Except if i missed something BD you've already work for AEG, isn't it, i've seen some product written by a 'BD Flory' selled by AEG ? I remember this when you said you're a game designer above.

So apart to be a complete out of this world guy's you should probably know L5R and how it works ?

If it's not, why don't you get into a shop a take some time to play the game ? May be i've missed something but i don't remember read you talking about having playing L5R. This may explain all your questions.

As noted, I've played some L5R, yes.

I never worked on it though, as far as I recall. I freelanced for AEG, but on other game lines.

Now *playtesting* all those combinations? That's a bit more difficult.

Do the math. It is exponentially more difficult and a much larger task, that is the main design benefit from mono clan. The effort to result tradeoff is so much slimmer when you start adding a ferocious amount of deck options into the mix.

If this were a real concern for FFG, I rather doubt that all of their games would have strong multifaction support.

To your points:

1) Multifaction support doesn't mean fewer themes. You can have 2, or 3, or 4 themes per faction and multifaction or not. It means more ways of *combining* themes, which doesn't require extra card slots.

2) This is fair, but but it's trivially easy to close specific cards to multifactioning while still supporting it in the main.

3) This is simply false, given very basic design safeguards. Point 2, for example.

4) Given that deckbuilding is a competitive sport, and restrictions are equal for all players, this is a wash. More ingenious players will be more ingenious under either model.

5) This is true: multifactioning does reduce individuality in factions to varying degrees. Again, though, you're assuming that all cards will be equally available out of faction, which isn't the case in any ccg or lcg i can think of. Even magic can modulate this by raising the colored mana cost of a card vs. its colorless mana cost, without changing the actual amount of mana required.

6) It's doubtless not true of all games in playtest, and perhaps it isn't of L5R, but the fact that many games and publishers playtest their cards with generic names rather than specific character names demonstrates quite aptly that you can separate mechanics from theme. L5R is not unique in this regard, as much as some insist otherwise.

7) Again, given FFG's historically multifaction leaning approach, this doesn't appear to be a concern for them.

Now *playtesting* all those combinations? That's a bit more difficult.

Do the math. It is exponentially more difficult and a much larger task, that is the main design benefit from mono clan. The effort to result tradeoff is so much slimmer when you start adding a ferocious amount of deck options into the mix.

If this were a real concern for FFG, I rather doubt that all of their games would have strong multifaction support.

To your points:

1) Multifaction support doesn't mean fewer themes. You can have 2, or 3, or 4 themes per faction and multifaction or not. It means more ways of *combining* themes, which doesn't require extra card slots.

2) This is fair, but but it's trivially easy to close specific cards to multifactioning while still supporting it in the main.

3) This is simply false, given very basic design safeguards. Point 2, for example.

4) Given that deckbuilding is a competitive sport, and restrictions are equal for all players, this is a wash. More ingenious players will be more ingenious under either model.

5) This is true: multifactioning does reduce individuality in factions to varying degrees. Again, though, you're assuming that all cards will be equally available out of faction, which isn't the case in any ccg or lcg i can think of. Even magic can modulate this by raising the colored mana cost of a card vs. its colorless mana cost, without changing the actual amount of mana required.

6) It's doubtless not true of all games in playtest, and perhaps it isn't of L5R, but the fact that many games and publishers playtest their cards with generic names rather than specific character names demonstrates quite aptly that you can separate mechanics from theme. L5R is not unique in this regard, as much as some insist otherwise.

7) Again, given FFG's historically multifaction leaning approach, this doesn't appear to be a concern for them.

You should stop presuming that you know FFG's mind.

Are you a spokesperson for them or a designer for them or something? Did i miss that?

EDIT: Whether you agree with their impact or not, or think they are valid. These remain the mechanical ramifications of mono faction approach. You can say something is "simply not true" all you want. Doesn't make you correct, If you have valid evidence or proof, fair enough use that, but it is non-contributory to a discussion to pass comments like "This is simply false". It is just hyperbole.

Playtest is VERY theme driven, to the point where, you have to be careful not to overlook more generic decks or cards in the environment. You cannot extrapolate the theme of a deck from the mechanic. Not much point having a personality with a duel of force in a courtier dishonor deck, he may be mechanically sound, but why would you put him in a courtier deck? That is where theme comes in. Just because you haven't established the personalities name, does not mean he doesn't have a theme.

You should stop presuming that you know FFG's mind.

I never said I knew FFG's mind. I said, based on their established designs, we can make educated guesses as to their design philosophies, and from there, likewise speculate on their plans in an informed way. That's a far cry from, "knowing their mind."

As to the other point, have the same evidence you're offering: Anecdotal, but based on having played (and in some cases playtested) *many* different card games over the years. To the point I've actually lost count how many and probably couldn't name them all. Many of those were multifaction games -- some of them FFG games -- that did not result in a meta of just throwing the best cards together. Several have been cited in this thread. You stated your opinion, with the implicit claim that it was true. I disagreed.

And note also that I qualified that disagreement by adding, "with basic design safeguards." Many examples of which have been cited all over this thread. So I really don't see the problem.

You can see trends in their design, though. AGOT 2.0 is pretty much the culmination of all their LCG design experiences. You can see additions from nearly all their other LCGs added to create a better game. Just a quick look at this game, and I can see so much of what they have done could easily be applied here.

And there is a lot of allowing multi faction play. Even if it doesn't exactly make sense (see AGOT where you can play Stark + Lannister). I don't see FFG getting rid of that fun "what if" scenario just to satisfy the story elements.

Monoclan incentivizing comes from inherent mechanics.

We have to look at eras with sensei for this to see the impact though.

Everything Rats. Take something designed around a 3 privince, 3 gold production box and import it elsewhere and its really strong, because you get to ignore the mechanical disadvantages they were designed around.

Otaku Palaces Shirasu Sensei magistrates. In pre-ivory: "All your magistrates cost 3 less gold". Big deck Unicorn Uniques + Scorpion/Mantis magistrates was a really good deck, because half your deck could be 1-2 gold cost 3-4 force guys, and the other half, power uniques.

Current Arc Crane/Scorpion Battle Action Geisha. All your guys have good battle actions, solid gold to force ratio and high enough chi in an arc where all that matters is your force efficiency, battle abilities, and enough chi to not auto-lose to battle "i have 5 duels, sorry standingfasticorn".

You shouldnt have to incentivize one way or another. With good design, youre going to end up with people designing around Clan, or around theme. Do you want more dishonor in your crab/Scorpion? I hear scorpion/crab have a guy that does that. Do you want 1 more guy with X keyword? I hear thats a thing in places.

With bad design, youre going to have stuff like "Everyone splashes Hotako", "Everyone splashes Shiho", "Phoenix spells using 3 Mantis shugs, because theyre just better than phoenix shugs" "Phoenix shugs using naga, because theyre just better than phoenix shugs" "Everyone using Jackson Howard, because whoops, that may have been a mistake".

It should be a slightly harder choice to use other clan guys with keyword sets than it should to be in-clan guys without them, but it should be a viable choice.

And there is a lot of allowing multi faction play. Even if it doesn't exactly make sense (see AGOT where you can play Stark + Lannister). I don't see FFG getting rid of that fun "what if" scenario just to satisfy the story elements.

You shouldnt have to incentivize one way or another...

...

It should be a slightly harder choice to use other clan guys with keyword sets than it should to be in-clan guys without them, but it should be a viable choice.

Just to clarify, when I say incentivize, I mean it in the sense that all design is creating incentives and disincentives. Cost a guy a little too high? Incentive not to play him. Cost him a little too low? Incentive to play him. Great ability? Incentive to play him. Compulsory drawback? Incentive not to, etc.

So, I agree with your last line, with maybe a little wiggle room depending on what you mean by "harder." (Could be the deck is *actually* not as good, or takes a bit more pilot skill to play well, but those aren't the same thing). The way you achieve that is by manipulating incentives during the design process.

Incentives should always lead players to play the fun thing. Is playing monoclan fun or unfun? Depends on the player. The player who values clan loyalty or simply wants to keep a clan theme in his or her decks will find it more fun than the player who likes messing with the nuts and bolts of the game; i.e. mixing and matching factions. So by incentivizing one or the other, you're privileging one type of player over the other. So I think the size of the two groups is the more critical factor. Is the player type that actively desires difficulty in mixing clans, either out of an interest in avoiding that difficulty or in challenging and overcoming it, significantly smaller than the player type that wants to freely mix without penalty? Then the latter type should be privileged, and vice versa.

Incentives should always lead players to play the fun thing. Is playing monoclan fun or unfun? Depends on the player. The player who values clan loyalty or simply wants to keep a clan theme in his or her decks will find it more fun than the player who likes messing with the nuts and bolts of the game; i.e. mixing and matching factions. So by incentivizing one or the other, you're privileging one type of player over the other. So I think the size of the two groups is the more critical factor. Is the player type that actively desires difficulty in mixing clans, either out of an interest in avoiding that difficulty or in challenging and overcoming it, significantly smaller than the player type that wants to freely mix without penalty? Then the latter type should be privileged, and vice versa.

I'd say balancing the two and allowing each type of player to play and effectively compete in the style they prefer would be the ideal. Which is easier said than done, of course, but worth the effort to include as many players as possible.

And certainly there are players who want to restrict their opponents to only being competitive in their own favored style (i.e. a player who prefers to play clan decks but also prefers that only clan decks be competitive, or a player who likewise plays and prefers only cross-faction decks be competitive), but I think it's better to give as many people as possible the option to play what they like and have fun, rather than restricting one group to the other group's preference.

Presuming that both are feasible, then yeah that is ideal.

I wouldn't chalk it down to some sort of conspiracy players have to sabotage people's fun. That is pretty dramatic.

Everyone wants a good game. Your version of a fun good game is not the only one, nor the only possible way of doing it.

Can't always have your cake and eat it unfortunately.

I wouldn't chalk it down to some sort of conspiracy players have to sabotage people's fun. That is pretty dramatic.

It's getting tiresome having you take almost anything I write in the worst possible light. I never said it was a conspiracy, or anyone setting out sabotage others' fun.

I said some players prefer their opponents be restricted to a particular play style vis a vis faction loyal decks (or not) for the sake of their own enjoyment ("want to" being casual shorthand in a situation where said players don't actually exert any control over the game). It's simple taste, in either direction, but it puts the burden of one player's enjoyment on his opponent's deck when those restrictions or requirements are in force.

That desire shouldn't be honored in either direction. No player should be restricted to a particular deck style for the sake of another player's enjoyment, because not every player's taste is the same. Each player should have access to the style they prefer to play where they can be balanced and served by the card pool, rather than be restricted for the sake of another player's preference. That means if you want to play monofaction, you can, and effectively. Equally, if I want to play multifaction, I can, likewise effectively. Neither of us are restricted by our opponent's preference to play against a monofaction or multifaction deck.

You acknowledge that having access to both deck types is ideal. FFG has demonstrated across a variety of games that such balance and service is achievable through a combination of rules and card mechanics, with normal fluctuation from set to set that is to be expected in any card game with ongoing releases. That we can, in fact, eat our cake and have it when it comes to FFG games.

One size does not fit all sadly. Sure FFG can mechanically make clans fit together, they can balance it the best they can mechanically and it could be successful from a mechanical point of view. Nobody here is doubting FFG's ability to do that, (Preaching to the choir)

That has never been the main issue people have had with the idea.You don't need to convince anybody that it is mechanically possible (feasibility is still an issue and definitely a hurdle), it could even be good. Will there be issues with it? definitely, presuming there are 9 clans you get to that number of 81 decks again. Lose a few clans to accommodate the mechanics, and you lose some player base. Peoples' attachments to their clans really cannot be underestimated.

The issue comes down to the theme of L5R and people's relationship with the L5R product. The kind of mechanical implementation which accommodates a broad structure of interchangeable clan alliances without penalty, is not necessarily condusive to the aforementioned theme of the game. That is what would have people worried about that implementation.

FFG can of course ignore the issue that would arise from neglecting the theme of the game and prioritise mechanics over story (Which btw, i can see as a distinct possibility). To do so would be their choice to make, and I am sure they have lots of staff who can discern whether or not that is a good idea. It all rather depends on whether or not FFG want to please the current batch of L5R fans, or instead target new players, who wouldn't care about the loss of theme.

It is my understanding and opinion that FFG haven't bought the rights of IP to l5r to implement a game that does not resemble or reflect the theme and story of L5R to the best of their ability. If that was their intention.and they wanted to go pure mechanics, sure, implement it whatever way without worrying about the story (free movement of deck construction.)

They have said quite unequivocally that they will want to honor and capture the theme of L5R most of all. That leads me to believe that they will have clear distinction between the uniqueness of clans because that has been the unique selling point of L5R for 20 years. I'm sure they didn't buy L5R to make it work in a similar way to all their other products.I'd be very bitterly disappointed if they just made it a mesh of their currently existing ideas from other games, and it would not be doing the IP any justice.

Only time will tell of course. Everything you and I say is pretty pointless until the mechanics are revealed anyways. No point in making in grand assumptions. Whether that be presuming something is or is not both thematic or mechanically sound.

For the most part the only thing I could( or would like to see changed) to provide a mono clan focus would be to switch out stronghold cards with a general card that is like the netrunner ID cards. Making the powerful figures that lead the clans a bigger part of the game would be a nice touch as it would encourage different deck building styles while maintaining the theme of the clan. I will admit I only got to play a bit of ivory edition before people at my old flgs dropped it but I alway though it was kind of boring for each clan to only have one available stronghold sort of like how some people will put ketchup on everything. I think it would be more interesting to have strongholds be a unique holding that can provide a large boost in power sort of like a console in netrunner.

I'm sure they didn't buy L5R to make it work in a similar way to all their other products.I'd be very bitterly disappointed if they just made it a mesh of their currently existing ideas from other games, and it would not be doing the IP any justice.

I think we can count on them not doing this, regardless of where they land on the mono/multifaction spectrum. But they do seem to have a pretty clear house style, so I expect some things common to all of their LCGs will continue to be so for L5R.

I'm sure that will be disappointing to some, but I don't think their recent games suggest that their new games are just a mesh of their existing ideas. Conquest plays quite differently from other FFG games, but is still clearly an FFG game. Going back a bit further, Lord of the Rings is unique among the LCGs for being coop, but likewise is clearly an FFG game.

Whatever shape it takes, I expect the new L5R will likewise be an identifiably FFG game. I don't think that's a "grand assumption," or an enormous leap of logic. What that means is, of course, is a matter of some debate

Until we find out, there's no harm in speculating. I rather think without speculation, there's not much point to having a forum 1.5 years before a game's release. It's not just half the fun. Right now, it's pretty much all the fun, at least insofar as the LCG is concerned.

For the most part the only thing I could( or would like to see changed) to provide a mono clan focus would be to switch out stronghold cards with a general card that is like the netrunner ID cards. Making the powerful figures that lead the clans a bigger part of the game would be a nice touch as it would encourage different deck building styles while maintaining the theme of the clan. I will admit I only got to play a bit of ivory edition before people at my old flgs dropped it but I alway though it was kind of boring for each clan to only have one available stronghold sort of like how some people will put ketchup on everything. I think it would be more interesting to have strongholds be a unique holding that can provide a large boost in power sort of like a console in netrunner.

It's usually been the case through L5R's life that more than one stronghold was available for each clan.

Assuming strongholds continue to be a meaningful card type (a coin flip, judging by FFG's other games), I'd expect that to be true in the future, although it wouldn't surprise me if the box took it down to one option per clan until some expansions drop. All of FFG's LCGs that include this kind of card (Netrunner's IDs, Conquest's Warlords) began with one per faction in the core box, but added new options almost right away.

For the most part the only thing I could( or would like to see changed) to provide a mono clan focus would be to switch out stronghold cards with a general card that is like the netrunner ID cards. Making the powerful figures that lead the clans a bigger part of the game would be a nice touch as it would encourage different deck building styles while maintaining the theme of the clan. I will admit I only got to play a bit of ivory edition before people at my old flgs dropped it but I alway though it was kind of boring for each clan to only have one available stronghold sort of like how some people will put ketchup on everything. I think it would be more interesting to have strongholds be a unique holding that can provide a large boost in power sort of like a console in netrunner.

It's usually been the case through L5R's life that more than one stronghold was available for each clan.

Assuming strongholds continue to be a meaningful card type (a coin flip, judging by FFG's other games), I'd expect that to be true in the future, although it wouldn't surprise me if the box took it down to one option per clan until some expansions drop. All of FFG's LCGs that include this kind of card (Netrunner's IDs, Conquest's Warlords) began with one per faction in the core box, but added new options almost right away.

FFG might be a bit more reserved with "strongholds" (or whatever form the type of card becomes) at the start, if there's 6 or so clans in the core. Maybe we'll see a neutral type of stronghold first until there's enough cards from individual families to pursue other options? All of this depends on what route the story or setting goes at the core release.

FFG might be a bit more reserved with "strongholds" (or whatever form the type of card becomes) at the start, if there's 6 or so clans in the core. Maybe we'll see a neutral type of stronghold first until there's enough cards from individual families to pursue other options? All of this depends on what route the story or setting goes at the core release.

For reference, both Netrunner and Conquest gave every faction a second ID/Warlord (Stronghold equivalent) during each game's first 6 pack cycle. 7 factions in each game at the time.

I don't think they're going to hold back. Those kinds of cards are great for opening whole new deck options without needing to infuse large numbers of cards into the pool, which is ideal for a pool that's small and growing at a rate of only 20 cards a month.

For the most part the only thing I could( or would like to see changed) to provide a mono clan focus would be to switch out stronghold cards with a general card that is like the netrunner ID cards. Making the powerful figures that lead the clans a bigger part of the game would be a nice touch as it would encourage different deck building styles while maintaining the theme of the clan. I will admit I only got to play a bit of ivory edition before people at my old flgs dropped it but I alway though it was kind of boring for each clan to only have one available stronghold sort of like how some people will put ketchup on everything. I think it would be more interesting to have strongholds be a unique holding that can provide a large boost in power sort of like a console in netrunner.

There was a time when each clan had 3-5 strongholds for the duration of an arc and it was a total mess! At that time though, sensei's were abandoned for a little while, and they had usually given the deck a unique theme. What happened then, Sensei's came back and you ended up with multiple SH's and multiple Senseis at the same time for each clan which was just a bit crazy to have.

I can definitely see though, how a new player coming in would see one SH per clan for an arc as boring. I think most players who played during the era of stronghold saturation welcomed that particular change though.

The design intent behind the 1 SH per arc was that it would capture the theme of the clan, something that all decks could use, and with the exception of a couple, I personally liked it.

I do like your idea of "personality" strongholds instead of the usual castle style stronghold l5r has always had.

FFG might be a bit more reserved with "strongholds" (or whatever form the type of card becomes) at the start, if there's 6 or so clans in the core. Maybe we'll see a neutral type of stronghold first until there's enough cards from individual families to pursue other options? All of this depends on what route the story or setting goes at the core release.

For reference, both Netrunner and Conquest gave every faction a second ID/Warlord (Stronghold equivalent) during each game's first 6 pack cycle. 7 factions in each game at the time.

I don't think they're going to hold back. Those kinds of cards are great for opening whole new deck options without needing to infuse large numbers of cards into the pool, which is ideal for a pool that's small and growing at a rate of only 20 cards a month.

The big big big difference between the two is that there are two sides in netrunner: the runner with 3 factions and the corporation with 4. Since there tends to be more comparison to aGoT and L5R, is there any new stronghold or sensei type of card announced for it from the first several packs?

FFG might be a bit more reserved with "strongholds" (or whatever form the type of card becomes) at the start, if there's 6 or so clans in the core. Maybe we'll see a neutral type of stronghold first until there's enough cards from individual families to pursue other options? All of this depends on what route the story or setting goes at the core release.

For reference, both Netrunner and Conquest gave every faction a second ID/Warlord (Stronghold equivalent) during each game's first 6 pack cycle. 7 factions in each game at the time.

I don't think they're going to hold back. Those kinds of cards are great for opening whole new deck options without needing to infuse large numbers of cards into the pool, which is ideal for a pool that's small and growing at a rate of only 20 cards a month.

The big big big difference between the two is that there are two sides in netrunner: the runner with 3 factions and the corporation with 4. Since there tends to be more comparison to aGoT and L5R, is there any new stronghold or sensei type of card announced for it from the first several packs?

Base set would usually have a sensei. Another clan specific sensei would come usually on the second expansion. All Clan/Multi clan senseis would occur in between. That was the most recent allocation of things anyways.

The problem has never been printing the sensei, it has been having enough support for it when it is released. Some sensei's in Ivory and 20f would sit there for sometimes as long as a year without proper support, then an expansion comes out and the deck is golden.

Typical example of this was 2014 worlds, where Akikazu sensei for unicorn was pretty weak until the set just before Worlds (A line in the Sand) and then went on to win the whole thing because of that extra support.

FFG might be a bit more reserved with "strongholds" (or whatever form the type of card becomes) at the start, if there's 6 or so clans in the core. Maybe we'll see a neutral type of stronghold first until there's enough cards from individual families to pursue other options? All of this depends on what route the story or setting goes at the core release.

For reference, both Netrunner and Conquest gave every faction a second ID/Warlord (Stronghold equivalent) during each game's first 6 pack cycle. 7 factions in each game at the time.

I don't think they're going to hold back. Those kinds of cards are great for opening whole new deck options without needing to infuse large numbers of cards into the pool, which is ideal for a pool that's small and growing at a rate of only 20 cards a month.

The big big big difference between the two is that there are two sides in netrunner: the runner with 3 factions and the corporation with 4. Since there tends to be more comparison to aGoT and L5R, is there any new stronghold or sensei type of card announced for it from the first several packs?

My understanding is that the Sensei is equivelant to the Agenda in AGOT. First off, you are already starting off with 9 Agendas in the Core set (all the alliances + another one). So far, only one new Agenda has been announced in the first cycle. But, they have only announced 4/6 in the new cycle.

For reference, both Netrunner and Conquest gave every faction a second ID/Warlord (Stronghold equivalent) during each game's first 6 pack cycle. 7 factions in each game at the time.

I don't think they're going to hold back. Those kinds of cards are great for opening whole new deck options without needing to infuse large numbers of cards into the pool, which is ideal for a pool that's small and growing at a rate of only 20 cards a month.

The big big big difference between the two is that there are two sides in netrunner: the runner with 3 factions and the corporation with 4. Since there tends to be more comparison to aGoT and L5R, is there any new stronghold or sensei type of card announced for it from the first several packs?

Nearest thing would be a new agenda's been previewed. House cards have no abilities or mechanical effects in AGoT (they only determine your house), but agendas are like sensei. Worth noting that the agenda previewed is reasonably general in its application -- any house could take it and make good use of it, though obviously some better than others.

I honestly don't think the fact that there are two sides in Netrunner really makes that much difference, though, especially given that Conquest got the same treatment.

Anyway, it's all predicated on the assumption that strongholds even do anything. Like I said, in AGoT, they really don't, and equivalents don't even exist in many FFG games.

For reference, both Netrunner and Conquest gave every faction a second ID/Warlord (Stronghold equivalent) during each game's first 6 pack cycle. 7 factions in each game at the time.

I don't think they're going to hold back. Those kinds of cards are great for opening whole new deck options without needing to infuse large numbers of cards into the pool, which is ideal for a pool that's small and growing at a rate of only 20 cards a month.

The big big big difference between the two is that there are two sides in netrunner: the runner with 3 factions and the corporation with 4. Since there tends to be more comparison to aGoT and L5R, is there any new stronghold or sensei type of card announced for it from the first several packs?

Nearest thing would be a new agenda's been previewed. House cards have no abilities or mechanical effects in AGoT (they only determine your house), but agendas are like sensei. Worth noting that the agenda previewed is reasonably general in its application -- any house could take it and make good use of it, though obviously some better than others.

I honestly don't think the fact that there are two sides in Netrunner really makes that much difference, though, especially given that Conquest got the same treatment.

Anyway, it's all predicated on the assumption that strongholds even do anything. Like I said, in AGoT, they really don't, and equivalents don't even exist in many FFG games.

Which agenda was previewed in the new cycle packs for aGoT 2.0? There's none in the previews and that relaunch might be a far better indication of where L5R might go with how they do new factions/sensei/strongholds/placeholder.

I did notice that there's a loyal mechanic in the new aGoT, with those little scrolls on the bottom of the faction symbol.

Yes, there's a big difference with Netrunner: you have to actually have a deck for each side in a tournament setting. At the beginning of its launch, you only essentially had three "strongholds" for the runners, so getting a fourth one right off the bat helped the lack of options.

Which agenda was previewed in the new cycle packs for aGoT 2.0? There's none in the previews and that relaunch might be a far better indication of where L5R might go with how they do new factions/sensei/strongholds/placeholder.

I did notice that there's a loyal mechanic in the new aGoT, with those little scrolls on the bottom of the faction symbol.

Yes, there's a big difference with Netrunner: you have to actually have a deck for each side in a tournament setting. At the beginning of its launch, you only essentially had three "strongholds" for the runners, so getting a fourth one right off the bat helped the lack of options.

Third pack: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/8/26/the-kings-peace/ "The Lord of the Crossing" is the card.

Yeah, loyalty's come up quite a few times. I *think* there are 5 loyal cards per faction in the core, and they don't seem to be limited to high end characters. It's also applied to characteristic events, locations and attachments. As noted elsewhere, completely taking aside story, it's a good way to keep effects that combine to become too strong or create an NPE separate from each other without wholly restricting multifaction play. Some version of this is in every FFG LCG to date, I believe.

I'm aware that you need to bring two decks to Netrunner, but given that's not the case in Conquest (same number of factions, but no overarching "sides" or requirement for multiple decks), I think we can safely conclude that FFG was happy with the strategy of releasing new IDs right away, and is extending it to other games where it's relevant. The specific game structure of Netrunner vs. Conquest isn't particularly relevant to that, except perhaps as a reason to try the strategy in the first place. It's also notable that FFG is giving each Conquest faction another new warlord in the second cycle. Again, they seem to be happy with the results.