Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Froysadal

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The keeper role doesn’t need to be better than seeker. The incentive for wanting to be keeper is for having different roles to chose from when deckbuilding. My thought was that they will be at a role disadvantage until next opportunity. Maybe a bit harsh, but would drive competition. Anyway.
  2. @Tabris2k. After reading: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/op/l5r-lcg/roles/ I realise that in fact my system is also a flavour fail. I think my flavour confusion stems from the fact that the roles have a dual purpose. On one hand they represent the clans approach to life, the universe and everything. Flavour. On the other hand they exist as a game mechanic to shake up the meta. My misinterpretation of the clan roles as a title to keep or seek, rose from the competing nature of role selection. The FFG system is a compromise between mechanic and flavour. I don’t know what to make of it really. Thanks to everyone for a civil discussion.
  3. @Tabris2k Thank you for a proper answer to this exchange of viewpoints. Giving me food for thought. I like that.
  4. Well, there are 5 keeper roles in all. If a clan so desperately wants a keeper role, all they need to do is pick the keeper they have the strongest matchup against. They might even splash a little clan hate in their deck (extra let go vs. Dragon).
  5. Yes. This is part of the intention of letting each clan pick their element freely. To accommodate this every clan may be seeker. Well crab can forgo the seeker role in an attempt to hold on to keeper of earth, but that doesn’t deny other clans the chance of an earth role. It doesn’t necessarily deny a keeper role either, in that any clan may target the weakest keeper or the most undesirable element so as to easier become keeper. There are 5 keeper roles after all. Once keeper the clan may then select their desired element for next period. Only the specific elemental keeper roles will be hard to obtain, if held by a tier 1 strategy.
  6. My suggestion seems quite straight forward to me. How do you find it complicated?
  7. If, for example crab want to have the specific combination keeper of earth, they would risk losing that role when winning their new keeper role. Hence the option of abstaining.
  8. Well, cards may eventually rotate in. Don’t players understand this, or is it the need for instant gratification? @K.Rc. I gather you dislike the current rotatation system. So do you think my suggestion is, if not your desired solution, at least an improvement? I mean, the clans would only have to compete for elemental roles within their own clan. Not with any other clan. Any clan can be a seeker. That leaves only the keeper role and cards to vied over. You to @AradonTemplar. What do you think of my suggested system?
  9. True. But consider the following example. The Phoenix clan is “the keepers of the Tao of Shinsei and caretakers of the Empire’s soul.” (FFG 2017. Legend of the Five Rings - learn to play, p.26). I doubt the Phoenix clan would want to share this honourable obligation with another clan. But of course, they could.
  10. The term Keeper implies having something, while Seeker implies wanting something one doesn’t have. Thus the free seeker roles and the fight for the role of keeper.
  11. This thread was intended for suggesting a different role selection system. After better understanding the role systems compromise, and balance between game mechanic and flavour, my suggestion has lost a large part of it’s merit. I will leave the original post below for the context of this threads discussion, should it be of interest to anyone. ——————————————— Dear FFG. I thought the clan role system was genius as intended. Now I am saddened that the flavour aspect of keeper and seeker roles will become spoiled because of players being sad about being denied play with a few newly printed cards (especially the element locked cards). A flavour fail in the sense that several clans (as I understand it) can be the keeper of the same element. Flavour wise, sharing seeker roles feels fine to me, but sharing custody of an element just seems wrong to me. So for the sake of flavour. Dear FFG. Please consider the following suggestion for: A MORE FLAVOURFUL SYSTEM. 1 - When new roles are to be selected. Each clan chooses a seeker role of their choice for the next period (exception 1c).  1a - Multiple clans can be the seeker of the same element.  1b - Keepers cannot become seekers of their current held element. 1c - Keepers can abstain from choosing a seeker role.  1a - Multiple clans can be the seeker of the same element. 2 - At the end of a period, for each element, the seeking clan that has a higher win rate against the current keeper becomes the new keeper. 2a - Amongst multiple clans seeking the same element. The seeking clan with the highest win rate against the current keeper becomes the new keeper. 2b - A clan can only be the keeper of one element and must relinquish their previous keeper role when obtaining a new one. In short. Each clan can freely choose an element type 3 times a year, but has to battle for the role of keeper during the period, adding a layer of clan rivalry to sanctioned play. Is this a better role system than the one planed? yes/no and how so. Please leave a comment.
  12. A problem mentioned in the forum regarding the unwillingness to attack first early in multiplayer games, got me thinking about placement of fate on rings as an incentive to attack. What if players, somehow, are rewarded with fate on their own rings for attacking? Like say. After a player declares a ring, that player puts 1 fate on an unclaimed ring in his or her ring pool if able.
  13. True, but restrictions seem to be a necessity under the current rules. Maybe a restriction should be accompanied by an inscentive to attack. What if fate being placed on your rings, somehow, was a reward for attacking once, or maybe only when attacking twice each round? Fate does after all seem sparse in multiplayer according to the forum, and thus a real incentive.
  14.  As many as I need to win the game. Well that goes without saying. I still imagine there is a threshold, even for a scorpion player, on how much honor an attack is worth. I don’t think I would ever attack the weakest player if the price was 10 honor, unless it guaranteed the win. On the other hand, if the price was only 1 honor I would be attacking all day long. Where is the sweet spot that makes attacking the weak only occasionally worth it?
  • Create New...