Just a speculation (and what else is there to do for now?) but I would like to hear opinions on how different the game will be from the CCG. I really would like to use some of my old cards that I love. I've never played Netrunner CCG but I guess the old cards are utterly useless with the new version. Will this be the same with L5R? Anyway, I don't think that L5R LCG will beat L5R CCG in design and artwork.

I can say with 100% certainty that the old cards will not be compatible with the new. However, if Android: Netrunner and A Game of Thrones Second Edition are any guide, the new game will attempt to retain as much of the spirit of the CCG as possible, while weeding out the unnecessaries ( trait keyword trait glut being a gimme example) and moving the core concept of the game into the current era of card gaming.

The biggest challenge will be for them to balance the four victory conditions in the new edition, since as problematic as they were for the CCG, the multiple approaches to victory must be present for the game to feel at all like its predecessor.

FFG has already stated that the CCG will not be compatible with their product.

With as little information as FFG has put out, it is literally impossible to make any comparisons between how the two games play.

In reference to the "trait glut" reference, is not like AGOT 2E is lacking in that respect (stealth, insight, intimidate, and many others I can't remember.). However, I honestly don't think it was a major problem for L5R... In any case, we don't know anything, but we can hope. I personally hope the gameplay ends feeling like old L5R and that it is balanced, even if the have to take it apart back to basics and then rebuild from there.

I. I personally hope the gameplay ends feeling like old L5R and that it is balanced, even if the have to take it apart back to basics and then rebuild from there.

People, when you understand that FFG never created balanced LCG. Even with ten times smaller card pool than any CCG. Their idea behind LCG is make 1-2 factions over the top and later change meta drastically with one or two expansions. I saw it in A:NR, WH:Q and looks they make it in AGoT now (30% win ratio by one of eight nations).

So expect one leader from Core Set (i bet Dragon).

I. I personally hope the gameplay ends feeling like old L5R and that it is balanced, even if the have to take it apart back to basics and then rebuild from there.

People, when you understand that FFG never created balanced LCG. Even with ten times smaller card pool than any CCG. Their idea behind LCG is make 1-2 factions over the top and later change meta drastically with one or two expansions. I saw it in A:NR, WH:Q and looks they make it in AGoT now (30% win ratio by one of eight nations).

So expect one leader from Core Set (i bet Dragon).

I say Crane if they have cards that force you into their niche reliably.

With as little information as FFG has put out, it is literally impossible to make any comparisons between how the two games play.

You're right. We all (well, most of us) get that.

But we've got time to kill until Gencon'17 (or Gencon'16, if they give us something to chew on). And sometimes baseless speculation is fun.

So here is my prediction, based on no facts whatsoever: Honor and dishonor will be rolled into one VC. Honor will put a bunch of honor tokens on a card. Dishonor will steal any kind of token for their pile ( poor little Force tokens ).

In reference to the "trait glut" reference, is not like AGOT 2E is lacking in that respect (stealth, insight, intimidate, and many others I can't remember.). However, I honestly don't think it was a major problem for L5R...

In L5R, what we call traits were called keywords, and on some cards these were a grocery list that went to two or, in some cases three lines of text, some of these being purely flavor elements, but the more relevant of these (e.g. "shugenja," "conqueror," etc.) had major gameplay implications. I expect FFG is going to focus strictly on these, and leave lore information to other parts of the card, namely the art and flavor text.

If we guide ourselves by their newest LCG, again AGOT 2E, they also have keywords, most of which don't do anything by themselves, but there are other cards they trigger by, some more often like Knight, Lord, Lady, and some others less so (or not at all yet).: Wildling, House X,, etc. They also have one word traits, that are shorthand for abilities (stealth, insight, etc...), much like Tactician or Cavalry. Frankly, once L5R finally sorted those traits between bolded and non-bolded, I think it was a non-issue. Also, in AGOT-speak, they are Nedly!

I agree; the bolding definitely softened the issue. Still, all of the LCGs I've played seem to follow the same "style guide," with only a couple Traits at most and keywords in the text box itself. I am not sure whether FFG is willing to break from that to keep L5R's visual appeal for existing fans, but it might be a wise move. Enough fans were furious enough about the license shift to give up on the game altogether, so any major change to the game itself at this point ought to be done with careful consideration on FFG's part. The trouble I see lies in the complexity: the more "stuff" you put on a card, the more intimidating it is for a new player to take the plunge, and this was always the issue I found with introducing people to the game.

Mmm, for my point of view those "furious fans", were the ones still playing the orchestra while the ship was sinking, telling each other that the game was in its best place yet. All the sane people were already safely in the lifeboats by then. Of course, they are welcome to new edition of the game, but they weren't just enough for AEG to justify to go on making the game, and I doubt FFG is targetting them especifically. IMHO, the most intimidating part was the stubborn adherence to the CCG format. People *were* actually interested in the game but upon learning the cost, they couldn't justify that kind of commitment, not in this century when there are more practical, player-friendly release formats competing for the gamer dollar. Fortunately LCG release format will take care of that. Frankly, I'm myself rather conservative on that respect and I'm in the "as few changes as possible" band, I want to play a game that *feels* most like L5R, but when it was fun to play, so I'm prepared for a "kill your master" approach for the sake of the game.

I don't know if other players found this, but my L5R group always ended up turtling--building increasingly large militaries without ever feeling like we had a sure enough upper hand to make an attack. The entire opposing military could end up at any battlefield. I hope this changes in the new edition.

This is one of the things I like about the "tower defense" element of A:N; because ice is attached to servers, one server may seem impenetrable, but another might seem vulnerable. For those who haven't played A:N, I can translate to L5R: defense personalities are assigned to particular province--always--and don't move except by card ability. One province may be well protected while another is vulnerable, allowing the opposing player to make a move on the poorly defended one, thus moving the game forward.

I also suspect that the game will move to a one-deck model, which will a) streamline gameplay, b) steepen the learning curve (making it easier to learn) c) decouple draw power from losing provinces, d) reduce number of cards required to play.

I don't know if other players found this, but my L5R group always ended up turtling--building increasingly large militaries without ever feeling like we had a sure enough upper hand to make an attack. The entire opposing military could end up at any battlefield. I hope this changes in the new edition.

As dedicated tournament player i can say that only format where thing like this were common was limited ones like Draft. Contructed games at competetive level rarely allowed to create such strange situations. During various edition were different mechanism to avoid this, mass movement cards from Samurai era like Seikitsu Mountains, Eager to Fight, Ordered Retreat to rulebook keyword Conqueror in Ivory+ were enough to make games faster and aggressive.

I don't know if other players found this, but my L5R group always ended up turtling--building increasingly large militaries without ever feeling like we had a sure enough upper hand to make an attack. The entire opposing military could end up at any battlefield. I hope this changes in the new edition.

As dedicated tournament player i can say that only format where thing like this were common was limited ones like Draft. Contructed games at competetive level rarely allowed to create such strange situations. During various edition were different mechanism to avoid this [...]

Oh cool. Maybe our group was just too cautious? Or what I suspect is more likely, we didn't have the cards to do it (since we weren't tournament players). The LCG format should fix that.

It was a basic issue with L5R's mechanical set-up. The military game was inherently tempo-based, but the high risk-v-reward of the game's all-or-nothing battle resolution encourages new/casual players to avoid tempo-based playlines. This generally meant that newer or more casual players got stuck in big build-up-y military stand-offs, while more experienced players had the first 2-3 provinces on each side fall over (relatively) smoothly. It's also why Competitive Military decks over the years had a high focus on Movement and single-unit (generally in the form of One Huge Unique Dude or One Dude with One Attachment) province crushing; focuses that allow one to abuse tempo and minimize the "all or nothing" risk of L5R battles by either avoiding early opposed battles altogether, or by ensuring they lost the minimum # of resources possible if their "gamble" turned back on them. Knowing how and when to split your attack up to attack multiple provinces at once was one the key features of competitive military play over the years, and cards like Rapid Deployment made the split-attack strategy hum.

The Importance of Tempo to military play is made clear when you look at the Lion Clan over the years. A bulk of the dudes they've been forced to bring to the battlefield have been pathetic compared to other clans. Their stronghold has -1GP, which is brutal, and restricts their range of attachments and holdings available. However, they go first 9/10ths of the time, and in a tempo-based game, that's ridiculous. It pretty much single-handedly keeps them Competitive in most tournament arcs even when they're rocking 6gold cost blank 3/3s. One of the serious issues the old game suffered from was the fixed starting-player order based on family honor, as it required more power/catch-up mechanics be invested in the lower-honor military clans to make them viable, because a bulk of the high honor military clans' power was just straight up printed on their Stronghold in the little Family Honor Box. There's a reason clans like Spider and Mantis were either garbage or ludicrously overpowered, and it had to do with designing around them going second 7-9/10ths of the time. It felt *really* bad going second against Mantis during its good years, since it didn't *lose* its improved cards when it went first, it just got those AND the first-player tempo advantage.

Rallying Cry and Ordered Retreat made the game a lot more forgiving for new players, but were a double-edged sword. In competitive play, when an effect like Rallying Cry or Ordered Retreat is available, you are disincentivised to make the "riskier" tempo play-lines, and are instead encouraged to... just sit there waiting to draw your "easymode" attack card for 15-20 minutes (although ordered retreat was a more complex card than Rallying Cry, and could be actively used in less stally play-lines). The "wait for Rally" issue was also heavily influenced by the existence of Counter-Attack-style effects, where your opponent could basically sneak in an attack phase before you bought your dudes for the turn (there's a reason these effects were downgraded/restricted over time ). L5R was already a game that took silly amounts of time to play in many formats, the "wait for rally" bit just made it completely drag.

I really rather enjoyed the tempo-based, movement-heavy "chess game" of Military most years, but it was definitely a system that was opaque for newer players. Which is a problem when half the time it's the clear best victory condition (Yes, yes, random Honor/Dishonor decks did well/dominated at various points in time, but when the bulk of top 8s over the years are a block of 5-7 military decks and 1-3 Non-Military decks, there's kind of a clear demarcation as to which victory condition is mechanically favored).

Thanks for that explanation! You made it sound pretty fun. But yeah, the tempo was definitely opaque for my group. We never got particularly experienced, because we played with pretty much just each other (though we did play fairly often).

Given the mechanical preference given to military decks, I would expect FFG (if they don't rebalance the win conditions entirely) to make some less opaque, non-turtle-y non-tempo-y options, since I assume they're trying to draw more players. But based on your description, I hope critical timing remains important to some military strategies. What do you expect?