55 minutes ago, Tabris2k said:I like this card a lot for my Phoenix deck. We can potentially trigger 3 rings effects in just one conflict. Pair this with Display of Power and I’d just lost a province and 1 honor to trigger 4 rings and having board advantage/banked Fate for next turn.
How exactly are you having board advantage or banked fate after this maneuver? It costs 10 fate to pull off if you don't invest any fate and have your board clear at the end of the turn.
This card seems very dangerous in terms of design.
Yes, it's an Event and can be canceled (perhaps its only saving grace), but don't imagine that people can't play around that.
2 hours ago, shineyorkboy said:How exactly are you having board advantage or banked fate after this maneuver? It costs 10 fate to pull off if you don't invest any fate and have your board clear at the end of the turn.
Why everybody assumes that you have to pull every play in just one turn? There’s this thing called “set-up”. Two days ago, I managed to have Kaede, Atsuko and Tsukune (Honored) all on board at the same time for 3 turns, discarding copies and using Reprieve (just in Tsukune, mind you). And I still had Fate to play some events. I was triggering 4 ring effects per turn.
In this case, let’s suppose you have Kaede already on board. You only need 2+2+1 Fate (SoK, DoP and WH), and that can be easily achievable passing first and choosing a ring with Fate, plus what you have left from Dynasty. You can potentially trigger two Void Rings (one with Kaede and let’s suppose your opponent attack with Void too to control your board), plus Air, plus any other one. I don’t see it as something specially difficult to pull off.
I think is a democratic card that many decks can use:
- Voltrons can use to save the fate they need.
- Lion and uni can concentrate they attack and take advantage on cards like For Greater Glory, Captive Audience and Cavalry Reserves.
- Defensive decks can use it to late the game.
- Strategy card as Ishi Tonu said when there are 2 provinces breaked each side and you are the second player.
- Honor-run decks can make a safer use of way of chrysantemum without compromising loosing 2 provinces in a turn.
My only concern is about game duration with the several cards in these packs that can late the game, maybe they will need to extend the 1 hour time-limit.
So much fate build up on rings......
Wait. Don't dragons habe a card preventing opponent's from taking fate on rings?
1 hour ago, Shu2jack said:So much fate build up on rings......
Wait. Don't dragons habe a card preventing opponent's from taking fate on rings?
And Phoenix have a card to switch rings and fate-grab. There's going to be so much silly with this.
Edited by GKZhukov3 hours ago, L5RBr said:- Strategy card as Ishi Tonu said when there are 2 provinces breaked each side and you are the second player.
Or as the first player with Way of the Unicorn to keep first player on the following turn. Make sure you pull a Gary Oldman and whisper.
You: "I send everyone"
Opponent: "What was that?"
You: "I SAID EVERYONE"
1 hour ago, Shu2jack said:So much fate build up on rings......
Wait. Don't dragons habe a card preventing opponent's from taking fate on rings?
And;
24 minutes ago, GKZhukov said:And Phoenix have a card to switch rings and fate-grab. There's going to be so much silly with this.
Im having a difficult time understanding the counter arguments (if I’m understanding correctly) against the existence of this card. Are you stating that this card will weigh down the game due to it limiting the number of conflicts each player declares? Or something along the lines of ‘extending the game/making it go on for many rounds’ is not good for the game?
Because if that’s the argument, I honestly see both of those worries unfounded due to the variance of decks and the variance of playability that will come due to the Waning Hostilities card - which is a clear positive in my assessment. This card will open more opportunities in deck design, not lessen them. While, yes, some Clans certainly possess less powerful cards at this time, this card should elevate their gameplay rather than discourage innovation with that given deck/Clan.
For me, I find it a mark of excellence for the game to allow players the ability to design multiple decks for each faction and try them out, with the implied goal of being able to run any “version” of a Clan and be successful with it; be it at a tourney, your FLGS, or your home game.
I hope that I understood what was being stated by some posters accurately and thus responded in the same fashion.
37 minutes ago, LordBlunt said:And;
Im having a difficult time understanding the counter arguments (if I’m understanding correctly) against the existence of this card. Are you stating that this card will weigh down the game due to it limiting the number of conflicts each player declares? Or something along the lines of ‘extending the game/making it go on for many rounds’ is not good for the game?
Because if that’s the argument, I honestly see both of those worries unfounded due to the variance of decks and the variance of playability that will come due to the Waning Hostilities card - which is a clear positive in my assessment. This card will open more opportunities in deck design, not lessen them. While, yes, some Clans certainly possess less powerful cards at this time, this card should elevate their gameplay rather than discourage innovation with that given deck/Clan.
For me, I find it a mark of excellence for the game to allow players the ability to design multiple decks for each faction and try them out, with the implied goal of being able to run any “version” of a Clan and be successful with it; be it at a tourney, your FLGS, or your home game.
I hope that I understood what was being stated by some posters accurately and thus responded in the same fashion.
The bit you quoted above (that I said, can't speak for the other guy) wasn't a counter-argument. My bad if if it came across that way - I meant so much silly in the sense of janky, comboey, amusing; not pejoratively.
I do have a couple of concerns with the card however. Primarily my issue with it is general swinginess - it could cause a huge economy swing, especially early on, by rendering a large chuck of the opponent's board essentially "wasted fate" while saving your own - in this instance there are limited ways to play around it (in the sense of just in case it happens as opposed to when you know for sure it will) without crippling yourself unnecessarily. The secondary issue is potentially slowing down the game, only because of the imho terrible tiebreak system in tournaments. In casual, the second point is moot, plus having less conflicts will mean the increased time is lessened somewhat anyway.
I'm also happy to wait and see on both counts, and they also won't be as big a deal if the card ends up situational enough that most decks don't run it and it purely fits into a specialist strategy.
Edited by GKZhukov1 hour ago, LordBlunt said:And;
Im having a difficult time understanding the counter arguments (if I’m understanding correctly) against the existence of this card. Are you stating that this card will weigh down the game due to it limiting the number of conflicts each player declares? Or something along the lines of ‘extending the game/making it go on for many rounds’ is not good for the game?
Because if that’s the argument, I honestly see both of those worries unfounded due to the variance of decks and the variance of playability that will come due to the Waning Hostilities card - which is a clear positive in my assessment. This card will open more opportunities in deck design, not lessen them. While, yes, some Clans certainly possess less powerful cards at this time, this card should elevate their gameplay rather than discourage innovation with that given deck/Clan.
For me, I find it a mark of excellence for the game to allow players the ability to design multiple decks for each faction and try them out, with the implied goal of being able to run any “version” of a Clan and be successful with it; be it at a tourney, your FLGS, or your home game.
I hope that I understood what was being stated by some posters accurately and thus responded in the same fashion.
I wasn't giving a counter argument.
I don't really see much in the way of "wasted" fate. You're going to do an attack, and a defense. If they don't have to defend against your second conflict, they're probably going to throw more at their attack. If they know they don't have to hold people back for their second attack, they'll probably throw more into defending your first attack. Having more dudes on the field still gives you an advantage.
And since there will only be 2 and not 4 rings to decide Imperial Favor, leaving characters standing to count Glory is going to be important too.
On a side note, I love me some Admit Defeat and cutting cards from my conflict deck are difficult. If this card becomes a regular it might lead to heavier defenses on that one conflict. Admit Defeat might become a thing of the past.
1 minute ago, Waywardpaladin said:I don't really see much in the way of "wasted" fate. You're going to do an attack, and a defense. If they don't have to defend against your second conflict, they're probably going to throw more at their attack. If they know they don't have to hold people back for their second attack, they'll probably throw more into defending your first attack. Having more dudes on the field still gives you an advantage.
And since there will only be 2 and not 4 rings to decide Imperial Favor, leaving characters standing to count Glory is going to be important too.
It's not that uncommon to have a situation where in the short-term you're going to lose 2 conflicts. I've had plenty of boards where my opponent is really strong for one turn and breaks 2 vs my 0, but does so inefficiently enough, and I've prepped for the future, so I go on to win. In these situations if I also had Waning Hostilities I'd have accrued an even larger long-term advantage.
It's also feasible to engineer situations where you can push through a win/break even if they use the rest of their dudes to defend instead of to do a 2nd conflict. For example, using Covert, Captive Audience or the new Magistrates. The reverse is also true (sometimes you can super-defend a single conflict with minimal resources, e.g. Disdainful Remark).
58 minutes ago, GKZhukov said:It's not that uncommon to have a situation where in the short-term you're going to lose 2 conflicts. I've had plenty of boards where my opponent is really strong for one turn and breaks 2 vs my 0, but does so inefficiently enough, and I've prepped for the future, so I go on to win. In these situations if I also had Waning Hostilities I'd have accrued an even larger long-term advantage.
It's also feasible to engineer situations where you can push through a win/break even if they use the rest of their dudes to defend instead of to do a 2nd conflict. For example, using Covert, Captive Audience or the new Magistrates. The reverse is also true (sometimes you can super-defend a single conflict with minimal resources, e.g. Disdainful Remark).
I think Covert, especially if you're going second, could potentially break the scenario if you could deploy it in your preconflict window before you declare yours. No way your opponent would be able to gauge who to send in their first attack and who to hold back.
Of course you might be handing them the Imperial Favor if you leave the Coverted character standing, and that can be dangerous in this environment.
What will be funny is when you play Waning Hostilities and you're opponent says: "Hey, I was going to play that!"
The most annoying part of this card will be, if you're the first player, having to say "I pass my reaction to the conflict phase beginning", or if you're the second player having to ask, "Do you have any reactions to the conflict phase beginning?"
19 minutes ago, Horizonshard said:The most annoying part of this card will be, if you're the first player, having to say "I pass my reaction to the conflict phase beginning", or if you're the second player having to ask, "Do you have any reactions to the conflict phase beginning?"
It doesn't have to be that annoying. If both players are under the impression that the pre-conflict phase has begun then one can just announce and retract in order to play Waning Hostilities.
2 minutes ago, ElSuave said:It doesn't have to be that annoying. If both players are under the impression that the pre-conflict phase has begun then one can just announce and retract in order to play Waning Hostilities.
If I'm the second player and have a Waning Hostilities that I want to play, I'd much rather give my opponent (who being first player has the first opportunity for reactions to that trigger) the chance to play his/hers instead so I still have my Waning Hostilities for later.
If I'm the first player and don't have a Waning Hostilities I want to play, I would rather explicitly give my opponent the opportunity to play his/hers, especially if I have a pre-conflict action to take. Last thing I want to do is play my pre-conflict action and have my opponent go "oh wait, I wanted to play Waning Hostilities". That causes awkward interactions since I may no longer want to play my pre-conflict action.
I wonder if they will update the RR by naming the moment after honor bidding is done and be for the conflict phase begins "The Waning Window"
It feels like there might be a bit too much internet hype with the card. It's more interesting and probably useful than Kachiko, but I'd rather see the rest of the Imperial cycle and how it might change the speed of the environment. If it's still based on a quick rush, then the card could help some decks. If the environment becomes slower or based on fewer conflicts, the card will simply be a waste of card slots.
10 hours ago, Shu2jack said:I wasn't giving a counter argument.
Oooooops, sorry. I don’t know what I was reading.
On on a side note: Hey Shu2jack,,,,
.... did you change your mon??? ?
Edited by LordBlunt6 minutes ago, LordBlunt said:On on a side note: Hey Shu2jack,,,,
.... did you change your mon??? ?
I don't believe so. Checking my old posts, they all have Lion. 
On an unrelared note, I think I've finally settled down after many weeks of play.
1 hour ago, Shu2jack said:I don't believe so. Checking my old posts, they all have Lion.
On an unrelared note, I think I've finally settled down after many weeks of play.
Finally found the right bandwagon to ride?
I kid, I kid...
7 hours ago, Ishi Tonu said:I wonder if they will update the RR by naming the moment after honor bidding is done and be for the conflict phase begins "The Waning Window"
You mean the moment between the action window in the draw phase and the first action window in the conflict phase.
8 hours ago, Zesu Shadaban said:Finally found the right bandwagon to ride?
I kid, I kid...
Honestly? I was playing Crab at a launch event and through a raffle got a full art Torturi.
I figured I'd make a Lion deck to go with him. With my first game/loss I found the clan to unexpectedly click with me. 8 straight losses later I still liked them. I figured I'd go back to Crab after most the Imperial Cycle was released and I could play dishonor....but it wasn't the same. Same with the other clans.
I'm also from Michigan. Detroit Lions, unfortunately . Call it fate, destiny, or luck from getting that Torturi.