 hours ago, selderane said:

You think the game designers are so stupid that it took you to save them from themelves?

Is it your first card game? Because designers and playtest teams making mistakes/missing something isn't something so rare that it's make it as impossible as you put it. If that was the case there wouldn't ever be any need to ban/errata/limit cards, which is something that happens regularly in most card games, even FFG ones.

2 hours ago, shosuko said:

It doesn't matter if role restrictions are "enforced." Tournament rules always set the standard for play. The clan + role combo will be assumed and unofficially enforced across the globe, and fk this tool for getting all high and mighty about it.

You know, even if you disagree with the guy's choices, your belligerence in response to it, across multiple threads, is completely uncalled for.

I really recommend you take a step back, give it a few days, and come back when your temper has cooled off.

If you continue as you have been, I'm not going to be surprised at all if the moderators decide to make that choice for you.

There seem two main groups of angry people in this thread. The first group seems very distressed that people (including me) are saying essentially 'if you dont like it then come to worlds and win out and make the choice yourself'

To drill in to this ets look at my own example. Did I get to worlds? no. Why?

Cost - i Live in the UK and could not afford the price of transatlantic tickets, hotels
I have two small children and a wife who works evenings and weekends. For me to take time off for worlds she would need to stop working hitting us in the pocket further
Even if i had atteneded I would be unlikely to do very well and win the comp as I am, to be fank, not very good so my attendence would be for the experience.

ALL these are under MY control. I COULD afford to get to worlds if I perhaps said to the family 'no holiday next year', or stopped buying books and computer games or pokemon cards for my eldest son. I could probably afford it quite easily but *I* made a decision that paying the mortgage and looking after MY family is the right thing to do

I could also become a much better player. I could travel the UK to competitions (stopping my wife working at the weekends) or I could do online tournaments spending less time with my boys or perhaps stop them playing football so I have more time to improve as a LCG player but I don't and that again is my choice. Not FFGs or other players

I beleive ALL these decisions are the right ones and if those moaning that they cannot get to worlds honestly look at their lives they will see that they too are (probably correctly) putting other things above a card game. THEREFORE I have no issues AT ALL with people who do make these sacrifices (maybe lesser ones but this isn't a measuring contest) doing so, winning and getting to choose whatever they please.

Most of us here are adults and most of us here understand that as adults (caveat: allowing you dont live in a dicatatorship etc) we get to make choices about what we do and how we behave. This is why I find all of you getting upset and moaning 'I couldnt get to worlds I could not afford it' as an excuse for moaning about someone who did so ridiculous.

The other moans are the people complaining that the reason for the choice was weak. It wasn't. They could have done it for any reason at all and that would be great as they put the effort in and had the talent to win. Just as a disclaimaer I was equally distressed when Doji Saori was corrupted deliberately by a Shadowlands player playing Crane but lived with it as that player deserved the pick regardless as to their reasons. Live your life and own your decisions. Trying to complain about other peoples will get you nowhere.

1 hour ago, Matrim said:

There seem two main groups of angry people in this thread. The first group seems very distressed that people (including me) are saying essentially 'if you dont like it then come to worlds and win out and make the choice yourself'

To drill in to this ets look at my own example. Did I get to worlds? no. Why?

Cost - i Live in the UK and could not afford the price of transatlantic tickets, hotels
I have two small children and a wife who works evenings and weekends. For me to take time off for worlds she would need to stop working hitting us in the pocket further
Even if i had atteneded I would be unlikely to do very well and win the comp as I am, to be fank, not very good so my attendence would be for the experience.

ALL these are under MY control. I COULD afford to get to worlds if I perhaps said to the family 'no holiday next year', or stopped buying books and computer games or pokemon cards for my eldest son. I could probably afford it quite easily but *I* made a decision that paying the mortgage and looking after MY family is the right thing to do

I could also become a much better player. I could travel the UK to competitions (stopping my wife working at the weekends) or I could do online tournaments spending less time with my boys or perhaps stop them playing football so I have more time to improve as a LCG player but I don't and that again is my choice. Not FFGs or other players

I beleive ALL these decisions are the right ones and if those moaning that they cannot get to worlds honestly look at their lives they will see that they too are (probably correctly) putting other things above a card game. THEREFORE I have no issues AT ALL with people who do make these sacrifices (maybe lesser ones but this isn't a measuring contest) doing so, winning and getting to choose whatever they please.

Most of us here are adults and most of us here understand that as adults (caveat: allowing you dont live in a dicatatorship etc) we get to make choices about what we do and how we behave. This is why I find all of you getting upset and moaning 'I couldnt get to worlds I could not afford it' as an excuse for moaning about someone who did so ridiculous.

I really don't think the point you're trying to make here is very strong.

I think you're taking the meaning of "could" far too prescriptively here. Sure, people *literally* can afford to go, just as I could *literally* go and try to rob or bank, or drop out of uni and be a bum all day long. These things are *possible* and certainly within our ability, but that's not what people are complaining about.

People are stating that it's not realistic and particularly economically feasible for them to travel. You're basically stating that everyone is in an equal position to participate, and some people are making the decision to commit to it and thus we shouldn't be able to have an opinion.

Some players live locally to the FFG Centre. The cost for them to participate is negligible compared to someone from, say, the UK. Not only financially, but also in terms of time and commitment.

Some players have high-paying jobs and can easily afford to go. Others are currently unemployed or students and have to get by on a meagre wage, meaning they cannot.

You're effectively saying that the people in the first cases are allowed to have an opinion, while the others aren't because they realistically cannot commit to worlds.

That. Is. Absurd.

1 hour ago, Matrim said:

The first group seems very distressed that people (including me) are saying essentially 'if you dont like it then come to worlds and win out and make the choice yourself'

The other moans are the people complaining that the reason for the choice was weak.

The third group is just saying: this is a forum for discussing and try to find the best way for this game to be successful. If the answer to every criticism is "come to worlds next time", well, there's very little room for debate.

Did Mark make the right thing in picking the role? I don't have the game experience he has, and I honestly don't care, it's a deckbuilding restriction that just makes that part of the game more fun. Did they do the right thing hiding behind NPE? I think not, and this is what was being discussed. As Mark said, don't play Scorpion if you don't want to be a villain. I would add, if you do the villain, then don't try to pass for the good guy to avoid people complaining at you.

That's why I would have preferred Brad to win the pick: in that way, the story of the dragon infiltrate that's trying to weaken the Scorpion clan from the inside would have been everything we need to justify the choice. And what a good story it would have been!

7 minutes ago, theaficionado said:

I really don't think the point you're trying to make here is very strong.

I think you're taking the meaning of "could" far too prescriptively here. Sure, people *literally* can afford to go, just as I could *literally* go and try to rob or bank, or drop out of uni and be a bum all day long. These things are *possible* and certainly within our ability, but that's not what people are complaining about.

People are stating that it's not realistic and particularly economically feasible for them to travel. You're basically stating that everyone is in an equal position to participate, and some people are making the decision to commit to it and thus we shouldn't be able to have an opinion.

Some players live locally to the FFG Centre. The cost for them to participate is negligible compared to someone from, say, the UK. Not only financially, but also in terms of time and commitment.

Some players have high-paying jobs and can easily afford to go. Others are currently unemployed or students and have to get by on a meagre wage, meaning they cannot.

You're effectively saying that the people in the first cases are allowed to have an opinion, while the others aren't because they realistically cannot commit to worlds.

That. Is. Absurd.

No its not. Unless you dont make your own decisions. 'People are stating that it's not realistic or economically feasible' - that is their choice and is entirely my point. Guess what - lots of people from Europe decided they would pay to go. Did they need to rob a bank or drop out of university? no. Nice straw man argument by the way unless you seriously feel spending two- three days out of university is enough to 'drop out'.

Second straw man is

You're effectively saying that the people in the first cases are allowed to have an opinion, while the others aren't because they realistically cannot commit to worlds.

Rubbish nothing I said means that. Anyone can have an opinion as to whether the choice was good or bad what I disagreee withis people demanding that their opinion is of more importance than the people who did go and won and that FFG or the winning players should do things differently. My point is that most people here make choices concerning their own lives and most people will have deliberately chosen to prioritize other things CORRECTLY and that their lives would be much happier if they recognised this fact.

I assume you are going to try and argue (or other people may) that you , or they, are so unbeleivably poor that you could never get that cash as without it you would drop dead and that their is no 'fat' in your spending choices. If so then I feel very sorry for your life but would recommend that perhaps an LCG which requires monthly expense is a possibly bad choice of what to do with your small cash funds. At least until things hopefully improve.

1 minute ago, Matrim said:

No its not. Unless you dont make your own decisions. 'People are stating that it's not realistic or economically feasible' - that is their choice and is entirely my point. Guess what - lots of people from Europe decided they would pay to go. Did they need to rob a bank or drop out of university? no. Nice straw man argument by the way unless you seriously feel spending two- three days out of university is enough to 'drop out'.

Second straw man is

Rubbish nothing I said means that. Anyone can have an opinion as to whether the choice was good or bad what I disagreee withis people demanding that their opinion is of more importance than the people who did go and won and that FFG or the winning players should do things differently. My point is that most people here make choices concerning their own lives and most people will have deliberately chosen to prioritize other things CORRECTLY and that their lives would be much happier if they recognised this fact.

I assume you are going to try and argue (or other people may) that you , or they, are so unbeleivably poor that you could never get that cash as without it you would drop dead and that their is no 'fat' in your spending choices. If so then I feel very sorry for your life but would recommend that perhaps an LCG which requires monthly expense is a possibly bad choice of what to do with your small cash funds. At least until things hopefully improve.

The rob a bank or drop out of uni weren't examples of how to fund or otherwise support the trip to worlds. They were examples of things that were possible, but not realistic.

Considering that I'm not even trying to argue an opinion in the thread (I started this thread literally to get an explanation as to why someone thought Backhanded Compliment was NPE), I'm not thinking that my opinion is more valuable than those who went to worlds and won.

Again, I don't get what your point is about people in Europe making the trip. Power to them. I hope they had fun and they found the trip worth it/didn't have to compromise anything in their lives in order to go.

As far as the last paragraph goes, that certainly comes across as rather condescending. It's feasible that people could afford to spend $25 a month (or $300 a year) and not $2000 for a trip. I'm not going to try and argue that I don't have luxury spending, though it is very limited. The "I feel very sorry for your life" part of your post really just grinds my gears though. Your false pity is not needed, nor wanted.

ah bless, well you have my pity regardless.

19 hours ago, DarkArk said:

You realize that most people don't have the money or time to travel halfway across the country for a card game, right? I will probably never have the opportunity to go to worlds due to various factors, and yet people there will make a decision about how I get to play the game. There's valid reasons for people to be angry or frustrated about the system, and frankly it's the one part of the game and meta that I'm not that enthused about.

This is why all of the tourney organizers in this area decided to just ignore keeper/seeker choices. I'll never go to worlds so I won't have to worry about this stuff, thankfully.

1 hour ago, Matrim said:

No its not. Unless you dont make your own decisions. 'People are stating that it's not realistic or economically feasible' - that is their choice and is entirely my point. Guess what - lots of people from Europe decided they would pay to go. Did they need to rob a bank or drop out of university? no. Nice straw man argument by the way unless you seriously feel spending two- three days out of university is enough to 'drop out'.

What if it's not my decision? I am willing to save enough money over the next 11 months so that I can afford flight and accomodations for WC2018. I'm also willing to put in the necessary practice to become a top player and have a chance of making these prize decisions. But what if my boss can't or doesn't want to give me vacation days? Do you expect me to quit my job, because that would solve it and indeed be my decision again.

I get your point. If someone really, really wants to go, there's also a way, but maybe at a high cost and it is up to you to decide if you're willing to pay that. I'm just saying that's it's very unrealistic und still unfair to hold it over someone's head if he can't participate at the tournament. Maybe I get hit by a car a week before Winter Court and break both my legs. Is it still fair to say "you could have come to the event if you wanted to"? I don't think so.

20 minutes ago, SolidusPrime said:

This is why all of the tourney organizers in this area decided to just ignore keeper/seeker choices. I'll never go to worlds so I won't have to worry about this stuff, thankfully.

The rules are the rules though. If an individual places well in the OP where you are, and they are not following the assigned roles, then they got their standing by cheating. While the roles may not be some peoples cup of tea, the roles are part of tournament rules.

Just now, theGricks said:

The rules are the rules though. If an individual places well in the OP where you are, and they are not following the assigned roles, then they got their standing by cheating. While the roles may not be some peoples cup of tea, the roles are part of tournament rules.

Nobody gives a **** about that around here to be honest. If we cared whether or not you thought we were "cheating" we wouldn't have enacted the rule. The 3 main organizers in the city sat down with the bulk of players at release, and it was voted on. We'll keep on having fun at our tournies, and I hope you keep having fun at yours. Enjoy the new role card

12 minutes ago, SolidusPrime said:

Nobody gives a **** about that around here to be honest. If we cared whether or not you thought we were "cheating" we wouldn't have enacted the rule. The 3 main organizers in the city sat down with the bulk of players at release, and it was voted on. We'll keep on having fun at our tournies, and I hope you keep having fun at yours. Enjoy the new role card

This becomes a problem when the stores in question host a store championship or regional level event and players from other areas travel to the events. Those players have a reasonable expectation that the FFG organized play rules will be followed.

For other local events, play however you want. It's a game, have fun :-)

2 minutes ago, dbmeboy said:

This becomes a problem when the stores in question host a store championship or regional level event and players from other areas travel to the events. Those players have a reasonable expectation that the FFG organized play rules will be followed.

For other local events, play however you want. It's a game, have fun :-)

I'm guessing that's not going to happen, since they clearly have no interest in the broader community of the game. They just want their insular little community to do things their own way. Hopefully if they have individual players with an interest in larger events, they're aware their TOs aren't following OP regulations so they don't get screwed practicing and deckbuilding with the wrong role.

1 minute ago, dbmeboy said:

This becomes a problem when the stores in question host a store championship or regional level event and players from other areas travel to the events. Those players have a reasonable expectation that the FFG organized play rules will be followed.

For other local events, play however you want. It's a game, have fun :-)

That was brought up and considered. I don't totally disagree with you. We still decided to ignore it though, even for the big games.

32 minutes ago, theGricks said:

The rules are the rules though. If an individual places well in the OP where you are, and they are not following the assigned roles, then they got their standing by cheating. While the roles may not be some peoples cup of tea, the roles are part of tournament rules.

That's not cheating if that's the way the event is being run. It's playing by house rules. There's a difference.

3 minutes ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

That's not cheating if that's the way the event is being run. It's playing by house rules. There's a difference.

Theres playing by houserules and if this community is not planning on running OP events then yes, it is not cheating. If they are planning on playing sponsored OP events, then yes, it is cheating because they are ignoring known rules that are published and have an assumption of play. If people come from out of town and find they can play in an event (I do this when I travel for work), they are not going to have the same construction of their deck. They may have an assumption of play for their opponent that is suddenly invalid because that player is not playing cards they are supposed to have.

5 hours ago, KerenRhys said:

Is it your first card game? Because designers and playtest teams making mistakes/missing something isn't something so rare that it's make it as impossible as you put it. If that was the case there wouldn't ever be any need to ban/errata/limit cards, which is something that happens regularly in most card games, even FFG ones.

Moving the goalposts. I never said they don't make mistakes. If you're going to take issue with something I said, please make sure I actually said it.

The "I'm saving the game" justification made the argument that the card made for a bad play environment. That is, at best, debatable and completely subjective.

And since you mention errata, that is the mechanism by which these issues are dealt with. Not one guy getting on his cross before the card even has the chance to actually do anything.

If you're gonna play the "hero this game needs" role, make sure the thing you're afraid of actually has the impact you think it does. Because for as much as designers and playtesters make mistakes, many cards that look to be game breaking to throngs of internet fanboys (and Backhanded Compliment ain't that) end up being anything but in actual play.

2 minutes ago, Zesu Shadaban said:

I'm guessing that's not going to happen, since they clearly have no interest in the broader community of the game. They just want their insular little community to do things their own way. Hopefully if they have individual players with an interest in larger events, they're aware their TOs aren't following OP regulations so they don't get screwed practicing and deckbuilding with the wrong role.

We have people that go to Worlds and Gen Con almost every year. Just because we decide to ignore one rule doesn't make us "insular" lol. We regularly have people placing in the top of a lot of major competitive games out there right now. X-Wing, 40k, Star Wars. We are far from "insular".

But there were 47 people at the release event. Only 3 of them cared enough about the Keeper/Seeker thing to vote for using it, and those 3 weren't terribly upset when we decided to ignore it. We know the implications. We aren't 12. We'll continue using these rules for ALL events, so get upset if you want to, but that's how it is. Our players have much more fun this way.

16 minutes ago, SolidusPrime said:

We have people that go to Worlds and Gen Con almost every year. Just because we decide to ignore one rule doesn't make us "insular" lol. We regularly have people placing in the top of a lot of major competitive games out there right now. X-Wing, 40k, Star Wars. We are far from "insular".

But there were 47 people at the release event. Only 3 of them cared enough about the Keeper/Seeker thing to vote for using it, and those 3 weren't terribly upset when we decided to ignore it. We know the implications. We aren't 12. We'll continue using these rules for ALL events, so get upset if you want to, but that's how it is. Our players have much more fun this way.

Not upset in the slightest, sorry if it came across that way. And that's great you had such a good turnout for your release event, I suppose my only concern is for new players and out of towners who weren't there for the initial decision, but sounds like you'll bring them up to speed on how you do things. I don't agree with what y'all decided, at least for official OP events, but you do you.

10 minutes ago, Zesu Shadaban said:

Not upset in the slightest, sorry if it came across that way. And that's great you had such a good turnout for your release event, I suppose my only concern is for new players and out of towners who weren't there for the initial decision, but sounds like you'll bring them up to speed on how you do things. I don't agree with what y'all decided, at least for official OP events, but you do you.

Over the years, our pool of out of towners has pretty much solidified. Those that make regular trips to the area are usually on one of the Facebooks, or friends with someone else that is. There are bigger cities about 2 hours in every direction of us, so those usually tend to draw the people that travel for worldwide events. But we do post and advertise rules very prominently.

The results of Worlds seems to have kind of removed most of the doubts that were lingering around about our decision. The big topic at the moment is how one guy played for Scorpion just so he could handicap them. Whether that is the case or not in reality, that it is how it is being viewed, and it's leaving a bad taste in people's mouth. I admit, that's how I saw it before visiting the forums too. Even after reading the player's explanation, I'm still not sure that I buy it.

Having players make these choices sounds really fun on paper, but in reality it makes a lot of people sour because stuff like this happens. I haven't seen even one other Scorpion player that is happy with the choice. And it only has a little to do with Backhanded Compliment itself, because a lot of people didn't even know that card existed. They don't follow the spoilers. They are upset, mainly, because they feel like their clan was sabotaged, but also because a lot of people feel that Seeker of the Void just doesn't work all that well with current Scorpion decks.

It's still early though, so we'll see what happens. A year is a long time to have to be stuck with something in a game like this.

I'm ok with it. Seeker of Void may not work great with current decks (which I'd also disagree with slightly), but luckily we're getting a bunch of new cards to use, so current decks won't even exist in a couple days.

38 minutes ago, SolidusPrime said:

I haven't seen even one other Scorpion player that is happy with the choice.

The poll in the Scorpion discord was overwhelmingly in favour of seeker of void.

People sure get worked up over not much...

It's a game for goodness' sakes. Why do I care if I have to play Keeper of Fire with my Lion? I find having to tailor my decks to outside influence to be cool. I think, personally that in the end it will lead to a more interesting play environment as people will have to change their decks every once in a while. It will help keep the game new and fresh to me!

At the other end of the spectrum though, who cares if some city or area decide not to play with the chosen roles? It's their decision, why would I care? They paid for their cards, they paid for the event kit, they play however they see fit! Again, I personally would not enjoy it as much, as I fear that it will lead to a stale play environment faster rather than later (all Crabs play this role etc.) but even then, I'm happy to be proven wrong.

This last part is why I personally love roles, but I can understand why some people don't like them. While it will lead to everyone at a tournament playing the same role, it will lead to a new quest to find the best deck using that role every year. That process is not straightforward and requires time. It will lead to different decks being used until a new "best" deck with that role arises. That's cool (based on personal opinion only).

Your mileage may vary.