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.

A good weapon or follower on a naval personality can go a long way to making meaningful impact when attacking a province like a Bishamon's Bow . Its also good because its a baked-in version of the Sneak Attack strategy which means you have the first battle action with a Naval's unit when attacking.

However its more like comparing a Crane to a Scorpion and vice versa. Sure they both have their practical purposes, but they function differently from one another.

I'd like to step away from most of the card types. Frankly, I'd like to see them pace the rounds of the game in such a way that the relative permanence of "attachments" cards could be largely ignored.

I love Followers and Items but I don't want all the ticky-tact complexity of this contribute Force to an army if unbowed, and that contributing Force to the Personality at all times, and this can be hit with a Ranged Attack and that can't, and these cards can combined their abilities but those can't, etc. There's way too much implicit baggage. If it isn't worth spelling out on the card then just don't print it.

Actually, I think I'd prefer a style of play where you don't straighten cards on a round cycle either. Play them. Use them. Break them. Straighten them with other effects. Resolve a round in 10 minutes or less. Score a point. Reshuffle and do it again. L5R needs to lose this "Spend 20 minutes rolling a lethal Katamari and crush the other guy with it for the next 20 minutes" mechanics in the transition to an LCG. It's part of what made Multi-player so miserable too.

Marty Lund

I'd like to step away from most of the card types. Frankly, I'd like to see them pace the rounds of the game in such a way that the relative permanence of "attachments" cards could be largely ignored.

I love Followers and Items but I don't want all the ticky-tact complexity of this contribute Force to an army if unbowed, and that contributing Force to the Personality at all times, and this can be hit with a Ranged Attack and that can't, and these cards can combined their abilities but those can't, etc. There's way too much implicit baggage. If it isn't worth spelling out on the card then just don't print it.

Actually, I think I'd prefer a style of play where you don't straighten cards on a round cycle either. Play them. Use them. Break them. Straighten them with other effects. Resolve a round in 10 minutes or less. Score a point. Reshuffle and do it again. L5R needs to lose this "Spend 20 minutes rolling a lethal Katamari and crush the other guy with it for the next 20 minutes" mechanics in the transition to an LCG. It's part of what made Multi-player so miserable too.

Marty Lund

In this vein, I'm actually really curious to see if FFG takes advantage of some opportunities they have with being a boxed game and being able to include tokens. Exhausting from Star Wars comes to mind, where a card could be "bowed" multiple times and be out of action for several turns. (There are also "Elite" units who clear multiple tokens.)

I'd like to step away from most of the card types. Frankly, I'd like to see them pace the rounds of the game in such a way that the relative permanence of "attachments" cards could be largely ignored.

I love Followers and Items but I don't want all the ticky-tact complexity of this contribute Force to an army if unbowed, and that contributing Force to the Personality at all times, and this can be hit with a Ranged Attack and that can't, and these cards can combined their abilities but those can't, etc. There's way too much implicit baggage. If it isn't worth spelling out on the card then just don't print it.

Actually, I think I'd prefer a style of play where you don't straighten cards on a round cycle either. Play them. Use them. Break them. Straighten them with other effects. Resolve a round in 10 minutes or less. Score a point. Reshuffle and do it again. L5R needs to lose this "Spend 20 minutes rolling a lethal Katamari and crush the other guy with it for the next 20 minutes" mechanics in the transition to an LCG. It's part of what made Multi-player so miserable too.

Marty Lund

I wouldn't mind a version of L5R that represented small groups of samurai opposing one another. Two or three bodies on each side with an emphasis on how they synergize and work together to thwart the opponent's actions. No more need for 15-20 different personalities in a deck, and instead a focus on how the entire deck supports the 2-4 personalities on the table. Just thinking out loud.

Resolve a round in 10 minutes or less.

This is possibly the one big thing that would stop me buying a box on launch. Not every game needs to be Magic, and with CCGs/LCGs there's a nasty tendency for games that aim to be short and simple to end up being games entirely about deck building where actually sitting down and playing feels like an afterthought.

The only keyword I really hope stays is loyal. Mostly because it makes design easier, but it also would give each faction a unique feel without going into cookie cutter thematics.

ASSUMING (a big assumption, and probably unsafe, but the only real basis for discussion of keywords we have right now) relatively similar concept of battles in the new games, I would actually retain some version of the Naval and Cavalry mechanics - but I would expand or redefine what the ability stands for.

The First Strike ability (formerly naval) is something I would use across the board to represent reconaissance and stealth. Instead of being "the Mantis keyword" it would be something shared by the Tsuruchi/Kitsune, Daidoji, Ikoma, Hiruma, Shosuro, Goju/Ninube, etc. They'd tend toward lower force personalities with useful battle actions and the ability to "stealth" those actions in. Then I'd scrap the "Scout" trait.

Likewise, the mobility ability (formerly cavalry) is something I would use to represent all sorts of mobility, including both actual movement speed, the effective use of strategic and tactical reserves, efficient deployment, naval transportation, etc. As such, the keyword would be found across the Akodo, Moto/Utaku/Shinjo, Yoritomo/Moshi, Isawa, maybe Kaiu families. Then I'd scrap "Tactician" as a distinct keyword.

I have to say that I find bowing in L5R somewhat iconic. Sure, it is just tapping from magic under a different name, but still, it felt right in L5R.

Even though I would like to keep Duelist and Tacttan as useful keywords, I think I could live with them becoming just empty personalty traits. But I guess we will have some form of battles, and hopefully also fome form of duels in the game again, and having keywords that interact with those parts of the game would be neat.

Melee X and Range X, I have to say I could live without. Maybe having actions that make wounds or lasting effect would be nice, and that could still most characters instandly. Again, I have mostly played the Call of Cthulhu game, and the wounds and toughness system there looks good to me.

Regarding attachments, my thought was with having that a trait on cards, one could have followers, items, spells and so on that are not attached to personalties, or things that are attached to holdings or what have you. More options, less unnessary card types! Independent follow from personalties could free one of the trouble of dealing with bowed peeps. Also having Personalty as trait could be useful if FFG decides for just one deck and not a separate Dynasty and Fate deck.

The only keyword I really hope stays is loyal. Mostly because it makes design easier, but it also would give each faction a unique feel without going into cookie cutter thematics.

As a Scorpion, the ONLY keyword that matters to me is Loyal.

Someone talking about Cavalry at the first page and assigment phase needing more meat reminded me of something; I wouldn't mind saying goodbye to Limited/Attack/Dynasty phases, and replacing them with 4 Seasons. In lore, each season has clearly assigned "role" - during Winter people do politicking, during Spring they prepare for Summer, and during Summer, they fight it out. Sure, it would mean that each turn is a year, but I think that there is a lot of flavor to be gained from having Winter Season/Winter Court where I spam Political Cards, and Summer when I can engage my foes using military means. It sounds cooler, and probably could be easily communicated using cool seasonal symbols; this card has snowflake on it, it means I can play it during Winter Court!

Someone talking about Cavalry at the first page and assigment phase needing more meat reminded me of something; I wouldn't mind saying goodbye to Limited/Attack/Dynasty phases, and replacing them with 4 Seasons. In lore, each season has clearly assigned "role" - during Winter people do politicking, during Spring they prepare for Summer, and during Summer, they fight it out. Sure, it would mean that each turn is a year, but I think that there is a lot of flavor to be gained from having Winter Season/Winter Court where I spam Political Cards, and Summer when I can engage my foes using military means. It sounds cooler, and probably could be easily communicated using cool seasonal symbols; this card has snowflake on it, it means I can play it during Winter Court!

I really like that. Each turn being a year really gives a game scope, and fits the scale of the game. It takes time to raze a whole province!

As a Scorpion, the ONLY keyword that matters to me is Loyal.

No courtiers/yojimbos/ninjas?

Nope. Loyalty is all that matters. Not to worry, The Spider clan will gladly take all the Ninja!

As a Scorpion, the ONLY keyword that matters to me is Loyal.

No courtiers/yojimbos/ninjas?

Nope. Loyalty is all that matters. Not to worry, The Spider clan will gladly take all the Ninja!

Speaking of Ninja, I liked the Ninjutsu idea AEG had used, in was it Lotus? Maybe with a re-design of the game Ninja could be ingeneral have such a mechanic for the new game.

As a Scorpion, the ONLY keyword that matters to me is Loyal.

No courtiers/yojimbos/ninjas?

Nope. Loyalty is all that matters. Not to worry, The Spider clan will gladly take all the Ninja!

Speaking of Ninja, I liked the Ninjutsu idea AEG had used, in was it Lotus? Maybe with a re-design of the game Ninja could be ingeneral have such a mechanic for the new game.

Yep ninjutsu was a Lotus/Diamond edition mechanic.

As a Netrunner mark, I can say FFG loves adding Keywords, but very few are mechanics that aren't explained on the cards. Most of them are just for other card text to reference, and even then quite a few of them still don't have a function beyond fluff

I never liked province razing and at first, I didn't like all or nothing nature of battles; while the latter balanced itself by daigotsu-a-ton of "send home" effects that could reduce two massive armies to literally two dudes looking at each other awkwardly "uh, so your province, not going to take it, uh, yeah" , first one always annoyed me because of the resource reduction death spiral.

While many people dread of the Objectives, I think there is interesting spin to them; what if during each Winter and during each Summer, you are trying to grab power during WInter Court and War? I know this is a very clumsy way of communicating my thoughts, but imagine that during each one of these, you declare intent and participating personality(-ies); then you declare stakes and show off begins, using whatever applicable mechanics.

Instead of razing a province or gaining Honor (or, in addition to those), a win would give you some kind of benefit - for example, placing a Winter Court/Summer Battlefield on a Personality, or on an Action that you were fighting for.

The crux of this would be that you don't have to use these benefits immediately; for example, if your commander won a Military Victory, it could be used to place Summer Token on "Razed Farms" card, which can be used during other phases to somehow reduce opponent's resources and/or hurt them. Or, if your Courtier won a Political Victory during Winter Court, you may place a Winter Token on your political card "Economic Superiority" to do the same, but using your political clout.

Using either action would remove the token from the card, effectively "playing it"; idea here is to show that all aspects are important and interwoven; winning a Winter Court standoff can help you during battles, and crushing military victory can make your Winter Court life easier, etc. I think it also provides tons of flavor and tokens . I also really like idea of showing that sometimes, a scheme you cooked up 5 years ago comes together when time is right, and that samurai can hold grudges for veeeeeeeeeery long time. Again, it helps with scale and scope of the game, I think. It's different to just play a Razed Farms and say "dude, you get -1 Gold to spend during this turn" and put into discard pile, forgetting about it, and to put Razed Farms as your Second Summer Spoils of Battle, and then declare that we razed your farms and this Fall, your stuff is going to be baaaaaaad.

Especially because you could look at these cards, in order, and see a story that unfolded during these conflicts.

If you want to represent Dishonor, you may make it so that each event/action/scheme/political/battle/whatever card can be:

a) successfully acquired; player won this Battle, and he has right to use it's positive benefit

b) player didn't win by enough margin, which means that Imperials spinned it into their use, and nothing/something neutral happens

c) player failed to accumulate enough points/whatever and actually suffers a negative drawback in place of positive effect

This way, you can have Scorpions excel at reducing your opponents points, instead of gaining their own, to do Evil Stuff to their opponents .

Though this is probably too specific theory crafting, and one taking too much space on cards without making text annoyingly small.

EDIT

So basically, a Spoil of War keyword which means that you can "put this into play" as a reward for winning a Battle, and "Political Scheme" that you may put in play as a reward for winning a Winter Court.

As a Scorpion, the ONLY keyword that matters to me is Loyal.

No courtiers/yojimbos/ninjas?

Nope. Loyalty is all that matters. Not to worry, The Spider clan will gladly take all the Ninja!

Speaking of Ninja, I liked the Ninjutsu idea AEG had used, in was it Lotus? Maybe with a re-design of the game Ninja could be ingeneral have such a mechanic for the new game.

That was such a nightmare mechanic with pages and pages of rules explanations and clarifications. If they can represent ninja mechanically, fine, but I'd almost rather ninja be a prerequisite for ninja actions and the design hours go to something more integral.

Actually, they way prefer symbols instead of keywords

As a Scorpion, the ONLY keyword that matters to me is Loyal.

No courtiers/yojimbos/ninjas?

Nope. Loyalty is all that matters. Not to worry, The Spider clan will gladly take all the Ninja!

Speaking of Ninja, I liked the Ninjutsu idea AEG had used, in was it Lotus? Maybe with a re-design of the game Ninja could be ingeneral have such a mechanic for the new game.

That was such a nightmare mechanic with pages and pages of rules explanations and clarifications. If they can represent ninja mechanically, fine, but I'd almost rather ninja be a prerequisite for ninja actions and the design hours go to something more integral.

Yes, it was horrible implemented into L5R. But I had seen in before in Spycraft (which had also been from AEG). And it worked there much better, since the game was launched with the mechanic in place, while in L5R the mechanic didn't fit well because of all the friction with long established elements. I think if you start the game with this in place you can avoid most of the friction and reap directly the fun game play it offers.

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).

I had this conversation before, and my conclusion is: no there weren't. Magic goes through plenty more keywords than this.

The problem with L5R's newer keywords was they were not used commonly or consistently enough to actually set aside their headspace. Maybe that changed in late Ivory, I don't know.

I think that if traits/keywords exist in the new version, they will be separate. I think traits will be clearly defined and have no direct mechanical benefit, but will allow other cards to interact with the card. Keywords in the other hand will definitely have mechanical effects. Deadly, Renown, Stealth, Insight, Vigilance, Stalwart, Vengeful, Ambush are all examples from A Game of Thrones 1.0 and 2.0. Another thing that could happen would be crests. A Game of Thrones has the war crest, the learned crest, the holy crest and the noble crest, each which interacts with different card as well.

I had this conversation before, and my conclusion is: no there weren't. Magic goes through plenty more keywords than this.

The problem with L5R's newer keywords was they were not used commonly or consistently enough to actually set aside their headspace. Maybe that changed in late Ivory, I don't know.

If one game usese a dozen keywords and they are all easily remembered and retained, that game doesn't use too many keywords.

If another game uses 6 and they are often forgotten or confused, or don't matter much, that game uses too many, even though it uses half as many as the game that doesn't use too many.

Context is important.

Here is the main problem with keywords from the L5R CCG: They are used minimal at best. Stalwart? Only seven cards have Stalwart, and none of them are common. AEG really could have taken a page out of WOTC's book. If your going to introduce a brand new keyword(s) for a block/set/etc, make sure to have a lot at common-uncommon rarity. This is important as it helps players understand the keywords when it comes to booster pack opening such as the $4 on a single booster or the $12-16 they spent on a draft. You also need to keep a keyword in every edition so it gets ingrained in the mind of its player.

Just limit keywords to like 6 or 7 max and put more focus on cards that key off of traits instead.