Jump to content

Recommended Posts

POST # 100!!!

I agree with the above posts. The fans need (and deserve) a little love. A note, a tease, a blog entry. Something to keep us excited and build anticipation for whatever FFG is doing with L5R behind closed Roseville doors.

 

FFG is not AEG. They keep their plans much closer to their chests and do not officially reach out to the fans as much. (That being said, individual FFG designers and artists often appear on established fan social media, especially podcasts, as you can see by looking at the number of times various Netrunner and Star Wars RPG personnel show up, but in such cases they never, ever, talk about upcoming product, and they clearly state each and every time they're not representing FFG). You will not see a tease, a blog entry, or anything, especially here (as FFG policy prohibits their workers to post on their forums) until the product is in the pipeline at the printing studios and their marketing team has their plans ready for the tease release schedule. Then, once that has begun, you'll see regular previews of upcoming LCG releases about 3-6 months ahead of time on the main page of their website (depending on how the shipping from China is working out vs. their release schedule).

 

FFG has a tendency to do their big teases and spoilers at their GenCon press conferences; sometimes you can also see promo/preview art of upcoming games and boxes in the display cases at their actual corporate store in Roseville if they have mockups ready. Since they were happy enough gathering the IP to make a big announcement last year, it's reasonable to expect a followup this GenCon, which is why most of us expect the first word of it then.

 

As their first estimate was an LCG release by GenCon 2017, if everything is working out fine in development and playtesting, you'll start seeing previews of the new LCG about three months before GenCon 2017, and not before then. If things aren't going well, or they scrap plans to try something that they think will work better (as they did with the Star Wars LCG, which they completely redid when it was almost ready for release, changing it from cooperative to competitive), then you won't hear anything until they have something ready to show...which means it might be 2018.

 

So. If things are doing well in development and playtesting, you'll probably hear a happy update at GenCon this year (even if things aren't going all that well, they'll probably have an update, as that's their main datadump on their yearly plans). There might be some early art examples; might not. Given their record, I find it very doubtful they'll have anything close to rules to look at this GenCon.

 

Which means, again, wait until 2017 for news. Just as FFG has always said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to play L5R during gold and diamond edition (early 2000s). I'd love to come back to L5R and really hope the reboot is good.

 

What I think they need to ensure L5R's success is a new LCG deal. We all know FFG's model is cheaper then the old blind purchase model for very competitive players. But if they want to compete with the current market, their own products and some of their competitors, they need to make the business model even more consumer friendly. Because honestly it isn't cheaper than buying a starter pack and then ordering singles of commons online to fix the deck a little.

 

The current model is fine for very hardcore players that want to make a deck of every faction. But the L5R players I knew had very strong faction loyalty. I've seen players play the same faction for years, while others very rarely played a different faction while theirs happened to be very weak in the meta at the time.

 

How about they make several core sets, each with all the cards of the faction that is in them. You would say there are too many different boxes for stores to carry. But AGOT 2.0 already has the core set, one big box expansion and 6 small expansions and it's been less than a year since the release. I don't see why having a couple of boxes at release would be bad.

 

Now I don't expect them to make a core set for each faction, but let's say core sets with 2 factions each that might have similar neutral cards. I know I would buy Crane VS Scorpion. Well, I'd buy whatever one had scorpions in them anyways.

 

Same with the chapter packs, each cycle maybe the first two packs have all the neutral cards in there and then the rest of the chapter packs are dedicated to two factions each. That way each player only needs to buy 2 packs per cycle. It also makes the came more approachable for new players once the game has a few released cycles.

 

You might say that's too good a deal but I've actually had a hard time getting my friend to get into netrunner because of the cost. Just one core set is a lot more expensive than a 35$ commander deck that comes playable out of the box. And one core set of any LCG is hardly playable out of the box if we're being honest. Plus there's the "sunk cost fallacy" which means that players will want to stick with the game they've already invested money and time into. So the barrier to entry needs to be very low if they want to realistically compete with today's market.

 

tl:dr If L5R is going to be bigger than the other LCGs they will need to get players that had previously thought LCGs were still too expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firgus, good post.

 

Personally i'd like to see something in reversal. To keep great variety and abudant of options of classic L5R i think FFG should to rethink increasing card pool but keeping same price as other LCG. I suppose that mass cost production of card games doesn't increase geometrically so creating 30-50% larger CS shouldn't be problem. And as we all know that boxes of FFG games are full of empty space fille with nothing like air.

 

There's must be a "catch" to attract NEW players to choose L5R, a trademark completely unknown for younger people. Especially comparing to SW, AGoT or CoC.

Edited by kempy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firgus, good post.

 

Personally i'd like to see something in reversal. To keep great variety and abudant of options of classic L5R i think FFG should to rethink increasing card pool but keeping same price as other LCG. I suppose that mass cost production of card games doesn't increase geometrically so creating 30-50% larger CS shouldn't be problem. And as we all know that boxes of FFG games are full of empty space fille with nothing like air.

 

There's must be a "catch" to attract NEW players to choose L5R, a trademark completely unknown for younger people. Especially comparing to SW, AGoT or CoC.

 

That's how I feel too. Plus, I think the new L5R will be more multiplayer friendly out of the game so having more than two clans is necessary for that. Yeah, there's a more limited pool of cards in a core set but that is how most card games start. After a cycle and deluxe expansion appears that problem disappears.

 

Granted, I can easily see a deluxe expansion focusing on a single clan but with some other clan/support cards thrown in. That would be that sort of release in line with most of the other LCGs. That or there's a focus on more story based deluxe expansions and we'll still get multiple clan support in that.

Edited by Kubernes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

POST # 100!!!

I agree with the above posts. The fans need (and deserve) a little love. A note, a tease, a blog entry. Something to keep us excited and build anticipation for whatever FFG is doing with L5R behind closed Roseville doors.

 

FFG is not AEG. They keep their plans much closer to their chests and do not officially reach out to the fans as much.

 

You can say that again. You never know which games will receive expansions until they are at the printer, which leads to issues like they are having with Battlelore. Nobody knows whats going on, and nobody will leak anything, and FFG won't even say "this game is active and will receive support" until the support is there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I predict you'll be wrong. Despite the godawful deckbuilding and mechanics SW is likely their bestseller, with Netrunner and Lotr close behind. I doubt if L5R can catch up.

 

Any confirmed data?

 

Talking about so called tournament scene, i'm just looking at this post and these numbers looks so miserable: http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/30962-2016-regional-schedule-and-results/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I predict you'll be wrong. Despite the godawful deckbuilding and mechanics SW is likely their bestseller, with Netrunner and Lotr close behind. I doubt if L5R can catch up.

The deckbuilding is not god-awful, just different. Same goes for the mechanics. The game is not for everybody, but there are many people who enjoy it.

And yeah, it's their best-selling LCG according to last year's In-Flight Report at Gen Con. (But you'd never know it from the way it's publicized.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the Star Wars LCG. The deckbuilding is great as it makes each decision point more important. Less decisions yes, but each is of greater importance than in other games. It sells very well and has a huge casual kitchen table player base we know from reports direct from FFG.

 

That gave me an idea: How about they use something similar (like the warlord/signature cards from 40k conquest) to represent you playing/swearing alligiance to a family from your clan?

 

You pick a clan, then several characters (Bayushi Kashiko for example) and you get a set of corresponding cards that go with them and then round out the dack with holdings and other stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way too risky, in the sense of potentially alienating the enfranchised playerbase. They were willing to do something unconventional with Star Wars, trusting in the strength of the license to carry the day, but L5R demands familiarity for the returning players. Loyalty, I imagine, will work as it always has, with a deck's faction (I'm trying to get used to saying that instead of "clan") being determined by the stronghold (or other "faction indicator" card) used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no reason why the faction/clan can't be determined by a Champion character.

I personally think that would we far more thematic than a stronghold that doesn't crumble regardless of which provinces you lose. But I also didn't want to derail my argument with that observation, either. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could easily replace a clan stronghold with a clan 'champion' by just switching out the names. You don't necessarily need to change any other function. The question is what does this type of change do for the narrative or story compared to a stronghold? Is it a good thing to be attached to a specific character rather than the clan in general? Keep that discussion rolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could easily replace a clan stronghold with a clan 'champion' by just switching out the names. You don't necessarily need to change any other function. The question is what does this type of change do for the narrative or story compared to a stronghold? Is it a good thing to be attached to a specific character rather than the clan in general? Keep that discussion rolling.

If there is no functional change, why bother at all? We are all rightly assuming this version is going to be different and, we hope, better. So changes are to be expected but most of us hope it will still be recognisable as L5R. Basically, what you are suggesting is a change just for change's sake. Also it may generate rules problems like a card working as a Personality but which should get a lot of exceptions because it's you faction identifier, too (cannot be outright killed, stolen, etc...), so something like a Personality but is not actually one. But we have already one card category that does that. What do you gain changing this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You could easily replace a clan stronghold with a clan 'champion' by just switching out the names. You don't necessarily need to change any other function. The question is what does this type of change do for the narrative or story compared to a stronghold? Is it a good thing to be attached to a specific character rather than the clan in general? Keep that discussion rolling.

If there is no functional change, why bother at all? We are all rightly assuming this version is going to be different and, we hope, better. So changes are to be expected but most of us hope it will still be recognisable as L5R. Basically, what you are suggesting is a change just for change's sake. Also it may generate rules problems like a card working as a Personality but which should get a lot of exceptions because it's you faction identifier, too (cannot be outright killed, stolen, etc...), so something like a Personality but is not actually one. But we have already one card category that does that. What do you gain changing this?

 

 

Kind of? Changing the clan from a stronghold to a personality (lite, of course) does potentially create the cult of personality situation. This would most likely be some sort of Toturi character that starts as part of a clan, becomes clanless, and later rejoins a clan or founds a new one. This sort of change could directly undercut the idea of the clans being the glue of the setting.

 

Just one subtle change potentially giving a drastically different experience.

Edited by Kubernes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't think that's very in the spirit of the world, where loyalty to your clan is paramount. Not that I don't see what you mean, and there have been charismatic characters transcending Clan barriers (for instance, Toturi's four children) but they are the exception, rather than the norm. On the other hand, of late (for the last couple of arcs, IIRC), L5R had a little of that, sort of-ish... I mean, before that, your faction kept getting periodically completely new Strongholds with different powers and abilities, around 3 per arc. However, for the last couple of arcs, your faction got just one core stronghold for the whole arc, which could be further personalized by adding a Sensei which gave you access to specific abilities, and represented an important character (but not a Champion)

 

In any case, I don't think they'd do that, and i hope they don't. Why? Because I'm of two minds about this... Let me elaborate. I wan't the game to play and feel as close as possible to the original version I first enjoyed playing for so many years; on the other hand, I want the new designers to make a total overhaul of it, as I no longer enjoyed playing it for the last few years. In my mind, that means to examine all and every mechanic and decide what goes out, what stays in, and what is totally changed mechanically to get the same effect.

 

I realize that's not a realistic prospect, and I'm bound to be disappointed one way or the other. However, if we look back to the other games FFG have overhauled in the past, perhaps not so much. Android Netrunner is like classic Netrunner, but enhanced with factions, better feel, art, design... I can't picture any classic Netrunner player wishing to go back to the old version. Same for AGOT, they kept with the original for quite a few years and design had been cluttered with lot of rules, unwanted interactions, etc... They decided to start from scratch,  examined what was working, what was not, removed these rules, reworked these others and we got a more solid game, soundly rebuilt on both the successes and mistakes of the old version.

 

That's what I want for new L5R. I want a L5R 2.0, not another card game set in Rokugan. And what you propose is more along the lines of a new game. Not saying that I wouldn't be interested in that game too, but that wouldn't be L5R and I think it would make no sense for them to do that, not if they own the IP and are able to create as many games as they want with different concepts within the world of Rokugan. What would be the point of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that some cards made the old Netrunner runners' life absolutely terrible, the statement is true. Plus, the fact that there such a larger pool of cards also lends itself towards favoring the new version of Netrunner. Other games could be different. I, for one, really like the old ICE Lord of the Rings game because it is a very different type of card game than many others.

 

Continuing with the topic, I'd still feel that the "glue" of the game have always been the clans and I hope that it remains true. Yeah, I love some of the characters through out the story. Aramaro, Kachiko, Toturi, Tsudao, Okura, and so on, but the clan always came first. With that tradition, loyalty is pretty important.

 

Yes, you can have exceptions but those are exceptions. I'm also speaking strictly of the samurai caste where duty is perhaps the highest held virtue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that some cards made the old Netrunner runners' life absolutely terrible, the statement is true. Plus, the fact that there such a larger pool of cards also lends itself towards favoring the new version of Netrunner.

 

It took nearly 1,5 year to reach netrunner lcg cardpool from classic+protheus got after four months. Secondly, new netrunner looks so childish comparing to cyberpunk 2020 world where original was placed ( i mean art level and fluff)). Except these terrible cgi stuff from original that is awful for todays standard. It's a matter of taste of course.

Edited by kempy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could easily replace a clan stronghold with a clan 'champion' by just switching out the names. You don't necessarily need to change any other function. The question is what does this type of change do for the narrative or story compared to a stronghold? Is it a good thing to be attached to a specific character rather than the clan in general? Keep that discussion rolling.

 

I don't think this is the case. Strongholds, at least in my mind, represent something that is less mutable, more permanent-- things that if lost, truly everything would be lost. Strongholds, or rather the social structures built over a thousand years of tradition that those buildings represent, are more of a thing that shapes the kind of people who come out of it and what they can do. A single individual can be impactful and influential on the future no doubt, but ultimately-- if one's clan champion somehow falls in battle, they can always be replaced by a next person in line. If home base falls though, all is pretty much lost. You will no longer have the funds and support to raise and support your military or political might.

 

I think the way strongholds were done by AEG was pretty excellent save perhaps for those abilities that involved bowing it. And even that is simply *perhaps*, it wasn't that big of a deal. Even if instead of two decks, the same is reduced to one-- even if provinces and the card denial it meant when you lost one were no longer a thing but instead battles were more for neutral territory or prizes. Even if dueling and other complicated subgames within the system whose mechanics had to be found in the rulebook rather than being clearly printed on the card went away....

 

Strongholds and the idea of choosing a stronghold as your decks identity from the beginning of the game is something I think should remain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be surprised if they change Strongholds at all. The only thematic change I wish they'd make is to call gold influence instead. Rokugani samurais aren't supposed to work for money. They swear fealty to their master and the master takes care of the samurai's needs. Onis and other monsters of the shadowlands don't care about kokus either as far as I know. To me a general term like influence would work best thematically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...