2 hours ago, Etaywah said:

Or “once per round”. Some limiter. It’s just slightly too strong for 0 cost in my opinion but that’s just me.

Voice of Honor and Forged Edict are not once per round. So I cant see any worry from my view.

Coming from Magic, counterspell-type cards definitely have a tendency to FEEL overpowered and NPE, even when they're really not. I personally don't have much of a problem with this card besides the fact that it doesn't cost 1-2 Fate, but I can see why some people wouldn't like it. Fighting a "permission" deck often sucks--although if it's any consolation, I don't think this game's anywhere close to being in danger of having rampant "permission" decks.

Since most clans have their pros and cons , I think it does make sense that neutral cards like this can be stronger to some and irrelevant to others in which case for the Crabs, who knows they might get their own card later on that minimizes the impact of Imperial Favors like not allowing imperial favors to be claimed for a round or having a sudden glory surge just for them.

In the end all just need to take note of three things, first there is no imperial favor in the first round making it a dead card if you have it early and even worse to assume you will earn the favor the next round.

Second as most have pointed out, other cards may possibly become stronger (conflict characters and attachments) so good luck holding the card for clans facing Dragon.

Lastly higher fate cost events will also most likely become powerful and in itself will be the risk against reward decision to add in your deck later on knowing cards like Censure is around (not an issue if used first round though most likely opponent may hold other cancelling event cards)

Most of top decks at worlds that even could have had access to 6 cancels (Crane and Scorpion) simply weren’t doing it. Dragon, Phoenix, and Lion were the Crane splashes at the top tables and the few Scorpion players splashing Crane weren’t doing it for Above Question. So, I'm not super concerned about a deck with two highly different conditional cancel cards.

10 hours ago, Mandalore525 said:

I personally don't have much of a problem with this card besides the fact that it doesn't cost 1-2 Fate, but I can see why some people wouldn't like it.

I think the 0 cost is an important design part of the card. Having to save fate just in case you would cancel something is is highly unproductive and would make the card really under performing since playing it is already locked behind a condition. A 0 cost cancellation effect is needed to be able to respond to 0 cost effects that can be poured over you.

And for those thinking that owning the imperial favor is not restrictive enough, remember that the card is limited on the number of use directly by the deck-building. It's a 3 off per game.

This card does nothing about Hida Kisada punching you in the face and breaking your provinces. I'm not worried about it at all. It should be easier to play around than Voice or Forged Edict, and those haven't exactly broken the game either.

4 hours ago, Hellvlad said:

I think the 0 cost is an important design part of the card. Having to save fate just in case you would cancel something is is highly unproductive and would make the card really under performing since playing it is already locked behind a condition. A 0 cost cancellation effect is needed to be able to respond to 0 cost effects that can be poured over you.

And for those thinking that owning the imperial favor is not restrictive enough, remember that the card is limited on the number of use directly by the deck-building. It's a 3 off per game.

Exactly the problem with Miya Mystic. It costs too much and requires too much setup toreasonably cancel out an item.

I hope they make a neutral item removal card next that can help people not splash Dragon to deal with Dragon lol

1 hour ago, j_gunder said:

This card does nothing about Hida Kisada punching you in the face

I don't think there is a card for this yet anyway

Mirumoto's Fury, done.

2 hours ago, Hordeoverseer said:

Mirumoto's Fury, done.

You mean waste an action, then Mirumoto's Fury, right?

13 hours ago, Hellvlad said:

I think the 0 cost is an important design part of the card. Having to save fate just in case you would cancel something is is highly unproductive and would make the card really under performing since playing it is already locked behind a condition. A 0 cost cancellation effect is needed to be able to respond to 0 cost effects that can be poured over you.

And for those thinking that owning the imperial favor is not restrictive enough, remember that the card is limited on the number of use directly by the deck-building. It's a 3 off per game.

I can definitely see your point there. The only hesitation I have is that in Magic, the fact that a Blue player is keeping mana open serves as a minor balancing factor against counterspells, because your opponent gets a hint that a counterspell might be coming. It also allows for some mind games when you're playing as a Blue player, as you can keep mana open to make your opponent THINK you have a counterspell when you really don't. But I can see your argument that with the Imperial Favor added on, 1 fate might make the card too expensive.

Don't forget there is a splashable 1-cost conflict character that let's you look at your opponents hand.

If counter spells become an I see i see that card and attachments taking a stronger role.

1 hour ago, Mandalore525 said:

I can definitely see your point there. The only hesitation I have is that in Magic, the fact that a Blue player is keeping mana open serves as a minor balancing factor against counterspells, because your opponent gets a hint that a counterspell might be coming. It also allows for some mind games when you're playing as a Blue player, as you can keep mana open to make your opponent THINK you have a counterspell when you really don't. But I can see your argument that with the Imperial Favor added on, 1 fate might make the card too expensive.

But MtG doesn't have very many free cost spells, so a free counter spell would be insane. Here most events are free, or cost just 1-2. A free event-counter with a gate (have more honored characters / control the favor) makes it more balanced. Especially the new neutral one, as no clan dominantly takes the favor in the LCG. It doesn't matter how much honor you have to take the favor, so even being low honor you can win the favor to limit cancels breaking your combos, and enable cancels to help you make the comeback.

10 hours ago, Mandalore525 said:

I can definitely see your point there. The only hesitation I have is that in Magic, the fact that a Blue player is keeping mana open serves as a minor balancing factor against counterspells, because your opponent gets a hint that a counterspell might be coming. It also allows for some mind games when you're playing as a Blue player, as you can keep mana open to make your opponent THINK you have a counterspell when you really don't. But I can see your argument that with the Imperial Favor added on, 1 fate might make the card too expensive.

I agree with you on what Counterspell created as impact and how people had to play around. However we have some important differences here:

- You need the imperial favor. That would be the hint that could tell you "ok he might be ready to play censure". The mind games and bluff will take place naturally at this stage. As you have to fight to keep the favor, I think it's a nice bonus reward, and even on a storytelling side, its makes sense. "My opponent has imperial backing, an extreme action by my clan could get canceled by an imperial decision."

- A major difference with MtG is that you can keep Fate from one turn to another and your fate production cannot be expanded for the moment. You can only rely on a consistent 7 fate /turn. In MtG, your mana goes away at the end of your turn and cannot be stored from one turn to another. However you expand your mana income each turn, making the 2 cost something really less important in late game. In L5R, 1 or 2 fate is really significant, at any point in the game. If this card costed 1 fate I would see it playable only if the cancellation effect was unconditional. For 2, I doubt it would make the cut in my decklist

- As Soshi Nimue pointed out, most expensive events cost 3 and a majority of events are 0 cost cards. Cards in you hand are already a very expensive resource, way more than in any other LCG. I would even argue that losing a card in Netrunner is less important than losing a conflict card in L5R. Having that card taking a slot in your deck and costing you a draw to be able to have it ready to use, plus the imperial favor, that's is not a low cost to just prevent the status of the game to change once. You are basically exchanging a card for another. So in order to have this card be valuable, you either need to pay less fate than your oponent, mening here 0, or you have to have a better draw engine than your opponent, or a honor gaining engine, added to the fact that you need the imperial favor on your side. I am convinced that at some point we will see card effects requiring you to forfeit the imperial favor and this would also mean that you will shut down any possibility to play cards like Censure.

On 8/11/2017 at 9:31 PM, Hellvlad said:

3) It does not make any snowball effect since anyone can include this in a deck, and the imperial favor changes hand. Because of how the game works, you could be in a strong position, see all your characters discarded as no more fate was on them and see your opponent outnumber you on the next turn. The game actually snowballs way less than Old5R

I perfectly agree with your last sentence.

But this does add, though slightly, to the snowball effect as it gives a good protection to the player on advantage. Even slightly, it will probably make the hand change of the IF a little bit harder.

I think it would have been a good thing if the cancellation required to discard the IF.

1 hour ago, Koriume said:

I perfectly agree with your last sentence.

But this does add, though slightly, to the snowball effect as it gives a good protection to the player on advantage. Even slightly, it will probably make the hand change of the IF a little bit harder.

I think it would have been a good thing if the cancellation required to discard the IF.

Conversely, it means people will fight harder over the IF, like forgoing conflicts to rely on Glory or picking less desirable rings in hopes of your opponent not defending them too viciously, adding another interesting layer.

Oh no..... Backhanded complement is going to nuke this game into the dirt, Whats that a card that directly counters BC, and it's neutral? Oh no..... This card is terrible.

Facepalm.

I almost spilled my tea.

5 hours ago, clanmccracken said:

Oh no..... Backhanded complement is going to nuke this game into the dirt, Whats that a card that directly counters BC, and it's neutral? Oh no..... This card is terrible.

Facepalm.

I almost spilled my tea.

Well, maybe the people that thinks that BC is going to nuke the game, and the people that do not like Censure, are not the same people...

Love this card!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

4 hours ago, Koriume said:

Well, maybe the people that thinks that BC is going to nuke the game, and the people that do not like Censure, are not the same people...

Nope. This is the internet. Everyone is the same person here.

22 hours ago, TopHatGorilla said:

Nope. This is the internet. Everyone is the same person here.

This is existence. We are all the same person.

Schrodinger's identiy:

Until witnessed firsthand and in person, everyone on the internet is the same person.

11 hours ago, Tetsuhiko said:

Schrodinger's identiy:

Until witnessed firsthand and in person, everyone on the internet is the same person.

..unless there was a glitch in the Matrix.