So on my initial read though the conflict declaration looks very lopsided to me. The fact that you are still potentially declaring two conflicts each a turn I can see leading to some very lopsided matches where the first player is left on the back foot by being ganged up on more often than not.

The reason I say this is when they launch their first attack they are committing to win for a claimed ring and are likely to need cards to do it. From there the second player has incentive to attack them to claim their staked ring and the ring that the first player was able to place on one of their provinces. After that the third player has the choice to either attack the second player to claim a bonus ring or take the easy win against the first player who has likely now had to expand personalities and cards in two engagements.

Now you could find yourself where the first player is in the position of having had to fight 3 engagements with the reflective lose of cards and characters, thus limiting their own ability to counter with their second attack but leaving themselves open to easy farming from their two opponents who can now safely farm extra rings from them for the lead into their own next turn.

This will likely lead to the second player starting turn 2 with at least 2-3 rings claimed and could easily leave the third player with the potential to start turn two having claimed 3-4 rings if they are smart on how they farm the second player with their final conflict.

The only defense is for first player to hit third player and hope second follows suit, but again that just flips the issue as now third player is left with a gutted hand and probably no defenders for the second wave of attacks, while second player is probably free to farm rings from first player starting turn two with the advantage for little risk.

I think it may be worth limiting players to one conflict per turn with the first player being given the option to pass their conflict and act last if they want to see how the board develops before they commit to a fight.

Maybe that's why in this mode you get 1 extra fate being the first player.

8 minutes ago, Barbacuo said:

Maybe that's why in this mode you get 1 extra fate being the first player.

Frankly its not going to be enough. Ideally this version each player needs to be generating about 10 fate a turn to be able to keep up with 6 potential conflicts a turn.

I've been theory crafting it out this afternoon on various threads and frankly the strongest player is actually player 2 who will have the best negotiation position, the ability to pounce on either player one or three depending on where player 1's attacks and alliances go. And will get the potential to claim bonus fate for first player on turn 2, first pass turn 2 and first to claim fate from their ring on turn 2 (so potentially a three fate advantage) leading in the key turn of the game.

This environment is going to be all about character generation as you can't guarantee honor generation with Dial bids and its easy to have your air ring locked on a province meaning you can't generate honor that way either.

3 hours ago, Schmoozies said:

The fact that you are still potentially declaring two conflicts each a turn I can see leading to some very lopsided matches where the first player is left on the back foot by being ganged up on more often than not.

I have been making and trying to refine a multiplayer variant of L5R for some time now and this was the first problem i tried to avoid.
I guess if you're the first player there's an incentive to make treaties through the new rules to avoid this happening, but i can quickly see people using "first player status" as a way to bring players down. Exactly like Schmoozies said, anyone who has the first player token is free farming potential, to make a treaty to take that away would be silly in my opinion.

I can see a meta occurring where no one ever makes treaties with first player so that can take advantage of the massacre that is supposedly coming their way, and that the first player will almost always pass on their first conflict in the hope of surviving said massacre.

Some really skilled players may see something i can't as i'm not the best player by a long shot, but that's what I see ?

In three player games with my groups we just did a simple, you can declare conflicts on the player to your left but not your right unless you paid 5 honor.
Then when the first player token got passed to the left, the sides switched so now you can only declare conflicts on the player to your right and not your left unless you paid 5 honor.
It's not the greatest solution but some really fun games came out of it and it stops the "massacre of first player" and the worse "massacre on player who attacks first"
If anyone is interested in the full rules i wrote up, feel free to send me a message.

Schmoozies, did you factor in that a player would need to have all 4 Provinces broken prior to having their Stronghold attacked?

19 minutes ago, LordBlunt said:

Schmoozies, did you factor in that a player would need to have all 4 Provinces broken prior to having their Stronghold attacked?

Stonghold breaks won't be the threat, dishonor from undefended combats/lack of air ring is what will leave players struggling I predict.

I'm going to have to review card options, I feel like there's going to be some currently ignored cards that could become MVPs in multiplayer. Waning Hostilities comes to mind, to help cut back the number of conflicts. I wonder too if there are cards for honor gain that will get a boost from this as well.

2 hours ago, Kaito Kikaze said:

I feel like there's going to be some currently ignored cards that could become MVPs in multiplayer.

Hida Amoro FTW

1 hour ago, Bayushi Shunsuke said:

Hida Amoro FTW

Ugh, I forgot about him. That could be brutal if he isn't clouded or otherwise removed. And of course they put him just out of Assassination range.

3 hours ago, Kaito Kikaze said:

I'm going to have to review card options, I feel like there's going to be some currently ignored cards that could become MVPs in multiplayer. Waning Hostilities comes to mind, to help cut back the number of conflicts. I wonder too if there are cards for honor gain that will get a boost from this as well.

Know the World and Wholeness of the World

Way of the Phoenix

My first reaction to "cards that could be great in this multiplayer variant" was the Phoenix Philosopher, but he's limited to twice/round.

But then Amoro came to mind.

I guess his balancing factor is that putting him into play will paint a very large target on your back.

"I know we have an exisitng treaty to not attack each other, but I will happily lose 5 Honor to eliminate Amoro/you from the game."

Player one just has to make sure they have treaties in place to protect themselves from attacks before declaring any.

Also, I note that it's possible for two players to work together to deny fate from rings to a third. So player 2's advantage isn't quite as big as it might seem.

Normal in multiplayer games!

you have to keep cards is your hand and not ower commit to your attacks because you Also have to defend againgst x-players. In Dune ccg you have two attacks against each opponents, so in four player game you have 6 separate attacks and you have to defend against 6 attack each turn... No problem... attack your main targets and defend as well as you can. But leave always some tricks in you sleeves to important situations.

In games of thrones Lcg in four player game you have 3 attacks and you have to defend against 0 to 9 attacks.

in both games the plaer keep the game balanced because if you hit one player too hard it is too easy target to you other rivals... and some of them might win, because you did soften up some target too much. So like in pool, it is not only important to get points, it is allso important to leave ball to situation where it is very hard to get points!

also in multiplayer game the best target is the playe who is winning. If after couple of rounds one player is limping, two players Are doing ok and one player has huge lead, the best this is ti bash the leader as much as possible and leave the weak player to recower so that he is not easy target to the leader!

multiplayer games Are a beast of their own! If you play them rigth the game will balance itself!

34 minutes ago, Hannibal_pjv said:

Normal in multiplayer games!

you have to keep cards is your hand and not ower commit to your attacks because you Also have to defend againgst x-players. In Dune ccg you have two attacks against each opponents, so in four player game you have 6 separate attacks and you have to defend against 6 attack each turn... No problem... attack your main targets and defend as well as you can. But leave always some tricks in you sleeves to important situations.

In games of thrones Lcg in four player game you have 3 attacks and you have to defend against 0 to 9 attacks.

in both games the plaer keep the game balanced because if you hit one player too hard it is too easy target to you other rivals... and some of them might win, because you did soften up some target too much. So like in pool, it is not only important to get points, it is allso important to leave ball to situation where it is very hard to get points!

also in multiplayer game the best target is the playe who is winning. If after couple of rounds one player is limping, two players Are doing ok and one player has huge lead, the best this is ti bash the leader as much as possible and leave the weak player to recower so that he is not easy target to the leader!

multiplayer games Are a beast of their own! If you play them rigth the game will balance itself!

The difference between those games and L5R is the transiency of characters, you can build a board with the knowledge that you will poke for a turn or two than once you have enough presence go on the offensive. With L5R since most characters are only in play for a turn or two you don't have that luxury.

True. Interesting to see if and how this will be handled. But even with one or two character you have to chose who you Are attaking againgst and who do you want to defend against. It is just game meta.

Maybe a Little bit more fate to keep characters longer in the game! Who knows what tweaks Are needed. Every character starts with one free fate on them, when you bring them on the table? There Are Many ways of getting character last on the table a Little bit longer time. Playing smaller characters with more fate on them? Using assasins in multiplayer can be really suisaidial, or then just ban the assasin in multiplayer?

Here is a thought;

What if there is a limitation of each player can only be attacked 2 times a Turn?

5 hours ago, Hannibal_pjv said:

True. Interesting to see if and how this will be handled. But even with one or two character you have to chose who you Are attaking againgst and who do you want to defend against. It is just game meta.

Maybe a Little bit more fate to keep characters longer in the game! Who knows what tweaks Are needed. Every character starts with one free fate on them, when you bring them on the table? There Are Many ways of getting character last on the table a Little bit longer time. Playing smaller characters with more fate on them? Using assasins in multiplayer can be really suisaidial, or then just ban the assasin in multiplayer?

I actually worry more that Assassination will take you out of the game by playing it and dipping your honor too low. This format its very easy for your Air ring to get locked on a province and out of play for a turn or two leaving you with no way to recoup honor if you get hit with a few attacks that you can't spare bodies to defend.

Following up on the above post;

Assassination may be used if a player does NOT have the Imperial Favor.... which would complicate matters by not allowing too much freedom for the 1 player who dies have the IF might make the game a tad more interesting. ??? (I need to be truthful here - this type of rule was suggested in our multiplayer games, but we didn’t use it)

One thing that could work is to have extra fate each turn that equal the Number of players. So in three player game extra 3 fate allows three characters to live longer. It is easy rule to remember, but first have to try out how this works with original rules and then tweak so that the character staying power is big enough for x-player games. More generous would be douple of opponents left in the game. Maybe too generous? In three player games it would mean extra 4 fate each turn Until one is dead. An alternative would be trible of (opponents minus 1). Then it would be 3 extra fate in the Beginning and zero when only two players would be alive (aka normal rules, but maybe too complicated?) trible of opponents above normal one?

there Are varoitus ways of handling this. In Vampire you can only attack to the left, so that you have a prey and preyer. You get bonus (fate) if you kill your play. Other players can help player to stay in game so that the player does not get advantage. In Games of thorenes, there Are allies and enemies based on what role you have. You can not attack your ally and get bonus for attaking your enemy. There Are Many ways of redusing the attacks if needed.

But in anyway good to have a base rules to try this out and then Remedy any anomalies if needed!