Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About barrufet

  • Rank
  • Birthday 02/06/1980

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Thank you all for your answers. Your opinions on the subject are sincerely appreciated. I understand my concerns are somewhat eccentric and I'll keep them to myself. Again, thank you for your time and effort on sharing your points of view.
  2. From my point of view, this is the very core of the issue at the moment, and points directly to Fantasy Flight Games (FFG) communication policy --at least as per what it has been up to now in regards of Legend of the Five Rings: The Card Game (L5R:TCG). Let me start making sense of the time-line preventions in my previous statement: I'm perfectly aware that the product isn't fully released yet, so the communication policies and practices by FFG may only have had a reasonably very small impact on the L5R:TCG community. However, in my opinion the current situation creates some issues that I will try to explain: a) The current official rules-related documents released for L5R:TCG are i) the Learn to Play (L2P) book as it is printed on 'dead paper', and ii) the Rules Reference (RR), which is an amendable living document, , and takes precedence over the Learn to Play book as per the Jade Rule: The only other official document available, apart from fiction, is the suggested deck lists for the 30/30 game format. b) For any of the L5R:TCG players/(potential) customers, the only official communication channel with FFG for rules questions is the (not-so-easy-to-find) rules form. Several people have already used the form to pose questions about the rules in the game. Each question risen using this official communication channel, is answered by an FFG representative (AFAIK up to now it's been always one of the game devs) sending a (personal) e-mail to the original enquirer. I want to stress here that the rest of the community does not have access to the primary source of the answer given, only the person posing the original question receives the answer --and this is perfectly logic and completely understandable. c) Here is when things start getting interesting, because here it is when we (the community in general) start making assumptions and having understandings that doesn't have FFG's approval or sanctioning by any means. Let me be explicit: we assume that this personal communications are official FFG rulings on the question posted and there is no piece of evidence for that. AFAIK, FFG hasn't recognised in any ways these personal answers as official rulings. However, from the fact that several players/(potential) customers are rising these questions, it is clear that the game rules in its current form need some clarifications. Furthermore, I'll stretch the statement a bit more and be adventurous enough to asseverate that they need official clarifications. From the other FFG Living Card Game I've played, Android:NetRunner, FFG has dealt with this problem issuing official FAQ documents, which often included new rules (i.e. NAPD most wanted list or updated timing structures), general rules clarifications, card clarifications and card errata in addition to the proper FAQ. These official FAQ document is a living document and amends and supersedes the core rulebook (akin to the L2P and RR in L5R:TCG, respectively). On top of this, nowadays L5R:TCG does not have any official rules for tournaments. From my point of view this is a bit sad because, even if only at pre-release events, there have already been three official tournaments on the game: the Kiku Matsuri, the Gencon Tournament, and the Honored Preview event. I think it is fair for the community to assume that the official tournament rules will comply with the current standards for other games, like enforcing the last version of the living rules document or leaving the ultimate decision on a rules dispute to the Tournament Organiser (TO) or the designated and authorised representative (i.e. head arbiter). Even if all these assumptions (regularly updated RR, tournament rules publicly available) aren't only fair but also true, the problem on how to deal with official non-publisized clarifications is not solved... which was exactly the point of the OP: Again, I am totally aware that the game hasn't officially been released yet --and thus any rulings worries are only preemptive, but the current concern has nothing to do with the present hype on the game but with the officialness conflict on different kind of official clarifications: those that have been widely released to the public (i.e. in the form of RR) and those that are merely personal communications. And what is that conflict? As simple as that different players can be engaging the competitive scene by (slightly) different sets of rules. If I use the rules form to get an official answer on a rules question, there is nothing preventing me to keep that answer private and present it to the rules enforcer/arbiter/TO in a tournament if the ruling favours my interests in the course of a given game, just stressing it is an official ruling!!!!. Thus, effectively I'd be playing by a different rules set than my opponent, making IMHO the whole contest unfair. So the question is how this situation can be dealt with? I think it is as easy as publicising any official ruling issued. So, apart from the L2P, RR and Tournament Rules, FFG could have a less-curated, living and time-stamped e-document with a copy of the original questions received via the rules questions form and the answers given. The document could even easily sustain contradictory or opposite rulings, leaving during a tournament the final word on rules application to the TO or designated rep. From my point of view, that would help to have fairer contests since all ground rules would have the same sort of officialness and everyone would be aware of them. I know FFG employees do not visit or read these forums. I don't know if there is many people out there sharing these concerns. And if it was the case, I don't even know what would be the better way to (officially) rise the issue to FFG. What are your POVs on the issue? Does the community share this concern? How would experienced TOs expect to deal with non-publisized official rulings? I think the discussion is interesting and just happening at the right time.
  3. 5) The player contesting the ring (i.e. the attacker claims the date in both rings)
  4. I don't need to believe you, I know those unexpected decks for a fact. Back in prehistory a bunch of dedicated Harrier players spent their times trying to show the Clan what was the right path in front of us... That ended with a Harrier deck base that won few Koteis during the season and performed reasonably well in numerous others, including my local one (100+ attendants) where I managed to drive it to top clan. The deck was fun to play but complicated as ****, and suffered from a number of issues, most of them derived from the constrictions the deck had both in building (mandatory inclusion/exclusion of certain cards) and in play style (mainly reactive). The reason the deck did well during the season is that it wasn't very well known being kept secluded in Shiro Giji and so it wasn't normally included in the meta gauntlet for deck testing. Most dominant decks from any clan at that time could include tools to deal with the tricks included in the Harriers deck without any detrimental side effect because of their lack of restrictions (at least, compared to the amount of restrictions the Harriers deck had). Have been the meta less optimised, the Harriers deck could have done better by itself and not just out of surprise. I feel the fixed roles just achieve this less optimised environment. Obviously we feel different about this subject and for me it is perfectly OK to agree on disagree. Roles are selected for a year, and cannot be repeated. It could be argued that the card pool could evolve so that a favoured clan could pick a different optimal role after dominating a season due to their previous optimal role choice... but that would imply some kind of pro-clan or anti-clan conspiracy from FFG. I think this is a bit too early for that, don't you? ;-) Plus this, of course.
  5. @ForceM, @Bubba9, and all the others arguing that fixed roles is bad for deck construction diversity: a) I will assume your comments refer to the competitive scene. There is no rule or whatsoever preventing you to use any role you want in a non-sanctioned event or in a friendly game. b) As counterintuitive as it may seem, talking about the competitive scene, I do think that fixed roles enhance deck construction diversity. Let me go step by step. b.1) My first assumption here is that the vast majority of participants in a sanctioned tournament would try to compile the most effective deck possible for the contest. If a given role is the best for a certain clan, following this assumption most players from that clan --and more likely all competitive players from the said clan, will chose that role for the tournament. b.2) As deck construction is constricted by the role election, if a certain role is better than any other this is because there is a given bunch of cards that establish synergies and benefit from such role. Again, most players --and more likely all competitive players, would auto-include such set of cards in their decks. b.3) As a consequence, most decks for a certain clan --and more likely the decks of all competitive players of such clan, would end up being very, very similar among them. Hence, opening the range of choices to include the most efficient one is likely to cause a very narrow distribution of deck variance, at least regarding the competitive players in the competitive scene of a (major) tournament. On the contrary, I think different players might be able to find different sub-optimal solutions to overcome the selection of a sub-optimal role. From my point of view, that would lead to a higher variety of decks within a given clan trying to benefit or deal with the sub-optimal selection of the role for such clan. In summary, if somebody else chooses a role for your clan you might not be able to build up the best deck for your clan, but the same will happen to most of the other clans as well. Add to all this the fact that roles will be renewed on a yearly basis shacking the meta and forcing clans with optimal selection of a role to surrender such role in favour of a sub-optimal one, and I think you'll see more variety on deck construction than the one you'd get with a free selection of roles. In addition to all this and going back to my point a), you can also agree on any set of home brewed rules (i.e no role restriction or using only unpicked roles) for your local flavour-based tournaments in your FLGS; these make for very fun experiences from time to time. Of course, these are just my thoughts that could be completely wrong... but yet I still think the current role system is beneficial for the sake of deck construction diversity in the competitive scene. Just my two zeni.
  6. Has anybody officially risen the issue to FFG using the Rules Question Form? I'm asking just not to swarm FFG staff with the same question once and again... Thanks!
  7. @Matrim, I just feel that somehow you answer yourself. As you stated, if your opponent bounces on AoP this is good for you. And of course, your opponent should be facing harder times when exploring other provinces. If you play against Phoenix or Scorpion, that may not be the case in Entrenched Position but on the other hand you're likely to get more value from Shameful Display against them (also against Lion, but they find hard times in the Entrenched Position too). What I like about the AoP is that somehow many times you have the tools to make the decision difficult for your opponent, and that is always nice. Kazein comboes very well on defending AoP (you'd be able to send him or the other defenders home if you don't tie the duel), Savvy chains the honouring effect, simply having a Storyteller on the table may force your opponent re-considering, etc. And this is just considering the province is approached in a military attack; if your opponent goes political, your options are even much more. In summary, I think this is a province that you can turn into a win/win situation when attacked: either you retain your province unbroken --which is good, or you trigger its honouring/dishonouring effect, which can result in a total board swing.
  8. Totally agreed. I'm not sure on this bit though. I feel that as Crane, anything that help you honouring has a reason to be included in the deck --which doesn't mean you necessarily need to include it, but rather that you need a good reason not to*. Triggering Savvy after AoP breaks can be a great boost to your board position. Plus dishonour for the attackers. This may be relevant when facing certain clans (i.e. Lion or Scorpion for completely opposed reasons), and also help enabling some of your own tricks, as Noble Sacrifice. * And this relates to the next question the OP will have to deal with: what other clan (if any) to splash in the deck. Phoenix is popular because the Magnificent Kimonos, but IMHO other splashes have shown to be more effective. In an scenario where you choose a non-Phoenix splash, the inclusion of AoP instead of the Manicured Gardens or the Fertile Fields may be extra-justified. Wasn't intentional but I hope this serves as seed for the discussion ;-)
  9. Thank you for the link! Very instructing watch it has been. And congrats to Raiga for his win!!!
  10. When attacking a Unicorn player so that you don't feed up their Cavalry Reserves?
  11. I think she cannot trigger her reaction twice a round... Not to mention that there are several ways to break that chain of events.
  12. Well... I think that is one of the conflict cards a Lion player can aggressively mulligan for.
  • Create New...