So, I got the game for Christmas and I just tried it tonight on solo play. Basically, I woke up on an island, learned that I needed to try to find a boat, but then I got trench foot, slowing my movement. I died of hunger before I found the boat while two unknown monsters were following me. That is about all I want to say to avoid spoilers. 
So, first of all, I like the game mechanics. Simple and easy to play with a nice combination of narrative and skillful planning involved. The game moved along at a nice quick pace. 
For me, the game has decent replayability. For one, the game has 5 scenarios, each scenario gets a random map set up, random character(s) to use, and some limited randomization of the adventure/monster decks (my first scenario told me to use only one card out of 2-3 for three different numbers). For me, that is pretty good replayability. For example, I love the new Arkham Horror game, but it only comes with (I think) 4 scenarios. The maps are different for each scenario, but they are not random. If I don't see any problem with replayability with that game, then I certainly don't see any problem with the replayability with this game. Yes, both games are the most exciting the first couple of times you play a scenario, but they still have an appeal in that you can draw different cards, use different characters, and get a different narrative with each game, even if the overarching story is the same for each scenario. Also, there is the simple fact that there are very few board games that I own that I have actually played 4-5 times. 
 
What about the idea of the game being unique? I really love this idea. Before I opened my game I really didn't know what I was going to get. In fact, I thought there was only island and desert terrain, so I was super excited to find that I had island and bayou. If I actually manage to play the game several times and feel hungry to relive the experience again, I can buy a new copy, with new terrain, new quests, new characters, and play the same game again but relive the experience of true discovery. I think that is pretty sweet. If I end up playing it only 2-3 times before moving on to another game (which is what I usually end up doing, as I have quite a collection to work my way through), then that is cool too. I also really like that if one of my friends have a copy, we can take turns playing each other's copy for new experiences. Some others on the forum have suggested trading games, which also sounds like a neat idea. 
I just have one reservation. I have heard in other reviews that the game is fun during the exploration part, but falls apart later on when you are running around trying to accomplish tasks. In my first game, I died before I got that far, so I can't speak to that. But the idea of the nature of the game-changing halfway through is not necessarily a bad thing. I guess I will just have to play more and see. 
Overall, seems like a fun game I can play with more casual players with a novel idea in that my copy is unique. It is not my favorite game (looking at you, Twilight Imperium!), but I think it was certainly worth the price of admission, and might even be worth the price of buying a second copy if I actually manage to exhaust the scenarios in my copy and I am still hungry for more.  

So, I got the game for Christmas and I just tried it tonight on solo play. Basically, I woke up on an island, learned that I needed to try to find a boat, but then I got trench foot, slowing my movement. I died of hunger before I found the boat while two unknown monsters were following me. That is about all I want to say to avoid spoilers. 
So, first of all, I like the game mechanics. Simple and easy to play with a nice combination of narrative and skillful planning involved. The game moved along at a nice quick pace. 
For me, the game has decent replayability. For one, the game has 5 scenarios, each scenario gets a random map set up, random character(s) to use, and some limited randomization of the adventure/monster decks (my first scenario told me to use only one card out of 2-3 for three different numbers). For me, that is pretty good replayability. For example, I love the new Arkham Horror game, but it only comes with (I think) 4 scenarios. The maps are different for each scenario, but they are not random. If I don't see any problem with replayability with that game, then I certainly don't see any problem with the replayability with this game. Yes, both games are the most exciting the first couple of times you play a scenario, but they still have an appeal in that you can draw different cards, use different characters, and get a different narrative with each game, even if the overarching story is the same for each scenario. Also, there is the simple fact that there are very few board games that I own that I have actually played 4-5 times. 
 
What about the idea of the game being unique? I really love this idea. Before I opened my game I really didn't know what I was going to get. In fact, I thought there was only island and desert terrain, so I was super excited to find that I had island and bayou. If I actually manage to play the game several times and feel hungry to relive the experience again, I can buy a new copy, with new terrain, new quests, new characters, and play the same game again but relive the experience of true discovery. I think that is pretty sweet. If I end up playing it only 2-3 times before moving on to another game (which is what I usually end up doing, as I have quite a collection to work my way through), then that is cool too. I also really like that if one of my friends have a copy, we can take turns playing each other's copy for new experiences. Some others on the forum have suggested trading games, which also sounds like a neat idea. 
I just have one reservation. I have heard in other reviews that the game is fun during the exploration part, but falls apart later on when you are running around trying to accomplish tasks. In my first game, I died before I got that far, so I can't speak to that. But the idea of the nature of the game-changing halfway through is not necessarily a bad thing. I guess I will just have to play more and see. 
Overall, seems like a fun game I can play with more casual players with a novel idea in that my copy is unique. It is not my favorite game (looking at you, Twilight Imperium!), but I think it was certainly worth the price of admission, and might even be worth the price of buying a second copy if I actually manage to exhaust the scenarios in my copy and I am still hungry for more.  

One step closer to an Arkham Horror sourcebook!

I can’t mirror the sentiments about going first. I have gone first on all but two games at multiple stores and playing at home and I have only lost one game split amongst multiple decks. I think it is more important to realize the strategy of how to play first versus going second. Also, don’t be afraid to mulligan. If you do, you will get to “draw” two sets of 7 (one seven, one six, play one, draw one) before your opponent goes. Gives you more chances for specific starts. Plus something like a first turn ember imp really sets the tone.

I am not sure if this is still how players feel, but it seemed like most experienced players prefer going first. There are two advantages - even though it's only one card, you get to set the pace of the game and force your opponents response. The other advantage is that you essentially can mulligan for free (you start with 7, mulligan to 6, play 1 to 5, and ending your turn with 5 get to draw back up to 6). Put these two together, and you should have a pretty good chance of having a strong single card to play, seeing a potential total of 13 cards.
Anyway, mulligans are usually a good idea in general. If you are at 2/2/2, the worst you can get is 2/2/1 - which is really the same thing.
The shuffling is a big deal for sure. Shuffling properly in most card games is important. For sealed/new decks, I have been pretty successful with sorting in 5 random stacks, and then doing a few overhand shuffles. The 5 stacks are nice because you get a bunch of 2's of a faction, but a few 3's, and then the overhands should make it less even.

I love the meta-less gameplay.
I can play my own deck without anyone calling it trash.
I can play in tournaments confident I won't have to face the same cookie cutter net-deck that 90% of the players brought.
I can get fully built decks without having to search for $50 ultra rare cards.

I plan to buy a starter and 6 decks. That is 100 bucks investment for 8 random decks and two pre-built decks (so, ten decks total). I will use the starter decks to teach the game and, if I like them, I will use them in regular play too. I will take my time exploring all the decks, and I will use the starter box to store everything. 

I plan to buy a starter and 6 decks. That is 100 bucks investment for 8 random decks and two pre-built decks (so, ten decks total). I will use the starter decks to teach the game and, if I like them, I will use them in regular play too. I will take my time exploring all the decks, and I will use the starter box to store everything. 

"What prevents deck tampering?" The Categorical Imperative! 

My impression of the quick start rules plus the examples of the cards they provided is positive. I love the fact that you are not limited by mana costs in terms of what you can play, but instead, are limited to what you can play by what house you choose to activate that turn. I think this little mechanic is what is pivotal to making this game work. Sure, you may get several powerful creatures in play over the course of a few turns, but those will likely be from different houses, meaning that you won't be able to activate all of those creatures every turn. 
Also, while killing creaturs is nice, it is not really the focus of the game. For example, in Magic and L5R, you are trying to beat your way past enemies to "damage" the other player (either directly or through attacking provinces). But in this game, it is all about that sweet, sweet, amber. While one or two of the example cards have a Fight: receive x amber ability or, destroy the creature and receive x amber, this doesn't appear to be a central means for gaining amber. Healing Wave, for example, heals all creatures (including your opponents) and then lets you gain one amber for each creature healed. And several cards give you amber just for playing them. So the impression I have is that you don't want to get distracted by trying to just win fights because that won't get you to the finish line. Instead, each turn, you will need to try to determine the best way to collect amber, which is not necessarily beating up on your opponent's creatures. In other words, it is not your standard "spend resources to deploy attacking/blocking units followed by executing attacks and blocks." This is further emphasized by the fact that attacking happens simultaneously, meaning that attacking will usually hurt your self as well as your opponent.  
The Reap Action also creates an interesting dilemma for players. Do you attack with your creatures or reap amber? Attacking means you can reduce your opponent's ability to reap, but you also forgo gaining amber. If you reap, then your opponent can reap as well or go on the offensive and attack you. Deciding when to reap and when to attack or use other action abilities will be pivotal to winning games, I think. 
My first impressions are that this game will play fairly different from other card games in that there is no resource management and no real playing to block. Instead, the limitations on what you can play are self-imposed by what house you activate, and if you choose to reap amber or use cards in play (either their action abilities or fighting). The game seems to be heavy on weighing opportunity costs in that every choice you make means giving up on something else. Again, especially regarding attack/action vs. reaping. 
 
With regards to the "every deck is unique" aspect, I think this could be a lot of fun. There is only 300 some cards spread over 7 houses, so we know that each house will have a relatively limited list of cards (for now, it is maybe about 50 cards, I guess). When a person shows up with a random deck,  that deck has three specific faction symbols, those symbols will give you a pretty decent idea on what you might be facing for that game. Likewise, if you are playing with a cold deck that you have never used before, the three house symbols will give you a quick idea of what to expect from your deck and how to strategize on the fly, so to speak. This sounds like a style that some will love and others will hate. Many competitive players tend to want to build min/maxed decks to optimize their chances to win. For other players, customizing decks and experimenting with strategies is the heart of the game. Also, those who are collectors will struggle with the idea that you simply can't collect each deck (though you can certainly get each card). On the other hand, those of us who like to be able to just sit down and play without having to look up deck lists online and buy expensive single cards just to remain competitive will enjoy this game more. For example, I myself always wanted to get into a card game and play at events, but I never do because I simply don't have the time, money, or will to build carefully tailored decks. In addition, having to play with non-min/maxed decks is a new form of challenge for competitive play. In one sense, not being able to look online for the latest winning deck and paying to buy the cards for that winning deck makes the game a more competitive challenge. Again, for myself, I never played Magic competitively not because I can't, but because chasing down cards and decklists in order to be competitive is not appealing to me.  Also, while I can't be a completionist, the idea of collecting decks, and knowing that probably no one (or very few) people out there will have the same decks that I have, makes my decks kind of special. If I am winning games with one of my decks, no one else can just copy my deck. My deck is my deck, and that is really cool. From a collecting aspect, that has a lot more charm for me than "I randomly got a rare card that other people will also have because they bought it for 10 bucks as a single." 
So, I think the unique deck aspect is what will turn people on/off about this game more than the rules. The good news is that you don't have to necessarily only play one type of game. I personally avoid games like Magic because I do not like the card chase, but I do play games like L5R because I enjoy deck building, and LCCs make it easy to have all the cards I need and then leave it up to me to build decks. This game seems to offer a very different experience, one that I am very eager to try out. 

As I said in another thread, I’d love to have a deck of mine banned for winning too much, because that deck was only mine, and it’d be epic and something I’d cherish. I’d frame that **** deck. 

Here's the pitch:
Rulebook, p.13

Yes, I thought he built a 30 card deck from two boxes as well until halfway through the game when he asked how I had two of the same dynasty cards! In my defense, he told me he was going to get a second box after I smashed him pretty bad with Scorpian and that he had reworked his deck (again, though, we did so much wrong that these victories should be taken with a big grain of salt). We are still at the "learning stage" and nowhere near being competitive. But playing with more unicorn cards, and not having to build most of my action deck out of neutral and other clan cards, made the deck feel much more thematic. So I am really looking forward to our next games where we will have 40 card decks and actually (hopefully) get all the rules right for the first time!
 

True but I'd rather not be forced in such an obvious play. I'd rather keep my options open for the use of my stronghold.  I did not miss Aggressive Moto at all in single core, and unless I am going full aggro I can't justify the space for him.
I definitely agree that the champ is a better stats value than Moto Horde, however there are some times when that extra force maters and higher glory can sometimes be a liability.  I wish Altansarnai had the courtier trait.
My daughter painted my toenails unicorn purple just before the release event.  Ultimately that was what tipped the scales for me playing them.

I'm all in for Rumiko Takahashi's involvement in L5R.

He can? Through movement tricks? Still learning the ropes but his ability isn't as bad as the Seppun or Otomo fellas who forbid presence.
I prefer her to the Moto Horde. Stats-wise.
Best Clan Color!! 

The Unicorn stronghold is very good imho. Being able to go back into a fight if sent home, proc spyglass a second time on a bowed character. Also, if warrior poet or Utaku havent proc'ed their ability in a previous conflict (wasnt needed) could send them into another conflict bowed and do their action.
I'm dissappointed with the clan champion, but the three cost ones are very good. 

After getting a second core and building a pure unicorn (plus neutral) deck (still at the 30 card level), I found unicorn to be pretty strong. For the champion, he is also a cavalry, which allows the use of a lot powerful cards in combination. For example, you can hold back your champion for an attack, see how it is playing out, and then bow your province and send him in there. Otherwise, you can save him for a later fight. I like to put him in play and use cavalry reserves to bring him back. I also like using cavalry reserves to bring in utaku infantry, which have a mil/pol value equal to the number of unicorn characters participating in a conflict. They get powerful pretty quick, and are relatively cheap cards. Warrior poet is also one of my favorite cards in the game, a cost 3 with 2/2 fight value, and a -1/-1 to fight abilities to each participating enemy character. I also like to use the ability to send my 5military strength character to a fight near the end (using stronghold ability) when I am winning that fight, that way, I can win by five or more and play fallen in battle to choose a character to discard (my choice) and if the province breaks, my champion removes another character (opponent's choice). I also like to give my champion born in war, making him silly strong for early battles (typically a military 7-9). 
I also got to play two way of the unicorn cards in a row, going first for three consecutive turns. Getting first pick of conflict rings and choosing first attackers, putting player two on the defense, for that many turns, was a serious blow to the other player. Even when only played once, it is especially helpful for unicorn, which has a fair number of ways to unbow characters, characters that are stronger during the first turn, and options for committing a minimum number of characters to first combat with options to reinforce them as necessary, based on how your opponent responds. Oh, and border characters that can be readied with actions and count as cavalry, so you have ways to move them into already ongoing conflicts, is pretty cool too. 
One thing I am not sure of is, if you play an action that says "move a character you control to a conflict," are you able to do that even with a bowed character? So far we have not played it that way, but I am wondering if we are doing it right. 

After getting a second core and building a pure unicorn (plus neutral) deck (still at the 30 card level), I found unicorn to be pretty strong. For the champion, he is also a cavalry, which allows the use of a lot powerful cards in combination. For example, you can hold back your champion for an attack, see how it is playing out, and then bow your province and send him in there. Otherwise, you can save him for a later fight. I like to put him in play and use cavalry reserves to bring him back. I also like using cavalry reserves to bring in utaku infantry, which have a mil/pol value equal to the number of unicorn characters participating in a conflict. They get powerful pretty quick, and are relatively cheap cards. Warrior poet is also one of my favorite cards in the game, a cost 3 with 2/2 fight value, and a -1/-1 to fight abilities to each participating enemy character. I also like to use the ability to send my 5military strength character to a fight near the end (using stronghold ability) when I am winning that fight, that way, I can win by five or more and play fallen in battle to choose a character to discard (my choice) and if the province breaks, my champion removes another character (opponent's choice). I also like to give my champion born in war, making him silly strong for early battles (typically a military 7-9). 
I also got to play two way of the unicorn cards in a row, going first for three consecutive turns. Getting first pick of conflict rings and choosing first attackers, putting player two on the defense, for that many turns, was a serious blow to the other player. Even when only played once, it is especially helpful for unicorn, which has a fair number of ways to unbow characters, characters that are stronger during the first turn, and options for committing a minimum number of characters to first combat with options to reinforce them as necessary, based on how your opponent responds. Oh, and border characters that can be readied with actions and count as cavalry, so you have ways to move them into already ongoing conflicts, is pretty cool too. 
One thing I am not sure of is, if you play an action that says "move a character you control to a conflict," are you able to do that even with a bowed character? So far we have not played it that way, but I am wondering if we are doing it right. 

Forgive me, I am new to this game and trying to figure it all out. So, let me see if I understand this right. 
Player 2 gets +1 fate. Player one goes first. All things being equal, player one should finish first and gain a +1 fate balancing out. The end result is both players have the same strength value of cards in play with equal fate. 
However, player 2 can opt to finish early and snag the +1 fate, for a total of +2 fate.
In this event,  player 2 has fewer characters in play than player one, but +2 fate. 
Now, the idea is that after player one attacks, and player two defends, player two can then try to claim the water ring in his first attack and unbow one character he used to defend, making up for his shortage of characters in play. In this scenario, the assumption is that both players effectively have equal resources in play, but player two has an advantage with +2 fate.  
Because of this, player one feels pressure as the best he can do is tie up with player two, and a mistake will result in player one being behind. 
This is the argument, as best as I can follow it. 
I still tend to think that going first typically has the advantage for a few reasons. First of all, both players are trying to guess how much each person will put into play. If player two passes early for the +1 fate, it gives player one a lot of room to consider what characters he wants to put into play, as he knows that player two can no longer move his characters out of his provinces. To flip it around, I would feel really nervous about passing first as 2nd player, knowing that I am giving my opponent the ability to strategize quite a bit about what I have on the board and not being able to respond to him. Since I already have the +1 for being the second player, I have to weigh the cost/benefit of no longer being able to respond to my opponent during the dynasty phase vs getting +2 fate. 
Sure, as the second player, I can try to make a bid for the water ring in my attack phase, but a lot can go wrong with this. For example, maybe player one simply passes on his first attack action. Now the table is turned. As player two, I have fewer characters in play and having to attack first means I can't grab the water ring. So, I attack, player one defends, then player one announces his counter attack for water ring to unbow a defender, making my second attack very unlikely to succeed. 
Otherwise, player one is starting off the conflict phase with better-developed characters. Player two has +2 fate with an underdeveloped set of characters and a gamble to try and win a conflict to get the water ring, to unbow a single character, in the hopes of being able to attack a second time. And I think the key word here is "gamble." If player two pulls it off, then great! Excellent play! But it seems more likely that player one will have more options in terms of how to develop his characters in play, choosing which ring(s) he wants to fight for, and possibly even having an advantaging of only needing to bid low for conflict cards and saving honor (whereas presumably player two will bid high to get extra cards to spend those extra two fate tokens on to try to offset his underdeveloped set of characters). As player one, I might happily forfeit two fate if it means an easy smash of a province against the other player's underdeveloped deck with only minimal counter attack. Sure, player two might pull off some trick and come out ahead, but more often than not I don't think it will happen. 
It is also worth considering that you are likely to burn your +2 fate on conflict cards just to make up for your underdeveloped hand. This may or may not work out so great. But even if it does, there is the problem that player one has developed more characters than you, which will to some extent, carry over into the next round. In the next round, player one can afford to end development early to gain +1 fate, bringing the two players closer into balance, and player two will be trying to play catch up. Sure, player two might have an extra couple of fate on round two, but again, those fate came at the cost of playing a weak first turn. Alternatively, player one can just spend round two developing as much as possible and maintaining his lead over player two in terms of development. And, in round two, player two attacks first and gives player one the option to use the water ring unless player two passes on their first attack. 
If I am player two, the safer bet is probably to just develop my hand in response to what player one is playing during the first dynasty phase, and let him end up matching me in fate points. Then, we enter the conflict phase on a mostly equal footing. To end development early is to elect to be behind in strength of characters in exchange for +2 fate. But that fate, which will either be spent on conflict cards or in the second round, and bids for the water ring, are all actions aimed at trying to catch up, rather than pulling ahead, in terms of what is actually in play. 
But, like I said, I am new at this game so maybe I am missing something. 

I want lanyard, badge, pin, extended art cards, and especially the alternate imperial favor card lol! Totally in love with this game and want to be as involved as much as possible. 

@Suka044 I think so because "if a skill value for a dash character is required to resolve a card ability, treat the card as if it had an unmodifiable skill value of 0."

I want lanyard, badge, pin, extended art cards, and especially the alternate imperial favor card lol! Totally in love with this game and want to be as involved as much as possible. 

It states in the Character creation rule if you get a technique that you do not have the prerequisites for ignore the prerequisites.

So, first a disclaimer: I have no experience with previous editions of the RPG, and pretty limited experience with the card game (I do have plenty of experience with a bunch of other rpgs, though).
So, I downloaded the document and was very excited after reading the intro. It is obvious this is not going to be your 1970's dungeon crawl hack n' slash, which is a nice change of pace. The idea that our characters are conflicted between their internal desires and their socially prescribed duties while trying to accomplish various missions sounds really intriguing, and I am all on board for test-running this system. 
So, I made a character by following the 20 questions chapter. I really like this approach to character creation. It felt so much more like making a character for a novel rather than a bunch of math and chart references. I ignored the mechanical stuff and made all my choices based on what sounded like a cool narrative background and, I have to say, I am pretty happy with the end result both in story and in stats. 
Oh, I also want to add that I really like how the families reflect the different card types. 
The dice mechanic looks really cool too. Limiting how many dice you can keep should help keep down power inflation, and the fact that you have to make choices about how much you want to succeed at the cost of internal strife sounds really neat. This should be more fun that just rolling dice and having your fate completely in the hands of random chance. Instead, you get some choice in how to deal with the hand that fate deals to you, which should be really neat. 
The layout of the rules is pretty good too, with page numbers to help reference things. The only thing I couldn't find was what school rank I start out at. I assume its one, but then I also received a technique that I am not supposed to have until I have 2 ranks in my school, so I am not sure how to address that. Maybe it is a typo? Anyway, really looking forward to this!
 

Precisely. 
But if there is no ice, and the cards which were installed unprotected get trashed or otherwise uninstalled that server goes *poof* and ceases to exist.
I was playing a game yesterday and the runner installed a Temujin Contract and chose an unprotected server, which turned out to be nothing more than a 15 Minutes.