Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by rmunn

  1. I wonder why the rule about not taking notes during play exists. Is it just to save time (because writing down every card your opponent plays would be time-consuming and you'd be sure to go over 60 minutes)? I understand not being allowed to bring in external reference material besides the rules, but what's the purpose of the "no taking notes" rule? It seems to me that it could help detect certain kinds of cheating: e.g., if you've written down that you saw your opponent's clan champion come up three times already, when you see that card come up a fourth time (assuming the opponent hasn't played any fetch-from-discard-pile effects), you'd raise your hand and call for a judge. But if you're not taking notes, you'll have a harder time being certain: did I really see that card three times already, or is my memory playing tricks on me? I ask this because a while ago, I read http://l5rcheaters.blogspot.com/, which pointed out in http://l5rcheaters.blogspot.com/2010/07/intentional-cheating-part-2-majors.html that you should always write down changes in the game state, so that if your opponent lies about what happened two turns ago you're not relying on your fuzzy memory. With the "no taking notes during tournaments" rule, this recommendation is now illegal. Why, I wonder? I can understand if it's to keep the game moving, but if it's for another reason, I don't see the drawback in allowing people to take notes. Anyone have an idea?
  2. I didn't notice that at first, but you're right. However, this is a plausible amateur game: all the 4-4 corner points are taken except the one we can't see (and it's very plausible that White has that point), and there are no *glaringly obvious* mistakes, at least from a beginner's point of view. (Black's shape in the middle is bad, but I didn't notice it until you mentioned it.) Whereas the Go board that is visible in the movie Tron: Legacy is a lot less plausible as a game (way too many stones on the edge of the board, for one thing). I wouldn't be surprised if the Go game from the Kiku Matsuri story was painted by the artist playing a game himself and taking a photo of it partway through, or going down to his local Go club and asking permission to take a photo of a game in progress.
  3. I'm interested in the game of Go (though a nearly total beginner at actually playing it), so I was interested in the game shown in the Kiku Matsuri fiction. I've squinted at the board, and re-created what I think is that game's position in my computer's Go software. Some parts of the board are not visible, so I've marked those with an X in the image (including two stones, one white and one black, that I think are in those places but I'm not 100% sure). Any other Go players want to dissect this game and see who has the advantage in it?
  4. Counterargument: Everyone at GenCon will know what the other six clans can do, but the Scorpion clan's abilities will come as a surprise to everybody. Very Scorpion-y plan indeed.
  5. I've been hesitating between Unicorn and Crab for a couple of months now — I'm definitely a fan of the Screw the Rules, I'm Doing What's Right! trope, and both the Crab ("We defend the Wall, no matter what the rest of Rokugan thinks of us") and the Unicorn ("Our ways are different, but not wrong") appeal to me. But that story was the quintessence of "Screw the rules, I'm doing what's right!" I think I just found my clan.
  6. Thank you for posting The best haiku scene ever Yes, I do like this In each haiku thread This Avatar clip comes back Like a boomerang
  7. "This," says the Crab, and bashes the silly Dragon's head in with a Jade Tetsubo.
  8. On pretty much any Google spreadsheet that you've been given view-only access to, you can save a copy of the spreadsheet into your own Google Drive, and then make any changes you like to your copy without modifying the original. That might be another way for people to sort the data if they want to.
  9. I like what C.S. Lewis said about My Little Pony (despite having died decades before it was created): From "On Three Ways of Writing for Children", in 1952.
  10. For what it's worth, the OCTGN module for the LotR card game (which I love, as you can probably guess by my Samwise Gamgee avatar, and buy every expansion for) has been updating with card data, but no images, when the cards are officially released. Image packs get released six months later. That way, anyone whose local game store is a bit slow to get product (I live overseas, so I usually have to wait 1-2 months to get packs compared to people who live in the U.S.) can still test out the new cards in their existing decks. But anyone who's using OCTGN to play FFG's game without paying for it (shame on them) has to wait at least six months before they get the actual art for the cards. BUT... if you actually own the cards and have a scanner, it's pretty easy to make your own OCTGN images, and then you get the actual images immediately. That strikes me as a pretty good balance, and I'd suggest something similar. Imageless cards with text & numbers only when they're released, and images six months later -- but anyone who buys the cards and owns a scanner can just look up the right card ID number from the data, drop scanned images into the folder with the right filenames ("CardIDnumber.jpg" or something), and then the scanned card shows up in OCTGN.
  11. I'm expecting Unicorn to be last. But now I'm kind of wanting next week's article to lead off with, "This week was supposed to be the Lion's turn, but the Unicorn player played Way of the Unicorn, and kept the first player token instead of passing it. So have some Unicorn fiction instead."
  12. It's also worth mentioning that the Influence value is printed on the Stronghold cards. The two Strongholds we've seen so far, one each from Lion and Crane, have an Influence total of 10. But it's not inconceivable that future stronghold cards could have higher or lower Influence values, so that the choice of your Stronghold helps determine your deck. Do I pick the Stronghold that gives me 1 extra Fate per turn but has 0 Influence*? Or the one that gives me less Fate per turn, but lets me splash cards from other clans? * We haven't yet seen such a Stronghold card; I'm only speculating about its existence. +1 Fate per turn would be a powerful ability, so I could see balancing that by forcing you to play a one-Clan deck with no splashing cards from other Clans.
  13. I cannot pass up Such an opportunity To link this great scene:
  14. No, you probably have it right. It's just English is so hard to spell correctly, even its native speakers often get it wrong.
  15. 100% agreed. And loose vs. lose isn't the worst of it by far. For a truly brilliant look at English's weirdness, there's no better poem than The Chaos, by Gerard Nolst Trenité: http://ncf.idallen.com/english.html I'd quote my favorite parts of that whole poem, but then I'd just end up quoting the whole thing. Just... go read it. That is an amazing work of English mastery. P.S. Gaelic and Welsh have a really weird alphabet, with lots of consonant clusters to account for the fact that they have a lot more consonant sounds than the 21 consonants of the Latin alphabet can account for. But at least they're regular: as far as I know, the same consonant cluster always stands for the same sound. Whereas English decided to go "Consistency is for wimps. A proper language should be good and weird."
  16. A few days ago, I noticed yet another post where someone had used the word "loose" when they meant to say "lose", e.g. they talked about how one could "loose" a duel. I didn't want to say anything in that thread since I don't want to embarrass anyone: those words are hard enough to spell even for native English speakers, and I know some people here are not native English speakers. So instead, I wrote a couple of things that will hopefully help people to remember which word is which. Loose = the opposite of tight. You can wear loose clothing, or tight clothing. Lose = the opposite of win. You can lose a duel, or you can win a duel. But since those two sentences probably won't be memorable enough, have a couple of stories! I couldn't make my second story fit into a Rokugan theme, but oh well, it should be memorable enough to remember anyway. So now you know the difference between lose and loose. (And knowing is, as we all know, half the battle. The Political half, to be specific).
  17. This could also be true: they've done similar things in other games. For example, in the LotR LCG, the One Ring card is permanently in play in the scenarios that follow the plot of the books (and if it leaves play, the players lose the game). It always has an ability that reads "Exhaust the One Ring to _____", which changes from scenario to scenario but is always beneficial to the players. However, lots of enemy cards have effects like "If the One Ring is exhausted, this enemy gains +2 Attack and +2 Defense". So exhausting the Ring is a gamble: is it worth the cost? Likewise, I could see bowing Strongholds to be a situational gamble. If there's some effect that makes having a bowed stronghold be less effective on defense, then bowing your stronghold when you already have two broken provinces would become a big gamble: it would be saying "I'll be able to prevent you breaking a province in your first attack, so I know your second attack won't be on my stronghold." And your opponent, of course, would then try their best to prove you wrong. :-)
  18. I just answered that one in the other thread, but I don't mind repeating it here. We've seen in the rules revealed so far that "Character abilities may only be used once per round, unless otherwise specified, like the Wandering Ronin (Core Set, 127)." (Emphasis mine). My conclusion is that they do not have such inherent once-per-turn restrictions on Strongholds, or Attachments for that matter -- note how the Jade Tetsubo requires you to bow the attachment in order to use its ability. And therefore, bowing the Stronghold is a way to limit the ability to once per turn, unless you have an ability that can ready a Stronghold card. (No such ability has been revealed so far.)
  19. I like the idea of neutral strongholds in general, and it also gave me an idea for how FFG could possibly implement two-clan decks if they want to (whether or not they ever want to do such a thing is a different question). Hmm, I'll pick Unicorn and Crane as examples since the Unicorn storyline mentions an ancient treaty with the Crane being honored. So if FFG was designing a neutral stronghold that would allow a Unicorn+Crane deck, they could create a neutral stronghold with something like 20-25 Influence, and an ability like "If cards from the Unicorn or Crane clans are added to this deck via Influence, each such card costs 1 less Influence than normal, to a minimum of 0." And maybe it would allow up to 10 Destiny cards from each of the two clans, but the remaining 20-25 Destiny cards would have to be neutral cards. I don't actually expect this to happen anytime soon, since there's LOTS of design space to explore in single-clan decks. But the Influence system, as we currently theorize that it works, would allow for that kind of dual-clan deck design as well.
  20. It's been specified in the rules that "Character abilities may only be used once per round, unless otherwise specified, like the Wandering Ronin (Core Set, 127)." (Emphasis mine). I don't think FFG has yet mentioned any inherent limitation on Stronghold abilities, or Attachment abilities. Note how the Jade Tetsubo also requires you to bow the attachment in order to use it. In the LotR LCG, which I play a lot as you can probably tell by my avatar, exhausting (that game's term for bowing) attachments is how their abilities become limited to once-per-turn, because there are lots of effects that can ready characters but no effects that can ready attachments. (By design; I'm sure there will never be ready-an-attachment effects in LotR. I'm not so certain about that in L5R, but I think it's very unlikely that any such effects will show up in the Core Set). So the Stronghold bowing is how you would keep track of its once-per-turn limitation. And that also opens up room for them to, someday, create card effects that ready Strongholds or Attachments. Such effects would be incredibly powerful, if they ever did show up.
  21. Another thing to realize is that debates on the Internet are usually in public fora, which means that you're not just trying to persuade the other guy, you're also trying to persuade the dozens of other people who are reading the discussion thread. There will be many times when you're debating some jerk who just will not listen to reason no matter what you say. But if you can persuade the people who are silently reading the conversation and not saying anything -- the "lurkers" -- by making better points than the other guy, and making it clear that his points are strawman arguments or logical fallacies, then that's a clear win. You'll never know how many lurkers you've persuaded, of course, since it's inherent in the term "lurker" that they read but don't post, and most Internet fora don't tell you how many people are reading the thread. But always keep in mind that even if you haven't persuaded the guy you were arguing with, and you feel like you "lost" because you couldn't change the mind of someone who was Wrong On The Internet™, you may well have persuaded dozens of people who would otherwise have been fooled by his fallacies.
  22. I agree with all of this, which is why my Unicorn example wasn't perfect. A better example, that I hope won't derail the conversation, would have been a statement like "No true Christian would deny the divinity of Christ, and therefore group X, though they call themselves Christians, aren't true Christians because they deny that Jesus was God." There are plenty of people who would disagree with that definition of what a "true" Christian is -- including, but not limited to, group X -- but that would have been a much better example of a non-True Scotsman argument because there really is a widely-accepted definition of what a Christian is, which includes agreeing that Jesus was God. So yes, the statement "he's not a true Samurai" would be exactly equivalent to saying "he's not a Samurai", and the word "true" in that statement isn't actually redefining anything. I agree with you 100% here. Interesting; I didn't know that. Good to know!
  23. There's another factor to think about, which is that teasing tone of voice doesn't carry in Internet discussions. At one point in a different discussion thread, I was tempted to say "Isn't that just like a Scorpion" to something that someone with a Scorpion mon said. I would have been joking around, and if I had been in person, I probably would have gone ahead and said it, since my tone of voice would have conveyed my joking. But I decided not to say it here, since I wasn't sure that even a smiley-face emoji would properly convey that I intended it as a joke, and did not think that the Scorpion player was being dishonest. So some things that can be perfectly fine to say in face-to-face conversation because your tone will convey your real meaning... might be best avoided in online forums, for the sake of avoiding misunderstandings and unintentionally hurt feelings.
  24. If it's not shared by the others in the discussion, then it's an argument from a false premise, as I mentioned. ("If nobody else agrees with the standard of behavior the guy is laying out...") But it can happen that there are unwritten rules in society, like "No true gentlemen would lower himself so far as to be a merchant!" These rules aren't written down anywhere, so it's impossible to prove them by pointing to the definition. But they're widely accepted in society, so they are indeed rules -- and so the statement "No true gentleman would be a merchant" is, in fact, the closest you can come to pointing to the definition of the rules. And so there might not be a definition written down anywhere that says "No true Samurai would ride cavalry", and yet every non-Unicorn might agree with that statement and so they never saw the need to write down that particular rule. And thus, to make that claim explicitly wouldn't necessarily be changing the rules; it might be clarifying the rules. (Which is why the "Ain't No Rule" trope works in fiction, but in real life any team trying to put a dog on a basketball team would be disallowed. Because although the rule isn't written down, unwritten rules that virtually everyone agrees on, like "All players on the basketball team must be from the species Homo sapiens", are still rules, and would be treated as such if anyone tried to violate them.) The tricky thing, of course, is when two people are having a disagreement over definitions, and both people's definitions are agreed on by a large group of people so they're not just making things up out of whole cloth. For example, there's an argument that often happens that goes along the lines of "No true X would support Y" vs. "The ones who support Y are the only true X, and all the X who don't support Y aren't being faithful to their religion/country/class." And neither person is making up their definition, but has millions who agree with them that all X should do Y, or that no X should do Y. I could cite several real-life examples of those, but they would all be highly controversial (since millions of people would agree with one of the two competing definitions) so I decided it would be best to stay away from specific examples for this one. But I'm sure anyone could come up with a couple of examples of such arguments without breaking a sweat. And here, neither person is engaging in a fallacy per se, because the argument is precisely about what the definition of X should be: should it include, or exclude, Y? And both people understand perfectly well that the argument is over the definition of X, so there's no accidental or deliberate deception going on either. So even though both are making claims in the form of "no true X would..." or "all true X would...", neither one is actually engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy in this case. Because they're not changing the definition -- there's a well-accepted definition that they're arguing from. The fact that the other person doesn't accept their definition is why they're having the argument -- and just repeating the definition won't get them anywhere with persuading the other guy, so they should actually cite some arguments for why a member of group X should or should not do Y -- but the disagreement over definitions doesn't make it a No True Scotsman argument. P.S. I admit that my example 2 wasn't the best, because I completely failed to mention whether the other people agree with the guy or not. If he's trying to redefine what Samurai means, to a definition that nobody else agrees with, I can say "Fair enough" to those who'd still consider that to be "No True Scotsman". However, I'd still want to distinguish it from example 1, because in example 1, he's backpedaling to try to keep up his claim. Whereas in example 2, there's no backpedaling and no inconsistency going on. He wants to redefine what the term means, but at least he's being consistent about it. Which is why I'd personally call it a false-premise argument rather than a fallacy, because he's being logically consistent even though his position is incorrect.
  • Create New...