And paitence is needed. The first year of an LCG can be a bit tough. The card pool is limited and the designers are still getting the hang of things. I think by the third cycle, things start getting really fun, as the base game is pretty much the Core and the first two cycles. Then, the designers start having fun. At least, that's what it felt like with Netrunner.
Why are they changing it?
And paitence is needed. The first year of an LCG can be a bit tough.
People say this, but to me, it's a failure of design if an LCG isn't fun out of the core box. Will it get better as the card pool grows? Sure. But you can't put out a product that isn't much fun on the excuse of it being "just the core box," or people aren't going to stick around for more.
And note that, "not being fun," is different from, "not having a wide variety of decks." (Though obviously, even a core set should shoot for as many effective options as they're able to squeeze in. Opening up multifaction decks goes a long way in this area.)
And paitence is needed. The first year of an LCG can be a bit tough.
People say this, but to me, it's a failure of design if an LCG isn't fun out of the core box. Will it get better as the card pool grows? Sure. But you can't put out a product that isn't much fun on the excuse of it being "just the core box," or people aren't going to stick around for more.
And note that, "not being fun," is different from, "not having a wide variety of decks." (Though obviously, even a core set should shoot for as many effective options as they're able to squeeze in. Opening up multifaction decks goes a long way in this area.)
It wouldn't be a failure of the LCG format though, but down to the fact that FFG wouldn't of had any lead up time. There is also one thing that you are overlooking and that is that there are a huge amount of redundant cards in the CCG model that an LCG model does not have. It is defintiely a case of quality over quantity.
I actually think the LCG format will suit L5R very well. Designers for l5r had a really difficult time trying to accommodate every clan in a 140ish card set every 4-6 months. I think this was one of the main issues behind some themes feeling somewhat underdeveloped.
When you look at an L5R expansion sets so many of the card slots are taken up by things that the LCG format wouldn't need to accomodate. Most clans would be wanting personality support for existing themes(3ish),for an upcomming theme(2) and also some generic or storyline support (1-2). Straight away, because you have 9 clans, it's straight away 54 cards you absolutely have to put into each set. Then because of draft, you needed a straighten card, anti favor card, anti sendhome card, move back to battle card etc etc. This means you end up with a huge amount of redundant cards in the format.
An LCG would not need to behave in such a way because clan cards can be abstracted out to small expansion packs (like they have for netrunner), there wouldn't be a need to support draft and it would also be very easy to imemdiately and directly support new themes, which is gain something an CCG model has great trouble doing.
If ffg do rebuild L5R from the ground up, to the point where old cards won't be compatible, then yes, at the start it may feel restrictive, but that is something I am sure they have thought about. For all we know, the core set might contain support for 3 clans, and then the rest of the clans be released either at the same time, or close after. This wouldn't be a problem that would need to be faced again though, as they would of had time to set up for the next "edition" further down the road.
The CCG format really isn't the only way to do things and it does come with it's own host of problems. LCG is ofc not perfect (no system is), but it also has advantages.
Edited by Moto Subodei
And paitence is needed. The first year of an LCG can be a bit tough.
People say this, but to me, it's a failure of design if an LCG isn't fun out of the core box. Will it get better as the card pool grows? Sure. But you can't put out a product that isn't much fun on the excuse of it being "just the core box," or people aren't going to stick around for more.
And note that, "not being fun," is different from, "not having a wide variety of decks." (Though obviously, even a core set should shoot for as many effective options as they're able to squeeze in. Opening up multifaction decks goes a long way in this area.)
It wouldn't be a failure of the LCG format though, but down to the fact that FFG wouldn't of had any lead up time. There is also one thing that you are overlooking and that is that there are a huge amount of redundant cards in the CCG model that an LCG model does not have. It is defintiely a case of quality over quantity.
I actually think the legacy format will suit L5R very well. Designers for l5r had a really difficult time trying to accommodate every clan in a 140ish card set every 4-6 months. I think this was one of the main issues behind some themes feeling somewhat underdeveloped.
When you look at an L5R expansion sets so many of the card slots are taken up by things that the LCG format wouldn't need to accomodate. Most clans would be wanting personality support for existing themes(3ish),for an upcomming theme(2) and also some generic or storyline support (1-2). Straight away, because you have 9 clans, it's straight away 54 cards you absolutely have to put into each set. Then because of draft, you needed a straighten card, anti favor card, anti sendhome card, move back to battle card etc etc. This means you end up with a huge amount of redundant cards in the format.
An LCG would not need to behave in such a way because clan cards can be abstracted out to small expansion packs (like they have for netrunner), there wouldn't be a need to support draft and it would also be very easy to imemdiately and directly support new themes, which is gain something an CCG model has great trouble doing.
If ffg do rebuild L5R from the ground up, to the point where old cards won't be compatible, then yes, at the start it may feel restrictive, but that is something I am sure they have thought about. For all we know, the core set might contain support for 3 clans, and then the rest of the clans be released either at the same time, or close after. This wouldn't be a problem that would need to be faced again though, as they would of had time to set up for the next "edition" further down the road.
The CCG format really isn't the only way to do things and it does come with it's own host of problems. LCG is ofc not perfect (no system is), but it also has advantages.
One of the things I hope to see less of is accidentally giving clans with broken decks "win more" cards. I understand why they happen with the CCG production cycle, but it was always frustrating to be playing a clan that was suffering, and having a clan that had a dominant environment deforming deck - and when the set came it didn't add anything to the first, but it gave new toys to support the second.
It wouldn't be a failure of the LCG format though, but down to the fact that FFG wouldn't of had any lead up time. There is also one thing that you are overlooking and that is that there are a huge amount of redundant cards in the CCG model that an LCG model does not have. It is defintiely a case of quality over quantity.
I actually think the legacy format will suit L5R very well. Designers for l5r had a really difficult time trying to accommodate every clan in a 140ish card set every 4-6 months. I think this was one of the main issues behind some themes feeling somewhat underdeveloped.
...
The CCG format really isn't the only way to do things and it does come with it's own host of problems. LCG is ofc not perfect (no system is), but it also has advantages.
My comment wasn't a criticism of the LCG format, which I love. It was a criticism of the argument that, "You have to be patient," with the LCG format. If you can't make a fun play experience in 200+ cards, I'm not going to continue with your game.
Also, if by "legacy format," you're expressing that the new game should be designed with supporting the notion of keeping old CCG cards compatible for play formats that include the old card, my vote is 100% no. Trying to walk the line like that will cripple design. A fresh start is needed. If, purely by accident, old cards wind up being compatible? Sure, whatever, just don't sit across the table from me with them. But I rather doubt that will happen if a really hard look is taken at the design.
It wouldn't be a failure of the LCG format though, but down to the fact that FFG wouldn't of had any lead up time. There is also one thing that you are overlooking and that is that there are a huge amount of redundant cards in the CCG model that an LCG model does not have. It is defintiely a case of quality over quantity.
I actually think the legacy format will suit L5R very well. Designers for l5r had a really difficult time trying to accommodate every clan in a 140ish card set every 4-6 months. I think this was one of the main issues behind some themes feeling somewhat underdeveloped.
...
The CCG format really isn't the only way to do things and it does come with it's own host of problems. LCG is ofc not perfect (no system is), but it also has advantages.
My comment wasn't a criticism of the LCG format, which I love. It was a criticism of the argument that, "You have to be patient," with the LCG format. If you can't make a fun play experience in 200+ cards, I'm not going to continue with your game.
Also, if by "legacy format," you're expressing that the new game should be designed with supporting the notion of keeping old CCG cards compatible for play formats that include the old card, my vote is 100% no. Trying to walk the line like that will cripple design. A fresh start is needed. If, purely by accident, old cards wind up being compatible? Sure, whatever, just don't sit across the table from me with them. But I rather doubt that will happen if a really hard look is taken at the design.
Twas a slip of the tounge, i meant LCG, my brain keeps making me say legacy instead of lcg
Twas a slip of the tounge, i meant LCG, my brain keeps making me say legacy instead of lcg
Ah! Then I agree. LCG will be great for L5R.
But, um...Unicorn type with your tongue? No wonder people think you're barbarians.
It wouldn't be a failure of the LCG format though, but down to the fact that FFG wouldn't of had any lead up time. There is also one thing that you are overlooking and that is that there are a huge amount of redundant cards in the CCG model that an LCG model does not have. It is defintiely a case of quality over quantity.
I actually think the legacy format will suit L5R very well. Designers for l5r had a really difficult time trying to accommodate every clan in a 140ish card set every 4-6 months. I think this was one of the main issues behind some themes feeling somewhat underdeveloped.
...
The CCG format really isn't the only way to do things and it does come with it's own host of problems. LCG is ofc not perfect (no system is), but it also has advantages.
My comment wasn't a criticism of the LCG format, which I love. It was a criticism of the argument that, "You have to be patient," with the LCG format. If you can't make a fun play experience in 200+ cards, I'm not going to continue with your game.
Also, if by "legacy format," you're expressing that the new game should be designed with supporting the notion of keeping old CCG cards compatible for play formats that include the old card, my vote is 100% no. Trying to walk the line like that will cripple design. A fresh start is needed. If, purely by accident, old cards wind up being compatible? Sure, whatever, just don't sit across the table from me with them. But I rather doubt that will happen if a really hard look is taken at the design.
Most of the LCGs that I have played have done reasonably well out of the box. You do not get a tremendous amount of customization or deck design options in the core set, but they are created for people who can play the game without any additional support. The issue of patience is simply to remind people that the amount of options at the onset will likely be less than most of the CCG players are used to, and that it will take one to two cycles to explore the Clans to levels seen in the past.
As an example, I will use the Phoenix. My guess would be that spellcasting and shugenja will be the core theme and mechanic right out of the gate with the Phoenix. People wanting to see yojimbo, inquisitors, henshin and other themes will probably have to wait for some time for these themes to develop, and even then, these themes would develop much slower over the LCG's life cycle.
To reiterate, I think that FFG will present a solid core set for this game that will appeal to most players new and old. It may not lead with the complexity of the CCG, but over a few cycles, it can easily get there.
To reiterate, I think that FFG will present a solid core set for this game that will appeal to most players new and old. It may not lead with the complexity of the CCG, but over a few cycles, it can easily get there.
I prefer "depth" to "complexity," but this is my hope.
While I don't think, "bad, but wait for it to get better," is acceptable, "Fun, but wait for it to get great," is A-ok.
I've always had the most fun/success with the CCG in the early arcs with limited card pools, so I'm looking forward to it. I do understand the appeal of large pools with tons of options, but that's not my personal preference.
To reiterate, I think that FFG will present a solid core set for this game that will appeal to most players new and old. It may not lead with the complexity of the CCG, but over a few cycles, it can easily get there.
I prefer "depth" to "complexity," but this is my hope.
While I don't think, "bad, but wait for it to get better," is acceptable, "Fun, but wait for it to get great," is A-ok.
At the end of the day, this is the main thing I want. A deep fun game.
I've always had the most fun/success with the CCG in the early arcs with limited card pools, so I'm looking forward to it. I do understand the appeal of large pools with tons of options, but that's not my personal preference.
I'm with you, in some ways. I do wish FFG were more aggressive about rotating sets and block play.
I get why they don't -- and why they don't want to support multiple tournament formats to do so -- but I really appreciate the new challenges of an occasional hard reset.
L5R's weird block bridging sets were kind of the worst of both worlds, IMO. Cards weren't legal forever, but the need to service two different arcs meant you never got a clean reset or a real opportunity to overhaul the game where it was needed. I feel the same is kind of true of perennially legal core and deluxe boxes, but I'll deal. Hopefully FFG gets it right with the core release.
I've always had the most fun/success with the CCG in the early arcs with limited card pools, so I'm looking forward to it. I do understand the appeal of large pools with tons of options, but that's not my personal preference.
I'm with you, in some ways. I do wish FFG were more aggressive about rotating sets and block play.
I get why they don't -- and why they don't want to support multiple tournament formats to do so -- but I really appreciate the new challenges of an occasional hard reset.
L5R's weird block bridging sets were kind of the worst of both worlds, IMO. Cards weren't legal forever, but the need to service two different arcs meant you never got a clean reset or a real opportunity to overhaul the game where it was needed. I feel the same is kind of true of perennially legal core and deluxe boxes, but I'll deal. Hopefully FFG gets it right with the core release.
Yeah. I understood the need for bridge sets, but I hated them too. A bridge set with chase cards could easily double or occasionally triple in price after the new set. Blech. At least it'll be a buy and hold world, provided they print enough and don't have core set scarcity a year or two down the road.
L5R's weird block bridging sets were kind of the worst of both worlds, IMO. Cards weren't legal forever, but the need to service two different arcs meant you never got a clean reset or a real opportunity to overhaul the game where it was needed. I feel the same is kind of true of perennially legal core and deluxe boxes, but I'll deal. Hopefully FFG gets it right with the core release.
*Looks at the two sets of Forgotten Legacy he ended up with.*
*Looks at Coils of Madness and Gates of Chaos*
Despite my basically getting into the game on a block bridging set (Glory of the Empire), I.... yes.
The sets transitioning to Ivory Edition were the worst I personally experienced insofar as they were generally a little too weak for the Emperor arc they came at the tail end of, but absurdly more powerful in a few areas than the Ivory Edition they were supposedly ushering in.
I really would like to keep it as two decks even if its only 30/30 or 25/25. I'm actually having trouble of thinking of another cardgame (TCG/LCG/CCG) that utilizes two separate decks.
I really would like to keep it as two decks even if its only 30/30 or 25/25. I'm actually having trouble of thinking of another cardgame (TCG/LCG/CCG) that utilizes two separate decks.
Isn't that kind of why they might keep two decks though? It is one of the distinguishing features of the game.
I really would like to keep it as two decks even if its only 30/30 or 25/25. I'm actually having trouble of thinking of another cardgame (TCG/LCG/CCG) that utilizes two separate decks.
In FFG's Star Wars, each player has a separate Command and Objective Deck.
And that's just looking close to home.
(FFG's LotR, CoC and 40K games all have separate decks, too, but it's one player deck each and one shared deck. Also, the shared decks are prebuilt depending on environment or, in the case of LotR, quest.)
Edited by BD Flory
- Ivory needs purged with fire. Gold pooling is the most egregious offender here, but almost as bad is the design philosophy that everyone pays the same for force regardless of whether or not that clan always goes first vs other clans or not. It isn't a coincidence that low honor military suffered in the ivory arc with the sole exception of mantis, who benefitted amazingly from exponential resource growth and free gold.
Wazzzzzzzzzzzup
(to be fair, art on this card is amazing, especially the "throne")
I see your Kolat and raise you a SH. Plus the whole Port Gold Scheme in EE... Shudder....
I see your Kolat and raise you a SH. Plus the whole Port Gold Scheme in EE... Shudder....
Yeah, any group or faction or whatever whose schtick is, "the rich guys," needs to be looked at veeeeeery carefully for balance.
I was getting back into the game when that stronghold hit. Some local players went, "Nah, it's fine." It was not fine. Not why I wound up dropping it again in short order, but it sure didn't help.
Yeah, any group or faction or whatever whose schtick is, "the rich guys," needs to be looked at veeeeeery carefully for balance.
I was getting back into the game when that stronghold hit. Some local players went, "Nah, it's fine." It was not fine. Not why I wound up dropping it again in short order, but it sure didn't help.
Free resources that aren't available to everybody are going to hit pretty hard in a game where economy matters. Part of why Crane and Unicorn ran away with the first parts of Ivory arc, actually.
Edited by Shiba GunichiFree resources that aren't available to everybody aregoing to hit pretty hard in a game where economy matters. Part of why Crane and Unicorn ran away with the first parts of Ivory arc, actually.
Yep, and the funny thing is they supposedly learned that lesson after corrupt gold in Gold. As in, they said (paraphrasing), "Free gold is ******* up our environment, so we're not doing that anymore," going into Diamond (or at least, I think it was the Gold-Diamond transition).
(Yes, I realize it was technically available to everyone, but really? No.)
Edited by BD Flory
Free resources that aren't available to everybody aregoing to hit pretty hard in a game where economy matters. Part of why Crane and Unicorn ran away with the first parts of Ivory arc, actually.
Yep, and the funny thing is they supposedly learned that lesson after corrupt gold in Gold. As in, they said (paraphrasing), "Free gold is ******* up our environment, so we're not doing that anymore," going into Diamond (or at least, I think it was the Gold-Diamond transition).
(Yes, I realize it was technically available to everyone, but really? No.)
Yeah, I never got that. Gold Edition showed that free gold was bad. Corrupt gold had an honor price tag which meant that it wasn't equally available to every deck type - one faction could always ignore those ramifications, half could possibly swallow it and keep driving, and about half couldn't touch it at all. But the lesson of free gold never seemed to sink in. Just because you aren't printing it on a corrupt holding doesn't *not* make it free gold.
On another note - who was ever actually excited to flip and buy a small farm? From a numbers perspective, yes... from the perspective of interesting play and decks, never.
Remember that AEG have already sold the game to wizzard ? and then it's seem that from the pressure of the players they take it back but only under licence from wizzard ?
AEG, with all the respect they deserve is a too small company to hold a big game like L5R, and about the flaw in the design, bull a game that does not work does not sell by itself 20 years ....
L5R have a lot of interresting stuff:
two decks one for the ressource (event, personality, holding and so on) and one for the action (followers/spells/items to equip, ...) and you get each turn a least one card of each, in isn't the same when you have only one deck ... you'll may get locked look at magic f.e.
by the rules : you'll have multiple way of winning so you have different approach, it's up to you to choose which one is better for you, not like in magic in your goal (by the rules) is to drop your budy to 0
You'll get nine clans or more to play, you'll have a lot of flexibility to find your fun
storyline based with community interactivity
this game have 'never' stop being played and sold in it's actual form, not like netrunner or doomtown reloaded, it means that there is a lot of player that may stop the game if it lost what they bring them to it
T'm thinking that all of this was planned, maybe not from FFG point of view but by AEG, why do they stop imperial herald on 1/1/16, they said it about 6 month+ ago ?
I'm really asking why do you need to change the actual format of the game ? Since you get all the cards you need to build all the kind of deck you want with the LCG distribution, everyone was in the same position, no more '**** this card is really cool i miss it'
On another note - who was ever actually excited to flip and buy a small farm? From a numbers perspective, yes... from the perspective of interesting play and decks, never.
According to Mark Rosewater, this isn't a bad thing -- he says that one of the good things about Magic's land system (that he did not realize until he made games that didn't have it) is that not every card has to be exciting and cards that are just resource-makers make the game easier to track.
According to Mark Rosewater, this isn't a bad thing -- he says that one of the good things about Magic's land system (that he did not realize until he made games that didn't have it) is that not every card has to be exciting and cards that are just resource-makers make the game easier to track.
Actually some lands are exciting Like Karakas or the Tabanacle at Pendrell Vale. But yes I agree with him that recource markers like the land system provides them make the economy of the game easier to tract and to balance.