Jump to content

RavenwolfXIII

Members
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RavenwolfXIII

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Newtown, Connecticut, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Daisho made bully dulling, and dueling decks in general, oppressive. There wasn't anything you could really do about it - most attachment control would be counted by Defend your Honor... which would be just another duel, which you *can't* win anyway; and oh, you just lost more honor. Daisho made duel decks abusively and rapidly drain you of honor without you being able to stop it.
  2. I'd also note there's other LCG's out there than the ones owned by FFG. Yes, they own the rights to the LCG name, but other companies have started to use the same distribution model under a different trademark.
  3. This really confuses me, and shows their translation teams really don't know what they are doing, or they have compleatly changed the names of each family / character. I have a very basic knowledge of Mandarin, but 樋田, the 'official' translation of the Hida name, would actually be pronounced 'tōng tián', though any actual Mandarin speakers please correct me if that's wrong. None of those are really appropriate to use in Japanese either, however. Japanese Kanji do use Chinese characters, but the way they use them is very, very different. I'll show you by walking you through the first name on your list, the Hida. In Japanese, almost every kanji has two ways to read it: on'yomi, the traditional Sino-Japanese pronunciation, though there are some alterations, and kun'yomi, the Japanese pronunciation. In the official Chinese version of the game, Hida is written as 樋田. Those kanji do read as "ひた" (Hii-ta) in the Japanese kun'yomi reading, which is what they were going for, but why they'd use them for the Chinese translation I don't know. The second kicker comes from the fact that traditionally, words with more than one Kanji are usually pronounced using their on'yomi reading, not the kun'yomi! For example, suugaku 数学 means "mathematics," kazu 数 means "number," and manabu 学ぶ means "to study," you will always see suugaku 数学 read as suugaku, never as kazumana 数学. This is because kazumana isn't a real word. So a native Japanese speaker would read 樋田 as とうでん, or "Tōuden". Also, there are many Kanji that share the same readings, but have different meanings. 樋田 actually means "Rain gutter/ drainpipe - Rice paddy", which implies a peaceful farming people, not at all appropriate for the powerful Hida. If they wanted the Kanji to read "Hida", they must use different ones, or change the family names in the Japanese translation. Oddly enough, the Kanji for the Kuni, Matsu, Shiba, and Moto would be the correct readings in Japanese, as their single Kanji would be 'correctly' read with their kun'yomi pronunciation. Though their meaning is kind of random. (Matsu 松 means "pine tree", for example.) Now, we actually DO have an official translation of something. But it makes it even more baffling. The first player token in the core set has Kanji on it. The Kanji 五輪伝 , to be precise. These can be read in on'yomi as: 五 is "Go" or the number 5, 輪 is "Rin", meaning "ring, loop, circle" 伝 is "Den" which can mean Legend. When put together, their on'yomi reading is 'Go-rin-den", which gives us the official Japanese title of the game, as it clearly is meant to say "Legend of the Five Rings". (Or more literally, Five Rings Legend. If you wanted an accurate translation, it would be 伝の五輪 , Den-no-go-rin) There's a catch here. "五輪" is the Kanji used to refer to the Olympics in Japanese. So a Japanese speaker would read 五輪伝 as "Olympics Legend". Given AEG's and L5R's past history with the Olympic committee, that seems like a MAJOR whoops. It's also really close to 五輪塔, which is a traditional grave tower in Japan, so you're also risking evoking imagery of death and mourning.
  4. It spits in the face of Akodo's military prowess, even if FFG is adding new quotes to it, it flagrantly flies in the face of conventional military wisdom. Akodo is supposed to be a military genius, and yet "One does not achieve victory by holding forces in reserve." Yes you do. It is the entire point of Military Reserves. To blatently disregard such a basic tenant of military strategy is not something Akodo would do, or say. "Leadership" is itself based off Sun Tsu's Art of War, which blatantly extols the virtues of reserves. I've loved FFG's handling of the lore so far, but this feels like such a massive blunder on their part.
  5. Ah, I missed that part of the land speeder. Part of me hopes they'll be able to shoot from the open top; I'd love to mount the Imperial turret up there.
  6. Emplacement Troopers are still troopers, so as far as I can tell, the speeder can still pick up and carry the laser turret around.
  7. I love it. And I'll throw my idea for a name: "要素の物語, or "Yōso no monogatari" - It means "Story of the Elements" Also called "Yōso-Go" colloquially. ("Elemental Go")
  8. Tis alright. The pedant in me needed to point out the difference. And I highly recommend seeing it, it's one of the top movies of all time and provides the basis for a lot of modern plot ideas. (Such as gathering a group of heroes for a quest... sound familiar?)
  9. Seven Samurai by Akira Kurosawa. Samurai 7 is an anime sci-fi version of that.
  10. When used as cover, vehicles create a cylindrical area that blocks LOS, with the area being the base of the mini and the height being the top of the model - the model's legs don't matter at all. As far as LOS rules are concerned, you're basically just pushing soda bottles around the table.
  11. As many as I need to win the game. Normally, for me, the 3 honor loss in playing assassination is a benifit; I *want* to drain my own honor so I can make use of my stronghold ASAP. There is a clear lack of players attacking until there is a clear target, at which point the game devolves into beating on the loser to farm rings the fastest. As it is, collecting the rings is the most efficient victory condition; you only need to win up to 5 attacks; and with a weakened and downed player, why would I waste resources targeting a strong player when that could potentially burn my resources and turn *ME* into the losing player. No, far better to just keep beating on the ganged-up player; it's safer, less risky, and more likely to pay off. If I have the choice between a weak target and a strong target, why the **** would I ever go after the strong target? The point in making it easier to defend is to limit that kind of situation. Ganging up is currently the primary strategy; and that's awful from both a design and play perspective.
  12. I'm not sure it's enough; Paying honor is a small price to pay to be able to quickly and efficiently farm rings. If I had the option to pay 2 honor to grab two essentially "free" rings? That's 2/5th of a victory condition for 2/25ths of another. It's a fantastic trade.
  13. This game is hard enough for new players to get into in the first place. Multiplayer is a FANTASTIC way to draw new people in; as new players are far more likely to borrow a deck join in when their friends already play. If you create a necessary multiplayer-only product; you're basically telling new players that "No, you have to buy this specific product just to be ABLE to play with us." With someone already on the edge, that's a hard-no. I think a multiplayer specific expansion would be a terrible idea if it was mandatory to play multiplayer. That being said, I would love a co-op set; as long as it wasn't mandatory just to play multiplayer. (Something along the lines of Netrunner's Terminal Directive special expansion)
  14. It's fairly easy to keep track of (just leave the ring on the province) and it does incentivise attacking other players since you can steal their rings. Generally, I do feel you have less fate to work with in this format, since it's currently possible to never have fate placed on your rings. In regular l5r, generally there will be 1-3 fate put out on rings every turn, that both players potentially have access to. In this, it's only one per player, and that fate may not even be accessible to certain players. In a 3 player game, why not make a treaty with another player to always place our fate on each other's rings? That way, the third player will never have access to any of this extra fate since he cannot place on his own rings; even if he could, that would still only ever be a max of 1. Thus, this third player will quickly be starved out, weakened, and ganged up on and used to farm rings off of.
  15. Passing Conflicts - Yup, we've noticed the same thing with my group. Our first game ever, the three of us All passed 3 rounds in a row just to buy lots of guys and build up a board state. Since attacking weakens your defense without potentially weakening all your enemies, the first to attack generally gets pounced on. I agree that defending for each other might be a way to solve this; though there are other potential solutions. Deals: Treaties need to have much more crunch to them; I'm only ever going to bid 5 honor on a treaty, since, if I bid anything else, it's obvious I intend to break said treaty, so why would anyone agree to it? Fate on Rings: Definitly needs a revamp, since you're less likely to gain fate from rings in this format than others, either this needs to be modified to account for it or there needs to be some other way to gain fate during the game. I agree there needs to be more reason to attack, but I think that can be solved by making it less punishing to be attacked by multiple players. Your Kami Shrines idea is pretty interesting, I'd like to see it developed a bit more while making sure it stays simple enough. (It does hurt to not be able to declare more conflict elements; it hurts clans that rely on specific ring types while rewarding ring manipulation clans like the Phoenix)
×
×
  • Create New...