Jump to content

Shiba Jaimi

Members
  • Content Count

    106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Shiba Jaimi

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 10/04/1970

Profile Information

  • Location
    Phoenix Clan

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'll gladly field this one. While there were a few examples of you both talking past one another this: Thanks... I agree. He wasn't arguing any of the points I raised. And looking at the post, we all know how the dueling works. And, just for the record, I am not arguing about me playing. I don't play duels...not since I became convinced the dueling rules were broken. Nobody is saying it's not possible to end a game in turn 1 due to duels but it requires you choosing to bid higher than you can afford multiple times. There's a difference between "this card type allows my opponent to kill me turn 1" and "this card type allows me to make play mistakes that will end up with me losing the game turn 1." You need to keep track of your honor just like you need to keep track of your provinces. I see what you are getting at. But I was trying to be very specific, "cost" being "the price you pay for enacting an effect on the board". When Mirith started expanding the definition outward, I did not see it as the narrow thing I was talking about. And I agree, he should have used a different word. I mean, he said it himself. But to your point of not having it to use later...etc..., how would it be any different from any other action, in that regard? It seems like that point would balance itself out...becoming not worth talking about...wouldn't it? To your point of "Nobody is saying it's not possible to end a game in turn 1 due to duels but it requires you choosing to bid higher"...Yes, it would. Someone would have to choose to bid higher. I think we all know how the duels work. To your last point, "...need to keep track of your honor..." If I said yes, would that be fine. And it seems like you are saying, "Manage you honor like any other resource you would use and spend on any other board effect." I do not think you are wrong, but you end up right in the point I was making originally about the cost of duels not working like anything else. So, I gathered: 1.) We were talking past each other with the differing definitions of "cost" 2.) "Nobody is saying it's not possible to end a game in turn 1 due to duels" 3.) "You need to keep track of your honor..."
  2. Just because I am curious, exactly where did I use a straw man?
  3. We have been, mostly, rational this entire time. Disagreement or not, I am not being a troll. I see legitimate issues here. I know you disagree, but this is not an ugly conversation. The cost of initiating an action is ALWAYS clearly stated on the card. Bansai has a "0" cost and an option to spend a fate in the text box, Assassinate has a "0" fate cost and a three honor cost in the text box...holdings, events, character actions, attachments...everything has it's cost up front. None of the duel have a cost to activate them. Duelist Training has a cost to "attach" it, but that is not the cost for triggering the actual duel. But, I could be wrong. By all means, provide a list of cards that do not have their cost notated up front, to initiate the action. You are not describing a cost from an action, you are describing a budget. The cost for both cards you want to bring into play from your provinces are clearly marked on the card. not being able to afford both is NOT a "cost". Now you are talking strategy. I can understand how you could think of them as a "cost", but that is a loose relationship to what options are available to you. It is NOT a "COST" for initiating an action. It is a decision. The cost for an action and the decision to take that action are two different things. But you still cannot name the cost before you initiate the duel, therefore, it is not the COST of the action itself. The action (duel) starts and the penalty is assessed in the resolution. Plus, you are still talking about strategy, not the cost of the action. Negotiating the broken rules is not the same as the rules not being broken. Now you are talking TACTICS, this does not fix the broken rule. How you behave in the conflict is still different from the cost of the action, how strong the action actually is or whether an action is balanced in the game. No. The rules are CLEAR. The COST of an action is on every card. You are talking about assessing risk...still two different things. I see how your mind is working with these things, and in watching how you are putting ideas together, you are not foolish. But I think the terms you are using are a bit loose. Not a big thing. But when the RULES stipulate a COST, those RULES are being very specific. Personal interpretation cannot enter into it, because everyone will have their own interpretation. That with I keep going back to what the RULES say. No. I am talking about what the mechanics of the dueling rules ALLOWS for, independent of anyone playing a game. An action that allows for a "4" point honor swing is a larger swing than any ring, clan champion, stronghold, holding, province, character, attachment or event. Clan champions cost "5" fate...Duelist Training costs "1". This is too powerful, specifically because of the dueling rules. Let me help you out. Show me another single action that allows for a four point honor swing. Show me the card that does not have it's cost clearly printed on the card. Prove I am wrong about it being POSSIBLE to end a game in the first turn, in the first conflict, after the third duel (it can actually be done in two, but I am sticking with three for the moment). I am not talking about an individual game...I am talking about us stacking the deck, then show me another single action that can do that. When you can these things, then you are on the road to disproving the Thesis.
  4. The Thesis has four points to it. You saying, "that winning a duel shouldn't have any negative repercussions" is not articulating the point accurately. The point about the honor swing includes how fast this can end a game. It is too powerful...more powerful than any Clan Champion, any Stronghold and any Ring. This is why it needs to be fix. You are not reading the thesis. Describing how to negotiate the broken rules does not fix them. They are still broken, even if you don't suffer the extremes of them. Putting lipstick on the pig does not make it a geisha.
  5. Because it is not clearly stated up front, as with every other card action in the game. You making a bid is not clear cost, it is a gamble. This idea is stated clearly in the rules. My second point is the argument that each micro-conflict, other than dueling, brings you closer to a win condition. In dueling, you can get both closer and farther away at the same time. No other action in the game does this. Paying costs is marshaling resources up front to create the effect that changes the board in your favor. The dueling rules, very often, do not do this. You said, "If you can't pay the cost, or it actively moves you towards not winning, don't use the ability!" you do not know the exact cost of the duel until you resolve it, that IS NOT A COST! This does not address anything I said in the thesis. This is a strategy to negotiate the broken rules, not a defense of them. I put forward four points, this has nothing to do with them. You are missing the point. This has nothing to do with me playing. The rules are broken in the way they interact with the game itself, with any two players. There is a part of that I can agree with, but there are better ways to skin that cat. Someone else has posted a set of dueling rules that allows for that. It is back a number of pages...not sure where.
  6. No, he understands the rules, just not where they are broken. Read the thesis.
  7. Please define "subjective". I now believe you don't know what that means. It is not in the Thesis... First, the four point swing can happen to either party. It is the difference between someone bidding "1" and the other person bidding "5". No special cards or special plays need apply here. Three duels ending in a 4 point swing, going in the same direction, ends the game. Yes, it is unlikely, but my point is that IT SHOULDN'T BE POSSIBLE! If you think it should be, fine...we disagree. You have not thought of how it can happen yet. Others in this thread have described how it can happen. With respect, take a read and include the Thesis. I'll be here.
  8. Ok, refute the points in the thesis and I will change my mind. He did not understand how the dueling was broken. So, as he used it, I accentuated each loss. And I was deceitful about it, he didn't see me maneuvering him into situations where the duel would resolve, not in a 1-2 point honor lost...but rather 2-4 point s(normally 3 points honor loss). And please respect my play group, you do not know them. I don't call you broken because we have a difference of opinion.
  9. Actually, someone else was triggering the duels against me and I used the broken dueling rules to win. But he was accurate when he said winning the duels should put him closer to winning, not further away.
  10. I did that. I just re-posted the "Thesis" above... I took back the "11" point thing, because the scorpion player would have to do it to them-self. On the "4" point swing, look at the thesis. I agree it is a problem there also, but that is a subject for a different thread... This was not my point. Read the Thesis. Under the current rules, 3 duels can end a game in the first turn, on the first conflict. Unlikely, but this should not even be possible. Nothing should be this strong. A conflict alone cannot do this. This situation is specific to the dueling rules. If you think this is not strong, ok... we disagree.
  11. Sure, here you go... _____ Thesis: "The dueling rules are broken." 1.) Game Mechanics: No other action type in the game punishes the initiator of an action in the same way dueling does. "Route", "Outwit", "For Shame" and others, for example, do not "punish" the initiator. You pay a cost, sure. But that is not punishment. You are managing resources to achieve an effect on the game board. The cost of that effect is up front and everyone can see it before you the resolution of the event is made manifest. If we say there should be an element of randomness in a duel mechanic...and there should be...it should punish the losing character/player and reward the winning player/character. The current system, in the vast majority of duels, punishes BOTH sides. So, it is possible to win every duel and lose the game because of it. 2.) Game Balance: This game is made up of micro-conflicts. Each micro-conflict can have different win conditions, subjectively or objectively. Plus, because each player can have different methods for their "win condition" and "goals" for the action, the "win condition" can be obscured. This adds subtly to the game and it is a good thing. But winning each micro-conflict is supposed to get the winner closer to one of the possible win conditions not farther way, or rather, it should not contribute to the winner of the micro-conflict losing the game, directly. Under the current rules, it is possible for a player to initiate 4 duels, in a single combat phase, and lose the game at the end of the fourth duel, immediately. This gives a very slanted advantage to the loser of the duel and in so doing, unbalances the game. 3.) Effect of Honor Loss: No clan starts the game with more than 12 honor and, I think, more clans start a game with 10 honor, more clans start with 10 honor than any other value. Dishonor is a victory condition. There are cards that transfer "1" honor from one player to another, one clan to another clan. Character effects, a clan stronghold and the Air Ring can do this. But the dueling rules can force one player/clan to transfer "4" honor to the other player/clan and the transfer can be as high as "5" or "6" honor with other card effects. This is one-third to almost one half of a clan's starting honor, possibly in one duel. This means, the dueling rules can force transfers of honor, in one duel, more power than any clan champion ability, any stronghold, any single activation of a ring. No action in the game is this powerful. And, even if we came to the conclusion that any card/action should be this much power, because most duels are normally trigger against characters with lower duel stats than the initiating character, this transfer is more likely to go to the loser of the duel. So, the player initiating the duel is giving his opponent access to the most powerful action in the game, as far as honor transfers are concerned, but because of the math behind the challenger having a higher duel stat, the largest honor transfers will happen in favor of the player/character losing the duel. The reward is going in the wrong direction. 4.) Fictional Storyline: Rokugan is a realm governed by an honor component. This has duelists and the majority are supposed to honorable. Because the rules say, "you must enter a number on the dial of how much honor you are willing to lose", it makes gives every duel an element of dishonor. Honorable samurai/duelists would not want to be dishonorable, by definition. The dueling rules directly contradict the idea of honorable duelist, by definition. Because you always have to add the number on the dial (the amount of honor to risk) to your military stat. So, under this current system, every duel is DISHONORABLE, at some level, even when both players choose "1", because both characters are still RISKING "1" honor. That, by definition, is DISHONORABLE. Honorable characters would not do this. This dueling system does all four of these things at the same time, and so, none of these points stand alone. And for these reasons the dueling rules should be changed. _____
  12. Obviously, I am thinking differently and I have a desire for things like honor to mean HONOR...so, I am parsing it as, I am taking up an idea that is not the norm and willing to do something passionate, like arguing for the dueling rules change, in the face of the majority of my peers. So, I am comfortable with the relationship. Besides, he might be right...But he has to prove it. Until then, I will keep the joke...I like it.
×
×
  • Create New...