• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Abyss

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

729 profile views
  1. Togashi Tadakatsu explanation?

    In a much shorter form: I'd agree that a theoretical character with 'Can't participate in X challenges' would not prevent X being chosen as the element. There's nothing that is preventing that element from being a choice; the character not being able to participate is an unrelated follow on from that. The only question would be exactly what would happen, but that would (hopefully) be sorted out rules wise when such a card was printed.
  2. Noob Question on Card Distribution

    The original Starter Sets in Awakenings had some fixed cards, and then some rares that were also found in packs. This was ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE, as it meant that any pack with a starter rare in it was as useful as burning the money you use to pay for it (because not only did you have two copies, so did everyone else). Thankfully, since then they haven't tried that again. As such, the only way to get the starter cards is to buy the starter; this also means you need two copies of each for a playset (except for Boba/Luke as you get two of their dice).
  3. New Player looking for Constructed Advice

    There's really no way to give advice without some idea of what you want to play, and what you have access to. If you can provide that, people can probably give you something constructive.
  4. I'll just say: I'd personally prefer you didn't, at least in any kind of decently competitive event. Or had an English copy on hand, but that then defeats the point of it (unless you happen to be Polish, and would prefer to play in your own language). The reason for this is pretty simple; if I'm not sure what a card does I want to be able to read it. Looking it up takes additional time, and it's also potentially gives away gameplay information that could impact the game (e.g. if I ask you 'What does X do', you know I'm probably looking to do something that depends on the answer). In comparison, it's quicker and easier to read a card, and check it without it being a 'tell'. Though again, if there's an actual language based reason for it, that's another thing entirely.
  5. A restricted list at this point in the game is silly, and comes down to 'I don't like how the game currently plays'. No LCG is balanced straight out of the gate, and there's always ups and downs. Heck, at this stage they literally have not had a chance to react to a live meta (i.e. outside of playtesting),and probably won't for at least another cycle or two. That's just how the LCG system works. Give them a chance. If the same cards are still dominating the game in two cycles, then maybe we need a restricted list.
  6. Because it allows them to make a more powerful card for it's cost, by adding a risk factor to it - either you choose to accept the risk, choose to build your deck to minimize the risk, or play a weaker card. Mechanically, it offers them another way to design cards, one that also (in theory) provides an additional opportunity for player interaction (and yeah, control players often hate player interaction, but it's generally good for the game). The problem with 'risk free' dueling is that it removes the point of having the mechanic existing - you might as well just put a stat cap on it or something similar (Think Rout/Outwit). But that's boring, and it feels like dueling *should* be a relevant, flavourful mechanic - even if players will often find a way to get around that anyway. As it stands, I do just think they need to add some element of risk to 'sure thing' duels - it really would only take a couple of cards spread across the factions to shake things up without having to tear down the whole system.
  7. Yeah, I believe originally you either couldn't use Force Illusion if you had shields, or it was a grey area (can't remember). Then they changed/clarified that all of the 'damage prevention' effects essentially happened at the same time, and you get to choose how you resolve them.
  8. The opponent doesn't activate Jar-Jar, so that's just a dead end straight away. As for the reroll, it's based on the symbols on his character dice. The way it's worded, if there are no symbols on his character dice because they aren't there, there are still no symbols on his character dice.
  9. God yes. Does ANYONE actually like them? I have no idea why FFG keeps persisting with them. They were a stupid idea the first time, they continue to be a stupid idea. Having cards that are essentially unreadable is just a bad idea. Is it meant to appeal to hardcore SW collectors or something?
  10. “Broken” cards

    While I don't really have a problem with bully duels, there should be some risk for it if it's intended to be a 'cost' to get a powerful effect. Right now it's a pure numbers game; my skill vs their skill and account for honour. As long as you can beat them by enough there's zero risk and in the case of a card like Policy Debate there's zero cost for an exceedingly power effect. A couple of effects that can interact with dueling (say, a weapon that can be played in response to a duel, or a free character for losing a duel) and suddenly it's a little bit riskier, which seems to be be the point with PD. The alternative of course is not to use dueling in that matter, which I'm also fine with. Not having played old L5R, I'm not sure what purpose it filled gameplay wise.
  11. “Broken” cards

    Policy Debate is dumb, and I think most people agree that it's not very well balanced. However, IMO it's something of a symptom of the duel system just not really working. It seems like thematically duels are meant to have an element of risk/reward to them in terms of bidding honour. But realistically, the way the game works it usually just means 'duel their weenie with your big political dude, everyone bids one, discard their best card'. Due to that, it's under costed and ubiquitous; if they were going to keep it linked to a duel it probably should have either cost 1 or not been a neutral card. As for Fate Worse Than Death, I think it's fine (even if it really hurts to get hit by it). It's essentially the equivalent of a 'kill spell', something that certainly isn't inherently broken. It costs 4, which is a **** of a lot. And if you're sitting on that amount of fate, you're missing out somewhere else. It can be cancelled, which with the strong cancel presence and high cost is a significant threat. And it can be played around by not mindlessly throwing your big characters into conflicts (granted, not using big characters isn't really viable due to the nature of the game). Honestly, the only thing that I think really makes this 'broken' right now is that the meta has a lot of 'voltron' decks, and this is an anti voltron card. But as other play options come in to the game I don't think this will be a problem.
  12. In a lot of cases, yeah, I feel that losing honour isn't actually that big a disincentive. If they bid five and you bid one, they lose four honour...and draw four more cards than you, which will probably mitigate at least some of the honour loss (via honouring/dishonouring characters, getting or avoiding unopposed etc). If you then bid high the next turn to try and make up the card disadvantage, you either give them their honour back or keep things the same. Bidding high yourself isn't inherently a solution, as it basically just removes the tactical decision and brings it down to who draws better/which faction has the better conflict cards. Now some decks can certainly punish bidding high, but it's usually via bidding low themselves and then having their draw supplemented by other cards; again this kind of just sidesteps the whole bidding process because it's still 'draw cards=win'. Restoration of Balance may not be the perfect solution, but I like that it's a counter that doesn't just push you in to doing the thing that's being countered.
  13. Personally, I would not recommend playing with one Core. Most other LCGs are okay with one core, but I found the one core environment very, very poor for L5R as it's a very warped version of the game. Basically, the characters you can recruit each turn are random, and you need to beat your opponent's strength by a certain amount to break provinces to win the game - with only one core, I found there was way to many cases where people would have bad flops, and sits around not really being able to do much, but still being strong enough that the opponent can't really do much either. I found the games tended to be very slow, grindy and boring. It's fine to give you an idea of the mechanics, but I didn't really enjoy actually playing very much. And sadly, I'd say yeah - you're probably out of luck on this one. I haven't really played much Netrunner, but from what I do know about it I'd say L5R is probably on a similar level in terms of complexity. There's less hidden information/'blowout' aspects (still some, but not quite Jinteki style 'you accessed a server and now you're dead), but there are a LOT of decision points
  14. Congratulations, I think this is in fact the stupidest topic I've ever seen on this board.
  15. About Embrace the Void

    Specifically, Embrace the Void is an interrupt, which means that it essentially happens before the fate is moved from one character to the other; therefore once Feast or Famine triggers there is no longer any fate on the character to move. But yeah, it's a once per turn effect unfortunately. It really should have had at least two uses, as it would have been synergistic with wanting to win Void rings. As it is it's actually a disincentive.