24 minutes ago, starrius said:

I make sure that till we have a ruling for example that no looking at mulliganed cards otherwise it's just going to lead to bad habits when it's official one way or an another

The thing is, at least with the mulligan rule, that the actual rules supposedly support that you can look at the face-down cards anytime up until after point 6 of the Setup. There’s a point in the RRD that says:

Note: After this step, a player may not look at facedown cards in his or her provinces.

Implying that you can look at them before that step anytime you want. But it seems it’s not written as clear as it was intended, so one of the developers just confirmed that yes, you can look. They’re not gonna change the RRD because for them this rule is already written there (mind you, a lot of this confusion comes from people learning to play from YT videos that were doing this wrong). So, we can get to this in a tournament and I can use the rules to argue that I can look at the cards, we’re gonna discuss, and a Judge is gonna come and if he says no, he’s ruling wrong. Not because what the devs said, but because he’s interpreting the RRD wrong. So at least they should be aware that there are clarifications to some rules by the devs and look at them in case the situation arises.

It always say you get to look at your cards once so it' unclear and needs clarification. But thats just a small example of anmiswording. But till its officiak one way or another I don' use it. Saying the ruling isn a wrong though is where I find an issue because we are interpreting the rules and the clarification isn official but people are taking it to be official which i feel lead to people not liking the ruling and leading to negative comments about events

32 minutes ago, Tabris2k said:

The thing is, at least with the mulligan rule, that the actual rules supposedly support that you can look at the face-down cards anytime up until after point 6 of the Setup. There’s a point in the RRD that says:

Note: After this step, a player may not look at facedown cards in his or her provinces.

Implying that you can look at them before that step anytime you want. But it seems it’s not written as clear as it was intended, so one of the developers just confirmed that yes, you can look. They’re not gonna change the RRD because for them this rule is already written there (mind you, a lot of this confusion comes from people learning to play from YT videos that were doing this wrong). So, we can get to this in a tournament and I can use the rules to argue that I can look at the cards, we’re gonna discuss, and a Judge is gonna come and if he says no, he’s ruling wrong. Not because what the devs said, but because he’s interpreting the RRD wrong. So at least they should be aware that there are clarifications to some rules by the devs and look at them in case the situation arises.

Note I don't have a problem with this interpretation, and if that's how we're going to do things going forward, I'm fine with it...but go watch any recorded games of Brad Andres playing, and see if you can spot him ever doing this. It's something that once you're aware you can do it, you'll always do so (unless you don't send any cards back, of course), but I don't recall ever seeing Brad doing so, meaning that one designer thinks it's obvious and the other is unaware.

1 hour ago, starrius said:

It always say you get to look at your cards once so it' unclear and needs clarification. But thats just a small example of anmiswording. But till its officiak one way or another I don' use it. Saying the ruling isn a wrong though is where I find an issue because we are interpreting the rules and the clarification isn official but people are taking it to be official which i feel lead to people not liking the ruling and leading to negative comments about events

Ok, I had a very long, reasoned answer written here, but my fracking phone decided to reload the page, and everything was erased. No time or will to write everything again.

Just gonna say that a lot of the rules are open to interpretation (just look at the DoP+SoK thread), and the job of the judges is to provide their own interpretation and make it law to speed up the game. To the point that sometimes two different judges provide a different interpretation to the same doubt. But that doesn’t mean that they’re right. So if a case comes up where the rules cannot provide a definitive answer, judges should be aware of any devs clarifications regarding that case.

BTW, we started playing with the “look at the mulliganed cards” rule since we bought our cores. Granted, we learned with the Learn to Play Guide and the RRD in spanish, and maybe it seemed somewhat clear there. So what makes your interpretation of that rule more valid than my interpretation of that rule?

15 minutes ago, Tabris2k said:

Ok, I had a very long, reasoned answer written here, but my fracking phone decided to reload the page, and everything was erased. No time or will to write everything again.

Just gonna say that a lot of the rules are open to interpretation (just look at the DoP+SoK thread), and the job of the judges is to provide their own interpretation and make it law to speed up the game. To the point that sometimes two different judges provide a different interpretation to the same doubt. But that doesn’t mean that they’re right. So if a case comes up where the rules cannot provide a definitive answer, judges should be aware of any devs clarifications regarding that case.

BTW, we started playing with the “look at the mulliganed cards” rule since we bought our cores. Granted, we learned with the Learn to Play Guide and the RRD in spanish, and maybe it seemed somewhat clear there. So what makes your interpretation of that rule more valid than my interpretation of that rule?

I don't see my view as more valid than yours this is a discussion and nothing in an saying is designed to be superior in any way, I prefer the ability to look at the cards, what I am bringing to the discussion is more that we have been relying on non-official responses for rules and while it makes sense it has lead to people going to an event and expecting the rules we have as a community to have a certain understanding about. And this post was about the negative feedback from the event i am trying to say that as a community we have certain expectations of rules and the judges have ruled based on what information they have been given in an official capacity.

I hooenan FAQ is going to come soon to 3nsure things like this doesnt happen. I think this is the hard part having a preformed parionate player base from an older version of the game

2 hours ago, starrius said:

The issue is that any info we receive via email while all good intentions are not official rulings and till we reiceve a FAQ we can' guarantee that what we have been told us correct. I make a point when sitting down to a game to discuss this with my opponent atm and because this is an issue. I make sure that till we have a ruling for example that no looking at mulliganed cards otherwise it's just going to lead to bad habits when it's official one way or an another

That's true and the reality is often the devs will come back in an email with an answer that is RAW (an interpretation that is based on the rules as written) then later when the FAQ comes out they have changed that ruling to more accurately steer the game in the direction they originally intended. I've seen that happen time and time again in Netrunner and Conquest. So what they tell us now might not be how it works later.

I might be missing something here, but why is looking at your refilled provinces such a big thing? You're going to see them when you flip for T1, after all, a matter of moments later...

12 minutes ago, dysartes said:

I might be missing something here, but why is looking at your refilled provinces such a big thing? You're going to see them when you flip for T1, after all, a matter of moments later...

It informs your Conflict mulligan.

That's exactly it. With so many powerful Conflict cards being keyword-dependent and decks currently having to run a mixed bag of characters due to the relatively small card pool everyone is drawing from, it's extremely useful to know ahead of time if you have managed to mulligan into, say, a Shugenja, before you decide if you're keeping that Cloud.

And that's something I hadn't even thought about - thanks for pointing it out, you two.

On ‎11‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 5:50 AM, Tabris2k said:

The thing is, at least with the mulligan rule, that the actual rules supposedly support that you can look at the face-down cards anytime up until after point 6 of the Setup. There’s a point in the RRD that says:

Note: After this step, a player may not look at facedown cards in his or her provinces.

Implying that you can look at them before that step anytime you want. But it seems it’s not written as clear as it was intended, so one of the developers just confirmed that yes, you can look. They’re not gonna change the RRD because for them this rule is already written there (mind you, a lot of this confusion comes from people learning to play from YT videos that were doing this wrong). So, we can get to this in a tournament and I can use the rules to argue that I can look at the cards, we’re gonna discuss, and a Judge is gonna come and if he says no, he’s ruling wrong. Not because what the devs said, but because he’s interpreting the RRD wrong. So at least they should be aware that there are clarifications to some rules by the devs and look at them in case the situation arises.

This interpretation is completely wrong, it actually goes against the rules entirely as they are written and is not fully understanding where Step 6 actually ends.

Quote

6. Fill provinces. Each player places a card from the top of their dynasty deck facedown onto each of their empty nonstronghold provinces. In player order, each player has one opportunity to look at each of his or her cards placed in this manner and mulligan any number of them.

Note: After this step, a player may not look at facedown cards in his or her provinces.

To break it down, Step 6 says you have one opportunity to look at each of the cards you placed first when you initially filled provinces, and mulligan any number of THEM. The rule only refers to those initial cards you look at for both your single opportunity to look and then your ability to mulligan. Once you mulligan you are immediately finished with Step 6 and progress to step 7.

So the argument that the note at the end, informing the player that they cannot look at face down cards after step 6 somehow means that you can then, after mulligan, look at these new cards is simply unfounded. The definition of mulligan is:

Quote

When a player decides to mulligan, the mulliganed cards are set aside, replaced with an equal number of cards from the top of the appropriate deck(s), and then shuffled back into the deck(s) from which they originated.

So this mean that you look at the first cards once, then mulligan them, replacing them with new cards face down. That is where step 6 ends, with a note to remind you that after you end step 6, finishing mulligan, that you cannot look at face down dynasty cards again.

The note at the end is there to do the opposite of what your saying its doing, after you see these first cards, then mulligan which ever of those cards you want, you are not allowed to look.

The developer was wrong based on the written rules, stretching Step 6 farther then the step allows and making large leaps of logic that cannot be argued when the easy and written answer is that no, you cant look at cards you mulliganed, because the rule saying you can look once ONLY is referring to the cards originally filled into the provinces.

If the developer REALLY wants to make that a ruling, you would need an actual errata telling players that instead of ONCE you can look anytime. Because if you accept the idea that yes, you CAN look at anytime before the end of step 6 then the usage of telling the player they can look only once is meaningless and false. To accept that logic involves actively contradicting the rules as written to force an opportunity to look at cards that aren't in step 6 at all.

Cascade upheld the rulebook on the subject because it actually IS the correct ruling based on both the written rules and the implicit meaning of the rule.

19 minutes ago, TheItsyBitsySpider said:

The developer was wrong based on the written rules, stretching Step 6 farther then the step allows and making large leaps of logic that cannot be argued when the easy and written answer is that no, you cant look at cards you mulliganed, because the rule saying you can look once ONLY is referring to the cards originally filled into the provinces.

If the developer REALLY wants to make that a ruling, you would need an actual errata telling players that instead of ONCE you can look anytime. Because if you accept the idea that yes, you CAN look at anytime before the end of step 6 then the usage of telling the player they can look only once is meaningless and false. To accept that logic involves actively contradicting the rules as written to force an opportunity to look at cards that aren't in step 6 at all.

Cascade upheld the rulebook on the subject because it actually IS the correct ruling based on both the written rules and the implicit meaning of the rule.

Excellent post.

I would love to have FFG apply this layer of application to so many rules questions for the specific purpose of rules clarity. (and let me add meaning in this too)

Off the top of my head, I can think of at least 2 specific cards (1 character Action and one Event) that were hotly debated to death, both emanating from a rules query.

What's the point of the Rule Reference being an online document if you don't go back and fix it for confusing language like this exact example? They should reword it to be clearer. Pretty much everyone I knew interpreted that you couldn't look at the dynasty mulligan so it's not an isolated incident. I'm hoping it's not just their pride standing in the way.

On 11/27/2017 at 3:59 PM, phillos said:

The judges should have been prepped with a FAQ. Many of the things the OP brings up are things that have been ruled on and discussed well before PAX. Interesting that he received so many bad rulings, but it sounds like that wasn't everyone's experience.

The judges should have definitely been better prepped. I hope FFG and Cascade take steps in the near future to ensure that this does occur. Also, just to clarify, as I stated in my original post, I did not receive any bad rulings myself. The rulings were given to different players from my group as well as other players that we know.

On 11/28/2017 at 3:42 AM, Ignithas said:

As an Austrian player the chant really reminds me of the chants of totalitarian regimes. I have seen hungarian facists chanting "Honor and Glory to our eternal Führer" and I have heard the following chant in Germany "Glory and Honor be to the SS!" and one of the forbidden music labels is called "Blood and Honor".

While I don't think that this is enough to cut the chant, I think that is absurd that "Utz Banzai" is too offensive and the new chant is more socially acceptable.

For those keeping score at home, the new chant is now similar to THREE different Nazi chants. I hope the mods are keeping an eye on this thread and are relaying this info up the chain of command.

We are talking about a card game here, and I for one like to keep my hobbies and politics separate. But after Charlottesvile, I'd imagine many companies would want to stay away from such an association. I'm sure FFG would prefer to not become the next Papa John's.

1 hour ago, TheItsyBitsySpider said:

The developer was wrong based on the written rules, stretching Step 6 farther then the step allows and making large leaps of logic that cannot be argued when the easy and written answer is that no, you cant look at cards you mulliganed, because the rule saying you can look once ONLY is referring to the cards originally filled into the provinces.

If the developer REALLY wants to make that a ruling, you would need an actual errata telling players that instead of ONCE you can look anytime. Because if you accept the idea that yes, you CAN look at anytime before the end of step 6 then the usage of telling the player they can look only once is meaningless and false. To accept that logic involves actively contradicting the rules as written to force an opportunity to look at cards that aren't in step 6 at all.

Cascade upheld the rulebook on the subject because it actually IS the correct ruling based on both the written rules and the implicit meaning of the rule.

And this is why many people are calling for a living rules reference. I see what you are saying, but at the same time, I don't think it's possible to just say the developer is wrong in his interpretation. I mean, he IS the developer, so if anyone is going to know the rules backwards and forwards you would think it would be him. It's a shame we can't tag or alert Nate to this topic to get some clarification on this.

I could see where Cascade was right to stick to the rulebook on the mulligan ruling. But I don't forgive them as easily for refusing to adhere to the rules reference on the Ring of the Void ruling or for getting the other rulings wrong. FFG and Cascade need to get these rulings squared away. Having a living rules reference would go a long way to helping.

14 minutes ago, akodobanzai said:

I could see where Cascade was right to stick to the rulebook on the mulligan ruling. But I don't forgive them as easily for refusing to adhere to the rules reference on the Ring of the Void ruling or for getting the other rulings wrong. FFG and Cascade need to get these rulings squared away. Having a living rules reference would go a long way to helping.

Would you please clarify this ring of the void problem? You've mentioned it before, and I still don't see the difference between them. On the card, the word 'may' is incorporated in the text, while in the rules reference it is omitted - but the top of the ring effects says that the attacker 'may' use these abilities. So I'm at a loss as to what functional difference you're referring to.

8 minutes ago, agarrett said:

Would you please clarify this ring of the void problem? You've mentioned it before, and I still don't see the difference between them. On the card, the word 'may' is incorporated in the text, while in the rules reference it is omitted - but the top of the ring effects says that the attacker 'may' use these abilities. So I'm at a loss as to what functional difference you're referring to.

This is a pretty niche case - but if you were defending with Hotaru / Toturi, and had no characters with fate, but your opponent Did have characters with fate (maybe you used Elemental Fury to swap to the void ring) and you won in defense - Hotaru / Toturi ability allows you to activate the ring effect, but the Attacking player is still the Attacking player, so if you force Ring of Void, and the RoV effect includes "may" then the attacking player could say they don't need to remove a void from their character. If the word "may" isn't included, making RoV ability forced if activated then the attacking player would need to remove a fate off of their character.

20 minutes ago, akodobanzai said:

And this is why many people are calling for a living rules reference. I see what you are saying, but at the same time, I don't think it's possible to just say the developer is wrong in his interpretation. I mean, he IS the developer, so if anyone is going to know the rules backwards and forwards you would think it would be him. It's a shame we can't tag or alert Nate to this topic to get some clarification on this.

Being a developer doesn't automatically mean he is correct, there were more then one developer on this game after all, especially because in this instance, he actually IS wrong. His answer and explanation contradict the rules that were written. If this was an official rules announcement that stated a rules change, that would be something but the reader, even the developer, should still respect the written rules, even if they aren't what they personally think should be the case. We have errata and an FAQ for things like this, which they needed to use because this would be errata, flat out changing the meaning of the rule and changing the language from what is actually apparent to readers.

Look at Pit Trap, that card does not function anywhere NEAR what they intended, because the rules for attachments make the card fall off the minute the character stops attacking. What did FFG do? They acknowledged that it wasn't their intention and told the players that it would be corrected in an Errata, which crab players now wait for. That is how you go about that, not throwing around weird loops of logic that muddle the actual card.

22 hours ago, TheItsyBitsySpider said:

Being a developer doesn't automatically mean he is correct, there were more then one developer on this game after all, especially because in this instance, he actually IS wrong. His answer and explanation contradict the rules that were written. If this was an official rules announcement that stated a rules change, that would be something but the reader, even the developer, should still respect the written rules, even if they aren't what they personally think should be the case. We have errata and an FAQ for things like this, which they needed to use because this would be errata, flat out changing the meaning of the rule and changing the language from what is actually apparent to readers.

Look at Pit Trap, that card does not function anywhere NEAR what they intended, because the rules for attachments make the card fall off the minute the character stops attacking. What did FFG do? They acknowledged that it wasn't their intention and told the players that it would be corrected in an Errata, which crab players now wait for. That is how you go about that, not throwing around weird loops of logic that muddle the actual card.

This has happened in X-Wing as well: some developer rules on something via email, and then later when the FAQ is updated, his ruling is reversed. Either he recognized he was wrong, or FFG simply thought it was better to go another direction for balance reasons.

Either way, email rulings aren't official, and are REGULARLY ignored in other FGG games. This community's ire is rather strange to me.

On ‎11‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 4:17 PM, akodobanzai said:

2. The new chant is unacceptable by FFG's own standards

Full disclaimer, I want "Utz-Banzai!" back. I do not agree that it is offensive. For every article online that claims that this is what kamikaze pilots yelled during their attacks, there are just as many articles that say this just isn't true. And to claim that the word Banzai is offensive is an insult to Japanese people everywhere. The triple Banzai has a very specific use in Japanese culture. To censor it by attempting to assign negative connotations to it is indeed insulting. I welcome everyone, especially FFG, to do some research on the triple Banzai.

Having said that, FFG earlier this year decided to end "Utz-Banzai!" and gave the following reason:

"Unfortunately, the real-world historical context of similar phrases has connected a number of negative associations to this chant, which undermines the tradition by detracting from the sense of community and positivity it seeks to establish."

What does this have to do with the new chant? Well, apparently it ACTUALLY has some connections to real-world phrases with negative historical associations. More directly, it is a Nazi chant. Or at least, very similar to one.

Interesting story time. I met a few gamers from England at PAX and I decided to do an experiment. In the L5R Facebook group, the similarity between the new chant and Nazi chants from WWII has been pointed out by European players, mainly British and German
players. I asked them to come witness the beginning of the Grand Kotei on Saturday. I didn't give them any heads up, as I wanted to see their reactions, if any. As soon as the second verse was uttered, they both looked at me wide-eyed. Needless to say, we had an interesting conversation afterwards.

FFG needs to look into this matter. Please, don't just take my word for it. Something this SIMILAR to real-world historical context with a number of negative associations needs to be addressed.

If the ultimate decision is to do away with all chants, then so be it. But I think it needs to be said that out of the two chants, one is clearly not offensive and one clearly is similar enough to be.

Also, I would like to add before any such suggestions are made, that I have tried to email FFG before, at least about the concern regarding their new chant. I suspect it has been ignored or at the very least overlooked. I have noticed that FFG responds more readily to public feedback, so I am attempting this route. My hope is that both of these matters are looked into before the next major tournament.

This seems like a bit of a double standard. You know some people who were bothered by the new chant, and therefore it's too similar to Nazi chants and should be changed. But the people who were bothered by the original chant were just stirring up trouble and should be dismissed? Personally, I don't see the old chant as offensive (just irritating), but it all seems rather inconsistent. Sure, the people who complained about the old chant (for WW2 reasons) were being overly sensitive. Why shouldn't we think that people complaining about the new chant (for WW2 reasons) are also being overly sensitive?

On ‎11‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 3:29 AM, shineyorkboy said:

Rokugan Chant

Leaders: For Honor!
Competitors: Honor!
Leaders: For Glory!
Competitors: Glory!
Leaders: For Rokugan!
Competitors: Rokugan!

Still irritating, but hardly offensive.

On ‎11‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 5:17 AM, Hituro said:

I played a lot of the CCG in the UK, and I don't remember chanting anything at any event. Is this a mainly US thing?

I only played a couple koteis here in the states, and neither had it. Maybe it was only larger events?

On ‎11‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 3:42 AM, Ignithas said:

As an Austrian player the chant really reminds me of the chants of totalitarian regimes. I have seen hungarian facists chanting "Honor and Glory to our eternal Führer" and I have heard the following chant in Germany "Glory and Honor be to the SS!" and one of the forbidden music labels is called "Blood and Honor".

While I don't think that this is enough to cut the chant, I think that is absurd that "Utz Banzai" is too offensive and the new chant is more socially acceptable.

The thing is, honor and glory are very widely recognized positives (in general), and wishing them upon a leader or organization is hardly exclusive to fascists. Similar cries have been used by various groups throughout history; some good, some bad, and some other. Maybe part of it is just culture. With L5R, you're already thinking of a pseudo-Japanese culture, so "Banzai" is more likely to draw parallels to real-life Japanese warriors. Just shouting "Honor!" and "Glory!" doesn't really put someone in mind of Nazis in itself, because the setting just doesn't match enough. If participants ever start wearing Chrysanthemum armbands and advocating rounding up Gaijin to put into camps, that may change.

On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 2:20 PM, akodobanzai said:

I'm sure FFG would prefer to not become the next Papa John's.

I must have missed a news article somewhere. What in the world does Papa John's have to do with all this? O_o

47 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I must have missed a news article somewhere. What in the world does Papa John's have to do with all this? O_o

CEO of Papa John's commented about people boycotting NFL games due to players kneeling down hurting pizza sales, white supremacists took this to mean Papa John's is a friend to neo-Nazis and alt-right, Papa John's came out to say they don't want racists buying their pizza.

What this has to do with FFG and the L5R chant is a bow drawn so long, the string has snapped and hit the Moto 3 ranks behind.

9 hours ago, JJ48 said:

The thing is, honor and glory are very widely recognized positives (in general), and wishing them upon a leader or organization is hardly exclusive to fascists. Similar cries have been used by various groups throughout history; some good, some bad, and some other. Maybe part of it is just culture. With L5R, you're already thinking of a pseudo-Japanese culture, so "Banzai" is more likely to draw parallels to real-life Japanese warriors. Just shouting "Honor!" and "Glory!" doesn't really put someone in mind of Nazis in itself, because the setting just doesn't match enough. If participants ever start wearing Chrysanthemum armbands and advocating rounding up Gaijin to put into camps, that may change.

Wishing honor and glory upon their leader and/or organization is prevelant to totalitarian societies and facism is one of them. It's not a question of good or bad. Banzai was used in China and Japan by everyone to greet other people or as a symbol of joy and in Japan it still is. You talked about using double standards: Why do you use the worst possible interpretation of "Banzai", but the best one of "Honor and Glory"?

Regardless of the old chant vs new I still feel the the reception at the event was just rude. The chant has gone that's really the end of it. What ever the reasons for it I feel the more important issue is how we as a community try and respect the people running the event and the way the video I saw from pax I felt more that was an issue than what was changed.

Out local has started using the new chant at events and while some people don want to get involved I think It's still a good especially when you drown out all those mtg players

5 hours ago, Ignithas said:

Wishing honor and glory upon their leader and/or organization is prevelant to totalitarian societies and facism is one of them. It's not a question of good or bad. Banzai was used in China and Japan by everyone to greet other people or as a symbol of joy and in Japan it still is. You talked about using double standards: Why do you use the worst possible interpretation of "Banzai", but the best one of "Honor and Glory"?

Again, it's cultural. Think of the vast majority of people, who don't really study history or other cultures.

If you say "Banzai", most people will associate that with Imperial Japan during WW2. Only those who know more about Japanese culture would understand the broader usage.

If you say "Honor and Glory", most people won't really associate that with anything in particular. Only those who have studied WW2 extensively could draw any sort of connection to fascism.

So on the one hand, you have the masses viewing one as bad and the other as neutral. On the other hand, you have a minority realizing that both are benign. The way I see it, those claiming that "Banzai" is offensive are doing so out of ignorance. Those claiming that "Honor and Glory" is offensive are doing so knowing full well that it's not, and therefore out of malice.

I find either chant irritating, but not offensive. However, I find it very hard to sympathize with the anti-H&Gers as long as they keep intentionally acting like they're at the anti-Banzaiers' level of ignorance.

I suppose I do expect more from people who know about an issue than from people who are clueless. You may call that a double standard if you wish.

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

If you say "Banzai", most people will associate that with Imperial Japan during WW2. Only those who know more about Japanese culture would understand the broader usage.

I INCREADIBLY doubt this, almost entirely. I actually would argue happily that the opposite is true. If ANYTHING people outside of strict non-Japanese Asian communities will associate Banzai with parties and celebrations since that is where it shows up most often in the Anime that is flooding the western market or as an actual Samurai shout as seen in older samurai flicks. But I'm not in that community so I simply don't know.

Lets tone down on making terribly sweeping statements without any real backing up of information.

The "Honor and Glory" chant really isn't anything bad in English, I hear **** like that each time I visit my local Renaissance fair, its when it is translated into German that the problems arise, because it sounds like something that country's culture really doesn't want to hear right now.

The issue is, a poster claiming Asian ancestry stated he found the Banzai offensive. It is NOT offensive to the majority in this community, instead a minority. Indeed it has been used for 20ish years without a real peep in the CCG era, but now this complaint reared its head.

In response, because having even the slightest of controversy in a game's release can be incredibly damaging to the brand, FFG immediately changed it to their current one, a more complicated chant. Unlike "Banzai" which was relatively easy to say no matter language or country it is said in, this new chant has to be translated, making this offensive to the german player base, also a minority in the community.

So the new chant is JUST AS OFFENSIVE to a new minority as it was to the old. If the goal is to make the game as welcoming as possible and wanting to respect the feelings of its players then trying to argue that one is more offensive or less is actually pretty bigoted no matter where you go.

I simply think the Chant needed to be something completely neutral and easy to say internationally. They could have made the chant "Rokugan!" three times and there would have been less problems. But FFG, whether people like it or not, made a decision any logical company would make in that moment, and as long as they follow through with that they have no qualms with me.

I'm just waiting for my Shadowlands faction so I can shout "For Fu-Leng!" like ALL rational people should be doing.