I'd give a lot to get a Netrunner rebirth, honestly It's easily in my top three LGC's and maybe card games.
That said, I'm not going to complain about Marvel Champions. i own it and follow it pack after pack and am not disappointed so far. S.O. F.A.R. They try to spice up things with a campaign mode, let's see where they go. My worry is that they suddenly lose the licence or don't make enough profit on it in the long run. Quantities distributed to Europe are scarce and if I'm not on the front, checking every news and pre-ordering my packs, I'm good to lose the "get them all" championship...
But I know FFG. They tend to release a lot of (cool) things but most of their things tend to die quite easily. Things that survive are sometimes true hits but also zombies that are not provided with additional content (like Descent II). 
Netrunner II would be something I'd be happy to see again, I was not happy with aGoT II because it plainly said that my 1st edition was good for the trash (But I jealously keep it) same with X-Wing, I love my 1st edition vessels. Arkham didn't catch my interest that much and L5R....well Let's say I didn't get any further than the core set of the two aforementioned games.
I didn't get into Star Wars LCG nor did I continu buying LotR. But that's my situation, I know those games are great but my favourite ones are surprisingly or not :
1) netrunner
2)Warhamer Invasion
3) Warhammer Conquest
All of them are dead and I'm now on Marvel Champions until I get fed up or they get the licence off their hands and have to burry the game.
TL;DR  : they can do whatever they want, i'm just worry of the life expectancy of their games.
 

Everyone,
 
Card games act like economic bubbles; they expand until bursting.
 
Look through the FFG catalogue. All of the old games burst.
 
For example, FFG developed and released Android Netrunner.  It ran the tables for a few years then popped.
 
When you buy into a card game like Destiny, acknowledge that the company-supported scene will one day end. 
 
If you want a game that will last until Kingdom Come, go get yourself a Pokedex and play Pokemon with the middle school kids. 
 
If you want to have some fun, jump into the next, big game FFG will announce.

God, I wish there would be something new on the horizon, but it seems rather unlikely. Netrunner fell away unexpectedly, Lord of the Rings doesn't seem to be letting off steam, and both Destiny and Keyforge seem to exist in a similar space - albeit geared to a more casual crowd. That's still a lot of balls to juggle.
Add onto that that Fantasy Flight's LCG's have tended to stick quite safely to strong IP's with an avid following (Star Wars, LotR, Cthulhu stuff, L5R, aGoT). Knowing what we know now about the licenses that FF holds, I don't see anything on the horizon. 
The only wrinkle of hope I'd say is the new Dune movie. The game license for the movie has been awarded to Gale Force 9: 
That last sentence could mean a lot of things, but it doesn't sound like anything's on the table at the moment. 
 

SW: Legion was announced mid-Gen Con IIRC.

And Arkham (and the scrapped original SW LCG) were debuted at GenCon, although I believe both were announced before.
I have no doubt that they'd love to be able to show off a new LCG.  I doubt they have one ready in the chamber though.  I don't think they were motivated to create a new one to immediately replace the SW:LCG, and the Netrunner implosion (by the information we've seen) was fairly recent.
I'll bet Netrunner & any possible replacement(s) for it will be the top 2 questions FFG personnel get asked at GenCon.
I should also expect they'll be demoing Heroes of Terrinoth.

I expect they will have some kind of announcement for something in the pipeline with a 2019 Gencon release.

The problem with this is that it's another fantasy setting. LCGs already have an issue with cannibalising their own players from other games; running three (four) fantasy based LCGs at one time just seems silly. 
I could definitely see them trying a reskinned Conquest with TI. It's hardly a new concept, but the reskin of Warhammer Quest shows they're willing to dip back in to those games that got cut short, and the gameplay of Conquest was excellent. Otherwise, if they launch a new competitive game I think it almost has to be a sci-fi property of some description.

Hello,
 
Thank you all for viewing and responding to this post. Both previous posters commented that I may have added this discussion to the incorrect forum.
 
I felt that talking about cards and rules of the game most closely represented my views on the loss of evergreen abilities from Old L5R, rather than discussing the lore or specific, gaming groups.
I lament that the designers have chosen to lose some of the keywords that really helped bring out the flavor of Old L5R.  For example, battling a Spider Clan deck of fear-inducing characters allowed me to bravely defend my homeland as a strong Crab Clan. 

I would also agree on one thing. Having the need for a restricted list so early into the game, is really surprising. And disappointing.
My understanding was that the whole development of the game was planed ahead. and the design team had already in mind at the core set release the whole full first cycle.
For games like Netrunner where the card pool starts to be really massive I understand that some exploiting combos will not be found during the card design because the number of combinations you have to think about is horribly high. However we are talking here about a new game, with a card pool many players even complaining about being too small.
I think that it wasn't unrealistic to expect a more balanced design for the core set and first cycle cards. A restricted list would have come eventually. but so soon? As I said, It's disappointing,

Hey, Everybody!
 
When I saw the first notes on FFG's webpage that they would re-tool and release L5R, I thought about how they should keep 95% of A.E.G.'s game in-tact. I played old L.5.R. for years. The game had a couple of problems, like the Cavalry keyword made for completely jank combats, but when that big battle finally happened, it produced truly, truly cinematic moments better than all of the movies playing on theater screens. A Dragon invasion squad attacks a province and the Lion volley back with their arrows, blades, and tactics cards. Wow!
I checked FFG's webpage every day, like a devout, religious follower, waiting to see a preview of the game. Then, last year, when the first preview dropped, I felt like the FFG designers created a different game, that widened the asymetrical issues of L5R, like a political-heavy deck not interacting with a military-heavy deck. Then, I saw the designers talk with the boys at Team Covenant and realized that they just threw some ideas into this world, like seven economic points to spend each turn and wonky cards with semi-tricky abilities. After reading all of the previews and watching all of the videos, I felt like I couldn't trust the designers to really deliver on this game experience and thought that once a real player-base got their teeth into this LCG, its design flaws would rip open. 
 
Now, here we are six packs in, and here's the unfortunate inevitability, a huge restricted list and an admission that the crew at FFG are learning on the job rather than delivering a top-shelf game. I passed on their L5R game when it came out and feel glad that I did. I completely dig FFG's production values, artwork, graphic design, and intellectual properties. I just really, really, really wish that they would take the time to develop a more straight-forward, faster playing LCG that could act as a gateway for new players and have the rock-solid gameplay that veterans like me can appreciate. How does everyone else feel about the revisions on the go for L5R?

So anyone catch that hockey game last night? Crazy.......
I mean crazy good, not OP crazy

From what I've seen it has been met with nearly universal appeal. 

But that said, you're not *entirely* wrong about the development teams. The ban list has 7/11 cards which were designed by Damon in the last two cycles. Three of the remainder were Political or Alliance cards, which were novel mechanics introduced in the Mumbad cycle. The last, Faust, also tried to use card draw as an alternate resource. Damon was a great proponent of pushing the power level of the game overall, and of introducing new ways for the game to be played. (And one of them was probably a box warmer that happened to enable a specific abusive combo, but that's a risk with any card that doesn't have built in limitations.)

Now that Damon has moved on (nothing should be inferred from this; his wife took a job opportunity in California) it would be difficult for *any* new designer to pick up and carry those design intentions forward. Imagine replacing the lead singer/guitarist of a band and expecting him or her to write and play music just like the former front person. So, even if Boggs does intend to get creative with the game, it only makes sense to roll back to a more basic metagame. 

I don't really know were to start.......
From what we've seen so far I'm honestly shocked and confused as to how the OPor anyone else would  come to these conclusions after what we've seen so far.
While the distance from 12 to 25 is clearly shorter the distance from 7 to 40, the rate at which honor is gained is significantly reduced by a number of factors. 
1.  There are fewer opportunities to gain honor. In the old game you could buy a guy, gain 4 honor, then follow it up by flipping an event that just gained you 2 more honor while searching and drawing a card that gained you 4 more honor then playing other cards outside of combat to gain 3 honor, which includes just bowing some holdings for 1-3 honor, then had opportunities to gain 5 more in combat....that's a 16+ point honor gain in one turn and puts you half way to victory.  While the base math shows a smaller number to reach, you have fewer opportunities to do so. You don't gain honor just buy purchasing people now.  You have to honor them first maybe by winning a ring that can be contested in conflicts or by wining another contested ring that gains honor.  There will likely be more ways to gain honor but for the most part..........
2. Honor is contested and built into the rules that way.  In the old game the only way to control someone else's honor was to specifically include cards that caused honor loss or removed honor creating cards for your opponent.  Some decks/clans were better than others at this while some didn't even have an option.  this lead to cycles in the game where certain archetypes were too dominant because the rate at which honor could be gained could not be kept in check, or on the other side could not be gained quickly enough. It was just a complete nightmare to balance 4 win conditions that were essentially constructed in a way that they had very little interaction with each other. Speaking of noninteravtice, does anyone remember any enlightenment victory being interactive? Thought not. Now if you don't want your opponent to run away with and honor victory you have some built in way to prevent it........don't bid high honor for cards! Every deck has some built in honor meta.  In addition to this....
3.  The mechanics force interaction via the conflict phase.  While there might be opportunities before conflict to do stuff besides purchase characters the game largely revolves around engaging in conflicts in order to advance your win condition. There is no more "defensive honor" or "limited phase control."  Sure some clans may get defensive bonuses ie Crab, but they will be generally have to be in a conflict to make use of them. Since each turn is shared and both players get the opportunity to attack and defend if both pass their opportunity to attack then it's just a game of fate decay and honor bidding.  It forces action because nobody wants to spend an hour doing that. Archtypes are now fewer and more easily defined as military, political, or balanced as they all have the same win conditions that are linked by the mechanics.  The player can change their strategy mid game which makes this far deeper strategically than the old game ever was.  Not only do you have more decisions to make you have to time them correctly because....
4.  Nothing lasts forever now.  Fate decay will prevent most of the problems of the game stagnating into an arms race.  In the old game people were quite literally racing one another with little to no interaction until.there was one key battle to decide things. There will be times where you opponent might have a better board position but that can change rather quickly from turn to turn.  You can fight harder to take the ring that remove a fate token so your opponent doesn't have that character they planned on having for an extra turn, or your can focus on defense for a turn putting extra fate on unclaimed rings to get more fate when you have the initiative and can put it to later use.
I'm short, the new game is specifically designed to do the things you say you want.  What exactly is it that makes you think it will be otherwise?

It is true that with the goalposts being closer the effects need to be different. Breach of etiquette and Yobanjin alliance can't be reprinted as they are.
However I would like to point out Breach of etiquette is a better example of non-interactive gameplay than anything we have seen in Nu5R at the moment.

I'll just note that the distances between honor and dishonor victory conditions mean nothing without having knowing how easy it is to move the game along those scales.
It's conceivable that hitting 25 honor in this iteration takes more time/resources than it took to reach 40 in the CCG. Likewise, they could have made the threshold for honor victories 200 honor and the game could be over in two conflicts if it's common for card effects to net the player 100 honor at a time. 
Suffice to say, I'd wait until more of the game is spoiled before worrying too much about anything. There just simply isn't enough information to make any reasonable conclusions.
I'll even take it a step further and suggest that worrying about it all the way until release may likely solidify your negative disposition towards the game and make it subsequently less enjoyable. Maybe try focusing on more positive aspects of the game in the meantime that you do enjoy - art, flavor text, etc.

Yes. This asimetrical experience was one of the big flaws, in my opinion, of the CCG. I have seen Crane vs Unicorn games that simply could have been played in differente rooms.
I definitely would be disappointed if this was repeated on the LCG. But what I have seen so far makes me think they are at least trying to avoid it. Two of the first things we learned are that they modified the effects of winning/losing a battle, with the intention of preventing the one decision effect, and the fate rule that tries to avoid the snowball effect. 
I share terryfuller concern, but so far I am glad to see the designers are aware of these issues and worked to avoid them. Have they succeded? we will only know when we play it.

Right now there is too much of the card pool which is unknown to jump to many conclusions.
From what we've seen though, every clan is going to want to participate in battles, likely both offensively and defensively, and we've seen tools across the board that indicate that.  It's unclear if honor and dishonor victories will be something to build a deck around or to capitalize on opportunistically.  I'd say that either is fairly likely to be possible.  
I hope that you'll stick around and give the game a shot when we get a little more info.  I understand the apprehension, but it's way too early to give you any firm answers contrary to your initial impressions.  

We just have no way of knowing yet.  To be fair though, in many matches of old L5R there were two competing games of solitaire happening in alternate turns.  Dishonor vs honor?  Dishonor vs immune factions?  Enlightenment vs honor?  Enlightenment vs dishonor?  Each of those matches was basically two different games happening unless one player could force the other to play against their deck's intended design.  
With the previewed mechanics and based on things that have been teased out of the devs, both players are playing the same game, just some prefer military and others prefer politics.  The honor and dishonor victories almost seem to exist as failsafes rather than as a focus for a deck.  But again:  we don't know for sure.

Just for the record, the only pacifists in this setting also have access to magic that lets them blow things up or turn entire armies into a field of flowers, so... ninjas versus pacifist enlightenment-seekers could actually be a pretty kickin' film.
 
As for your mechanical concerns, the CCG did that with a vengeance. I still have hateful flashbacks to playing against late-Samurai Crane Honor decks....

The very-unforgiving players that taught me the game traveled to kotei tournaments around the country and took matches very seriously. 
 
They created a meta-culture of destroying provinces as fast as possible, each turn, even if the attacks seemed a bit weak, while bluffing that they held swing-tactics cards in their hands. So, games would usually go with each player taking one province a turn, not blocking anything, like kamikaze pilots in World War 2. Until the end of the game, when both players stood at only one or two provinces left. Then, each player built up their forces through an arms race of dynasty phases. Then, like a duel, one player would strike with an all-out attack, tactics cards and abilities bowing like the end of the world. So, to me, that meta-culture felt like each game involved twenty minutes of build up for one fight. 
 
So, as I lost game after game as a beginner, I realized that the meta-culture had left the opening for a player like me to call everyone's little bluff attacks with ten force or so. So my opponents would declare an attack and continue their turn like it was a foregone conclusion that I would allow the attack, let my province burn, so that I could continue amassing my army for late-game. So when I declared that all of my personalities would defend my first province, my opponents looked at me like I didn't know the game or broke a gentleman's rule. 
Then, I'd bow my personalities to mess up their attackers and have a hand full of defensive shenanigans like Turtle Shell and the ability to kill their personalities. 
 
So, after a few turns of this, I would eliminate their big-force, special personality with followers. At this point, the opponent would angrily scoop-up their cards and forfeit.
 
L5R seemed more like a roleplaying game told card by card. So whereas in Magic the Gathering, some card effects are worth sacrificing abstract life points, creatures, and land, in L5R, I am the Crab clan, and I will defend my people to the end. Then, build a small side force to attack my opponent after he or she makes a tactical mistake.
 
I can't imagine a general with a domestic scorched-earth policy.

Hey-O,
 
I hope that FFG  has us players line up two, forty-card decks, dynasty and fate. Thirty-card decks seem way too small.
 
30 cards
-7 starting hand
-2 draw phase
=decking out somewhere around turn eleven.
 
I just imagine battling it out with my opponent, and the epic, thematic battle we are viewing, between samurais and geishas, suddenly turns into stone-walling to watch one of us get decked. That would suck.
 
Alternatively, we could roll back to one, sixty card deck like ugly, step-sister Magic The Gathering, but FFG has more intelligence to turn L5R into Yu-Gi-Oh, where a third of tournament games turn into one player winning with their opening hand and the other player losing, scrying for resources!
 
Also, I've played enough poker in my life to wish that FFG would allow us to mulligan like a hand of poker. Draw seven cards. Decide to keep somewhere between zero to seven cards and redraw  the rest. If we could mulligan this way, players would get set-up faster and fewer games would start deeply un-even.
 
Plaid Hat's game Ashes lets players choose their opening hands, which sounds good, but actually destroys replayability because once you've played against someone once or twice, you've seen all that their deck has to offer.

Hola, Rokugan!
 
In regards to victory conditions, I hope that the game's designers allow us players to defend our provinces, or more abstractly, access to our cards as the original game provided. 
 
I deeply value games that require players to protect their life points and require directly taking victory from opponents. For example, winning a game of L5R by destroying the opponent's last province, while holding onto one, last province feels much more like VICTORY, with a capital V, than a semi-assymetrical race to a certain number of victory points. 
I hope that the new L5R let's us take victory from our opponents. And when we lose a match, our opponents have defeated us, rather than speeding passed us on their way to victory points.
Every time I sit down to play classic L5R CCG as a Crab player, I imagine my people living in my provinces, supporting and counting on me to make the difference in their lives and on the battlefield. 
And I can't tell you how many consternated looks my Unicorn opponent gave me when I declared that all of my personalities would defend my provinces against his weakling attackers on horseback. My opponent would tell me that in this game we're supposed to trade losing provinces down to the very end, but that sounded blasphemous to me. Those provinces house my people, and if I stood by and allowed three-fourths of my people burn, then I am not their leader after all.
Usually, my Unicorn opponent would surrender and pick up his cards when I trounced his forces as a defender.
 
Here's hoping that we'll all fight, honor, and dishoner one another this summer, instead of stockpile "gain three VP when this happens" events.
 
If I wanted to collect Abstract VP, I would play Stefan Feld board games and play House Tyrell as a gentleman card player in AGOT 2nd edition.

I'd like to refer to LBS again.  In that game there were two discard piles: Discard and Buried.  When you ran out of cards in your deck, you shuffled your discard pile into a new draw pile, but the Buried pile was mostly off-limits.  Some powerful cards were buried when they were used, but most were discarded.  Units destroyed in battle were Buried.  It seemed like a good mechanic to me.
 
I'm also reminded of the quickest game of L5R that I ever heard.  It was Lion v Scorpion.
Turn 1 event phase:
Lion:  Desperate Measures - I'll destroy this province, destroy your rightmost province.
Scorpion:  Okay, Kharma - destroy your rightmost province.
Lion:  Evil Feeds upon itself - destroy your rightmost province.
Scorpion:  Okay, Kharma - destroy your rightmost province.
Lion:  The Return of Fu Leng - I'll forfeit my right to an honour victory.
Scorpion:  Okay, I won't forfeit my right for an honour victory, so will destroy my rightmost province.  Kharma - destroy your last province.  I make that the win.

Ah yes, the 'Kith' conundrum in Conquest, whereby she could screw your first turn by playing a combo of Raid, Razorwings and Archon's Palace to leave you at a serious card & resource disadvantage from the outset (and bearing in mind there is no preliminary 'Set Up' phase like there is in AGOT). Very demoralising to play against, although if I remember rightly Greyjoy Winter Choke in AGoT v1 was even more enjoyment-sapping. 
 
'Choke' mechanics do seem to be a significant ever-present aspect of most FFG games.
 
That said, I do like the idea of attacking your enemy's supply lines as a (*pure speculation alert*) tactic in L5R, but it needs to come with a sacrifice, e.g. The effort you spend on 'choke' means you have to forego some combat might: The problem with Kith was that she could choke you of cards & resources without breaking stride in terms of combat prowess.

The first five sound great on paper, and let's you mini-meta against your opponent based on their PB. But it tends to go just spam my set-up and hope I draw well.
I also think it's cool for having a bigger cardpool, but I think it dilutes the deck a bit, losing focus, also, you have to make more choices when you can put 1-3 or 1-4 cards in your deck. In the other hand, remember that half of the cards used in L5R (as we knew the game) are usually neutral cards from the dinasty deck (and holdings), so a dinasty pack with half faction cards, half neutral card, would be more than playable for everyone. But all of these is just speculation, FFG may switch to a faction heavy deckbuilding, or the coreset could be 2 copies of each card and a 4 card limit. We'll have to wait. And I hate it!