Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ascarel

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I personally would have more fun going through a race for honor -- players trying to keep each other from finishing first over that line, as much as this is "non interactive" -- than facing more dishonor decks. In my totally unprofessional, egoistical experience, dishonor decks are very sad affairs to go against. It's probably a combination of my subpar playing, my local meta and the decks I choose (want) to play, but all those games where my hands are tied because drawing cards becomes too costly, while this sad state is increasingly compounded by the spiralling effect of never getting my own drawing resources as a result, don't offer that many bucketloads of fun... 😅
  2. Good catch about L5C25 -- I had missed that! I didn't think the schedule acceleration would amount to a reshuffle with confusing catalog numbers (which I use myself to track what I own and what I expect in the coming weeks). But it does seem to be what's happening. It looks like the Dragon pack will effectively be the last one to be released, but then they already announced the accompanying novella. This would fit with the initial schedule hinted at by these LC5 numbers. It's just not what we'll be getting in the end.
  3. I just saw that the Crab pack is actually numbered L5C26 and the Lion pack is L5C27. 🤯 Wouldn't that mean the Crab one gets released first, thereby explaining the increase in previews?
  4. Since I am not coming from the old L5R perspective, I presume I have to apologize for discovering so late, and naively so, this abhorrent hypocrisy of the Crane, although at the same time I must applaud its faithful realization in the game. 😉
  5. Yōjimbō is already a keyword: https://fiveringsdb.com/cards/search?q=k%3Ayojimbo. If I recall correctly, no ability anywhere refers to it as of yet. I'd prefer the yōjimbō to act as a mandatory dueling partner when on the board. I mean, if one initiates a duel against a player who has a yōjimbō in play, the initiator _must_ choose that character.
  6. This. So. Much. This. As a casual Netrunner player who did not buy everything there was, it was irritating to find similar comments on netrunnerdb. But with L5R I find the same kind of black and white pronouncement on Discord. It's especially funny when two people speak with the same level certainty but are at complete opposite as to what they claim is the best. I just shrug and move along. It has to be said, LCGs are hybrid creatures. Built for competitive play, but layered with enough theme, flavor and overall production quality to attract non-competitive gamers. A weird outlier might be Arkham, because it's coop, but that might actually confirm the weird place "PvP" LCGs are at. I therefore wish the casual gamer would find himself or herself more at home with these kinds of games. To me this means a broader support of related products and variants (such as multiplayer, which was mentioned by someone else). I've always found idea behind the Terminal Directive box for Netrunner nothing short of awesome. L5R is so well suited for that. Just imagine a story around the fight for Hisu Mori Toride. Or Tadaka's journey to the Crab lands. Or whatever shenanigans we're expecting between Sotorii and Daisetsu. Those story-oriented boxes could come with basic deck themselves, I'd pay the extra for that.
  7. FWIW, my original post was not going in that direction because I agree that big characters must have the impact that is expected of them. I continue to believe however that eating weaker characters for breakfast is fundamentally a dishonorable act.
  8. Ah, I don't recall any other than Arbiter of Authority, to be honest. They still seem to be in the minority. If we see more in the future, this will be a positive development in my view.
  9. Thanks guys for your input. I appreciate it. This I find is interesting. In some ways, it's the best argument that can convince me to start accepting duels as they are. Why? Because this reminds me of the RPG's ethos as expounded by FFG (no idea about past editions) -- everyone needs to maintain an honorable façade but nobody really does it all the time. So by accepting duels as an oppressive tool, this is a tacit admission that honorable behaviour is more theory than practice. I can get behind that for the sake of theme. The only caveat I would point out is that even in this context, you would normally "cheat" when people are not looking, hoping to keep your public face intact. But bully duels are the opposite of that. Thematically speaking, I really have a hard time with it. 😕 I did not refer to specific decks, just that doing something dishonorable is Scorpion-like behaviour. 😉 I have no idea what you are talking about. There is no refusal allowed in the Dueling framework. I don't disagree with that. I guess my feeling is that genuine dueling does not fit this requirement.
  10. In the same spirit as this other thread I made a while ago, I thought I'd go on with another discussion of theme and game design interaction in the context of L5R. Some disclaimer: I still love L5R as much as before, perhaps more so. I am going to write about something I don't like to the point of being borderline NPE. This is still not a rant. See #1. I've come to believe that the design of duels in L5R has missed its mark and fails to live up to its thematic underpinnings -- resoundingly so. By default, when initiating a duel, a player chooses both characters involved in the duel. In practice, this makes the vast majority of duels what's been called "bully duels". Players will set up their duels to be won easily, if not with certainty. Many cards actually encourage this, especially that combo of Iaijutsu Master/Mirumoto Daisho that I've seen too often on Jigoku for my taste, but both cards individually carry the same spirit. And actually nobody needs to go that far, because the mere fact of choosing a weaker opponent is what irks me and make me roll my eyes. And because this is a choice players will often make and often actively work toward, most duels 1) bring no tension to the game as a result, 2) have a completely skewed risk/reward ratio for the initiator. Sure, in so doing the players follow the rules, but to my mind, such duels are completely.... dishonorable. Yep, I really went there. 😉 Bully duels are inherently dishonorable, plain and simple. Competitive players are all Scorpions at heart, I guess. 😉 In terms of game design vs theme, there is a conundrum here. I was told that in the old lore, a character like Toshimoko never lost a duel. I have no problem with that, but that's one character alone, not a whole game mechanic going in a dubious direction. I would also counter with the following. There is very little glory in being the best duelist against weaker opponents. In being the best, Toshimoko should win duels against a buffed up Kisada with little sweat -- but that is not what the game is allowing at all. To follow the theme more closely, I would have enjoyed being granted a choice like that given by Arbiter of Authority but at all times -- I don't want to duel you, but I will dishonor my character for refusing. Or maybe there should have been some additional cost added to initiate an easy duel. Or maybe a character not meant for dueling should not be challenged at all? Just let _duelists_ do their thing amongst themselves? Just thinking out loud here. Anyway, I feel that so much more could have been done around that mechanic in relation to the theme. The more I think of it, the more being a good duelist should mean that yes, you should win more easily against strong characters -- but not necessarily against everyone. It feels wrong. It's a loophole. And as long as it is there, I guess Scoprions people will exploit it. Alright, so that was it. Discuss!
  11. Oh, ok, so these conditions are "additive". Therefore, any concession after 65 minutes means 0 pt for the loser at all times, while the winner has to win before getting to the tie break in order to get the full 10 pts. Is that it?
  12. The tournament regulation document says the following (my emphasis, original document here😞 This seems to imply that after 70min, the winner gets 10 points, the loser gets 0. After 75, the winner gets 6, the loser gets 1. This entails that there is no case when both players have the modified win condition. That document is from last October, but I think we haven't ever played like that locally. We're behind the times I guess?!
  13. My mind is pure, and therefore I have no idea what you're talking about. Ok, but seriously, I just tried translating an expression we say in my native language, and I thought the image was clear enough, without thinking about the form. 😆 :facepalm:
  14. Good lord. I just complained in another thread that sometimes excessive use of abbreviations is hard to follow, and here I fell prey to that habit myself. My apologies. The sprayer has been sprayed.
  15. I love Battle Maiden Recruits for unlocking the number of participating character mechanics. It costs 0 but remains valuable for Press of Battle, Challenge on the Fields, and of course HMT itself. I think she is worth inclusion, though following your point I will probably choose the extra fate over playing her most of the time I am given this choice (which is not always, far from it!). She'll also be able to get on board with Shinjo Gunso, once this one becomes be available.
  • Create New...