You're changing the goalposts, kempy. Bad pool, cut it out.

Your original complaint was "if it was good". But you changed that to requiring it to be a hit. As if being a good game means that a game will be a hit, or vice versa.

Yes, I pointed out that FFG has a history of bringing out good, hit LCGs. But you're the one who now is suddenly bitching about the amount of money FFG is or is not putting into playtesting and marketing versus their other products, while bringing up a host of other completely unsupported griping.

FFG doesn't pay their playtesters? They pay just as many playtesters as Wizards does for Magic. In both cases, the people working on the card game in-company are the first line of playtesting (Magic has the Future Future League in the Pit, which is where Design and Development work on upcoming sets). If Wizards of the Coast doesn't pay for out-of-company playtesting, you expect the much smaller FFG to do so as well?

Serious Netrunner players don't care about lore? Of the biggest fan-run media of the game, two of the three biggest podcasts are complete geeks about the lore (Run Last Click and Terminal Seven), and top website Stimhack, while mainly concerned about crushing regionals with deck tech, always has lore articles around which are well-received. There's Netrunner cosplay, by players, in events. No, there's not an organized fan outreach program like AEG did with the Clans in L5R, but you still get Netrunner pros griping about poor Dinosaurus being junked years after it happened in lore. The Android setting book sold quite well and was actually reviewed by the major Netrunner fan sites, and that had zero cards in the entire book. But even the basic complaining that Netrunner isn't about the lore compared to L5R is a bit disingenuous when one game was obstensibly about telling a story through cardplay (L5R) while the other one is first and foremost a game that happens to be in a particular story setting (Netrunner).

FFG split their play dates for their nationals because, quite frankly, *they didn't have enough room*. If you've been to Worlds the past few years you can understand that. Plus, they were cannibalizing their own fans -- lots of FFG players play two or three of their games. So you'd have people passionate about Game of Thrones and Star Wars having to choose to play in one event, or the other. They split the games along the Star Wars lines for a number of reasons -- it's thematic, it's easier to market the Star Wars based championship, most of their Star Wars games take up tons more physical space than card games do (and thus cut into table space for the other games, all LCGs), and it's also an easy thing to remember. Which worlds do I want to go to? Oh yeah, all the Star Wars games are one day, all other games the other.

LCGs do not require any less testing than any other collectable card game. At the end of their run, Cthulhu and Game of Thrones 1.0 had thousands of cards, and even though each expansion pack in an LCG style adds less cards to the wild than a Magic expansion, that doesn't mean adding more cards doesn't require just as much testing as in Magic (also, FFG almost always brews up an entire expansion run of 120 cards at once, playtests that entire expansion, and then splits the cards into their six 20-card expansion packs before sending them to the printer; Netrunner's SanSan Cycle is their only cycle I'm aware of that was developed and tested only 20 cards at a time).

And now you're griping about card art? Recycled images? What recycled images will FFG be using, exactly, for L5R? Where is their stack of Rokugani back material they will be flooding their cards with? Heck, we don't even know if individual art rights for earlier art came with the IP purchase (my guess is no, but that's only a guess). "lot of lcg pictures come from rpg or other board games"? Really? "lot" implies a pretty large portion. Netrunner is all new art, every card. Game of Thrones 2.0 reuses some art from 1.0, but those are for the legacy cards, so I can't see much difference there between that and the recycling of art for the Soul of... cards in L5R under AEG. Cthulhu was all new art. Lord of the Rings is all new art (they possibly may have recycled a bit of art from their old Lord of the Rings board game back when their LCG first came out, but I'm not clear on that). 40K Conquest is all new art (I haven't seen any borrowed art from their extensive 40K RPG line, even when the characters are the same). There is some art crossover from their Star Wars RPGs to their LCG, but it's hardly a majority (and perhaps their license with Disney makes that a good thing to strive for). So I'm seriously at a loss here -- can you point to me to all these "lot" of images that are recycled in their LCGs?

And even if they did--so what? What, exactly, does that prove about anything except the size of their art director's budget? Does that impact game mechanics? Playability? Audience enjoyment? What exactly is your beef here? Why did you even bring it up?

It's tough to tell since you're incredibly vague, but you seem to be complaining that FFG, after paying the money for the IP and then spending two years without a product to recoup any investment including years of paying salaries to the new design team and art design fees, will decide to put out a shoddy product that will stop being supported in just a few years, which is entirely at odds with every other game line and, especially, LCG line, that they've ever released. Instead of being happy that your "#1 card game" is at least given a chance at a second life, you're bitching about a lack of fan support years in the future for a game that's not even released yet. What the hell, man?

You don't have to like what FFG will do to the game. Nobody does. It's a new design team, a new philosophy. That's fair, to prefer AEG's design to FFG's. But right now, *nobody* except for the guys in FFG knows what the new design is, and you're already handicapping *art decisions* in 2020 leading to an imaginary loss of phantom fans in a timeline that doesn't even exist yet. I mean, really?

So. Back to the beginning. Why won't FFG do a good job on L5R? Is it their lack of track record on previous card games? All signs there point to no; they do a robust and good job on all their LCG lines, and even those that have been dropped got many years of play before they went away (far more than AEG's return to Doomtown). And even if FFG suddenly changes their entire corporate track record and also throws all their L5R IP money to the wind and just cancels the new L5R IP a mere two years into their release cycle, so what? You got two more years of your "#1 card game" with a new perspective. And if the new perspective isn't to your liking, your old cards are just as playable as they ever were.

To give you perspective on why they are splitting the World Championships, X-wing just had a 400 player tournament in England. And the similar event in the US, which had far, far less time to get ready for. Only 2 months, which is a very short time for someone to decide and plan to go to a big convention, still pulled 251. Even Netrunner isn't pulling those kinds of numbers.

As for the way cycles are designed, they still design and playtest the whole cycle at once. It is just now that they are looking at creating more cohesive packs, rather than randomly splitting up the cards as they go.

Thanks Gaffa about huge post and pointing some details. I just based on various sources and got really different informations.

PS. And no, Conquest isn't "all new art". i've just spotted there images even from original WH 40K CCG they probably got with purchase of Sabertooth.

PPS. Testing CCG is far more intensive than in LCG, with speed of releases ther're much more card to be released in same period of time. Whole cardpool of CoC (1500) or AGoT 1.0 (2000) is just like one 2 year "block" or "edition" in CCG. But even having much more time to test, smaller LCG are still full of design and mechanical faults. That's why i'm not big fan of FFG owning L5R. For me it should die where's it than become mediocre, limited LCG.

If L5R had died before becoming mediocre, it would have died nearly a decade ago.

Regarding play testing, even mtg experiences major problems once in a while. Just this year, some new broken cards led to absolute meta domination by the Eldrazi and swift banning.

Regarding FFG, I don't see any major problems with their current LCGs in terms of design flaws. AGOT 1.0 would perhaps be an example, but they have long since learned from that and improved.

The games are great pal!

Regarding play testing, even mtg experiences major problems once in a while. Just this year, some new broken cards led to absolute meta domination by the Eldrazi and swift banning.

Regarding FFG, I don't see any major problems with their current LCGs in terms of design flaws. AGOT 1.0 would perhaps be an example, but they have long since learned from that and improved.

The games are great pal!

From the AGOT 2.0 annals, tournaments held since 1st June 2016:

Lannister -> played 22% -> won 19%

In any event, there can be short periods where one faction does better, but it will likely not last for long.

From the AGOT 2.0 annals, tournaments held since 1st June 2016:

Lannister -> played 22% -> won 19%

In any event, there can be short periods where one faction does better, but it will likely not last for long.

Add Lanni banner to this equation.

Regarding play testing, even mtg experiences major problems once in a while. Just this year, some new broken cards led to absolute meta domination by the Eldrazi and swift banning.

Regarding FFG, I don't see any major problems with their current LCGs in terms of design flaws. AGOT 1.0 would perhaps be an example, but they have long since learned from that and improved.

The games are great pal!

Combination of cards in ANR that frozen whole meta for near half the year (unlocked with latest faq). Worr visible domination in Conquest. Jedi/Navy in SW. Let's talk about powercreep in Invasion.

It's just too much for these small simple card games that should be perfect regarding their size and available resources.

If L5R had died before becoming mediocre, it would have died nearly a decade ago.

But it didn't.

From the AGOT 2.0 annals, tournaments held since 1st June 2016:

Lannister -> played 22% -> won 19%

In any event, there can be short periods where one faction does better, but it will likely not last for long.

Add Lanni banner to this equation.

Regarding play testing, even mtg experiences major problems once in a while. Just this year, some new broken cards led to absolute meta domination by the Eldrazi and swift banning.

Regarding FFG, I don't see any major problems with their current LCGs in terms of design flaws. AGOT 1.0 would perhaps be an example, but they have long since learned from that and improved.

The games are great pal!

Combination of cards in ANR that frozen whole meta for near half the year (unlocked with latest faq). Worr visible domination in Conquest. Jedi/Navy in SW. Let's talk about powercreep in Invasion.

It's just too much for these small simple card games that should be perfect regarding their size and available resources.

If L5R had died before becoming mediocre, it would have died nearly a decade ago.

But it didn't.

AGOT 2.0- the best performer by far recently has been Stark Fealty

Conquest- Worr didn't win the US nationals, nor did he get to the recent Black Crusade finals. Worr's overall OCTGN win rate is 54%. Among the expert players, the consensus is that he is not OP.

ANR- just this week some changes were made which will significantly affect Whizzard and NEH (most commonly played IDs). Agreed that the meta had been fairly static in 2016 (in terms of IDs though, not deck builds which can vary wildly by ID) but it is being addressed. The 2015 Worlds winning runner deck had also been hit in December 2015. IMHO the biggest problem in 2016 had been the asset spam decks, not due to power level, but due to the impact on the style of game played. Hopefully resolved now.

Anyway, I am not trying to convince anyone, I suppose it all depends on your expectations for the game.

I also have no idea how L5R CCG was in terms of faction balance

From the AGOT 2.0 annals, tournaments held since 1st June 2016:

Lannister -> played 22% -> won 19%

In any event, there can be short periods where one faction does better, but it will likely not last for long.

Add Lanni banner to this equation.

Regarding play testing, even mtg experiences major problems once in a while. Just this year, some new broken cards led to absolute meta domination by the Eldrazi and swift banning.

Regarding FFG, I don't see any major problems with their current LCGs in terms of design flaws. AGOT 1.0 would perhaps be an example, but they have long since learned from that and improved.

The games are great pal!

Combination of cards in ANR that frozen whole meta for near half the year (unlocked with latest faq). Worr visible domination in Conquest. Jedi/Navy in SW. Let's talk about powercreep in Invasion.

It's just too much for these small simple card games that should be perfect regarding their size and available resources.

If L5R had died before becoming mediocre, it would have died nearly a decade ago.

But it didn't.

Conquest- Worr didn't win the US nationals, nor did he get to the recent Black Crusade finals. Worr's overall OCTGN win rate is 54%. Among the expert players, the consensus is that he is not OP.

I also have no idea how L5R CCG was in terms of faction balance

But Worr won Euros which had 5 times more players than US Nationals. Out of 20+ Warlords in CQ 3 of them lead completely - Starbane, Worr and Kith.

http://www.cardgamedb.com/forums/index.php?/topic/28921-road-to-worlds-2016/?p=223039

I'm pretty sure, knowing how other LCG started, there'll be one superior Clan in base L5R CS. That's how Core Sets in LCG are designed.

Of course i'd like to be surprised but there's slender hope.

L5R CCG also had balance issues (including fe 40%, Unicorn domination in Kotei season of late Samurai Edition), but with huge cardpool, much more decktypes, constant rotation (editions), so called clan loyalty environment was vibrant. Percentage of bandwagoners was a lot less than in LCG. Even with much more valuable prizes (booster boxes instead alt art versions od cards that everyone owns) people tried to score best with their favourite decks/clans. At least in Europe.

From the AGOT 2.0 annals, tournaments held since 1st June 2016:

Lannister -> played 22% -> won 19%

In any event, there can be short periods where one faction does better, but it will likely not last for long.

Add Lanni banner to this equation.

AGOT 2.0- the best performer by far recently has been Stark Fealty

I did say "perceived" dominance.

AGOT is still a young game, though. The one down side with the slow trickle of cards, is that it takes a year or two before the game can mature. The Lunar cycle is where Netrunner really began to get interesting.

They did also say that they considered Lannister to be the best faction for new players to learn the game with.

From the AGOT 2.0 annals, tournaments held since 1st June 2016:

Lannister -> played 22% -> won 19%

In any event, there can be short periods where one faction does better, but it will likely not last for long.

Add Lanni banner to this equation.

AGOT 2.0- the best performer by far recently has been Stark Fealty

I did say "perceived" dominance.

I noticed pal! My post was aimed at other readers who may have assumed AGOT had a serious balance problem

Upon consideration a post I made here would more properly belong in this thread.

Everybody who went to GenCon expressed a pleased nature after visiting the FFG booth. I hope that is a good sign.

The strong point of L5R was / is theme and art.

I am not sure what is the most successful lcg at this moment, but I ques that it is LOTR lcg by player count. It has more casual players than any other.

GOT has casual and tournament players

SW has both, but more casual I suppose.

Netrunner has huge tournament player spin (most difficult game in the pack).

So different aspect to measure the success.

I'm inclined to argue that L5R's strength was the story and, more importantly, the player base's ability to affect the story.

On an unrelated note, but one somewhat more relevant to the topic of this thread...

I think it's telling how much activity there is on this forum despite the lack of news to discuss. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that there's been more L5R related news in the last month than in the previous six combined. Yet despite that there have been over 9000 posts on this forum. Surely once the game launches and there's actual story/cards/meta/tournament results to talk/debate/argue/complain about that number will increase exponentially.

....there have been over 9000 posts on this forum. Surely once the game launches and there's actual story/cards/meta/tournament results to talk/debate/argue/complain about that number will increase exponentially.

I'm hoping by April/May of next year, the Mods give us sub-sections for this forum. It is going to be a mess without having preview, story, and RPG sections.

Sub-sections will come when there are rules, decks and organisation to discuss, i.e. during the release week. But they could tidy up all the other LCG sub-forums too. Some have the general section in its own sub-section, others plant it right after a list of sub-sections. The forums need a bit of mod-love in general.

I know that locally, we'll have more L5R players than we can gather for AGoT. I rarely see other LCG's played here in Brussels, and I don't know of many tournaments in Belgium for Conquest. Netrunner has a nice playerbase, but as far as I know, not other LCG is quite succesful for the time being.

Unless L5R really sucks, I think it will change that.

The biggest challenge for FFG would be to make it a fun experience playing with 3 or more players. L5R never achieved this for me as a CCG.

AGoT's melee mode isn't much different from joust, which I guess is why people enjoy it (can't muster enough players for it here). They'll just have to design the new L5R so that it's fun with any size group (up to a reasonable point - AGoT 2e says 6 max). Netrunner is the only LCG with a playerbase large enough to have something like a tournament. It's all MtG or even Vanguard in the local gaming dungeon :/

SOMEBODY is buying all the LCG products which disappear off the shelves, so it's a mystery why we can't find them. I hope for some big, splashy banners to be made available for the L5R launch at least, so people will take note. Gotta get them off the TCG addiction.

AGoT's melee mode isn't much different from joust, which I guess is why people enjoy it (can't muster enough players for it here). They'll just have to design the new L5R so that it's fun with any size group (up to a reasonable point - AGoT 2e says 6 max). Netrunner is the only LCG with a playerbase large enough to have something like a tournament. It's all MtG or even Vanguard in the local gaming dungeon :/

SOMEBODY is buying all the LCG products which disappear off the shelves, so it's a mystery why we can't find them. I hope for some big, splashy banners to be made available for the L5R launch at least, so people will take note. Gotta get them off the TCG addiction.

Oh not vanguard... The insane amount of text in that tiny font makes my eyes bleed.

Yeah only LCG that get's close to MTG (special day of the week for games, occasional tournaments) at my gamestore is netrunner. I'm sure we'll see L5R become big to if FFG does it right.

AGoT's melee mode isn't much different from joust,[...]

Well, the addition of the titles make a big difference. Considering the bonuses you get and the fact that there will be players you cannot even touch is a tremendous change in the dynamics of the game.

Considering how being the first player is important in Joust, it's even bigger in Melee, even more so from turn 3 on.

We're having a lot of fun in Melee, and we really hope we'll have as much fun with L5R.

The guys at FFG must feel so much pressure on their shoulders right now. They'll have to all seppuku if they fail us on this game !