Jump to content

Thaddok

Members
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Yes, they specifically wanted to concentrate their CCG player-base under one game... as a business decision it worked, the CCG scene for Wizards became even more expensive to play, profitable, and cheaper to develop (by reducing development and playtesting requirements). As for now, I would guess that WoTC decided that they wanted to kick FFG for siphoning players in a way that would hurt the overall reputation/interest in LCGs. Thaddok
  2. Are you even reading what you're writing? Your expectation is that it is impossible for any of those things to change with more cards from the upcoming cycle? Are you completely confused... or are you really expecting all provinces, strongholds, and new characters to all be guaranteed to be worse than what Scorpion currently have? Also, why would it be impossible for some other faction (likely Crane and/or Phoenix thematically) to be able to threaten both conquest and dishonor with more card support? ... sigh, no wonder the game designers ignore the forums. Thaddok
  3. What "fundamentals" are you talking about? Why would you assume that new cards (or RL changes) won't change Scorpion's dominance? Is that based on some kind of inside information... or just a random guess? Also, why is the best case Lion and Unicorn beating Scorpion and losing to everyone else... another random guess? Concretely, voltron type decks are at a disadvantage against Scorpion (in particular due to Scorpion having good character removal/control tools)... but that doesn't indicate anything else that you've highlighted. Thaddok PS: If you want a prediction... I would guess that Lion and Crane will eventually end up with the best matchups against Scorpion... lion with honor/military swarm, and Crane with honor/political control.
  4. Except that Mirror is worded very differently from Plagiarist as it mentions ignoring costs and play conditions which Plagiarist does not. All Plagiarist does is paste a copy of the events text onto itself as a playable actions (which would include the non-fate costs which are included in the action description. I reread the Mirror text more closely and I see that the wording implies that all costs are ignored... in this case Mirror would ignore Assassination's 3 honor cost. However, targeting is still required, so Way of the Scorpion would still fail (assuming the Scorpion player only has Scorpion characters in play). On the flip side, I am a little confused... what would be the definition of a "triggering condition" exactly? Could you Mirror a card saying "play only as the attacker" when your opponent is the attacker and you are defending? Thaddok
  5. Regarding Mirror's gaze... unless something very strange is going on with rulings here, you will still need to meet and pay all non-fate costs related to the copied event and meet all targeting restrictions. This means 3 honor for copying Assassination, sacrificing a crab personality for Way of the Crab, and most likely failing to find any valid targets for copying Way of the Scorpion. Thaddok. PS: This explanation is based on the rulings for the Scorpion personality: Illustrious Plagiarist: https://fiveringsdb.com/card/illustrious-plagiarist
  6. Agreed, this card is barely playable. If someone wants to put this on the RL that's essentially the same as banning it... which won't actually make any difference other than guarantee that people won't play it from the start (as opposed to playing it and then removing it from their decks in when they see how this is a blank card in most games). Thaddok
  7. Agreed... the new stronghold might seem good on paper, but if your opponent has any dishonor pressure at all it looks like a one way ticket to a dishonor loss. I expect the existing stronghold to be the better choice in the vast majority of real-world situations. On the flip side, both Kage and Aramoro are pretty great however. Thaddok
  8. Answer: the same place we are now. More generally, its really not that bad if one of these sites shuts down for FFG. As I mentioned previously... the cheapest and simplest solution for FFG is to make one of these sites the "official" source for rules and instruct their rules/design team to CC their rulings to whomever maintains the site. Thaddok PS: As a side note, you appear to simply be guessing about Cascade's and the two DB site's arrangement(s) with FFG... unless you have some additional information?
  9. The problem is that OldL5R actually did have an official compilation. The best compromise for FFG would be to simply officially sanction using 5-RingsDB as a legal tournament rules reference. This would save FFG the resources needed to create/maintain a card reference themselves while avoiding arguments in competitive play. Thaddok
  10. Agreed, it is difficult to attract new players... but how can you ask FFG to not try just because you don't like it? Also, AEG and Wizards tried to redesign/adapt their game mechanics in your examples, not tweak the setting (making those examples somewhat besides the point in this particular discussion). FFG's risk to reward ratio on tweaking the story is actually very low here. It could completely fail... but the investment and risk are very low in this case (particularly due to AEG's recent & prolonged L5R failures). Meaning from a business standpoint, it is almost guaranteed to be a net positive. More generally, even a 5% player increase from additional women (whom they appear to be trying to attract) playing the game is still worthwhile since it didn't really cost FFG any significant investment. On the other hand, I think the chance that any players will actually avoid the game based on these story tweaks is negligible. Thaddok. PS: I hope they succeed to widen the game's appeal... otherwise I do not think that L5R can realistically be profitable for more than 2-3 years (at the most).
  11. Really? Your complaint is that FFG wants to have more customers (in this case women). Doesn't your position strike you as somehow against FFG's profit-based interests? Also, what kind of proof were you expecting from the first two fictions precisely? If these two fictions really bother you that much... just vote by avoiding the game entirely. Thaddok
  12. Short answer... so the game can have the chance to attract new players 18+ months after launch. More generally, the "rotation policy" is not relevant if the game is longer profitable due to player attrition (combined with inability to attract new players). FFG will simply discontinue the game in this case. As for taking too long to "build up a decent card pool" that is primarily a function of too few cards in each pack (relative to the number of factions). Thaddok
  13. To answer the original topic... L5R already has accepted a virtually complete rewinding of the story. From a business standpoint it is a good thing for two very simple reasons: 1) FFG is trying to attract new players. 20 years of baggage is an extreme burden to that goal. Not just for new players, but for the FFG staff themselves (who may not be very well versed with L5R history). If the "old players" are so adverse to that kind of change, no problem... they can avoid the new game. However, FFG is betting that players like Doji Takashi are not going to outweigh the influx of new players overall. Judging from the overall responses in this forum, FFG appears to be correct. 2) FFG needed to trim the number of playable factions in the base set... ideally while minimizing the fallout among returning players. Rewinding the timeline to before Mantis and Spider existed was a simple and efficient way to accomplish this goal. I am saying this as a Mantis player... it is a little sad for me, but I understand and agree with their business decision. Thaddok PS: Fingers crossed that Mantis gets reintroduced in the first deluxe expansion Edited for clarity
  14. ... A larger card pool is always better, always. Every argument against a larger card pool always comes down to: "its easier for them to make cards, they don't have to pay attention to as many cards when balancing". The only "legit" argument against a larger card pool always comes down to something thats better for the company, not better for the player. I say "legit" because a smaller card pool doesn't actually solve the problem, it just makes it less visible, and any mistakes only last a few years. Instead, spend more time balancing cards (this is not as hard in a LCG where there are not hundreds of thousands of filler cards). If this means that card releases have to be every two months instead of one, or cards cost $20 instead of $15 because they have to double the size of their design/balancing team, then do that. Taking the cards that people have already bought, and saying: you will only get these for a few years, and then they will be mostly useless, is a pretty extreme solution. What if we did that with other products? You think it makes sense only because you are used to it, because this is how competitive card games work, this is how they "stay relevant", but what if its not? There are plenty of competitive games, sports, activities, etc... that require purchasing of products, and very rarely do they ban products you bought a few years ago. I play ANR fully aware that it has rotation, and unlike MTG, it had rotation before I started playing. I simply refuse to play in a venue or with people, that play by rotation rules. Again this is not an issue with me, since I don't generally like playing with random people. I just do not agree that rotation is the only solution, nor the right solution, to the problems that arise with card games like these. Latreides, Your arguments only make sense in a theoretical way (read as non-commercial). More specifically, FFG has limited resources (like any gaming company), and they make Netrunner for profit. What you are asking FFG to do is cripple their profitability by requiring dramatically increased (and every increasing) playtesting resources, slowing their product release schedule, and make their product less attractive to new players (via both higher prices and an ever increasing cardpool). That is just not going to happen... nor should it in a "for profit" endeavor like a commercial card game. Thaddok Edit grammar
  15. This part seems purely like an opinion, not a requirement. We are not the people actually designing the L5R LCG. I thought everything on here was an opinion, and nothing more? Still, personally? L5R was a fun multiplayer game. Magic has a successful multiplayer variant. AGoT is a successful multiplayer game. While L5R Siege is an enjoyable form of multiplayer, FFG has an opportunity to bring L5R back to the fold of a fun multplayer experience. I believe it would be a mistake if they did not design a game that functioned both one vs one, and in multiplayer. Eh... it would be nice to see, but it is hardly a requirement. In many ways, Android Netrunner is their most successful LCG and there is no multiplayer format... just very good 1 vs 1 gameplay. Thaddok
×
×
  • Create New...