Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About player1050985

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Leiden, , Netherlands
  1. I would love to have a game which incorporates this setting with a grand strategy approach. Similar to for example Shogun/Samurai Swords/Ikusa but with the totally unique flavour of each clan, politics in Otosan Uchi, economy building etc. Alderac had something like this planned but cancelled it (unfortunately): https://boardgamegeek.com/images/boardgame/25931/legend-five-rings-art-war
  2. Considering that L5R is currently a CCG which has a different dynamic for its cards compared to a LCG I would expect FFG to need this time to rework the game so it will fit into their idea of a LCG. In LCG's there is no such thing as a common, uncommon or rare card so balancing the cards by making more powerful or more complex cards "rare" will not work. Next to this, L5R has about a dozen or so different card types spread across a dozen or so different affiliations. Some cards can be used by all affiliations, some cards can be used by all but clearly favour certain affiliations, some cards are specific to an affiliation but can be used by others and some cards can only be used by one affiliation. A reduction in card types, card mechanics and a general cleanup of all those different card types is definitely in order to fit with the LCG approach. Oh, and to be fair: two years is SHORT for a complete game development cycle; most games with a good amount of complexity need one year to just test the mechanics, components and set of the release at the very least. And this doesn't include the fact that L5R is story driven in its releases; thus in order to make an L5R game they would need to have a story line set from the start with nodes where decisions can be taken in which direction the story can go (based for example on the performance and outcome of story tournaments). This will be the first time that FFG will be doing it like this, thus its safe to say that there will be some "design testing" needed. To be fair: the L5R game really deserves the full treatment and not a "pasted on"/"hasty"/"quick buck" approach that I see other game developers do (Wizkids I'm looking at you ). FFG has a reputation for designing games where setting/story and mechanics are integrated really well (and to be fair I like the design they took with splitting the rulebooks into two separate ones) and I'm sure this featured heavily into Alderac selling the L5R to them. I have so far resisted the LCG's (I have bought some just to try it) and the only one that I was really interested in was Netrunner and even that one I only bought ONE base set. However, if FFG manage to capture the L5R setting and story into their game in a great way, I'm planning to start collecting it again. The ONLY reason i stopped collecting was the lack of fellow players and the lack of availability in my area which was a great shame. This game scratched an itch that Magic: The Gathering never managed to even though they tried to include more story in their game. I am a sucker for a good story and setting!
  3. It definitely shines the most with 4 players. With 2 players, the Invader player has to work very hard, especially since there is no downtime during another player's Invader Turn to think about your next moves. This was a great game in the 80's before the release of the Euro-style games. FFG modernised the design a bit but left pretty much most of the original game intact. In practice, the downtime can get quite high if you are playing the game with too many people prone to analysis paralysis.
  4. Hi all, Some of the things that were for me defining L5R: - Win through Military, Honor or Enlightenment - Alternative Win Conditions on top of this (related to for example the Black Scrolls or the Four Walls of Otosan) - Dueling, Samurai and Personal Honor - Characters and Experienced Versions of Characters - Multiplayer mechanics as an integral part of the game. I've enjoyed the multiplayer games a LOT more than the single player ones to be honest. - Story Tournaments to advance the story line and decide how the story will continue. - A Story Arc that was very well integrated into the game cards and expansions; this is the part where this game really humbled Magic: The Gathering. The Day of Thunder story arc was the very best story I've ever seen in a card game and one of the best in board games in general. The story is worth reading even without the game. I could do away with: - Splitting the deck into two separate card types with a different way to bring them into play (cards in hand vs cards played from provinces) - The "All or Nothing" combat mechanism; I much prefer to see combat at a Province split up into multiple smaller combats between characters much like Magic does with losses on both sides. - More things that you can do during another players turn; I've had games where the downtime was absolutely horrible because I didn't have many reaction type effects in my deck. - Simplify the large amount of card types. There were too many to begin with and they added even more as expansions were brought out.
  5. Hi everyone, I'm planning to create a bigger board for Fortress America (due to size issues in the eastern part which I don't like) but I rather lack a scanner to create the digital image. Can anyone provide me with a JPG, PNG or BMP (high resolution) of just the game board? I would much appreciate it.
  6. Scouting combined with attacking the in-between enemy territory can be a powerful way to increase movement (for example, for the Western Invader). You can place a Helicopter, Infantry and Mobile unit in a territory. The Helicopter scouts an area 2 places away while the mobile and infantry attack the adjacent territory. In the movement phase after combat, the mobile and infantry move into the adjacent territory and establish the supply line the helicopter needs. Next turn, you can repeat the whole thing and you will end up capturing two territories deep every turn. Those north-central cities can be threatened this way.
  7. I like all the pieces except the Lasers. I prefer the old style lasers myself; the new ones look too much like S.A.M batteries.
  8. I once had a game which the USA won by running the Invaders out of time. The Invaders were for three turns very close to the 18 victory cities, but never managed to push it over the top. They did make it to 18 cities on one turn but the USA threw everything at a single city and managed to recapture it. The USA played a very cautious game, and the Eastern Invader did as well.
  9. I think its in the rulebook somewhere, but I don't have it with me. The reason why there are different numbers of Invader markers is due to the circumstances of the Invaders. The Eastern invader is usually the one faced with the stiffest resistance from the USA and hence captures less area's than the Western invader. The Western invader, once he gets past the coastal cities, is faced with less opposition untill he reaches the Rocky Mountains where Partisan cards can stop him. Thus, the Western invader usually captures more territory than the Eastern Invader and thus needs more markers. But in the end, if you run out you can just use other markers (like coins) or remove them from area's where you already have infantry (so that its clear who the area belongs to). As I said before, the only limited things in this game are the units and the Partisan/Invader cards, where there are specific rules as to what to do when you run out or there are strict limits on how many you should have available at the start of the game.
  10. In both this version as well as the MB version the Invader Control marker was removed immediately upon placement of the partisans. Since at the start of the Maneuver phase the territory is now US controlled, there is no problem with the Partisans attacking an adjacent Invader controlled area. So the turn Partisans get placed in an unoccupied enemy-controlled territory, Partisans can essentially capture two territories. Drop some of them behind the Southern invaders front line and watch the fun!
  11. You can use replacement markers. In this game, only the units and the partisan cards are limited. Everything else should be treated as having an unlimited supply. For example, if you attack with 5 bombers, you can roll 4 dice add up the results then roll 1 die again and add that results to the total. No way is the fifth die "lost" because the game only supplies four 10-sided dice.
  12. I personally think that the game is roughly 50-50 (without any Invader Cards). If the USA really know what they are doing, the game is pretty well balanced. The USA is however harder to play for a first-time player; attacking too early or not retreating when the Invaders have an overwhelming attack on a city are the two main causes for loosing for a newbie. I do suggest that new players mixing with experienced players play the southern invader if possible; its the Invader which has the most balanced tasks; Western Invader is a logistical nightmare while the Eastern Invader will need to kill or occupy as many USA forces as possible.
  13. I've played roughly 10 games so far, both as Invader and as the USA. Its a pretty tough game in that both sides have to be careful; the other side can punish mistakes quite easily. The Invaders really have to work together to win; each choosing a separate strategy will only make things easier for the USA. The USA has to really be careful in the early 2-3 turns not to overstretch and loose too many good units, you will need them later on.
  14. player1050985


    I think that it will not be a problem. FFG hasn't got the licence for a long time yet, and the sale to Disney would no doubt include any legal rights and obligations on the part of Lucasfilm to any other parties that make use of the Intellectual Property. Disney has the choice either to allow FFG to use the IP as long as the license contracts states OR to revoke the license and pay compensation to FFG for damages caused. In the case of FFG this would be costs made for producing products (including future ones) that use the IP as well as missed revenue's based on those products. Most license contracts have stipulations as to how the contract holder should be compensated. In any case, Disney did not do anything of the sort when they acquired Marvel a couple of years ago and I doubt they would do so now. Besides this, Intellectual Property like this is valued according to popularity and fan base rather than anything else. Withdrawing licenses only damages popularity and fan base reducing the value of the IP. Look at what happened to IP's that have been quite popular at some point but are currently not in high demand anymore; X-Files for example.
  15. 1) Combat lasts only a single round. After this, the combat is over. If there are any defending units still remaining in the attacked territory, then the attacker cannot move into the territory to claim it after the combat phase. 2) Territories can be attacked from multiple adjacent territories, not just from a single adjacent territory. This means its possible to attack a city territory with more than 5 adjacent units (not including bombers). However, each friendly unit can attack only ONE territory in a turn so its NOT possible to use one unit to attack TWO adjacent territories.
  • Create New...