Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RavenwolfXIII

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • 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. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Emplacement Troopers are still troopers, so as far as I can tell, the speeder can still pick up and carry the laser turret around.
  4. 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")
  5. 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?)
  6. Seven Samurai by Akira Kurosawa. Samurai 7 is an anime sci-fi version of that.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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)
  11. 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.
  12. 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)
  13. It's easier to farm rings off someone who's down (or just steamroll their provinces ) then it is to take collected rings off a player who is intentionally protecting them. Having a bunch of rings makes you a target, yes, but one that isn't necessarily worth going after when there's a weakened player to go after instead. I'd rather just pick on the downed player than risk my resources going after someone strong.
  14. Enlightenment victory is so easy to farm for that there's no reason NOT to gang up like a pack of hyenas. The weak player burns most of his resources while the strong players maintain board state and card advantage because they don't have to burn as many (or at all) in order to grab rings.
  15. Initial thoughts: No honor loss: Not losing honor is not enough. We don't gang up on somone because it drains their honor; we beat up on them because it's the easiest way to collect rings. I'm still going to beat on the downed player; they don't have the resources or capability to win, so I'm just going to keep farming rings of his dead body; the game just turns into "who can farm the first kill faster". Instead of a tactical game of bluff and counter-bluff, play and counter-play, it's just 'strike first and jump on the loser like a pack of hyenas.' (This is how most of our games end up going; to the point where my group isn't even really willing to keep playing multiplayer without heavily rules modifications) There really needs to be a way to completely prevent someone from farming rings off a downed player. (Roles preventing attacks, defending characters don't bow, Can't claim contested ring against a player who's already been attacking this round, ect.) Ban list changes: I like it, these definitely were power cards.
  • Create New...