Hey folks, we're interested in what you think about a Restricted List for L5R. Fill out the survey and let us know.

https://goo.gl/forms/1X8h2Kh9fO1rgxPq1

-tpl

I say no. A card limited to 1 per deck is very unlikely to actually see play in most games. Because of this, I doubt I would put any in my deck (I do not currently use the unique holdings for this reason). Restricting a card that's not intended to be restricted by designer intent would probably turn that card into a coaster (similar to every "fix" I've seen for Policy Debate).

Mirumoto,

To be clear, in previous instances of FFG's LCG Restricted Lists (AGoT, ANR, etc) the list means that you can only include a play set of one of the cards on the list. For instance, if Favorable Ground and Otomo Courtier were on the list then you may include three copies of one but none of the other. You may NOT include two copies of Favorable Ground and one copy of Otomo Courtier. It doesn't mean you only get one copy of each card.

Given the history of lists like these and LCGs that's what we're asking about. Anything different, like errata or banning cards completely, is an whole different discussion.

-tpl

Players influencing card design and wanting ban lists because they lose > bad idea.

4 hours ago, Dovla said:

Players influencing card design and wanting ban lists because they lose > bad idea.

Fair enough. BUT... Designers using feedback from numerous fans/playtesters and sorting through for good ideas > good idea.

Potato, potahto.

A restricted list at this point in the game is silly, and comes down to 'I don't like how the game currently plays'. No LCG is balanced straight out of the gate, and there's always ups and downs. Heck, at this stage they literally have not had a chance to react to a live meta (i.e. outside of playtesting),and probably won't for at least another cycle or two. That's just how the LCG system works. Give them a chance.

If the same cards are still dominating the game in two cycles, then maybe we need a restricted list.

I personally don't love the idea of a restricted list because there's very few card combinations that are truly problematic. Kanjo District with Satoshi and Charge with Iron Mine/Reprieve/FGG are the only actual problems of card iterations that I can think of.

But there's a lot of cards that are unhealthy for the game and need either a ban or errata. Miromoto's Fury, Charge, Rap Battle, Forged Edict, and AFWTD need to be looked at first. Dynasty card and Provinces can also be looked at, but conflict decks are where most people's complaints lie.

AFwTD needs to be defanged - too good for its price, with multiple effects. I wrote up a suggestion in another thread.

Policy Debate needs a true adjustment. As it stands, it’s effectively a “look at opponent’s hand, choose a card and remove.” Too strong, no limitation as to Conflict type, no true cost other than ‘grab your high Political character and whack your opponent’s character, under the guise of a duel’.... if one can’t see this card as seriously broken, then I don’t know what game you’re playing.

Charge! would be ‘balanced’ if there was a Political equivalent card costing the same and having the same effect, but carried out during Political conflicts...

Rap Battle I’m not familiar with. ???

M. Fury? I don’t consider this to be OTP. But I do play Dragon, so I can’t be objective here.

IMO, Conflict characters as a whole are overpriced by 1/2 to 1 Fate, but.... I should stop here.

26 minutes ago, LordBlunt said:

Rap Battle I’m not familiar with. ???

Policy Debate

7 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

Policy Debate

I see.... LOL! I just got it..... blame it on age and all these hipsters, youngsters, or whatever the Twitters are saying nowadays. ?

Of attempt number 2 after I accidentally deleted a wall of text response I had written and someone moved past the point of undoing the deletion to retrieve my original response. I'm not going to say who it was, but, he knows who he is and he's a oni loving idiot who will burn in jigoku for all time for his mistake. /shakes fist at self in mirror

I'll try to keep this one short.

I don't think that we should have any restrictions, bans or errata, at this time. It's just way to early in the game for this. The card pool is still very small, and even with what we have available, there are answers to the top decks in the format.

Anyone familiar with L5R should know that the clans tend to walk around in this revolving door where some clans are ahead of others and the order can change at any moment, or last a long time. This isn't always because one clan is better than another. This can be a result of increased clan loyalty for some clans.

This was were my original post went way off the rails, so I'll try to sum it all up with this:

I appreciate those that are in support of change to the game, because by in large I believe those people want the game to thrive. I also want change but at this point I would prefer that change come in the form of future design evolutions and not a rash of restrictions, errata, and bans as each new set of cards get released with whatever the next new "broken" thing is. Give it some time, Enjoy the game, there is a lot to enjoy about it.

3 minutes ago, LordBlunt said:

I see.... LOL! I just got it..... blame it on age and all these hipsters, youngsters, or whatever the Twitters are saying nowadays. ?

So I guess this would mean Let Go = Mic Drop?

Ooooh fun new thread idea: Alternate Hipster Card Names

It might be too early for a restricted list. At the moment, it's more that our limited choice is allowing power cards and clans to surface...maybe?

https://artofwarcast.podbean.com/e/episode-22-got-a-sword-in-my-pocket/

-tpl

I unfortunately rarely get time to listen to podcasts currently, but I did fill in the survey and am interested to read the results. Any chance you could post them at some point? Thanks!

On 2/27/2018 at 1:24 PM, Hordeoverseer said:

It might be too early for a restricted list. At the moment, it's more that our limited choice is allowing power cards and clans to surface...maybe?

Sure. Here's the raw data with some summaries.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe8y3fHXEAhiv-6rE9etmuvyaeHdlmmBABIgMoDtmQa8HADcA/viewanalytics

-tpl

Literally no Unicorn cards on the ban list. That's a problem.

AFWTD should be "Choose Three" out of the four options. Because there's also an inherent fifth sixth option called "Win Conflict/Ring" and "Win Imperial Favor".
Choosing two of those options seems like plenty.

For example: Choose: 1. Bow 2. Remove one fate. 3. = You win conflict/ring and probably imperial favor.

8 hours ago, tobinator said:

Sure. Here's the raw data with some summaries.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe8y3fHXEAhiv-6rE9etmuvyaeHdlmmBABIgMoDtmQa8HADcA/viewanalytics

-tpl

Some of those suggestions on what to ban/restrict are absolutely terrible, but it make me smile that someone just put 20 random Scorpion cards as their entire list

This is why they don't let the players do the designing.

This list is hilarious.

Final proof that this community should be kept as far as possible from having any say in design decisions. Until a truly negative play experience emerges or decks which dominate the meta its basically unplayable (FN in destiny would be a good example), there should be no restricted lists with such small card pool. Man i don't like let go or policy debate played against me but banning them is outright wrong line of thinking.

3 hours ago, Bayushi Tsubaki said:

This is why they don't let the players do the designing.

4 minutes ago, Dovla said:

This list is hilarious.

Final proof that this community should be kept as far as possible from having any say in design decisions. Until a truly negative play experience emerges or decks which dominate the meta its basically unplayable (FN in destiny would be a good example), there should be no restricted lists with such small card pool. Man i don't like let go or policy debate played against me but banning them is outright wrong line of thinking.

You seem to read what you want to see. More than 2/3 of the People voted for no restriction list, which seems pretty smart given the circumstances. I personally think that the player base is more mature than its reputation suggests.

44 minutes ago, Ignithas said:

You seem to read what you want to see. More than 2/3 of the People voted for no restriction list, which seems pretty smart given the circumstances. I personally think that the player base is more mature than its reputation suggests.

I saw that and imo its a good decision. The list of cards which were chosen for a list (if there was any) is imo, wrong and reveals a wider problem.

47 minutes ago, Dovla said:

I saw that and imo its a good decision. The list of cards which were chosen for a list (if there was any) is imo, wrong and reveals a wider problem.

Some are jokes, some aren't half bad and only a handfull are nonsensical. I don't see how the strange decision from a minority of a minority should be proof that the community shouldn't be involved in the designing process.

On 3/5/2018 at 5:59 AM, Ignithas said:

You seem to read what you want to see. More than 2/3 of the People voted for no restriction list, which seems pretty smart given the circumstances. I personally think that the player base is more mature than its reputation suggests.

I was replying to the post directly above mine. I guess I should have quoted?

That said, none of the suggestions are good, as none of the cards that currently exist are toxic to the overall environment. People get sour grapes when actions hurt their board state. Card developers have even commented on the forums here about how suggestions they get to "fix" "problem cards" have historically always ended up turning the card(s) into cardboard coasters.
What we have is a small vocal minority who always bids 1 vs PD and then complains PD is "too good." PD isn't too good, this person just doesn't feel like playing the bidding game and then griping about it on the internet.

I would also agree that the majority of the player-base are more mature than it's reputation suggests.
Then again, this very thread exists...

I don't want to go again into the debate if Policy Debate is broken or not, but from memory there were way more powerfull duel effects in the old 5R and getting hit by those duels was really punishing and brutal.

Fluff - wise duels are a really important matter and have major consequences not to be taken lightly. This translated into the game with powerfull effects , beyond the classical " destroy the loser". Here are some examples:

And these were repeatable actions since they were printed on characters. My point is that if people loose their mind over Policy Debate now, I can hardly imagine the sh*tstorm when actual dueling deck enabling cards will come up.