Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lancezh

  • Rank
  • Birthday 04/21/1981

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

836 profile views
  1. I just noticed how the color scheme, and pretty much everything on this card is a nod to the iconic comic panel, pretty sure i'm not the first to notice but i find that awesome!
  2. Ban Strategic Advisor for starters and all Medium ships become (more) viable again.
  3. This was speficially aimed on the OP asking for an Imperial Counterpart to the CR90. The CR90 is an extremely versatile ship providing activations, dealing damage etc. Don't get me wrong, i almost always include Raider into my list, but it's very very hard to bring more than 1. Due to the new errata you can have 3 "cheap" activations with 2 Gozantis and 1 Raider that fills a usefull role. And then.... you're done, there's no more cheap activations, this is more a problem of line up as the Raider cannot fill the role of the CR-90 or Hammerhead to provide a cheap activation. That's why i said, you have to look at this of a point of opportunitycost. Imperial list building is seriously skewed at the moment, comparing the Raider to the CR-90 performance wise is just not the whole story. Ships also provide activations and need to be looked at in their context, and right now that context is the (almost) autoinclude of an ISD with SA.
  4. Interesting, sounds like someone with OCD though if he didn't do it for tactical reasons. If that was the case, he literally couldn't any different. Not saying that it's fun for you but i know the type ?
  5. I'm sorry this is just not correct. I'm almost exclusively playing card games and am considered to be one of the fastest in my meta with many thousands of games between Netrunner / GoT with only L5R maybe being under 100 games. It doesn't matter wether you are experienced or not, it remains a fact that the board state changes with hidden information (your oponents hand, what could he play next activation). Being experienced means only that you are faster overall, that doesn't make the process good or streamlined. Observe a game of Netrunner or GoT, the biggest downtime happens when players plan their PHASE. That is after your oponent has done their stuff and it's now your turn to marshal / play cards or to do your attackphase. You do have altering card effects (like events) but all in all those are the biggest time wasters in each game. In average i'd say you stop about 3-4 times to thoroughly analyze the boardstate before a game round concludes (in NR this is a bit different sometimes but that's besides the point). In L5R you do this after every action. This isn't usually that much of a problem in the Dynastyphase as there the Boardstate is relatively transparent but in the Phase with Conflicts this is a HUGE timestopper and sink. The argument that experienced players are playing faster is not something i can confirm to the point where it's not a problem anymore, it also essentially means that the game is ONLY fast (if it were true) in the hands of only a select few. It much more comes down to the personality of the player, some people are playing slow not because they are less experienced or slow in the head, because they play different. They think everything through and are more risk averse etc. etc. Either way, i'm happy that it's not a problem for you, but i was referring to the general perception this game gives. And why i, personally, do not play it anymore.
  6. Which ship is worse for it's basecost and the activations it provides ? Aside from the Interdictor nothing comes to mind. Mind you i have almost always Raiders in my lists since i started playing 3 years ago, not saying i know my stuff or anything but there needs to be a bit more meat on this bone before i concede to that point. And you can't just say "it's missing a redirect" no, it's not. The relationship is exactly what i said before, cost -> performance. You can't say the ship is fine and then still ask for a change of it. Either decrease the point cost or make it better. It's the same thing, you're just evading the point there, no offense.
  7. Thank you very much for these statistics which pretty much confirm my issues with the meta at the moment. I said it in another thread already, the Strategic Advisor needs to be burned away from the game. We have as imperials almost no wiggle room outside of ISD's for Listbuilding in competitive play. As you already said, our medium Ships are dead in the Water because of the ISD & SA combo. It's such a shame. We are in a weird spot where the meta is balanced but not in a necessarly good way.
  8. What imperials need is the Imperial Tax to be gone and... the ISD is very compounding this problem. If you don't fly an ISD as an imperial your tournament competitive lists become very narrow. The meta is skewed in a sense that it feels balanced (which it is) but only because the ISD is such a good ship for such a "low" point cost with Strategic Adviser basically invalidating VSD's / Raiders (with exceptions) etc. (Slight addendum, if you go First player lists you almost always also have to take the Demolisher, which narrows your list even more down) VSD's exemplify this perfectly... it's not that the VSD's are terrible, it's just the current state of the game that you need activations, and they can't fit a Strategic Advisor, they don't have the hull to survive an Avenger Alphastrike but ISD's have more activations, more hull, more firepower, more maneuverability. More everything for a little extra cost. So instead of asking for new ships we need to talk about general opportunity cost balancing. All the "alternatives" cost to much. A ship is not bad per se. A ship is bad if it costs to much for what it brings to the table. Look at the Raider, i love that ship and it's design. It's a great thing but it costs to much (probably being the worst point / performance balance of all ships). If it cost 1 point everybody would take it, right ? How about 10 ? 20 ? 30 ? 40 points ? Sure, so where is the magical balance ? We don't need new ships, we need to reevaluate the point cost of these obsolete ships due to opportunity cost. Oh and i wouldn't shed a tear if the Strategical Advisor gets burned with the Banhammer. It punishes anything Midsize way way to hard, on both sides. And before you go into "raiders are awewome yadda yadda". I know, i love them, i play them in my competitive list, but that doesn't mean they are balanced, we pay a BIG prize for this love affair at that pointcost.
  9. To be completely fair, i didn't spot this when i was reading the games rules initially and having played it for the first couple times either. It didn't appear to much of an issue. So to answer your question, i don't think it was a very concious decision, it was just something they didn't notice that it could have such an adverse effect to the play flow. However, they did have beta testing as they always do, and maybe they felt they couldn't change such an underlying structure anymore as it would have been to much. I'm also sure you will find people in here obviously that tell you that everything is a-ok with l5r. My personal preferences shouldn't be taken as an objective truth, i'm merely trying to figure out what's wrong with the game mechanically for me, and wether concious or not, also for most players in the end. The flow and speed of the game is it's biggest weakness, and unfortunately it's a fundamental thing.
  10. There is no way to fix this, as elegant as the rules are of l5r, the alternating action play was a not very well thought out decision and turns out to be it's biggest crutch. All other major lcg's and most cardgames i know do this different. Netrunner is 4 "actions" / 3 "actions" and if you run it's mostly limited to one server, Game of Thrones is mostly also limited to one player finishing his phase (save for some rare interrupts). Keyforge is even more extreme in it's "every player does the whole turn" concept. The problem is with alternating back and forth play within a phase that the boardstate changes constantly and the opposing player has to reanalyze big parts of it. This contributes the most to the length of the game. I had high hopes for the game personally as a player but unfortunately this is a rather unfortunate side effect that kills it for me for good. To further the problem you not only have to consider changing boardstates constantly but the alternating conflicts mean you need to also think what the other guy can do in his 2nd conflict and vice versa. It's unfortunately to deep and to complex for it's own sake for most people.
  11. I can only speak for a very localized meta, of all the current LCG's L5R is doing by far the worst in my store and area. It had the biggest crowd and launch of all LCG's so far but length of play / structure and how complex the game is in the end i'm not surprised that a lot of retailers are sitting on left overs. I can't sell anything from it anymore for the life of me. It's unfortunately dead in the water for us and i have very little hopes of it coming back. The only thing i'm sure of is that it's not a matter of balance, most complaints i've heard were towards the mechanics and how long games take.
  12. I'm completely fine with this game if it's aimed at casuals, i'm a deckbuilder by nature. Thats why i play Netrunner. But i have no opposition to a game that is designed to work out of a sealed tournament / league play like this. In the contrary, i can finally play games with people who don't bother building decks. If you expect an ultra hardcore game in here you will be maybe disappointed.
  13. It sounds sound but it's not what happens in reality at least in our meta. We have almost NO overlap from X-Wing / Armada players. The systems speak to completely different playertypes and i guarantee you that maybe 10% of the Armada players might switch to X-Wing if at all if Armada was cancelled. Yes, i'm sure there's a ton of people who can anecdotally "proof" me wrong because they know some people who are different but this is a question for each meta / country that's probably answered different. I have 2 completely different customerbases for both games as already said and they tend to go for genre (Strategy Games / Armada or Tactical / X-Wing). I don't have a single X-wing player from the top of my head (although they do exist i'm sure) that picked up legion of course, but i have alot of Armada Players that dipped their feet into Legion at the moment. Same btw for Destiny. I highly doubt that this is the case. Bare any FFG sources or insider information that's just a nice theory since FFG is not the only thing that exists in the Gaming Hobby, they definitely don't stall one product line in the hopes the other doesn't get cannibalised. There are much much closer systems to X-Wing than for instance Armada and they are not coming from FFG. What you describe is a perfectly valid strategy, but for a Retailer, not a Publisher.
  • Create New...