Jump to content

KerenRhys

Members
  • Content Count

    280
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KerenRhys

  1. Some of the Uniques are old art too, like Kakita Asami and Bayushi Yunako for example.
  2. The problem being that not everybody has the same notion of what would be awesome, far from it.
  3. With 10 influence (maybe 13), the splash would be 2, maybe 3 different cards. IMHO, it seems too low to give a real feel of the "subfaction" splashed, so I hope that's not the way they'll go. That's quite like what they did with Warhammer: Invasion for the factions after the initial 6, and I never liked that. It gave me the feeling of not playing a real faction. I can't say I would be thrilled to see it come back in L5R.
  4. The problem is not due to any daft assumpion and you know it perfectly well. It's based on official articles that explicitly stated the opposite and on a ruling at GenCon that also stated the opposite, as well as playtesters' feedback on how the cards were played during playtest. And for the "errors happen in article" and "we don't know the designers' intention" cards, as I have already said, we're not talking about some complex combo here, we're talking about possibly the most important cards in the core set. So either designers' intention was that the power would be usable on defense or the article was posted without any check by somebody of the design team be it before or after the publication, which speak poorly of their process and of the designers' interest in their own product. Honestly, I don't believe in the second solution since from what Nate, Brad and Erik have shown, they seem to really like the work they've done on L5R. After working on a product (that you like) for 2 years, you wouldn't even give a read to how your marketing team is selling that product to the general public? And if you read them and your intention is that the power is not usable on defense, you wouldn't react at all when the article explain the contrary of what you intended (the sentence in the Crane article has not even a bit of ambiguity)? On the other hand, since you're so smart and we're so stupid we can't even read the cards and we make daft assumptions, next article, could you please take some of your time to explain to us what are the errors in that publication? Thanks in advance.
  5. From what I heard from some playtesters (and if I understood correctly), the rules have been rewritten and complexified at the end of the playtesting phase when their work was done which if true seems totally stupid. Considering that people were already considering them almost the worst champions before that "nerf", I think so. And that's not done on cards that will rotate and we'll be able to forget in a few years, or cards that are pretty insignificants, it's done on evergreen champions, the cards that will be the basic identity of the Crane and Lion Clan until the end of the game...
  6. That decision sucks, even more so on evergreen champions that were already on the weakest side without this, and their re-reading of their clan articles sucks even more since they stated the exact contrary in those. Now, we'll have to explain to players that just read the official articles and don't hunt for rules Q/A that yes, the official site of the game is wrong and no, contrary to what it says, they can't resolve rings on defense to their advantage.
  7. Since there can be only 4 keepers or 4 seekers max chosen at the same time, it means there always will be at least 1 keeper and 1 seeker remaining. So, with your suggestion, you totally undermine the choice of keeper or seeker sine you'd always have both accessible. And then, you lose that freshness you're talking about. After all, what would be the differences of deckbuilding one year compared to the other in that case? Just 1 province basically? It would suck as a prize for top of clan...
  8. Sure, but I don't see anything in that page that is saying that and I feel it would totally defeat the purpose of the choice by the top of clans.
  9. I don't understand your questions. For me, the sentence you're quoting only means that, starting with Worlds, there won't be a situation like now where all five keepers (or all 5 seekers) are taken. So, it's a limitation for those with last choices. For example, if already 4 keepers are chosen, everybody after that will have to take seeker and there always will be either 4 keepers / 3 seekers or 3 keepers / 4 seekers.
  10. Well, I guess internal conflicts is less problematic when the loss of ressources it causes (mainly population) has no consequences (Dune's millions of worlds, Rokugan's ability to compensate for (hundred of?) thousands of death in just a few years or its ability to harvest/prevent famine even with most of the peasants at war or fields burned). Sadly, our medieval countries didn't have the same abilities.
  11. Tsukune doesn't claim the remaining rings, she only resolves their effect. So, if there's no RoW remaining, her power doesn't especially help with the Imperial Favor.
  12. No, even the miniature market blurb said 2 neutral provinces. However, I'd be more enclined to bet on the 2nd crab dynasty card than a clan-specific province. As for strongholds, if there was a new one in the pack (and then one for each clan in the cycle), I think they would have mentioned it as it would be a very important part of the pack. But, maybe you're right and they kept it secret for now in order to keep some surprises.
  13. A clan-specific province could be #1 if the 2 neutral provinces are #2/3, or you could have those provinces #1/2 and #3 be another crab dynasty card. I doubt we'll see a stronghold this soon.
  14. It's written in the preview article at the end : "Tears of Amaterasu also adds two neutral Seeker and Keeper cards to Legend of the Five Rings: The Card Game in the form of new provinces."
  15. Cards 11 and 12 are not known currently. They could be everything between a Unicorn dynasty card, a neutral dynasty card, a Crab conflict card or a Crane conflict card.
  16. If we look at the number of those cards and in case the card order is the same as the core set, we can deduce some things: - There won't be any Dynasty Scorpion card since Kaede is 9 and the Magistrate is 10. The Scorpion could have 2 Conflict cards or maybe 1 Conflict and 1 Province. - Since there will be 2 neutral provinces and the Crab holding is 4, there will a be clan-specific province (maybe Scorpion due to previous point) or another Dynasty card for the Crab. - There will be 2 Dynasty cards for either the Dragon, the Lion or the Phoenix since Yaruma is 6 and Kaede is 9. We can see that FFG has no intention to follow a 1 Dynasty / 1 Conflict per clan plan, with the remaining 6 as neutral or (balanced on the whole cycle) bonus for some clans for their dynasty packs.
  17. Every clan will have an unplayable card for the first year since everyone will receive both a seeker and a keeper card in the imperial cycle.
  18. I'm wondering: Is the 'attacking' word really necessary in the rings' effects description? After all, we already have the notion in the rule that on normal case, only the attacking player can resolve a claimed ring effect. So what's the use of stating it again in the ring description? If the goal is to have Hotaru and Toturi being able to resolve the effects on defense too, wouldn't the simplest solution be to just remove this (maybe?) redundant word from the description? Is there something I'm missing here?
  19. It may be right for storyline decisions determined by a vote of all hatamoto (or even only those of the tournament) instead of just the winner but we don't know yet if that will be the case. The first tournament was hosted in very specific conditions so there could very well be differences in storyline choices in the future. On top of that, I can't be 100% sure since I was barely following the game at the time but I think there have been several alliances of their clans by players with the spider despite them being at the top of their unpopularity at the time, so I think people are less manichean that what you're saying.
  20. AGoT has 8 factions, Conquest had 9. I don't think things are as clear cut as you make to be. There's precedent with more than 7 factions in the latest LCG.
  21. If every number given in that description is correct, that would mean that the provinces are 3x each in the pack. That seem curious since multiple of a province would be useless except for multiple decks which is not something FFG does usually (I think, feel free to correct me if there's a LCG where they've done this). So, I'd bet there's something wrong in the description and I'd guess there will be 22 different cards (19 in 3x and 3 in 1x to make 60). In that case, what would be the last 1x? It seems too early for a new stronghold, so another Province, maybe clan-specific? Why would they announce the 2 neutral ones and say nothing about the last one if that's the case though?
  22. Considering how the Dragon fan base (Dragon is just used as an easy example, I could have found examples in probably any of the 7 original great clan) rioted for things far less important than having their clans destroyed (see HDM or Khan's march), I'm pretty sure Cielago is correct on the reaction on any of the original Great Clans' destruction.
  23. For precision's sake and in hope people don't re-use this made-up number, the count of cards they'd have to add in the core box to make a full playset is 352... Not quite the same as 45 it seems...
×
×
  • Create New...