Jump to content

Shinjo Sousuke

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Shinjo Sousuke

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

186 profile views
  1. I don't think we've had a named Moto of importance appear in fiction yet unless you count Moto Juro who's quoted on Ride Them Down. My guess is that if this is real the character is Shinjo Shono. He's got 1 more Military, 2 less Political, and 1 less Glory than his Mother. I think that makes sense considering lore and design.
  2. That's a fair assessment based on personal experience overall, can't really argue that. My experience playing Unicorn has been quite different over the last few weeks. ALL of the 50+ games I've played were Unicorn 3 Core and I've had very different results it seems. I think the consistency of 3 Cores vs. 2 Cores does make a difference. In my games overall I would say I have about a 60-70% win rate so far. Interestingly enough the clans I struggle most against are Dragon and Crab. Against Dragon I have about a 40-50% win rate and with Crab I have a 20-30% rate. Keep in mind these win rates are against players I consider to hold equal skill to mine after about a month or so of daily play since the pre-release at GenCon. (I work at a game store!) I find that while the Unicorn Dynasty cards may feel sub par in comparison to those of other clans they make up for it in versatility/synergy. Sure they lack strong actions now but I suspect we will see the strength of their actions over the next few expansions. Fate has never been as much of a concern so much as efficiency in my opinion but that could also be due to differences in our play styles? The cards that I find the least effective in the Unicorn Conflict deck are Ide Messenger and Breakthrough which I cut from the deck. Both cards have potential but don't provide enough impact for either their cost or effect, every other Unicorn card in the deck has been nothing short of golden. Forged Edict and Voice of Honor do exist but you have to remember that they can only run 3 of each for a total of 6 at most (both requiring different conditions to trigger). Against those two clans I would say that I have a 70-80% win rate but I approach those matches differently than others due to the fact that they have the potential for negation. Against both of these clans I try to leverage the fact that as Unicorn I simply have more standing military than them on any given turn. Between the two clans the only two personalities that give me pause are Yunako and Kaezin. Using your inherent military strength to your advantage you simply force plays from your opponent. Play as if you don't have Cavalry Reserves in hand, it works for me at least, because you actually don't need it to win as much as you might think. That's not to undervalue the card though, it swings games wildly especially when coupled with Utaku Infantry (a phenomenal 1 Fate personality in Unicorn) or For Greater Glory. When asked to "save" a province or let it break because of Charge (x3) or Captive Audience (x3) my opponent often opts to negate it giving me the option to make the play that I wanted to (think of it as a feint). Sure they can negate 3 actions a game (on average) but they can't stop everything and Unicorn has access to solid card draw, which usually results in me seeing about 2x Cavalry Reserves in a game. Another thing to consider is the quality of actions you can put on personalities simply because Cavalry Reserves exists. If Aggressive Moto had an action, a useful one, for example "Action: Target an enemy character with lower MIL skill -- send them home/bow them. You suddenly have 9 MIL skill and 3x that action in play for the cost of 1 Warrior Poet (also an great card). Again I can share my thoughts on any Unicorn cards if you're interested. I can tell that you really want to make the deck/clan work. Edit: Touching on what Toshimo said above. Cards like Utaku Infantry and Swift Magistrate are shining examples of why not all Unicorn cards can have Cavalry printed on them.
  3. After extensive amounts of playtesting with Unicorn against the other clans (at least 50+) I would have to disagree on the Fate production. I actually don't think that's much of a factor so much as Unicorn having lackluster and low impact actions on our dynasty cards. I believe that Unicorn is more Conflict reliant than any other clan due to it's design, which isn't inherently flawed but is a weakness that can be exploited. Though I do agree with you that many of our characters are sub par compared to the quality of those found in the other clans for the same cost. I actually believe this is due to balancing because you have to keep in mind (and it's easy to forget once you get started making comparisons) that EVERY Cavalry Unicorn personality can potentially be put into play from the DISCARD PILE up to 3x per game for the cost of a single character. When you take this into account design decisions start to make a lot of sense. Also, having a 0 in Political is still strong in Unicorn since we have an in faction card that let's change the conflict type at will. With a 0 you can still commit your character to that conflict without having to use the action on your stronghold when you need it most. If I get some time later I can come back and share my thoughts with you on the characters listed above if you'd like? I had a lot of the same thoughts originally.
  4. Since I started the thread to find the answer to this question, yes I approve. I'm content with the response we got from Nate that stated Ide Trader can trigger it's own reaction after it is moved into a conflict. I would simply like the card to receive an errata to it's wording in order to prevent confusion OR a clearly written explanation as to how the card reads and how it's text should be interpreted (in turn setting a precedent for future cards). I think that would wrap this discussion up nicely. Unless anyone has anything else to add?
  5. That would've been an awesome swig in momentum for Unicorn. The ability to choose which personality is discarded by Altansarnai's reaction would also make her much stronger and is something I'd like to see personally. In my experience my opponent typically discards the personality they used to defend against Altansarnai so it's not like they really lost anything. Her ability might as well read, "Your opponent should consider defending." I still get a lot of mileage out of her though.
  6. Unless someone states otherwise I think it's safe to assume that everyone is okay with Ide Trader being able to trigger it's own reaction. I think that "IF" it can is the current point of contention. Nate's response supports the assumption that it can however the key point I want to make is that the wording of the card is ambiguous enough to cause a discussion. It can be read that Ide Trader needs to be present before the movement OR that he simply needs to be present after the movement which happens simultaneously as the movement resolves. The fact that we're still having this conversation is proof of this.
  7. Once again, can we simply agree that the card is ambiguous enough to be read/interpreted both ways? Hence this discussion?
  8. I think the language just needs to be clearer when it comes to intent/design to avoid lines of discussion like Toturi/Hotaru. And Manchu is correct. You can only trigger the Trader's reaction once per conflict.
  9. Can everyone reading this thread for the sake of clarity agree on these two things: 1. If Ide Traders reaction is meant to be triggered while he is already participating in a conflict BEFORE the resolution of the movement, his reaction would trigger when that condition is met and not after the Trader himself is moved. 2. IF Nate's response is indication that the card was designed to allow for Ide Trader to be able to trigger his reaction in response to his own movement into a conflict, then Ide Trader's reaction would trigger under any of the circumstances listed above by Joelist. If you disagree then I would like to know your reasoning as to why. I think the card simply needs an errata and should set a precedent for all cards that follow it.
  10. Realistically I think that's what this all boils down to. If this was in fact the original intent behind the design of the card then we simply need an errata instead of some Unicorn starting a thread which results in a 5 page argument. ha ha I think this ultimately was a case of improper wording of the card for the intended effect. You are 100% correct as resolution kg movement and participation occur simultaneously. I just believe the card has not been worded in a way to be able to trigger in all cases where it may have been intended to (such as a movement which moves the Trader himself into the conflict). Seriously, I'm weak for cookies... I'm glad we could come so a conclusion about this and hopefully you don't want to quit the game?
  11. Okay. I think I completely understand where you're coming from! I agree. As it is worded Ide Trader cannot trigger it's reaction if it is not currently participating in the conflict even if it is the card that moves. I think the divide in opinions is due to how Nate French has responded. This response would indicate that the card was intended to be able to trigger it's reaction as if it had been worded like the example you gave above. However this isn't the case and not how the card is currently worded. Because of this Ide Trader could not trigger his reaction in response to it's own movement even if that was the original intent behind it's design. Can we simply chalk this up to a need for an errata to the cards text if this is in fact the intended use/trigger for the reaction? Again, this is why I posed this question as a part of the original post in the first place.
  12. For few sake of discussion could you in your own words explain what change in game state triggers Ide Trader' reaction? (Not trying to be sarcastic, I would just like clarity.)
  13. So to put your argument simply: You are arguing that you are not allowed to trigger Ide Trader's Reaction because the conditions to trigger the reaction have not been met to begin with? Correct me if I'm wrong, I just trying to get this straight.
  14. Sorry for any misunderstanding caused by what I wrote earlier. I assure you when I wrote that and as I write this now I'm being 100% sincere with you or anyone reading this. If I could shake your hand and buy you a drink to prove it I would but I can't exactly do that over the internet. Again what I said wasn't meant to sound or come across as condescending in any way. I genuinely thought (and still think) that by contacting a designer or a rules offical of your choice that you would be better able to have an actual conversation about the rules of the game and wording of cards by talking directly to the person/people who designed them. That way I believe there would be fewer misunderstandings and an opportunity for less "heated" discussion. I hope there's no hard feelings between us at least! Remember that in my original post I said that I have never used Ide Trader's ability in the way I originally brought up because I thought that it wasn't intended to be used that way but wondered if it was possible to because of game mechanics (movement and action resolution). Just trying to get the most value out of my least used Dynasty card you know? We actually got input back from Nate and I simply thought that was enough to go by until the game was released and an official ruling was made. It's good enough for our playgroup but I understand Nate's feedback isn't the same as "rules as written" or justification for using a card in a way that it was not intended or designed. Realistically if you were sitting across from me in a game and I attempted to use Ide Trader in the way I proposed at the beginning of the thread and you disagreed I'd be more than willing to default to a judge and go along with whatever ruling they settled on. It's their job so who am I to argue? It hasn't come up in tournament play yet which is why I chose to ask my question here in order to avoid the exact scenario you proposed. The last thing I want is to be the reason another player quit the game, especially over a card ruling before the game even officially launched. I enjoy this version of L5R significantly more than its predecessor and I would like to see, meet, and play with more people who enjoy the game like I do. As far as an explanation as to how Ide Trader reads or is "intended"/designed to function I don't think any explanation I could give you would prove sufficient enough to bring you around to my point of view. We'd just be retreading what has already been discussed previously in this thread. Though I'm still open to discussion if you are? Just don't quit the game over this! *sigh* What I wouldn't give for an actual Ide right now... ha ha
  15. Like Zesu suggested, maybe by contacting Nate personally for an explanation will help sort things out for you? I'd like to personally apologize if this thread has upset/frustrated anyone over rules discussion. I assure you my original intent was to understand if Ide Trader could mechanically trigger his own reaction and not to cause tension/dissent. I now have that answer but wouldn't object to seeing a more in depth clarification as to why the card works this way. This would be useful in order to explain during gameplay to my opponent if questioned and also for any future cards that may share similar triggers/wordings.
  • Create New...