Jump to content

JRosen9

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    306

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by JRosen9

  1. Posted · Edited by JRosen9

    3 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

    Well, to be fair, the Scorpion were never one of the Original Great Clans, and they didn't come out as a faction until over six months after the first set where some old unaligned cards (like Hisa the ronin) got stuck into their clan (as Bayushi Hisa).  Presumably their Great Clan status will be getting stripped again after Shoju and Yogo Junzu betray the Empire.  You should never trust a Scorpion to do anything except sting you, for that little Scorpion can swim and runs on nothing but spite.

    Well to be extra fair.  The Scorpion WERE one of the original great clans until they were banished for starting the one thing they were trying to stop .... Prophesies suck that way

    HidaYama reacted to this

  2. Posted

    Just a comment.  I really enjoyed the last episode.  The only thing I would recommend, is that if you are talking about a card please give a brief synopsis of what it does, especially now with the game being new and unreleased.  I believe towards the beginning of the podcast, you were talking about the card "I Can Swim" and I for the life of me couldn't remember the cards effect.

    Sparks Duh reacted to this

  3. Posted

    16 minutes ago, AsakoDaihmon said:

    Admittedly, I do agree. It does take a skilled writer. 47 ronin is a story in vein of vengeance vs. duty and who the samurai owe fealty too (emperor, dead lord, themselves). It is quite a powerful example. The entire Scorpion Clan Coup was a story line highlighting the conflict inherent in Chu: what was Shoju's higher duty, to the Emperor or the Empire? 

    Wasn't this also the story of the Lion during this time frame?  We know the emperor is evil, but he is the emperor.  Do we follow him or fight against him?  If I remember correctly that was why totori left in dishonor

    AsakoDaihmon reacted to this

  7. Posted

    1 minute ago, Mirith said:

    I think this enough space for 14 of each clan in dynasty (Where there isn't overlap), and 12-13 for each on conflict (Where you can overlap), and still have space for about 7-14 neutral cards for each deck.   

    The problem is based on the cards that have been spoiled so far there is an inconsistency as one of the previewed neutral cards falls where a Unicorn dynasty card was predicted.  This means one of three things as far as I can tell:

    1. Some of the numbered cards on previewed cards are wrong throwing off all current speculation.
    2. Unicorn has 1 less card then everyone else (or one less dynasty card)
    3. The total number of cards each clan has is the same but the number of dynasty and conflict cards each clan has is different
    KerenRhys reacted to this

  8. Posted

    1 minute ago, Mirith said:

    Because you need to make a 2x 40 card decks, I don't think they will do this.  I expect we will see a balance of cards released for each clan, and will continue to see a balance of cards in expansion packs.  Given a 20 card Dynasty Pack, I expect we will see one each dynasty and conflict per clan, then either an extra card for one or two clans (if they are focusing on one or another), and 4-6 neutral cards.  This is how they did Netrunner, who also had 7 factions.  I think it was a reasonable way to do this as well.

    But if there are 25 cards per clan, that's 75 cards that are legal (3 of each).  You'll need to add neutrals and some out of clan to make a legal deck anyways.  Whats really the difference if the some clans are split 12 Dynasty 13 Fate while others are split 13 fate 12 dynasty?

  9. Posted

    9 hours ago, Togashi Gao Shan said:

    Maybe Unicorn will have more Conflict -deck characters to make up for it? A cavalry scout or charging bushi would fit rather nicely into the whole 'ambsuh' feel of Conflict-card characters.

    That's what I'm trying to say.  I don't think  you can say each clan will have 14 dynasty cards.  I think instead you will have to say each clan will have 25 cards which is somehow split between dynasty and conflict.  The more conflict heavy clans, like scorpion, will have more cards on the conflict side but less on the dynasty side.  This shifts all of the card numbers around so that you can't really say whats what.  Mainly because there haven't been any dragon or lion conflict cards previewed with discernible numbers.  This means there are 26 cards on the conflict side that contain all of the dragon and lion conflict cards and possibly some of the phoenix and crane ones.  I'm trying to work through the data to see if I can come up with something

  11. Posted

    The new conflict article contains the card "Fallen in Battle" which the article states is card 201.  However, the image appears to me as 211.  Do you feel this is a typo in the article?  Furthermore, it appears the card distribution is wrong.  Its currently stated that Unicorn dynasty goes from 109-122.  However, Otomo Courtier appears and is stated in the article as card 122.  Maybe the clans have varying number of dynasty cards?  With some characters appearing the conflict deck, maybe the number of personalities each clan has is the same but split between conflict and dynasty deck.  In this way a more honorable clan like lion might have more in clan dynasty cards while a more ambush clan like scorpion might have more in clan conflict cards (really hard not to call them fate cards)

  12. Posted

    11 minutes ago, Hinomura said:

    We'll find out in eleven days when the Events listing goes up! I'd expect it 'just' to be a single-core release event, but FFG have made it clear this is their biggest launch ever, so who knows?

    When Thrones2.0 was pre-released at Gencon, they held a special event.  The deck construction rules were, if I remember correctly, take all the cards of one faction and all the cards of another faction.  Then add 10 neutral cards and shuffle them all together.  That is your deck.  They could do something similar for L5R.  If they wanted to make it storyline, they could do something minor like the winning clans form an alliance or something.

  13. Posted

    Just now, clanmccracken said:

    It's been stated that each providence will be marked with an elemental symbol, and a deck must contain a single providence of each element. My question is 'Why?' Has it been stated why you must have one of each? Do you think there will be cards that will get a bonus if they are attacking or defending a providence of a specific element? Mechanically speaking, why do you think they included that as a rule?

    For the same reason you can only have 3 of each card in a deck.  Its a deckbuilding constraint that adds a layer of strategy.  You may want to play both of these awesome province cards, but they are both earth so you can only have one.  It can also serve as balancing.  If there is a very strong combo of effects using 2 province cards, you can effectively prevent it by making them both the same element.

    That being said, we are only assuming you can only have 1 of each element in your deck.  I do not believe we have seen anything official that states that.

    Isawa Syd, JJ48 and Kiseki reacted to this

  14. Posted

    16 minutes ago, Yandia said:

    Okay just noticed something weird with the Spanish numbers.

    7 stronghold cards: 1-7

    17 province cards: 8-24

    117 dynasty card 25 -141

    98 conflict cards: 142 - 239

    However Reprice has number 132 but is clearly conflict card. I am confused. 

    Edti: Dynasty and Conflict numbers are also not switched because the Otomo Courtier is at 122, and with switched numbers 121 would be the last dynasty card... so something is odd.

    Your card numbers are off.  If the Spanish numbers are right, thats the total number of cards.   As some cards are duplicated their number would appear twice.  Using a dynasty pack as an example due to less cards.  Lets say it has 20 distinct cards in it.  Of those 20, 10 are dynasty and 10 are conflict and it contains a playset of each.  The Spanish site would say includes 30 Dynasty and 30 conflict even though the numbers only go from 1 to 20.

  17. Posted

    15 minutes ago, cobrophy said:

    Hey, 

    Are you using this RSS feed? 

    http://imperialadvisor.com/wp/feed/podcast

    Can you let me know if it works?

    Been having some issues getting iTunes to recognise the feed.

    Thanks,

    Colabear

    That worked.  Thanks.  I'll give you guys a listen soon.  I was using an RSS feed pulled from soundcloud.  It would populate your logo but then show no episodes.

    RandomJC reacted to this

  20. Posted

    39 minutes ago, Jedi samurai said:

    No reason to believe he, the history and flavor of the Dragon are completely different. Having their Kami around, manulipating events was a pretty defining thing for the Dragon for a long time - so much so when he died the Dragon were kind left without a purpose.

    This would be an exact reason to make it so Yokuni is NOT Togashi.  The clan needs a purpose outside of the leader.  I personally hope they eliminate the Togashi is still around thing.

    BlindSamurai13 and Gaffa reacted to this

  21. Posted

     

    1 hour ago, Spawnod said:

    That is the point. In other games the permanents stick around and it becomes an arms race between the strong. The weaker player will most likely not be an issue except for maybe a random clutch "suicide" maneuver. new L5r seems much more volatile as you are not garranteed to keep a strong board position from turn to turn.  

    The bigger idea I was trying to get across is the balance of trying to block a potential 4 (or more depending on the number of players) conflicts. At some point you will run out of resources and the other players would have a enough reason to go after you for no other reason than to "simplify" the game. It would make one player to be taken out early on and wait a potential 20 to 30 mins. The game seems to force its players to attack every turn, unlike other games that are designed for its players to sit and wait for the right time to attack. Why as a player would you not want to piggy back off someone else if you are guaranteed a successful attack? Even more so if you get to choose latter down the lign. 

     

    However when you attack, you bow your guys.  If you go after the weak player, you have now bowed part of your force, leaving yourself open to the other strong player.  I still don't see how this is different than any other card game out there.  In thrones you kneel/bow/tap your characters to defend and attack with challenges.  If every player gangs up on 1 guy he will run out of resources to defend with.  In Original VS (not sure about new VS) your defenders are getting stunned leaving you an open board if another player decides to attack you.  If anything, I think the ephemeral nature of characters in L5R will decrease this issue as the strong players will not stay strong as their guys will go away as well.

     

    Lets look at your example.  Player A and B have good mil and pol board while player C has only Mil.  Player A goes first and declares a Pol conflict on C.  He commits guys (probably at least a third to half his units due to the fate system).  Player C commits nobody and Player A breaks the province and bows all the guys he committed.  Player A might now only be strong in Mil as all his Political guys are tapped.  Player B now goes.  His options are declare a Political Challenge against a weakened A, a Political Challenge against Weak C or a mil challenge against strong either.  Why does he not go after A in Politics?

     

    However, if you are still worried about this, an easy fix is stating that a player may not be the defender in more than 2 conflicts per turn.  The bigger issue, that I've yet to see addressed is the rings.  In a 3 player game, there are 5 rings yet 6 possible conflicts.  In a 4 player game its worse and there are only 5 rings and 8 possible conflicts.  As each ring can only be claimed once per conflict phase, do you end the conflict phase as soon as the last ring is claimed?  If so this gives the early players in turn order a bigger advantage as not every player will get their 2 conflicts.  The only solution I can see is to allow rings to be claimed multiple times a conflict phase.  Maybe set a limit to this?

    JJ48 reacted to this

  22. Posted

    2 hours ago, Spawnod said:

    Not sure if this has been brought up yet, but how would you balance conflicts?

     Let's say it is first turn in a three way match. Player A and B have both decent/strong military and political options and player C is in weaker position (missing one of the two or is more of a duelist set up) Therefore players A and B target player C for both types of conflict. Player C cannot defend against all 4 conflicts at once Player C is out on turn one. Not fun.

    Possible fixes: limit how many times a player can be targeted by each type of conflict or if multiple players target one player with the same type of conflict they effectively "team up" for that conflict.

     

    I don't see how this is a problem.  In Magic, Thrones, VS or any other game system that involves a free for all there is nothing stopping all the players from ganging up on one them and eliminating them.  What usually happens is the opposite though.  The weak player is ignored in the face of bigger threats.  And the strong players typically don't go after the weak as this typically weakens their board position allowing the other strong player to attack them.

  24. Posted

    7 minutes ago, AtoMaki said:
    1 hour ago, TheHobgoblyn said:

    Did we need mortals to kill the sun and moon and replace them for all of... 0 difference it made?

    This was a pretty cool story concept in my opinion. 

    I always hated this story concept.  Mortals ascending to become the sun and moon and therefore above the kami just never sat well with me

  25. Posted

    46 minutes ago, Jedi samurai said:

    Yes, I would hae the lowest bidder take from the highest bidder. And anyone in the middle stay neutral. There would need to be some kind of tie breaker. 

    So in the case of bids of 1-1-4-5, you would have the player who bid 5 lose 4 honor, one of the players that bid 1 gain 4 honor, the other player that bid 1 gain nothing and then draw cards equal to their bid?  This is horribly unbalanced for the two people in the middle.  As one draws nearly as many cards as the top bid but pays no cost and the other draws the exact same number of cards as the low bid but gains to benefit.

    Mandalore525 reacted to this
×
×
  • Create New...