Personally, as a dragon player, and a monk player specifically, I would rather HT get errata'd than RL'd (although I still argue that HT is not the problem, let go is).

In my KoV monk deck (and even in the SoF monk deck I ran at gen con), the RL card I run is policy debate. Frankly, considering that a large part of what makes the deck work is the hand advantage I establish through loads of draw effects and very good discard effects. Policy debate is fairly crucial to this secondary strategy. If HT were to hit the RL, I would still be running PD, but, much like when MF hit the RL, I will be pissed that they're taking away my toys because other clans are abusing them.

Ultimately, I don't mind not playing MF, and I doubt I'll mind all that much not playing HT, however I very strongly dislike the idea that dragon clan cards are being restricted because they are being over used as a splash, or that they are too powerful as a splash in certain other clans.

@psychie While I agree with most of what you posted, I continue to believe that the only issue with Let Go is that it should have been a Neutral card and not a Dragon card.

That minor change would have taken the focus off of ‘Dragon is the best splash!’ and oncoming cards (such as Hawk Tattoo) would not have been under the microscope such as they are now. There are many pretty under-costed cards and cards that have shifted the meta since their inception (AFwTD for one) but they are rarely discussed on forums. (if they are talked about, I have yet to read the hate that HT has gotten lately)

The HT isn’t the issue; the issue is that it’s effect is OVER-amplified in conjunction to the other cards in Dragon.

I agree. I have been saying that let go should have been a 1 cost neutral event since core. I wasn't saying let go was over powered or whatever, I was saying that let go is a card that the meta needs in nearly every deck, and by gating it as a dragon card they guaranteed that any time dragon had another card worth splashing dragon splash would dominate the meta. This was the case with MF, and it's the case again with HT. Even between MF hitting the RL and HT dropping dragon was an inordinately common splash, just not to the extent it is now or before MF hit the RL.

I don't think restricting any of them is the answer, I think offering a neutral alternative to let go is the answer, and then maybe putting let go on the RL.

5 hours ago, Tomello said:

I don't know how it will be alienating. Putting it on the RL means it will never be  played. Printing new cards to counter it, is awful design after bad and alienates existing players. Errata is the best way to address it. They can just put a reprint in a future package. I agree that players want what is best for the game, and will understand if one or two thing squeak past design and playtest if they get addressed in a way that is better for the game.

It will still see lots of play as moving characters into conflicts is still a powerful effect. Moving a bowed Guest of Honor or other magistrates, etc...is still very much worth it.

It's alienating, because people are pissed if they play a card expecting to get ahead and then getting told that the move is illegal, because the effect is different from the card text. We had this in AGoT 1.0 (one of the major reasons given why they rebooted it) and we don't need it in L5R. And even from a competitive standpoint I am for restricting, because when the card isn't a problem anymore, you can simply unrestrict it.

A much worse Favored Mount won't see a lot of play.

21 minutes ago, Ignithas said:

It's alienating, because people are pissed if they play a card expecting to get ahead and then getting told that the move is illegal, because the effect is different from the card text. We had this in AGoT 1.0 (one of the major reasons given why they rebooted it) and we don't need it in L5R. And even from a competitive standpoint I am for restricting, because when the card isn't a problem anymore, you can simply unrestrict it.

A much worse Favored Mount won't see a lot of play.

Unfortunately sometimes errata are a necessity. It should not necessarily be the default action however when cards are erroneously printed counter to their intended design it may be the better fix. The fact that Hawk Tattoo was not meant to be a superior harpoon to every other effect in the game likely means that it needs the functional change. Will it suck to get called out on it, yes, but if you are attending competitive events with the card than guess what the onus should have been on you to at least review the current state of the card pool to be aware of basic rulings which are included in the RRG (which from past experience all errata rulings have been).

Quote

It's alienating, because people are pissed if they play a card expecting to get ahead and then getting told that the move is illegal, because the effect is different   from the  card text. We had this  in AGoT 1.0 (one of the major reasons given why they rebooted it) and we don't need it in L5R. And even from a competitive standpoint I am for  restricting, because when the card isn't a problem anymore, you can simply unrestrict it.

A much worse Favored Mount won't see a lot of play      .

Respectfully disagree. Assuming they have spent the $300+ on all the cards they will probably have the reprint. Though odd, you don't consider the RL as alienating, someone showing up to a tournament and getting told their deck is illegal is probably more frustrating. I would guess in an official format would be the only time someone would be upset about the errata. Casually, no one would really care either way

It was printed that way as a mistake, this is a living card game....changing it is the least bad solution.

A non-cancelable, non-telegraphed movement card....AND I get access to Let Go....who would play that? ?

9 hours ago, Schmoozies said:

Unfortunately sometimes errata are a necessity. It should not necessarily be the default action however when cards are erroneously printed counter to their intended design it may be the better fix. The fact that Hawk Tattoo was not meant to be a superior harpoon to every other effect in the game likely means that it needs the functional change. Will it suck to get called out on it, yes, but if you are attending competitive events with the card than guess what the onus should have been on you to at least review the current state of the card pool to be aware of basic rulings which are included in the RRG (which from past experience all errata rulings have been).

I agree with you that there are times when erratas are necessary. Pit Trap for example is one of them, because with its wording it won't work and the card now not only works as intended, but also how normal players would understand it after reading it. Experience in AGoT 1.0 showed that it is much easier to memorise a restriction list than erratas.

9 hours ago, Tomello said:

Respectfully disagree. Assuming they have spent  the $300+ on all the cards they will probably have the reprint. Though odd, you don't consider the RL as alienating, someone showing up to a tournament and getting told their deck is illegal is probably more frustrating. I would guess in an official format would be the only time someone would be upset about the errata. Casually, no one would really care either way

It was printed that way as a mistake, this is a living card game....changing it is the least bad solution.

A non-cancelable, non-telegraphed movement card....AND I get access to Let Go....who would play that? ?

If reprints work similar than in AGoT 1.0 reprints will happen ~1 year after the initial print and localised products often don't rework their cards. I have never been at a tournament where decks were illegal due to the RL, but I have seen cut games being won and lost by not considering erratas. In a physical card game restricting is always more smooth than errata that completely change the effect of a card and countless card games prove this.

While there are situations where a one sided move effect is worth 1 fate and 1 card, it doesn't compare well to the Standing/not bow tech that is normally priced at 1 fate, nor the repeatable movement effects that are priced at 0-1 fate.

Lets be honest Dragon will always be one of the favorites splash choices, HT is a plus, cause it have many of the greatest cards in game, not just let go. Dragon has probably the best conflict deck, since most scorpions tricks like AFWTD are very limited as a splash. MF, let go, the 1 cost character that can give your big guy covert, other 1 cost with 2 glory to steal the favor.. great attachments, no other clan gives you that flexibility. In fact many clans conflict decks suffer from a lot of restrictive cards, demanding X or Y to play or trigger. When building a Dragon deck I cant find slot for some great cards like indomitable will. Thats a card I probably have a safe slot in every other deck I would build.

12 hours ago, L5RBr said:

Lets be honest Dragon will always be one of the favorites splash choices, HT is a plus, cause it have many of the greatest cards in game, not just let go. Dragon has probably the best conflict deck, since most scorpions tricks like AFWTD are very limited as a splash. MF, let go, the 1 cost character that can give your big guy covert, other 1 cost with 2 glory to steal the favor.. great attachments, no other clan gives you that flexibility. In fact many clans conflict decks suffer from a lot of restrictive cards, demanding X or Y to play or trigger. When building a Dragon deck I cant find slot for some great cards like indomitable will. Thats a card I probably have a safe slot in every other deck I would build.

People said the same things about Lannister and Bara in AGoT 2.0 and now they are the two worst houses.

Comparing the conlict deck of Dragon and Scorpion is difficult, because they are designed to do two different things and both excell at what they want to achieve.

I personally think that Indomitable Will wouldn't be played at least in current Phoenix and Scorpion decks and it is also iffy in Unicorn, because Indomitable Will is the worst of the standing/not kneeling events.

7 hours ago, Ignithas said:

People said the same things about Lannister and Bara in AGoT 2.0 and now they are the two worst houses.

Comparing the conlict deck of Dragon and Scorpion is difficult, because they are designed to do two different things and both excell at what they want to achieve.

I personally think that Indomitable Will wouldn't be played at least in current Phoenix and Scorpion decks and it is also iffy in Unicorn, because Indomitable Will is the worst of the standing/not kneeling events.

Indomitable lends it self to tower decks. The Uni's get less value from it with the new box due to them wanting to swarm as much as possible, however based on the sacrifice timing for HMT, they (like Lion) can set up some interesting opportunities to use the card, but it does take even more work for them to get real value from it based on the current swarm style.

Scorpion, there just aren't the normal bodies to make it worthwhile and their are better uses of the splash slots being on Seeker role and only having the 10 Influence to work with.

Phoenix you already have Clarity of Purpose and while Let Go can be very important for Clouds mitigation on them, they have so many Clouds targets that sometimes when paired with Miya Mystics they can just power through it, and that opens up other splash options like Crab that may be better for them.

Said this before, but the cleanest and most effective way to deal with Hawk Tattoo is to just add an RRG entry for Tattoos that states "Unless the card states otherwise, a Tattoo can only be played on characters you own." This gets HT back in line, and leaves design space for future cards to contain the necessary qualifier.

2 hours ago, Hinomura said:

Said this before, but the cleanest and most effective way to deal with Hawk Tattoo is to just add an RRG entry for Tattoos that states "Unless the card states otherwise, a Tattoo can only be played on characters you own." This gets HT back in line, and leaves design space for future cards to contain the necessary qualifier.

Having an entire class of cards with hidden rules text that's not on the card is a horrible idea.

Just restrict it.

Can you point out where any of the cards on the Restricted List actually say that on the card, please?

Putting HT on the restricted list is beyond stupid. It would not fix the problem at all. Putting cards on the restricted list does not magically mean it cant be played on other people characters . The only way to achieve that is errata or add a general rule in the RR. As to saying that this would result in hidden rules no it would not the restricted list itself is reference on the RR ?

2 hours ago, badgerlord1969 said:

Putting HT on the restricted list is beyond stupid. It would not fix the problem at all. Putting cards on the restricted list does not magically mean it cant be played on other people characters . The only way to achieve that is errata or add a general rule in the RR. As to saying that this would result in hidden rules no it would not the restricted list itself is reference on the RR ?

It would fix the problem by removing it from most decks.

IMHO all in faction cancels should be on the RL, not something like HT. Errata is the least bad way. There has yet to be any other solution worth the time to consider.

Errata would be a much more efficient way of removing it from people decks. If it cant harpoon then it totally removes the MAIN reason people are using it . Putting it on the RL just punishes people for playing Dragon as their main clan with literally zero gain to the game .

5 hours ago, badgerlord1969 said:

Errata would be a much more efficient way of removing it from people decks. If it cant harpoon then it totally removes the MAIN reason people are using it . Putting it on the RL just punishes people for playing Dragon as their main clan with literally zero gain to the game .

I have kind of lost interest and stopped playing the game completely after the RL came out. I'm just trying to make a monk deck that is effective, and my cards keep getting put on the RL for how they perform in non-Dragon decks and we get weird tattoos that are best put on the opponent's characters instead of doing things with my actual monks.

I like the flavor of Dragon, I like playing with Voltrons, and I'm not really seeing the narrative I like about Dragon coming through in their very scattered toolset.

Print a fixed version, and put the original on the Restricted list? Dragon loses nothing, people pay for including the old one if they really want to, and nothing is really lost if you replace a neutral slot in a cycle with it.

On 9/14/2018 at 3:31 AM, Ignithas said:

I personally think that Indomitable Will wouldn't be played at least in current Phoenix and Scorpion decks and it is also iffy in Unicorn, because Indomitable Will is the worst of the standing/not kneeling events.

For the most part, perhaps most conflicts are won by a single unit, even on swarm decks the requirement is quite simple to fulfill, and it being a reaction you do not have the risk of being bowed after using it , as with TMdnF. Certainly against the waves is superior and so is in RL, but, one copy of IW dont seem too much in any deck (but phx, ok). Even scorpion could make good use with shoju / kachiko / hiroue / magistrate.

But as I said, it's just another one of the good options the splash offers, and by 2 influence it's very good. What Im talking about is that I dont see other clans ignoring some good cards like that, at least those who didnt got their clan pack yet.

As a dedicated dragon player, I think it would suck to put HT in the restricted list. It would be a bandaid fix that would hurt Dragon more than the clan splashing Dragon.

The restricted list was put in place to address problematic interactions, not address unforseen or overused cards.

If the Devs want people to stop splashing dragon, they should use the mechanisms already in play to do so, like Influence. I mean, Mirumoto's Fury was literally restricted because of Scorpion, they should have either errata it to No influence (like the "Ways Of" cards), or made it 3 or 4 influence.

That said, I think Hawk Tattoo does need a Double Whammy fix, it should get an errata to only target your own cards, and it should get its influence increased

I honestly don't understand why HT is getting so much hate. I mean, harpoons are a powerful effect, but it is by no means the only harpoon in the game, just probably the best one SO FAR. The game is still relatively new and the card pool isn't especially deep yet, and frankly there should probably be other harpoons printed for the other clans (or neutral harpoons) in the coming sets because clearly everyone wants to play with them. I have seen HT swing a turn in one player or the other's favor, I have not seen it swing an entire game, frankly, if HT alone is enough to make you lose a particular game, you were probably going to lose that game anyway, because you either got terrible draws, have a worse deck, or are a worse player than your opponent because more often than not, it is possible to recover from an HT hit, I've done it, I've seen others do it, so if you are unable to recover in one way or another then you were operating at a disadvantage to begin with, and HT only served to hasten the inevitable.

Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, the one thing the game needs badly right now (and has needed since core) is a neutral event that says action: ready a character. I don't know how it should be costed, but probably one or two fate would be good. Bow effects are absurdly powerful in this game because ready actions are few and far between, and as such cards that are capable of readying characters or stop them from bowing are inordinately powerful. Just within my dragon deck (a monk deck with a focus on readies and anti-bow cards) the cards that do the most work to win me games (conflict side) are centipede tattoo, indomitable will, and my uni splash with gaijin customs, because the more conflicts my powerful characters that get loaded down with buffs and whatnot can be in the better. I have had Togashi Mitsu participate on 4 conflicts on one turn before. Similarly, Niten Master was, and for a lot of dragon players still is, a major powerhouse since core, and I've heard of players winning a game using ONLY Niten Master. Conversely, a large part of why harpoons are so powerful is that more often than not, if you can pull a guy into a conflict where the outcome is already decided then you are effectively bowing him out for the turn, since ready actions are so few and far between. Cards that I have seen ruin peoples day include ANY harpoon used at an opportune moment, void fist, mirumoto's fury, admit defeat, against the waves, a fate worse than death, etc. Bows are massively powerful because there aren't many ways to undo that, and as a result the few ways to counter a bow are way more impactful than they might otherwise be. Frankly a harpoon isn't necessarily as bad as a flat bow, because it pulls someone INTO a conflict, meaning there is always at the very least a chance of that character interacting with the game in a meaningful way, just perhaps sooner in the turn than it might have otherwise.

Also, I have noticed that FFG doesn't seem to like staple cards existing, even amongst neutrals. I mean, policy debate and charge were both put on the RL pretty much because they were in every single deck, which was because they are both neutral cards that are pretty much ubiquitously useful. This game has yet to see any auto-win exploits like yugioh and magic have had running rampant for years, so even cards that have unforeseen interactions are still mild in comparison. And every card game out there (that I have ever encountered personally, which is a lot of card games, mind you) have staple cards in every meta such that if you are playing in a given meta and you are not running the staples of that meta then you are shooting yourself in the foot. And frankly, as far as I am concerned having staples like that is good for a game, because for one thing you can have at least some idea of what you're walking into when playing against a deck-type you've never encountered before because you can expect the staples to be there, and for another thing it is easier for newer players to be taught about building an effective deck in the game if you can point to, say, four cards and tell them to always include some combination of those because they are important cards to have.

For awhile banzai was a staple, and for many decks it still is, because they need the boost, but other decks don't anymore so it gets cut in favor of more relevant cards for the build. Assassination is an objectively powerful card that personally I think should never have been printed in the first place, but it comes with a steep cost that is becoming less and less worth it for most decks with every release, to the point where for a long while in competitive play people were running it as a 1x even if they didn't want to run it just to keep up with the joneses about making sure the opponent plays under the assumption that it is an ever-present threat. However, now that more and more decks have more relevant cards you are seeing the 1x assassination less and less because keeping it ubiquitous in the meta is no longer a good enough reason for most decks (and thank the kami for that).

The RL is a useful tool that is good for keeping unhealthy card interactions out of the game, but FFG is using it wrong. They are using it to curate parts of the meta that are not problematic. You curate a meta that doesn't have enough variety by releasing new cards that encourage more variety, not by taking cards away that you feel are overused. That's kinda like when hipsters say that a band being popular makes it a bad band, and thus even bands that they previously liked stop being "good" once enough other people have heard of them. Now imagine that there was some kind of godlike hipster that caused every band to break up once they reached a certain critical mass of popularity. In that world we wouldn't have most of the beatles, or most of the rolling stones, there would be no such thing as popular music. Now, since tastes vary some people probably wouldn't mind if those bands had stopped making musing after their first successful album, I know my life would be just a little bit happier if I'd never heard of Justin Bieber and never had to listen to any of his songs back when they were zarking everywhere, but there's a lot of good music that would never have happened if bands couldn't get popular. There would be a fundamental aspect of culture that would be missing from such a world. It would be a sadder world, a less musical world. Using the RL to force variety instead of just printing more cards that encourage it is like being that crappy hipster god that doesn't want bands to get popular. If a card is in every deck, then chances are it's a good card (this is more true in a card game than in my music analogy, because cards can be objectively good, whereas musical taste is subjective), and so by restricting access to good cards that are not unbalancing the game just because they are everywhere is bad for the game, because if people want to play the card, and the card is not breaking the game, then let the people play the zarking card!

If a card is significantly above curve you can't create more variety with new cards without making all of them also significantly above curve. Which causes power creep and invalidates a lot of existing cards.

I mean, power creep is inevitable, as if the new stuff is not at least slightly better than the existing stuff for one reason or another, you still use the existing stuff, not the new stuff. And if some of the new stuff manages to ride the line of being a lateral move in terms of overall power (which is frankly a very difficult thing to do with game design) then it's even better because it creates variety, which is exactly what we wanted, because it is just as good, but for different reasons, but for one reason or another is competing for the same slot in the deck, or is good in another deck than the first thing that just wasn't as good before.

The current iteration of l5r started with a very low power level, this is why bows are relatively rare and readies are very rare (albeit getting less rare), meaning the game can take a lot more power creep before the power level gets way out of hand (like it did with yugioh around the time I quit playing after nine years). And once the power level is actually very high, then there will be a lot of cards on the RL because in this scenario the RL is only being used for preventing unforeseen card interactions that are broken or otherwise unhealthy for the game and not to force variability which will come all on its own as the card pool expands and deepens.

There is a fourth option for Hawk Tattoo errata. Give it the same restriction as Centipede Tattoo: " Monk character only."

It would only ever be useful in monk decks, and almost never be played on opposing characters. It is the fiddliest of options - being more complicated than "your character only" or simply added to the RR or raising its influence, but I think it would be most in-step with the card's intended theme.