Apologies, I thought the train of thought was that Policy Debate was as harmful as it was (in some part) because it wasn't limited by role.

I see it being an amazing card when you see holdings, but it doesn't help you win most conflicts. I run 6-7 holdings, but how I would win doesn't rely on me having any one. As devastating as it can be to your turn tactically, it probably won't mess with your overall play.

Agreed with the above. Strong duel mechanics should be locked behind the opponent choosing their participant. Yes, they can still be used to bully duel but then it will be easier to plan against them.

Role locking strong cards that can define the meta is a good thing as well. Sabotage might have been fine without the role if it was a card with an honor cost, but I like it being limited to up to two factions. Let go, while not strong enough for the Restricted List in my opinion was too cheap in both fate and influence. Calling in Favors, while stronger has a good cost behind it. Miya Mystic also feels okay, though a bit weak for some clans.

Bonsai Garden is going to make Crane interesting. Not unique, so it could be strong honor generation. Crane might splash Rebuild to control when and where this card pops up. Crane doesn't have much to play off of holdings so we will see where this goes. Asahina Takako might be great to getting it going though. Place it on a PF to keep around longer, or place it on an appropriate trap province.

Ikoma Reservists may not seem the best, but a cheap 1/1 for 1 conflict bushi will see play in some decks. The claimed ring mil boost isn't great but isn't terrible either. I could see this bushi being a great backup character for defense or if all attackers are sent home. Play with 1 extra fate, Lo1 for +6 mil, if that nets a +5 win then sack for an extra mil attack. Vengeful Oathkeeper is better but there are times I wish I had a cheaper body to put out that didn't raise event costs.

Teachings of the Elements seems fairly bland, but could be a great province in the multiplayer Enlightenment format.

Upholding Authority could be replacement for Public Forum in decks that don't care about losing provinces. Being able to see an opponent's hand and discard all of a troublesome card is really powerful. Placing it behind a province break and only one of is the right cost in my opinion.

Writ of Authority seems so obviously bad. Essentially four more "cost" elements than Ornate Fan for +1 more pol? This costs 1 fate, still restricted, Earth role only, Lion card, auto discards if an opponent is more honorable. Was there another ability that was accidentally dropped in editing? For 1 fate and Dragon, KM gets ancestral. For 1 fate and Lion, HB gets +1 honor when winning a conflict. It is not like Height of Fashion sees much play. Even without Earth role and the more honorable ability, 1 fate for +1 more pol than Ornate Fan was not going to be an include in decks. Even if the Item keyword played off of something, Ornate Fan still has that. Attachments really need to do something useful beyond stat bonuses if they cost fate and/or have additional restrictions.

21 minutes ago, Tomello said:

Apologies, I thought the train of thought was that Policy Debate was as harmful as it was (in some part) because it wasn't limited by role.

I see it being an amazing card when you see holdings, but it doesn't help you win most conflicts. I run 6-7 holdings, but how I would win doesn't rely on me having any one. As devastating as it can be to your turn tactically, it probably won't mess with your overall play.

What should not be forgotten: Yes, the main job of Sabotage is to mess up Holdings, but it is also a neat Charge! counter. It can discard any card in a Province, including characters that are ready to Charge! or are simply ready for the next Dynasty phase otherwise. Between that and Holding control, you should find a use for it in every matchup.

1 hour ago, Ishi Tonu said:

Clans with important holdings should strongly consider taking an Earth role to avoid being susceptible to Sabotage.

And some specific choices should be considered depending on pick order, for example:

If Phoenix picks before Crab, I think Phoenix should strongly consider Seeker of Earth. This would grant them an Earth role and lock Crab out of the other, meaning Phoenix has the edge in holding control when it gets down to that match up, and gives them a significant edge when contesting the favor as they can also get rid of Imperial Palace.

Anyone picking before Phoenix and/or Crab should strongly consider taking Seeker of Earth as it locks Crab out of the Earth role, and puts Phoenix back to the choice of being a Keeper again or trying for one of the other Seeker roles. For the overall health of the metagame, I think it's best if neither Crab nor Phoenix have an Earth role. Worst case scenario is that Phoenix decide the want to stick with a Keeper role and take Keeper of Earth, leaving Crab to take Seeker of Earth, and you end up with the two clans that have the most dominant holdings being the only clans with holding control.................barf!

Issue will be the likely top three picks will be, in no particular order, Crab, Scorpion and Dragon with maybe Crane jumping to the third spot depending on match ups (barring a drastic meta shift with the new cycle) and Scorpion frankly don't benefit from earth over air or void and even Dragon while they can find use from it are probably better served going Keeper of Fire to keep access to the new Fire Attachment to keep their towers in Ancestral goodies.

Seeker of void, keeper of fire, and keeper of void are kinda the big three being discussed in dragon right now. Personally I've been lobbying for keeper of void for a while now, but with adopted kin I'd be happy with keeper of fire. Don't especially care for keeping seeker right now, as a keeper role would be a huge improvement for the monk deck (which is what I play) both for the initiates, and tadakatsu allowing us to better leverage the keeper fate gain. As for sabotage, while it'd definitely help in the crab match up, which is an annoying one, I don't think it's enough on its own to justify an earth role, as there's only one earth province worth running out of dragon, and the earth ring is the one ring I will never use tadakatsu to give my opponent unless I am 100% sure I'm cool with them getting the draw/discard if I lose, which is rare because one of my key tactics is keeping their hand as small as possible, so I don't want them going for the earth ring, and as such I don't want to be incentivised to encourage them to attack me earth.

3 hours ago, Schmoozies said:

Issue will be the likely top three picks..

I feel like people are focusing too much on the example and missing the root of the argument. He made a theoretical scenario of an actual threat that this card being locked in a single role presents. The presence of a card like this is essential for a healthy metagame. At it's current iteration, it's extremely undercosted (not counting it being role locked) but the ability to interact with a holding is a welcome addition. People have already been made aware thru examples here of some powerful holdings that would warrant an inclusion of a card like this. With FFG's track record so far, I'd expect more powerful holdings on the horizon. The role locked restriction should not be thrown around willy-nilly like this and justify it being a 'cost'. People should be able to have the option to include a card like this, especially if the meta demands it. Throwing a role restriction and calling it a cost in a card that should be available to anyone for the health of the game just screams lazy design.

Ok, let's say Seeker of Void / Fire are already picked; what does your clan fall back on as good options if you only get to pick in fourth or fifth place?

1 hour ago, Shosuro Teri said:

I feel like people are focusing too much on the example and missing the root of the argument. He made a theoretical scenario of an actual threat that this card being locked in a single role presents. The presence of a card like this is essential for a healthy metagame. At it's current iteration, it's extremely undercosted (not counting it being role locked) but the ability to interact with a holding is a welcome addition. People have already been made aware thru examples here of some powerful holdings that would warrant an inclusion of a card like this. With FFG's track record so far, I'd expect more powerful holdings on the horizon. The role locked restriction should not be thrown around willy-nilly like this and justify it being a 'cost'. People should be able to have the option to include a card like this, especially if the meta demands it. Throwing a role restriction and calling it a cost in a card that should be available to anyone for the health of the game just screams lazy design.

Unfortunately the rules as we have them right now wont' allow it so we roll with it and play with the available cards we are dealt.

Honestly, a basic effect like "remove a card from a province" is something I would have liked to see in the core set as a neutral card. And while I'm in favor of a lot of the elemental locks we've seen in this cycle, I don't really think something as basic in function as Sabotage really belongs as a role-locked card.

I do understand arguments about Let Go being undercosted, what with its ability to destroy attachments regardless of attachment cost, but since holdings are free (in terms of fate) I don't see any real need for Sabotage to have a cost (or a role-lock, for that matter.)

Of course, I only play casually, so at least for me the annoying part of the roles (being limited to one for you clan, chosen by someone you've probably never met) isn't relevant.

17 hours ago, Suzume Tomonori said:

Honestly, a basic effect like "remove a card from a province" is something I would have liked to see in the core set as a neutral card. And while I'm in favor of a lot of the elemental locks we've seen in this cycle, I don't really think something as basic in function as Sabotage really belongs as a role-locked card.

Quoted for truth.

BTW, I also only ever play casually, with all of my games being online now. ?

I have no problem with role locked cards and strong cards that promote otherwise bad roles. But having them and only one role per clan that gets decided by which clan is stronger currently seems pretty stupid to me, especially if the locked cards contain checks and balance cards like Sabotage and Pathfinder's Blade. There is simply no way that playtesting can account for the different choices at Worlds.

I think one solution that could easily help is instead of every clan picking one role at worlds, every clan picks two, and the first picks are done in order of standing, and the second picks are done in reverse order. The second round of picks would open up all ten roles again, this way, if there are in fact 3 strongest roles that will get picked immediately no matter what, this opens it up so that the three weakest clans get access to them as well as the 3 strongest. Lock it so that you can't have the same role 2 years in a row, just as before, and let's say something like both roles cannot share an element, so as to spread around the elemental love a bit more. This would allow for more deck diversity both within clans and between clans, more freedom to have access to role locked cards, and for more clans to have access to specific powerful cards to level the playing field, like sabotage or feast or famine. You could still only build with one role at a time, but you get a choice of 2 instead of `1. This would still allow for the original goal of tying roles up in the OP to function properly, while also not locking things down so severely. I think this would be an acceptable compromise, and I think it would work better than the current system by a mile, without giving up the competitive aspect of roles fluctuating over the years.

So if Border Fortress reveals a Restoration of Balance could your opponent still make you discard down to 4 cards? Or if it reveals a Rally to the Cause could they still switch the conflict type?

Yes, they could. The province was just revealed, creating a valid triggering condition for those provinces.

1 hour ago, psychie said:

I think one solution that could easily help is instead of every clan picking one role at worlds, every clan picks two, and the first picks are done in order of standing, and the second picks are done in reverse order. The second round of picks would open up all ten roles again, this way, if there are in fact 3 strongest roles that will get picked immediately no matter what, this opens it up so that the three weakest clans get access to them as well as the 3 strongest. Lock it so that you can't have the same role 2 years in a row, just as before, and let's say something like both roles cannot share an element, so as to spread around the elemental love a bit more. This would allow for more deck diversity both within clans and between clans, more freedom to have access to role locked cards, and for more clans to have access to specific powerful cards to level the playing field, like sabotage or feast or famine. You could still only build with one role at a time, but you get a choice of 2 instead of `1. This would still allow for the original goal of tying roles up in the OP to function properly, while also not locking things down so severely. I think this would be an acceptable compromise, and I think it would work better than the current system by a mile, without giving up the competitive aspect of roles fluctuating over the years.

Have it so each clan has one seeker role and one keeper role and the element has to be different for each.

I like that roles have specific strong cards they can run. The issue was often that not all of them had strong cards to field. Still, since clans are getting more than one viable option as a deck, it might be interesting for that two roles. I don't know how to balance it though; I wouldn't like to have 7x Seekers of Fire / Void; it would just moot the whole point.

With the current cards, I would probably pick #1 Seeker of Fire and #2 Keeper or Seeker of Air

Another aspect to look at is that some cards are better if you are the only clan that has access to it. If Sabotage would be widespread, holdings would go down in every deck. Currently it's just something you have to worry in the Crab matchup. So there's also that synergy to consider; the meta would change if all cards became available to too many clans. That's not necessarily bad, it's just might not be what was intended when they were designed.

4 hours ago, Soshi Saibankan said:

I like that roles have specific strong cards they can run. The issue was often that not all of them had strong cards to field. Still, since clans are getting more than one viable option as a deck, it might be interesting for that two roles. I don't know how to balance it though; I wouldn't like to have 7x Seekers of Fire / Void; it would just moot the whole point.

With the current cards, I would probably pick #1 Seeker of Fire and #2 Keeper or Seeker of Air

Another aspect to look at is that some cards are better if you are the only clan that has access to it. If Sabotage would be widespread, holdings would go down in every deck. Currently it's just something you have to worry in the Crab matchup. So there's also that synergy to consider; the meta would change if all cards became available to too many clans. That's not necessarily bad, it's just might not be what was intended when they were designed.

And Phoenix, Kanjo District is super oppressive especially when there is also an Imperial Palace on the board.

On the topic of spoilers, what do people think the Crane and Phoenix Novices will be like?

Kanjo District with favor is incredibly good, but when I played Phoenix, I always felt that I couldn't afford to keep multiple holdings in play for long, due to how specific our characters were. Maybe that's different now that we have Walking the Way, I'm not sure, but Kanjo District + Imperial Palace as a long-term game plan can lead to some pretty uncomfortable dynasty flops sometimes.

Edit: For Phoenix novice, I'm going to guess it's a 1/1 monk that gets +2 mil for one ring and +2 pol for another. Glory 0 for a monk. Kind of like some of the other Henshin we've seen. It's technically stronger than the others, so maybe it'll be a 0/0 instead? But I feel like by the time you've claimed two specific rings, you don't have many conflicts left to in the round, so it's probably fine as a 1/1. I think the other novices have been underwhelming so far, though. 3/- or -/3 has been the standard for good 1 costers purely on the stat-line, and I don't feel like gaining the flexibility of 1 in the other stat is worth having to jump through hoops to get 3 in the main stat.

#FreeTheRoles

The common counter argument is that apparently all Clans will pick the same role and we'll only see the same cards. Roles would allow for different cards to be use (even if before of lack of choice).

I kind of wished the choice order was reversed where the weakest clan got first choice. The rich getting richer is kind of lousy.

Well, the design ideal would be that the difference between strong Roles and weak Roles becomes smaller and smaller as the card pool and options expand. That so far some Roles are significantly more desired and some are seen as effectively pointless is at least a minor design failure currently.

32 minutes ago, Hordeoverseer said:

The common counter argument is that apparently all Clans will pick the same role and we'll only see the same cards. Roles would allow for different cards to be use (even if before of lack of choice).

I kind of wished the choice order was reversed where the weakest clan got first choice. The rich getting richer is kind of lousy.

I think it's good to have something to fight for, but agree that it at least has a trend to give the people at the top the best choices. I never played O5R, but understood that there were cards that were story prizes for winning tournaments. Did they have the same sort of problem?

I feel like the secondary Elemental roles clans get in the second half of the year should be chosen in the reverse order, though. Clans that get last pick in the Winter Court get first pick next summer. That way, each clan should at least have a strong choice when competing for the new roles. Either that, or allow free choice in the tournament that picks roles. Declare that it's a test of demonstrating a new direction for the clan, and so the clans throw tradition aside to examine other possibilities.

What I would like to see is a snake draft

1-7 top finisher gets first pick, then the bottom 3 clans get an alternative role choice starting with the worst finisher back on up

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 6 5

That way we can skip all the nonsense about role votes for gen con and change it to a more significant prize for worlds. While I respect the Crane player's dedication to making strings of origami cranes to hang up, it was a bit much to call for a judge and remind them about the role vote repeatedly

I also think FFG should start thinking about bigger/more prizes based on attendance to help boost some of their numbers, especially in the US.

If 100+ show then winner also gets x

If 200+ show then winner gets x + y and top4 get a

If 300+ show then winner gets x + y + z, top 4 get a + b, and top 8 get c

Make those additional prizes whatever you want but it's clear to me that the non-US koteis should have gotten more swag for their awesome job at getting people to attend and the US needs some sort of incentive to get off our lazy rears and go play games.

Ffg has newer been strong on tournament prices. Well only mtg is strong in that aspect... So I don’t Expect to see big price tournaments.