Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Nagori-A-Go-Go

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'd like to help financially in some way. Please PM me if that's something being organized.
  2. This is why you don't challenge someone with higher chi. And the idea of the challenged striking first in my post wasn't because the challenged would win; they'd strike because they figured they other player would win and by striking they'd still lose but avoid focusing cards. I've heard players argue that playing against enlightenment was a bad experience because they couldn't always stop rings, or playing against unicorn was a bad experience because there was too much cavalry. These things, like dueling, could be accounted for, but those players either didn't see it or didn't want to build to account for it. If dueling was a problem because one player would use high chi units and build a strategy around that, why not take issue with rats having higher province strength than everyone else, shadowlands for being immune to dishonor decks, mantis for having built in sneak attacks with naval invasion, and on and on and on. If you take the manipulation of stats out of the game, things get incredibly dull with not attachments, buffs, etc. If you take stats out of duels you're basically flipping a coin, which makes little sense and you have even less control over it as a player.
  3. If you mean useless in a duel, yes. The solution is to strike as soon as possible to get it over with (and has been since I started in Gold edition). As a dueling deck playing another dueling deck the fate side was rarely useless though because I could trigger honor gains and card draw with focus effects, some of which didn't even need me to win the duel. If that high chi guy is on the table and I'm a dueling deck I'd avoid challenging him. This happened a lot in mirror matches and I had no problem. Yes. See above about triggering focus effects. I'd still lose to the fifteen force Crab but no one would call that broken. It was a good card that had answers to it, be it strategy or specific cards. If it bothered you that much you would play around it or build for it. Cannot be challenged was a non issue because no one would build a deck entirely with characters that couldn't be challenged. No synergy. And again, if that was a major concern, you'd play around it. Dueling wasn't a win condition; it was a strategy building towards one, be it military or honor run. If you didn't play a back up plan that's a separate issue. You choose whether or not to build partly to cover your weaknesses. That's on the player, not design. That's true for all strategies, not just dueling. And for the two years of Lotus I ran only 3 and 4 focus values with no shortage of deadly duels. Emperor locked the same way. From what I remember from Gold the costs of refusing duels had pretty steep penalties to compensate for the low FV. Players called it broken back then, too. Because one generates a duel, and depending which version of the game we're talking about it allows for reactions and focus effects or an exchange of fate with the honor dial. In either game they allow for a different set of interactions because of the addition of the duel.
  4. In your opening sentence you suggest that comparisons to the old game shouldn't matter. My point was the player who initiates the challenge is going to go for the set up that favors them the most stat wise. That element has always been present because it's just sound strategy. At present we're looking at an incredibly small card pool so the comparisons that people are making (that there were more ways out of a duel, more ways to interact with the duel) are somewhat short sighted. We're not even a year in.
  5. All of those things had reasonable meta, or at the very least were balanced compared to the revised dueling mechanics and cards. Through the entirety of Lotus, dueling did not. That's why it was boring for me: there were very few equal matches for it in what was marketed as a diverse play field. And consider that the meta at the time actually helped dueling decks (shattered focus) and that redesigning dueling in general, with the nixing of double chi, adding duelists and streamlining dueling effects, was all done because for years players complained that the original "focus from hand" mechanic was itself unfair. Short of determining the winner with a coin flip, dueling will always favor the person who builds for it. Right now we have little meta for it. The upside is that the effects of winning duels aren't nearly as absurd as they used to be (iirc Emperor had toned it down quite a bit, too). If the problem players have is that the player initiating the challenge is going to pick the easiest fight for them to win, well, that's not going away. That's just sound strategy. I like the idea of refusing duels at a cost or, as started in Emperor, cards that punish the winner if certain conditions were met or give something to the loser if other conditions are met. But unless duels become really common again I don't see it as a major problem.
  6. Duels were also incredibly one sided by in the last decade-ish of old5r resulting in that same situation. Why would I ever issue a challenge to someone who I thought had an even chance of beating my character? I played Crane honor dueling in old5r through all of lotus, when the dueling rules changed and dueling itself became more prevalent. It was so easy to make monumental gains while locking down the opponent that I was basically playing solitaire unless I was playing against pirate raid or another duelist. At that point you really didn't need many duelists because chi was such that you could bully duel with a high chi character, and there were so many high focus valued cards with good limited/battle effects and focus effects that there wasn't much of a weakness in building wholly around dueling itself. The meta was poor because there wasn't enough of it to match how easy it was to generate a duel. That I could force my opponent to focus with Shattered Focus or Kakita, guaranteeing me two focuses in most instances when I was using a duelist, made the game that much faster. While PD may seem too simple/easy/etc. on its face, the fact that I can't build a deck entirely around it or dueling specifically and suck the fun out of it for the other player tells me duels and dueling as we see them now are an improvement from a game play standpoint.
  7. His distinct style helped make L5R and Warlord stand out to me visually. Going over the gallery in Oracle takes me back to when I began back in Gold. I don't mean this as a slam against any other card artists, of the time or present, but it really says something about his style that you can immediately recognize him as the artist on first glance. Truly unique and will be missed.
  8. Since we're talking about retcons, can someone please show up a at Gencon with a shirt that says "OTAKU NOT UTAKU NEVAR 4GET" and upload the picture here? I don't play Unicorn but I'd love it.
  9. It would appear we've yet to break that curse.
  10. I was rereading the Dawn of the Empire fiction and the narrator says that the stories have changed through oral tradition, which makes sense for the contradictions or plot holes in Ye Olden times, at least to me.
  11. My big issue with major villains in the old story was that they never really went away. Iuchiban is probably the best example of rehashing a villain.
  12. Good. Maybe this means we won't have the same handful of big bads nearly destroy Rokugan forever over and over again this time.
  13. Which character was the art originally from, anyway? I don't recognize the piece.
  • Create New...