Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ignithas

  1. Hasbro has extremly high expectations of their products. They canceling a CCG doesn't mean that someone can't make a profitable CCG with a lesser known IP. That said Asmodee also expects a lot from their products, so I wouldn't have high hope for L5R CCG.
  2. It depends on the set. Standard has a legality time of: 2 years 1,75 years 1,5 years 1,25 years If 1 set was released per month and 2 cycles are legal at a time , L5R would have a legality of: 1 year 0,917 0,833 0,75 0,667 0,583 Having a role system and clan loyality is a cursed problem. Furthermore balance through card design becomes more difficult and you furthermore make an uneducated guess, because you don't know the future cards.
  3. This would aleviate the issue, but won't solve it. If you calculate with MSRP, you'd still have a cost of 349,20 to 438,90$. You then have to deal with people being unsatisfied with their cards only being playable for 1-1,5 year.
  4. The only way to "solve" the LCG model is to have seperate card pools with seperate products. The advantage is that you don't need to buy as much and it is easier to balance, but the disadvantage is that it limits the deckbuilding and design options.
  5. This assessment seems wrong. If you know the provinces in the game and the decks that are played, you normally have a good knowledge what your oponents provinces can be. And at that point it is risk management. If I want to play around Restauration of Balance and Upholding Authority, I won't attack with more than 2 str. into unrevealed provinces. If I want to play around Midnight Ravels, maybe I won't buy a big characters etc. Maybe not attacking is the right decision. Maybe getting two fate from a ring is worth the high risk of running and breaking Upholding Authority. This are all very skill intensive decisions and not pure luck. You are right that the game would work without provinces, but this holds true for 90% of L5R's mechanics.
  6. The ban of Liar is strange. Especially because it isn't even the strongest 1 coster in Scorpion and cards that are simply overtuned are usually restricted and not banned. I don't think that this is necessarily true. The only thing we can deduct from the fact that core set cards are overrepresented on the RL and ban list is that Tyler is more willingly to act on cards that are not part of the current releases. What I liked from previous updates was that balancing and improving the gameplay were both important in determining which cards were restricted, banned or changed. This one seems like the only real criteria was the gameplay, which sucks for clans that got shafted (Crane, Dragon, Scoprion and probably Crab). I heavily disagree with that. Provinces bring a lot to the game and without them you essentially play a different version of AGoT LCG.
  7. I really like Skirmish and it would have been cool if it was in the core set alongside the stronghold format. The stories are serviceable to give the game background, but I don't think they are great. The overarching pace is extremly slow, character development is awkward, because the stories jump from one protagonist to another and the world doesn't seem "alive" to me.
  8. We don't know if this is the last cycle, but there are signs that it is not. Agot and SW lcg had rumors beforehand that playtesting didn't receive new cards and Netrunner and Warhammer were canceled die to licensing issues. A cycle contains of 6 dynasty packs and I haven't seen any contrary informations.
  9. If you look at the tower lion lists that were topping the last tournaments, you'll always find 0-1 Censures. For win percentage, there were very few matches played between Lion and Phoenix and while very prominent and strong Lion players attended the tournaments, the same can't be said about Phoenix.
  10. If your oponent spends 11+ fate on a character and you don't have 10 fate within 2 turns, you misplayed somewhere. The favor control of the tower deck isn't that strong, especially if they save to put 8 fate on a char. If they do have favor you can either risk it (because most lists play 0-1 Censures) or hope for Upholding Authority. The matchup feels significantly favored for Phoenix.
  11. Then make the big brain play and play 2 Five Fires.
  12. Every Phoenix deck wants to be on Five Fires, if it wants to maximise its win chance. Otherwise you can auto-fold against decks like tower lion or tower unicorn.
  13. Influence is stopping them. If you spend 6 influence for Let Go and 3 for Ancient Master, you have no influence left for Hurricane Punch, if you want to run Consumed by five Fires. Furthermore it wouldn't restrict the splash.
  14. Dual characters won't take anything away from other mechanics being developed. I think it could even have the oposidte effect if for example Hurricane Punch would have been Dragon/Phoenix.
  15. We need a dance floor map for the techno union and genosian with dubstep guns.
  16. There shouldn't have been balance erratas in the first place. We have a restriction and ban list for cards and combinations that are problamatic for the game.
  17. From a competitive standpoint the only cards on the banlist that would see play if they only were on the restricted list are Tadaka and Charge. While I think that the cost cheating argument is quite a weak one, Charge is probably too strong with the aggro cards we recently got and the ones that we will get in the next cycle.
  18. I made the oposite experience. The passive thread gain and bonus cards don't scale, it is more difficult to react to thread/damage spikes and difficult henchmen. Furthermore there are synergy-effects between a lot of aspects/heros. Iron Man and Spider Man for example work really well together, because Spider Man has tech cards that can be recured by Stark Tower and Spider Man can stay in hero form early on, which makes Iron Man's weak early game not as impactful.
  19. I don't think that this LCG model would work, especially if you still need 2 legendaries. I think that the easiest fix would be either removing the legendary rarity and/or reducing the amount of rares/legendaries in a set. But maybe the playerbase is too small to effectivly reducing the amount of money players have to spend. From a gameplay perspective the design of destiny is very good currently. There will always be cards that are pushed and it makes sense to design new sets with interesting cards/combos that will certainly see competitive play. For my taste new strategies are a little bit too pushed, but it is probably better than comparable games, especially because a lot of the pieces are rares or only need one dice. The bigger problem are staple cards on legendary like Vader's Fist, Niman Mastery, Megablaster Troopers etc. You need them even in older decks, but the prices on the second market are ridicoulus.
  20. For me the problems are as followed: .) There are times where entering is really discouraged. At the moment starters are largely meaningless and 3 from the 5 Standard legal sets rotate out within the next 4-9 months, reducing their value by aproximatly 3/4. .) Some cards are too powerful. This is especially infurieting if they are hard counters (desperate measures) or legendary- which leads us to the next problem. Low cost characters also seem stronger than they should be. .) Prices for the game are ridicoulus. Buying boxes is too expensive because there are too many legendaries and different themes, that most likely will be irrelevant when the next set hits. Buying singles is also unsatisfactory, because legendary staples cost 20-70 €. This also makes swapping very difficult. The only way around it is having a big pool of players that lend cards to each other. .) The return for the money spent is pretty low. The game is intentionally power crept, so chances are high that you need to spend a lot with each set. The things you buy will lose almost all its value within 2 years and the goodies you get at tournaments don't really compensate for it (especially if you have to travel to them).
  21. Most groups play with the official roles, even if they are playing "fun decks". Furthermore the clans most likely have their prefered role 8 months, not 4. Your example also applies a stagnand meta and sacrifices variety within a tournament for maybe a higher variety within a year. It is hard to speak hypothetically, but I know that our playgroup won't stay on the same one or two roles. Especially if you try to build off the wall you often come to a point where a different role would give you usefull tools. So if you tell me that you didn't find it restrictive, then you probably didn't brew enough.
  22. I have no interest in playing multiplayer but multiplayer could be a nice way to reach a bigger audience.
  23. Especially this Worlds showed that people have off the wall deck/stronghold/role choices even on the highest level of competition. People that argue that a small amount of elite players dictate the whole meta are not taking the real results we got from major events into account. The changes to the role system gives the players even more choices to go against the grain. I am happy that I can go to our weekly meetup with my KoE Phoenix/Dragon and Dragon/Phoenix monk deck.
  24. I don't think that this is a problem. You have to attack with one cost 5 and one cost 3 character and they are not doing anything besides that. Chances are high that you made the mistake of overcommitting right there.
  • Create New...