The basis of the "no locked roles argument" is WE WANT TO USE THE CARDS WE PAID FOR and not be told we can't when we go to tournaments because some dude from France won a tournament 90% of the player base can't or doesn't want to go to. It's a failed experiment and if this game wants to exist past the third cycle with more than just a playgroup lead by one scorpion player who trolls the forums all day they need to make a change

I saw the AGoT comparison come up.. however.. if you were to compare them, then you'd first have to #FreeTheRoles and THEN ever 2 cycles or so create new elemental roles... Keeper, Seeker, and then Breaker of Fire, Earth, etc. With new mechanics associated with that.

Look I agree. #FreeTheRoles. BUT I also want all in clan cards usable regardless of role.

Also Breaker of Elements is something I desperately want because of the Fear Itself series lol

Regardless of wether the roles stay locked (which is fine by me, and yes, we do go to koteis and tournaments) or get free for all (which I don't care about) : If I would be a new player looking into this game and saw the toxicity in this topic I would go the other way around and leave this. This locked role is nothing more then a rule which they could change like they wanted to balance out the clans once per year and if they would do so it would be that way because this is their game. It is good that you state your unhappinies with the current role model but this is no need to become toxic and tell players they have no idea because they live in XYZ.

I think restrictions based off the roles are fine. Like if the deck uses fire, it can't use void only cards. That actually seems reasonable.

But marrying a clan to a specific role for over a year pigeonholes deckbuilding to the point where if that particular clan doesn't get support within and around that role, that clan is getting useless cards in the cycle.

Right now, there are a slot of cards that aren't seeing much play, and its because they are terrible cards for the clan that is allowed to play them... but they could find room in a clan that unfortunately can't play them. And then there are the dynasty cards.... ?

13 minutes ago, Baer said:

Regardless of wether the roles stay locked (which is fine by me, and yes, we do go to koteis and tournaments) or get free for all (which I don't care about) : If I would be a new player looking into this game and saw the toxicity in this topic I would go the other way around and leave this. This locked role is nothing more then a rule which they could change like they wanted to balance out the clans once per year and if they would do so it would be that way because this is their game. It is good that you state your unhappinies with the current role model but this is no need to become toxic and tell players they have no idea because they live in XYZ.

The only way i would recommend this game for a new player at this point is if I'm trying to sell my collection to him so he can have a bunch of cards he cant use due to arbitrary garbage rulings. And living in XYZ isnt the problem I'm tired of people defending this crap rule because "it doesn't effect them" well it effects other players and we're tired of it. How many more of these "Get rid of the role lock" posts do we have to read before Brad Andres and FFG wake up and do something.

5 hours ago, Ishi Tonu said:

Let me know when you're ready to have a rational discussion.

I have no desire to unravel each logical fallacy in that post first.

If you don't want to list rational arguments, that's fine by me. You asked why I thought the 6in6 model goes counter-intuitive to the whole meta shift argument regarding role locking and I answered why. Obviously you're the one unwilling to have a discussion and disguises it with false authority, not me.

My initial post here asks we list rational and logical reasons why we like or we don't like a certain system. Refute my arguments with you're counter arguments, that's how you further a discussion.

Double posted.

33 minutes ago, Reins Vengard said:

The only way i would recommend this game for a new player at this point is if I'm trying to sell my collection to him so he can have a bunch of cards he cant use due to arbitrary garbage rulings. And living in XYZ isnt the problem I'm tired of people defending this crap rule because "it doesn't effect them" well it effects other players and we're tired of it. How many more of these "Get rid of the role lock" posts do we have to read before Brad Andres and FFG wake up and do something.

Only because you are shouting louder doesn't make you the majority.

So you reasing is : If it effects some of them and they are shouting loud enough then FFG should follow them? If so : I find it totally unreasonable that any Phoenix event can be cancelled, this is outrageous and should be changed! And if you don't follow my demands I will just shut louder!

But seriously : If your unhappy with the game then don't buy the next cycle and show them your opinion with your wallet. As long as you are still buying and playing what reason do they have to change?

23 minutes ago, Baer said:

Only because you are shouting louder doesn't make you the majority.

So you reasing is : If it effects some of them and they are shouting loud enough then FFG should follow them? If so : I find it totally unreasonable that any Phoenix event can be cancelled, this is outrageous and should be changed! And if you don't follow my demands I will just shut louder!

But seriously : If your unhappy with the game then don't buy the next cycle and show them your opinion with your wallet. As long as you are still buying and playing what reason do they have to change?

The fact you think anti role lock is the minority just goes to show you're clueless to the actual meta of the game.

1 hour ago, Shosuro Teri said:

If you don't want to list rational arguments, that's fine by me. You asked why I thought the 6in6 model goes counter-intuitive to the whole meta shift argument regarding role locking and I answered why. Obviously you're the one unwilling to have a discussion and disguises it with false authority, not me.

My initial post here asks we list rational and logical reasons why we like or we don't like a certain system. Refute my arguments with you're counter arguments, that's how you further a discussion.

You must have me confused with someone else. At no point did I ask you about your thoughts on the 6in6 model. This is a discussion about role locking is it not?

I can address it now if you like. I think your opinion in the 6in6 is incorrect because it ignores some important facts like the legality wait time after each pack and the scheduling of tournaments.

I was hoping you'd get back on topic and address what portion of my argument you chose to quote instead of assuming I read anything else of yours previously.

The harsh reality is there is no dynamic meta game shift every month for 6 months as each new pack comes out, as you claim. There are maybe a couple tournaments that would take place where the meta game is largely the same as it was before the cycle started and then it hit a the tipping point where enough/all of the environment defining cards are legal and the real meta game is shaped and solved. Until the full cycle is out and we start playing in the complete meta game, all those tournaments in that 6 provide us zero useful information about the state of the game. Its essentially 6 months of wasted information. While the chaos of that type of rotation might be enjoable to some, it's not a very good way to manage the health of the game because none of the information that is gathered can be trusted.

On topic of roles:

We are at a point now where the card pool is small enough that unlocking the roles would end up with the game as we know it being solved for competitive play. By locking the roles your can only solve the meta game based on the specific role combinations that have been chosen across all the clans.

The more sensible alternative to a 1 year role lock, at this point in the game, would be to increase the speed of role selections or have a variety of pre-selected roles for specific events. When the card pool is deep enough to support role locking then open it up via an alternate format that us non-rotating like "modern masters" where players can explore all the crazy combinations that are out there, while still maintaining a format similar to "standard" that uses a smaller card pool and faster rotations. That way everyone can enjoy the game in their own way.

I'm opptomistic we'll get there someday. Or who knows, maybe FFG caves to all the outcry over I locked roles and gives the people what they want and then we can all circle back here and see who was right and who gets to apologize to me. ?

Discussion on this topic is good. Both sides are valid, you can have a great game with either approach. If we weigh the pros and cons, we can try assess which, on balance, is better for right now. By my recollection, although there were some opposed, the majority of players liked the idea of the roles when they originally came out. Role locked cards in the Core and Imperial cycle were pretty tight and generated some really interesting decisions at Worlds. The Elemental cycle appears to have a different design approach, we have a lot more locked cards and more are element + clan which limits them even more. Current opinion appears to have shifted, largely due to recently released cards. Brad and Tyler have to plan the game a year in advance, the idea that they're completely blind to this aspect of design is silly. Based on this, I fully expecting the Elemental series of events, which we should hear about this week, to have unlocked roles. I also expect a change in the system to be announced at Worlds. This won't be because the players complained, although I'm sure some will claim it is. If we come out of Worlds with nothing changed, then we can break out the pitchforks, but this is way too early.

2 hours ago, Reins Vengard said:

The fact you think anti role lock is the minority just goes to show you're clueless to the actual meta of the game.

The fact that you are ignoring every other question in my post shows that you are just shouting your complains without listening to anybody else.

Following the discussion here, I made a poll at cardgamedb: http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/39886-poll-should-roles-remain-locked/#entry330484

3 hours ago, Ishi Tonu said:

When the card pool is deep enough to support role locking then open it up via an alternate format that us non-rotating like "modern masters" where players can explore all the crazy combinations that are out there,

Doesnt that already exist though? Its called casual games and the rules telll you you can do whatever you want there.

And if people say no one foes it because everyone follows tournament rules, then that would be the same vase for "modern masters".

And if tournaments can be organized with "modern masters" format, thats the same as now thta any store can organize any format of tournament (aka enforcing or freenig roles).

6 hours ago, Baer said:

Regardless of wether the roles stay locked (which is fine by me, and yes, we do go to koteis and tournaments) or get free for all (which I don't care about) : If I would be a new player looking into this game and saw the toxicity in this topic I would go the other way around and leave this. This locked role is nothing more then a rule which they could change like they wanted to balance out the clans once per year and if they would do so it would be that way because this is their game. It is good that you state your unhappinies with the current role model but this is no need to become toxic and tell players they have no idea because they live in XYZ.

The role selection inherently causes toxicity. We already saw it with the Scorpion pick. It will only get worse when more decks are viable and one person essentially ruins competitive play for a year for a chunk of each clan.

1 hour ago, RafaelNN said:

Doesnt that already exist though? Its called casual games and the rules telll you you can do whatever you want there.

And if people say no one foes it because everyone follows tournament rules, then that would be the same vase for "modern masters".

And if tournaments can be organized with "modern masters" format, thats the same as now thta any store can organize any format of tournament (aka enforcing or freenig roles).

Shh, the anti-role lock crowd doesn't like that argument as there only counter to it is well my casual/testing play group doesn't like to experiment/only plays to test decks for major events.

3 minutes ago, HamHamJ2 said:

The role selection inherently causes toxicity. We already saw it with the Scorpion pick. It will only get worse when more decks are viable and one person essentially ruins competitive play for a year for a chunk of each clan.

Any topic will breed a certain level of toxicity as long as there are opposing view points (if you want a fun read wade into the debate of Yoshi characterization from his first 2 story appearances). As to the specific toxicity for the Scorpion that was a tempest in a tea pot of players drooling over Backhanded Complement and ignoring the vastly superior power that Seeker of Void gave Scorpion with the disgusting Province row that it provided them. And the person who made the choice was not the player who had said he was picking seeker just to deny them access to a Keeper role to avoid Backhanded, it was a dedicated and consistently good Scorpion player who read the meta well and had a good feel for what would better serve the Scorpion in the long run. And frankly I'd say that the tournament results for the season show that it was the right choice for the competitive scene, so much so that most Scorpion seem to have settled into the Seeker of anything mentality for main pick and Keeper for an alternate role if there is the option.

i have come to accept that winners can troll the community with their picks. you can beat them to stop them.

The issue with role-locking however is more of a game health issue. Why should i buy a dynasty pack on speculation that maybe next year i can play the card i want to use in it? in a game like l5r, where the clan you play does have some implications (albeit not as heavy as old5r), people are getting dynasty packs and may only use 3-5 cards from it.

I would not be as extreme as saying that the role rule is a horrible idea, as many stated in this topic it has some advantages and inconveniences. However, in the context of L5r I believe that roles are a false good idea.

To me one of the biggest problem of L5r is the fact that deck building is way too restricted. This can be explained by 3 factors:

-First the card pool is not big enough. We can't do much about that, but this will inevitably improve over time.

-Secondly, there is a list of cards that for god know why has just been designed to be much better than anything else and accessible to everyone, of course I am talking about mainly banzai, court game and other cards to a lesser extent. It's normal for a game to have cards that are just better than others, but the fact that those cards are neutral really reduces diversity since you they will be at least 6 cards you always have to put in your deck and yet those cards are not good enough to be placed in the restricted list.

-Thirdly, the game is way too compartmentalized. This is due to having 7 different factions with their own card pool with almost no flexibility for mix and match just like you would in a color system like Magic. This is understandable considering the L5r lore but unfortunately the role system increase that problem but implementing sub categories.

I interactive and dynamic think a role system could have been interesting in a very open game where there is a lot of flexibility for deck-building. But in the context of L5r it's a really bad idea since the game is already too compartmentalized.

Tyler told us that there are looking to improve the role system, I am personally very exited to see the result. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and hope that they have some greater plans. Because after over a year of L5r I can say that the role system had 0 upside outside of restricting our deck building possibilities.

PS: Some people say role restriction helps monitoring OP cards like feat and famine. I would answer that this is the job of the restricted list, not the role system.

1 hour ago, RafaelNN said:

Doesnt that already exist though? Its called casual games and the rules telll you you can do whatever you want there.

And if people say no one foes it because everyone follows tournament rules, then that would be the same vase for "modern masters".

And if tournaments can be organized with "modern masters" format, thats the same as now thta any store can organize any format of tournament (aka enforcing or freenig roles).

You'll get no arguments from me here. My friends and I rarely play with the current roles and often do our own made up formats when we play.

The only time I play something serious is when I'm preparing and playing in a big tournament, even then my decks need to have an appropriate level of jank before I will even consider playing them

5 hours ago, Ishi Tonu said:

You must have me confused with someone else. At no point did I ask you about your thoughts on the 6in6 model. This is a discussion about role locking is it not?

You said you were not following my train of thought about the 6in6 being counter-intuitive to the reasoning being used for role locking - mainly being role locking is there to have dynamic shifts in meta. No, it doesn't. Release of new cards creates meta shifts. Having 6 releases (one each month) instead of 1 big one produces more meta shifts because there are more releases of cards.

5 hours ago, Ishi Tonu said:

I'm opptomistic we'll get there someday. Or who knows, maybe FFG caves to all the outcry over I locked roles and gives the people what they want and then we can all circle back here and see who was right and who gets to apologize to whom. ?

Changed it for you. Again, false authority. Disagreeing with you doesn't automatically make them wrong. But your sentiments are valid. I highly doubt that things would change because that would mean that FFG would have to swallow their pride and admit that their little "One person picks the role for everybody" personal touch project was a failed one. Time will tell, so as you say.

33 minutes ago, Schmoozies said:

As to the specific toxicity for the Scorpion that was a tempest in a tea pot of players drooling over Backhanded Complement and ignoring the vastly superior power that Seeker of Void gave Scorpion with the disgusting Province row that it provided them.

I think you're focusing too much on the details rather the the big picture. That circumstances came about when a hatamoto from one clan decided another clan shouldn't have access to one card. I have problems with the whole role locking thing, but this takes it to a whole other level. No longer are people picking for their clan's best intentions in mind, their picking to literally hamstring another clan. That's sabotage. If you have data to back your claims (which I doubt you do), show it to scorpion players posed to win the title and make your case. Going out of your way to play another clan to pick a choice for them because you have this notion that a different choice would be bad for the game, while self-sacrificing at the surface, encourages a malicious type of behavior. People should pick with their own clan's best intentions in mind, if they should pick at all.

8 minutes ago, Shosuro Teri said:

You said you were not following my train of thought about the 6in6 being counter-intuitive to the reasoning being used for role locking - mainly being role locking is there to have dynamic shifts in meta. No, it doesn't. Release of new cards creates meta shifts. Having 6 releases (one each month) instead of 1 big one produces more meta shifts because there are more releases of cards.

Changed it for you. Again, false authority. Disagreeing with you doesn't automatically make them wrong.

Again you fail to address the legality and tournament scheduling issues when stating how a slower card release would create more meta shifts. But 6in6 wasn't really the point of the thread, so I suppose it doesn't really matter.

Also, learn to sarcasm much? You did see the razzberry smiley at the end right? Its pretty clear that it's poking fun at the notion that I am pretending to be an authority, by pretended to be an authority at the very end.

I'm clearly not meant for the internet. I should probably go find a nice patch of lawn somewhere and yell at kids to get off of it....... What do you mean this is not my house?

3 minutes ago, Shosuro Teri said:

I think you're focusing too much on the details rather the the big picture. That circumstances came about when a hatamoto from one clan decided another clan shouldn't have access to one card. I have problems with the whole role locking thing, but this takes it to a whole other level. No longer are people picking for their clan's best intentions in mind, their picking to literally hamstring another clan. That's sabotage. If you have data to back your claims (which I doubt you do), show it to scorpion players posed to win the title and make your case. Going out of your way to play another clan to pick a choice for them because you have this notion that a different choice would be bad for the game, while self-sacrificing at the surface, encourages a malicious type of behavior. People should pick with their own clan's best intentions in mind, if they should pick at all.

I am aware of the controversy, but the Hatamoto in question felt he had legitimate concerns as to the state of the Environment if Backhanded were a tool in the Scorpion tool box, and in the end didn't get to make the choice as he didn't wasn't top Scorpion. It just so happens that most of the top tier Scorpions at the time were also of the opinion that while Backhanded would be a nice card, the power of the Seeker of Void province row would leave them in a much stronger position for the season than being a Keeper and Seeker Void had been the expected choice when they picked Air at Gencon in order to leave the Void option open for Worlds pick. The general Scorpion player pool picked up on the Hatamoto shift comments and ran with them, but they didn't have any actual bearing on the final decision and frankly the right choice (based on Kotei results for the season) seems to have been made.

Its telling that a lot of the top players making choices seemed to be able to read the environment that was going to develop post Imperial Cycle (most were shaking their head at Lion taking Keeper of Fire as first choice until we saw feast and everything fell into place) and that many of them were on play test teams or likely had access to rumors from said teams.

Sure you can play casual. But when I am playing I am also preparing for Stronghold kits and other tournements, And I can use my fun deck at these because it isn't legal.

Aside from weakening the anti-lock crowd, what are the actual pros to role lock? Cause I see very few as opposed to the benefits of free roles.

35 minutes ago, Shosuro Teri said:

I think you're focusing too much on the details rather the the big picture. That circumstances came about when a hatamoto from one clan decided another clan shouldn't have access to one card. I have problems with the whole role locking thing, but this takes it to a whole other level. No longer are people picking for their clan's best intentions in mind, their picking to literally hamstring another clan. That's sabotage. If you have data to back your claims (which I doubt you do), show it to scorpion players posed to win the title and make your case. Going out of your way to play another clan to pick a choice for them because you have this notion that a different choice would be bad for the game, while self-sacrificing at the surface, encourages a malicious type of behavior. People should pick with their own clan's best intentions in mind, if they should pick at all.

From what I understand of the O5R tournament prizes and such this was a bigger problem in the old game where in people would play to underhand another clan in some way or another (I think Mantis got beat on a bit). Based on what this Hatamoto had said before, he got bored of Dragon and wanted to play something else, whether this is true or not who knows. In the end I agree with people should choose best for their clans, none of this sabotage nonsense.

8 minutes ago, cforfar said:

From what I understand of the O5R tournament prizes and such this was a bigger problem in the old game where in people would play to underhand another clan in some way or another (I think Mantis got beat on a bit). Based on what this Hatamoto had said before, he got bored of Dragon and wanted to play something else, whether this is true or not who knows. In the end I agree with people should choose best for their clans, none of this sabotage nonsense.

There is also the fact that he only had Hatamoto from Gencon and that in the vacuum of that Environment Dragon had been the safe option, especially considering we hadn't really seen Scorpion until the week before the event.