Okay, let us talk about how the design of the game could and maybe should change, starting with keywords!

I have to say I like the clear separation Fantasy Flight Games is having on their LCG's so far between the more fluff traits on cards (bold and italic) and the keywords that have game mechanics attached to them (just bold). So, I guess that we will see this approach for L5R too. Guess following that design of other games, the faction association will not be printed as a trait or keyword, but simply handled with an icon on the cards.

So, should Personalty become a card trait? Some personalty traits like Samurai, Courtier, Shugenja had game mechanics assigned to them, like the capabilty to commit seppuku or cast spells, how should that be handled?

Should all there be an Attachment trait, and thus the current Follower, Item and Spells all become one category or is the separation as different card types something that should be kept? I think with a broader understanding of how attachments work it could more easily allow to things like Ancestors to make a return, and have more ideas that fall outside the boxes.

Of course the game has plenty of keywords, which might have to change with the game changing overall. I think Duelist and Tactician should stay in the game, even though their function could be change. Regarding Chavalry and Naval, I have to say could be in my opinion become just traits, so removing inherent game mechanics from them, changing them to traits like Scout has been. Guess part for not liking those keywords has been that it always bothered me that the Unicorn could raid the mantis islands with their cavalry, or the Mantis could simply make an naval invation to the dragon mountains. But I guess particular keywords need their discussion related to how basic game mechanics, like battle will be handled in the LCG.

Anyway, this is meant just to kick-off a conversation about this part of the game in general, and hopefully some ideas might come up that the design team for the new L5R LCG might want to pick up.

Anyway, this is meant just to kick-off a conversation about this part of the game in general, and hopefully some ideas might come up that the design team for the new L5R LCG might want to pick up.

Yeah, there were *faaaaar* too many loaded keywords in L5R (though I'm sure that as with many things, the tide rose and ebbed with each arc).

Based on their other games, FFG is going to cut way back, but they will have plenty of unloaded keywords for cards to interact with. That's fine to an extent, but I don't want it to go so far as to basically be pre-fab decks.

I'm not sure I would want Cavalry to go, though. It seems pretty important, although only to one clan, mainly. I'd like to see it a bit more available, actually, to give the assignment phase more meat, even if Unicorn are still the masters of it.

Making personality a trait vs. a card type seems like a mistake, given how many things are unique to personalities vs. followers.

Likewise, I'm not sure I see the point of changing the follower/item distinction from card type to keyword. You'd still have to remember all the rules, but since they're the same type, they'd be easier to visually confuse.

(As usual, take all this discussion with a grain of salt. These cards and situations may not even exist in FFG's version.)

I don't think we can talk about stuff like card types becoming traits until we know something about the skeleton of the design. We can speculate about what past keywords should be like maybe (in very broad strokes), but trying to speculate on how card types will be handled as a whole is really shooting in the dark.

I don't think we can talk about stuff like card types becoming traits until we know something about the skeleton of the design. We can speculate about what past keywords should be like maybe (in very broad strokes), but trying to speculate on how card types will be handled as a whole is really shooting in the dark.

My idea was not so much to speculate, but to have a conversation about the things that worked and that didn't worked. Losing which parts would be a deal breaker for the current L5R players, and what traps FFG should avoid with re-designing L5R for their needs and how to incorporate their house style into L5R.

Yeah, unless they remove all the mechanical differences between items and followers (which I think would be a terrible mistake) reducing them to keywords would be a bad idea. Cavalry as it works currently in the LCG is actually pretty great, reducing it from an overwhelming "you just can't defend unless you have meta or lots and lots of guys" effect to the still powerful but much less aggravating ability to move a single cavalry unit after defenders have assigned has made it much less obnoxious without neutering it. Naval, I could do without. It's not a particularly fun or interesting ability to actually use and it's just aggravating to play against, although once again the changes in 20F were an improvement and I'm sure FFG could go do even more.

Obviously, spells will need to remain limited to shugenja, but other than that I feel most of the keyworded abilities (apart, maybe, from Duelist) are fine but unnecessary. They could certainly be left out of the core set without gutting the game.

I guess the only keyword with mechanical effect I would really see as kind of necessary is Unique.

Apart from that.... I definitely can see that a lot of mechanical keywords defunct... actually all of them.

And if they see the need to have a mechanical keyword, well they can have a look at the keywords we had in the past and find probably a fitting one.

Non-mechanical keywords I can see a lot however:

Profession Keywords: Samurai, Courtier, Shugenja, Monk, Ninja, whatever. (Perhaps even a few which now have a mechanical effect like Duelist)

Elemental Keywords: Air, Fire, Earth, Water, Void (perhaps they skip these and simply give every card an element with symbol)

Location Keywords: Mine, Market, Port

Misc Keywords: Nonhuman, Shadowlands, Jade

However I definitely would want to see less keywords on cards in total.

I would want them to be meaningful and if they decide to put in pure fluff keywords... I would like to see one fluff keyword per card at max.

What are fluff keywords? Well, Battle Maiden, Clan Champion, Oni, Ogre, Undead, Iron Crane.

The rest of the keywords should have a meaning in the game.

Not necessarily a rule attached but cards that interact with them. "Target your Samurai... "

I imagine that Follower and Personality may be fundamentally different cards with different layouts. For example, The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game has Hero cards and Ally cards. These are distinctive cards that interact differently with other cards. "Hero" and "Ally" are not traits, as far as I understand. They represent different card types. Attachment may be another card type with different traits indicating if it's Cavalry, Katana, Spells, etc.

Traits will fuel the majority of card interactions where certain cards do X, but only to cards with trait Y. I think clans will be represented by color and symbol, but families will probably be traits as well as things like Ninja, Assassin, Courtier, etc.

Keywords represent card rules that are frequently used to the point that writing it in shorthand is easier. From what I've seen, keywords will usually have an abbreviated explanation after them on cards from the core and the first cycle. If a keyword is introduced in a later cycle, it will usually have an explanation on each card unless there just isn't room for it.

So, should Personalty become a card trait? Some personalty traits like Samurai, Courtier, Shugenja had game mechanics assigned to them, like the capabilty to commit seppuku or cast spells, how should that be handled?

I think Shugenja, for instance, would be okay as a trait. Then Spell cards would usually begin the card text with a clause like, "Attach to a Shugenja personality," or something. I doubt FFG will have one-word traits be tied to game mechanics.

I would want them to be meaningful and if they decide to put in pure fluff keywords... I would like to see one fluff keyword per card at max.

What are fluff keywords? Well, Battle Maiden, Clan Champion, Oni, Ogre, Undead, Iron Crane.

Well, they're only fluff keywords until a card keys in on them, right? But I agree AEG keyworded some silly stuff over the years that was obviously never going to get card interaction.

I guess the only keyword with mechanical effect I would really see as kind of necessary is Unique.

I would say even that is not really necessary as keyword, I like how FFG has the dot in front of the name in Call of Cthulhu. Okay, that is more of a singular keyword in L5R terms, but it shows that some game mechanics don't have to be keywords on a card but can be handled without card text clutter.

However I definitely would want to see less keywords on cards in total.

I agree some cards seem to make a sport of trying to include as many keywords as possible, Like the Shadow dragon.

Check 'em out!

V

I guess the only keyword with mechanical effect I would really see as kind of necessary is Unique.

I would say even that is not really necessary as keyword, I like how FFG has the dot in front of the name in Call of Cthulhu. Okay, that is more of a singular keyword in L5R terms, but it shows that some game mechanics don't have to be keywords on a card but can be handled without card text clutter.

Actually I prefer the dot to the unique trait (FFG uses the dot in many games).

Dot is you can't play a card of this name if you already have one in play.

Unique is you can only have one in a deck. If a card is so powerful you can only have one in your deck, it's probably *too* powerful.

Are we talking about traits or keywords? In FFG terms, a trait is a word on a card that has no mechanical meaning. It is only used when other cards are interacting with a card of a given trait.

A keyword has some game mechanics tied to it. For example, "Ranged" is a keyword in LotR that means you can attack enemies that aren't engaged with you. While cards can interact with keywords as well as traits, keywords allow you to indicate special rules abilities on a card without having to write the rules on the card.

I do hope we get another symbol for "bow".

Are we talking about traits or keywords? In FFG terms, a trait is a word on a card that has no mechanical meaning. It is only used when other cards are interacting with a card of a given trait.

A keyword has some game mechanics tied to it. For example, "Ranged" is a keyword in LotR that means you can attack enemies that aren't engaged with you. While cards can interact with keywords as well as traits, keywords allow you to indicate special rules abilities on a card without having to write the rules on the card.

Oh, I forgot about Ranged!

Anyway, I think there's going to be *tons* of confusion over trait vs. keyword during the transition, due to different usages (and, if I'm not mistaken, different usages over the years even in just L5R).

At any rate, hopefully keywords will be minimal in new L5R, and any that are used are simple enough that most cards that use them can include help text.

I would hope to see far less traits AND keywords.

Keywords, to avoid mechanical bloat, and traits, because I think the whole crippling overspecialization of designs L5R suffered from in its later days did more harm than good. There was a lot of pigeon-holing personalities into specific "themes" (because they could play the actions that went with that theme),

I would love to see Scouts, Commanders, Duelists, Kensai, Berserkers, Magistrates and a few other of that ilk just go the way of the dodo (or at least are restricted to one-three support cards, not enough to build a whole deck of JUST that keyword). L5R was better before them, and will be better without them.

A handful of broad categories (like the veterans Courtier/Samurai*/Shugenja/Monk/Ninja) is fine, but after that it was just over the top.

*Though that should really be changed to Bushi given how it was used in the old game.

Big +1 for the dot. There wasn't anything wrong with the Unique/Singular keywords but a whole bunch of other LCGs use some sort of "Unique" symbol so it would make teaching easier while freeing up space in text boxes.

And yeah, I loved the little bowing samurai guy. Definitely want to see him or a close relative again.

I'm only now realizing that with the limited selection of avatars so far, this forum is going to get confusing.

Not to be racist, but you Crane all look the same to me.

(Same goes for every other clan, you're just right there.)

I would want them to be meaningful and if they decide to put in pure fluff keywords... I would like to see one fluff keyword per card at max.

What are fluff keywords? Well, Battle Maiden, Clan Champion, Oni, Ogre, Undead, Iron Crane.

Well, they're only fluff keywords until a card keys in on them, right? But I agree AEG keyworded some silly stuff over the years that was obviously never going to get card interaction.

More or less... But I would say that keywords which are only present in one clan should never have have cards interact with them. (Perhaps with the exception of Strongholds.)

"Target your Iron Crane ... " would be rather silly.

This is the reason why I am not a big fan of Tactician, Conqueror, Cavalry and Naval. Since they are almost indistinguishable from Lion, Spider, Unicorn and Mantis.

Actually what I would find interesting would be if the Clan alignment would give you a clan specific effect... Tactician for Lions for example, Kensai for Dragons, Duellist for Crane.

Since the clan alignment is now a mon and a frame this would save much space on the cards...

Me have suggestion: Clearer to understand writing. Me have to ask how a card works because its so awkwardly worded. Fun text is fine when its just flavor. But then you get stuff where cards are not clear when it comes to comprehension.

This is the reason why I am not a big fan of Tactician, Conqueror, Cavalry and Naval. Since they are almost indistinguishable from Lion, Spider, Unicorn and Mantis.

Actually what I would find interesting would be if the Clan alignment would give you a clan specific effect... Tactician for Lions for example, Kensai for Dragons, Duellist for Crane.

Since the clan alignment is now a mon and a frame this would save much space on the cards...

If they keep strongholds, I doubt if there will be separate affiliation cards.

I wouldn't want built in clan rulebook abilities, but those seem like they'd be fine (if very basic) stronghold (or affiliation) abilities, if such things exist in the new game. They'd need some balancing, though. I mean, Naval seems like kind of weak sauce vs. Tac or Cav, generally speaking.

The only card type that I think is crucial is personality. The personalities are the heart and soul of Rokugan. Strategies, items, spells, followers, holdings - it can all be reimagined. There's nothing that says that a spell can't be a shugenja only item. Holdings could be represented by some other gold gaining mechanic.

As for keywords (using it in the former incarnation sense), there are a lot that are memorable, but I don't think too many are absolutely crucial, especially not in their previous forms.

More important, I feel, are the various keywords that correspond to classes: samurai, shugenja, monk, courtier, ninja, etc. The exact number of which is up for debate and is flexible. Those should be represented by having cards that interact with them or that get more powerful when used by them, but shouldn't have a rulebook use.

Me have suggestion: Clearer to understand writing. Me have to ask how a card works because its so awkwardly worded. Fun text is fine when its just flavor. But then you get stuff where cards are not clear when it comes to comprehension.

No one's perfect in this regard, but I expect a *huge* improvement.

Are we talking about traits or keywords? In FFG terms, a trait is a word on a card that has no mechanical meaning. It is only used when other cards are interacting with a card of a given trait.

A keyword has some game mechanics tied to it. For example, "Ranged" is a keyword in LotR that means you can attack enemies that aren't engaged with you. While cards can interact with keywords as well as traits, keywords allow you to indicate special rules abilities on a card without having to write the rules on the card.

Anyway, I think there's going to be *tons* of confusion over trait vs. keyword during the transition, due to different usages (and, if I'm not mistaken, different usages over the years even in just L5R).

Yeah, that's going to be tough. Even the split from trait and keyword at AEG took some getting used to. I still sometimes call keywords traits.

I'm only now realizing that with the limited selection of avatars so far, this forum is going to get confusing.

Not to be racist, but you Crane all look the same to me.

(Same goes for every other clan, you're just right there.)

Yeah it's the main reason I won't be changing my Nyarlathotep-as-the-Black-Pharaoh with a Spider clan mon.

Heh heh, Spider Mon.

I'm only now realizing that with the limited selection of avatars so far, this forum is going to get confusing.

Not to be racist, but you Crane all look the same to me.

(Same goes for every other clan, you're just right there.)

Everyone knows there's only one actual Crane player.

But yeah, please no Clan based rulebook abilities (certainly not duelist-Crane, the Dragons would throw a fit and it'd take weeks to get the koan graffiti off the walls). In fact I'd like to see things spread around a bit more, especially focus value based effects like duellist or tactician, in the CCG FVs felt like a niche mechanics only used by very few decks, assuming FFG doesn't just drop them, I'd like them to become something you want to keep at least half an eye on when you're deck building.