Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Hituro

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Scotland, United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. That could certainly work too, as long as you don't get to starve people. Choosing which ring gets fate is already tactically interesting. We went with the "1 for each" suggestion just to increase the circulating fate, because it seemed in very short supply compared to 2-player
  2. We've only played a couple of games of multiplayer so far (more this weekend hopefully) but we loved them. The only thing that didn't seem right was how end of turn Fate was handled, because it is entirely possible to screw one player out of Fate simply by not giving him/her any. i.e. there is nothing that requires that a player gets at least one Fate. Since Fate already seems to be in much shorter supply in multiplayer, our suggested fix was: At the end of the turn each player puts one Fate from the general pool on an unclaimed ring of each other player. What are other people's thoughts?
  3. I've just cut katanas for oni masks, but I've yet to see if it is a fair trade
  4. They could have done the 4 walls separately again
  5. I hope strongly that they go in new directions. As much as all of us who played before have stories we treasure, there were also stories we hated (no doubt different ones for different people), and even ones we thought were unspeakably lame. Rehashing those plot lines will likely upset both their fans ("it was better last time"), and upset their haters ("oh god not this again"), while boring the people who remember them, and spoiling the enjoyment of people seeing them for the first time (as we all argue about the previous versions). We have a new game, and a new community, even if it does have a lot of returning fans — better to let it stand on its own feet. At the very least the input of story prizes will force things in new directions, and I think trying to keep to the old story anyway would cheapen those prizes. Most of all I want to be surprised, like I could finally be in the last couple of Game of Thrones seasons, not spending all my time going "oh and now this will happen".
  6. I like having the story references myself. I'd keep them
  7. But the inverse was true earlier in the CCG, where if I was playing Scorpion of course I had 3+ corrupted holdings and Oni no Pekkle (to give to my opponent, to be fair) and the like, because I was already losing honour left right and centre and what did a little more matter? (Of course, that was with The Ruined Fortress of the Scorpion). I think the take-home message is that attaching an honour loss to a card, even a major one, is no barrier to it seeing significant play. Perhaps rather than making tainted cards stronger than other costs by making them just have bigger numbers, it would be better to let them corner the market on a certain sort of ability (e.g. paying for things with an opponent's fate), while still giving them a drawback. That way there are tempting reasons to play them, but they aren't always *better* than non-tainted cards.
  8. I think at this point that it might be better to say "play style that L5R was famous for" In the CCG outright counter cards were rare ("Fall on your knees" perhaps), but the LCG has them everywhere. We have cards that cancel the first actions (Kisada) cards that cancel actions targeting Shugenja, cards that cancel if you are honoured, cards that cancel if you have a courtier, cards that cancel if you have the favour, cards that cancel if you discard an attachment, cards that prevent any actions being taken, cards that make actions horribly expensive. Now in total those are only about 10 cards out of the whole pool, but they have a huge influence, and I've been constantly surprised to see ever more "you can't do this" or "cancel action" cards coming out when the game is so young.
  9. I dislike it, and I really hope they don't do it again. A pack a month means that you have a decent number of games to try each new card in, and a feel for how it changes the environment. A pack a week, at my current rate of play, means I sometimes struggle to have played at all before the next set of cards turn up. It feels like as soon as a pack arrives I have to be online ordering the next one. It isn't like CCG boosters, which I might have bought at the same rate, but at a time (and quantity) of my choosing, it's just a deluge, and by the end of it I think I'm going to feel like I bought a rather overpriced boxed-set with 6 times the postage cost and a lot of excess packaging. I understand why they did it, but I pray that they switch to monthly packs, and that they take a good long break before they do. I need time to assimilate and play (and my wallet needs a rest as well). If they kept on with weekly packs indefinitely I'd have to quit.
  10. I don't remember doing it at UK Koteis, but my memory is poor, so I might have forgotten.
  11. I played a lot of the CCG in the UK, and I don't remember chanting anything at any event. Is this a mainly US thing?
  12. I think that making all Shadowlands cards neutral would be the perfect solution. It allows any player to choose to play "corrupted" without having to create a whole faction's worth of Shadowlands cards, while at the same time increasing the pool of neutral cards — which is a boon to deckbuilding. Neutral Dynasty shadowlands cards would not only reduce the need to play so many in-clan personalities in every deck, but also give a nuance to story victories.
  13. Going back earlier in the CCG's history there was very much a Gold Cost v.s Honour Cost thing with shadowlands cards. When I started playing the only shadowlands cards you saw outside shadowlands decks (Except Oni no Pekkle) were corrupted holdings, which were 0g, but lost you honour, and were an alternative to the gold costing (but not honour losing) normal versions. The corollary of that was that corrupt cards were acceleration. You got more for your gold, so they were faster, but they drove you towards an honour loss. In fact their existence kept Scorpion decks (which otherwise struggled) viable; and the existence of dishonour decks helped make corrupted cards not an auto-include. What they did do was make everything faster, and I'm not sure that we should welcome the same model in the LCG.
  14. I agree on the Initiate. I'm already struggling to be sure I always have a courtier or a shugenja when I need one. Having personalities not hang around makes it much harder to get required keywords than in the CCG. I also agree, in general, about the lack of optimal strategy, but I guess I don't have the experience to, for example, choose wisely on turn 1
  15. I find that if I bid high early against Phoenix they will then consistently bid 1, because they are drawing cards from Libraries and ring effects. This means I can bid 2 and recoup the 1 honour, and still get to play ICS. However, there is the usual issue of bidding 2 meaning you don't necessarily draw ICS.
  • Create New...