I personally feel that based on the mechanics of most of there lcgs that there is no way they can replicate or reimagine the feel of l5r as a lcg

The fun of lf5 was in its complexity . working out battle orders and positioning to take those provinces its twin deck design was truely unique and only one game fow use it now

What will happen is youll have a l5r game in nameconly with overly simple mechanics and the same decks . nobody NOBODY in the local area i play in plays any of ffgs lcgs . and we had a good l5r community.

This is just my opinion but im usually right about games

Well.We'll see, right?

That last sentence alone was worth the travel.

P.S. : This is just my opinion but I'm usually right about travels.

Well thanks for sharing. We will enjoy it without you I guess.

I personally feel that based on the mechanics of most of there lcgs that there is no way they can replicate or reimagine the feel of l5r as a lcg

The fun of lf5 was in its complexity . working out battle orders and positioning to take those provinces its twin deck design was truely unique and only one game fow use it now

What will happen is youll have a l5r game in nameconly with overly simple mechanics and the same decks . nobody NOBODY in the local area i play in plays any of ffgs lcgs . and we had a good l5r community.

I would like to know on what facts you base your opinion. Because honestly, most of us are following as much as possible news on the LCG development and nothing has been spoiled. Nothing is said about being a single deck or if they keep the two decks, so it's only speculations.

I really "like" what you've said "there's no way they can replicate or reimagine the feel of L5R as a LCG" They could simply run the same way and simply change the way to get cards from booster pack to expansions pack and there, you have L5R as a LCG with exactly the same feeling. LCG or CCG isn't the game mechanics, it's simply the way to get cards and we all know that people mostly wants the rare cards in CCG, so why have a rarity system when most commons aren't useful? (Do not take that last sentence as a golden rule please.)

So yeah... before saying if L5R as a LCG is a mistake, why not wait the release of some information on the game mechanics.

This is just my opinion but im usually right about games

I kept this for last... I like the fact that you said: "usually", it's mean that you're wrong sometime. Would you mind to talk about these? I would like to know about them. It's easy to say: "I knew it was a mistake!" but it's hard to say: "I must admit that I was wrong and I'm happy to be wrong!"

well i'd say that ffg did a good job on keeping the immersion into the world a relevant factor in two of their games i played, agot and especially, lord of the rings. if they keep the feel of L5R with some good storylines in this way, that might be enough for me. so lets see what happens and lay off the member berries.

I personally feel that based on the mechanics of most of there lcgs that there is no way they can replicate or reimagine the feel of l5r as a lcg

The fun of lf5 was in its complexity . working out battle orders and positioning to take those provinces its twin deck design was truely unique and only one game fow use it now

What will happen is youll have a l5r game in nameconly with overly simple mechanics and the same decks . nobody NOBODY in the local area i play in plays any of ffgs lcgs . and we had a good l5r community.

This is just my opinion but im usually right about games

everyone else is being relatively polite so in order to be different i guess i get to be the rude one.

your "arguments" are vague handwavey opinion, and you've done nothing with this post to give anyone reason to believe you're even occasionally right about games. spelling the name of the game correctly would be a good start.

L5R CCG did have a lot of enjoyable complexities and strategic options, but let's be fair; it had a lot of pointless, stupid rules, too. Interesting complexities aside, in tournament play the point is to find the fastest way to win with your clan, or secondary clan...or tertiary clan... or Lion. It's entirely possible to streamline this game while retaining the core of what makes it unique.

Personally I'll be happy about not having so many extras of unplayable cards. What I like about LCGs is that the most you have of unplayable cards is three-of.

About FFG keeping the feeling of the CCG in the mechanics of the game, they have my trust. I really like the feeling and mood of their LCGs I tried so far : AGoT, Netrunner and LotR all have immersive gameplay. Well at least in my view.

What's good about the op post is that he shall now disappear never to play the new game andno doubt to fulminate on how his wise words get ignored and hopefully how annoying it is when the reboot is a success.

Considering how Huge Netrunner is here, often its played more than MtG. I trust FFG. I just hope they eventually do an RPG.

Oh how wrong you are. First off they cant keep the mechanics as the bought the brand and the mechanics are not covered. Perhaps. They will manage it but considering my 30 yrlears in card games and the number of games i. Have seen fail after changing hands or a major mechanic shift. I speak from experience of games. Ccgs make deck design and evolution of play part based on skill and part on contributions .ie buying the game. Every lcg ive played had copycat decks no real community and no pick up games. I have never gone into any of the lgs near me and seen anyone playing lcgs my group experminted with game of thrones . w40k conquest and lotr. And we. Unanimously found they lacked depth and enjoyment. Asside from a few silly card interactions we boiled down the mechanics and worked out from within a few turns in multiplayer who would win everytime.. Ill keep an eye out and i hope im wrong but 40k to conquest. Became a ranged game with much less tactical meaning . game of thrones was far to predictable. And lotr we found dull...

I'll put it simple: Don't play.

The fact that you are wasting your time just to come here and tell us that a game we are expecting will suck says very little of you.

You are giving close to no arguments besides your "wide experience" regarding games which we know nothing about, since, obviously, we don't know you. Your bad writting does not help either to give you anything resembling credibility.

I am going to try to dissect your argument and answer each of your points...

Oh how wrong you are. First off they cant keep the mechanics as the bought the brand and the mechanics are not covered.

Actually, they did buy the mechanics. They bought the whole game. They own the mechanics, the art, the symbols, the graphic design, the intellectual property, the RPG, all RPG rights. They even own Clan Wars and L5R Disc Wars.

Ccgs make deck design and evolution of play part based on skill and part on contributions .ie buying the game. Every lcg ive played had copycat decks no real community and no pick up games.

And... L5R was different? I speak from years of experience in the competitive play environment in the CCG, as well as play in Netrunner, Doomtown: Reloaded, and AGoT (1st edition). On a competitive level, all the winning decks were either a copycat deck, or played extensively against copycat decks. Community is built by players, not a game, and pick up games hold the same value as playtest games. I have had many more "silly" Doomtown and AGoT decks seen play than I have L5R decks.

I have NEVER SEEN a tournament decided by who could get their hands on what cards. Invariably, scarcity of cards created a situation where players simply bought the singles from dealers rather than trade within their environment.

CCGs are restricted to the Scarcity model of "70% junk, 20% meat, 10% staple" to keep the consumer chasing rares. L5R has been this way since AT LEAST Emperor edition (maybe before then, but I was less savvy to the model then). LCGs create a robust card pool without rare chasing. Ultimately, it comes down to the designers and if they can make the cards worth it.

I have never gone into any of the lgs near me and seen anyone playing lcgs my group experminted with game of thrones . w40k conquest and lotr. And we. Unanimously found they lacked depth and enjoyment. Asside from a few silly card interactions we boiled down the mechanics and worked out from within a few turns in multiplayer who would win everytime.. Ill keep an eye out and i hope im wrong but 40k to conquest. Became a ranged game with much less tactical meaning . game of thrones was far to predictable. And lotr we found dull...

This comes down to game design, not LCG vs CCG. Maybe in your environment, players actually COULDN'T own all the cards they want to build their decks. LCGs make that proposal much less costly, and thus more attainable for more players on a limited income. And when it becomes more attainable? We get more players.

And... L5R was different? I speak from years of experience in the competitive play environment in the CCG, as well as play in Netrunner, Doomtown: Reloaded, and AGoT (1st edition). On a competitive level, all the winning decks were either a copycat deck, or played extensively against copycat decks. Community is built by players, not a game, and pick up games hold the same value as playtest games. I have had many more "silly" Doomtown and AGoT decks seen play than I have L5R decks.

As i loved this Netrunner (most succesful competetive LCG ever) example from last Worlds. Please smartguy show me any example of L5R Euro/Worlds or even Kotei level results where 14 out of 16 decks in Top16 were same faction or even decktype. That things never happened in L5R. Even if single Clan dominated fe Kotei season, there was always variety in Tops becasue thankfuly L5R CCG was not infected with true bandwagoning disease (everyone play Unicorn!) like other CCGs.

And i'm pretty sure LCG version will kill this part of L5R card gaming at least at Nationals/Continental level.

I'm also really sorry you played with or against identical T1 decks. Now i imagine how poor was your L5R CCG experience then. I'm really happy that european (french, polish, german etc) environment was full of various succesful experimentators.

In the words of a game developer I once knew to a knowitall internet rando, "Attention, shrieking dimwit. Prepare to be schooled."

Oh how wrong you are. First off they cant keep the mechanics as the bought the brand and the mechanics are not covered.

You have no basis on which to make this assertion. They acquired the IP outright, and they could put out something as similar or as different as they want. At best you're engaging in rank speculation on the basis of no facts. You're just declaring sight unseen that it will suck, because it's going to be different. Just for the sake of argument, let's imagine that they will build an entirely new game from the ground up with only as much in common as the old as say, Shadows Over Camelot vs Battlestar Galactica or Diplomacy vs Game Of Thrones Board Game?

How could you possibly know? Unless you're just wallowing in a nearsighted attitude of "They Changed It It Sucks Now"?

Oh, you're judging based on other games. Let's see how well that holds up:

Perhaps. They will manage it but considering my 30 yrlears in card games and the number of games i. Have seen fail after changing hands or a major mechanic shift. I speak from experience of games.

This is no more insightful than saying "sometimes games fail." Duuhhh. Providing no examples, by the way. How about Netrunner, which not just changed hands and had major mechanic shifts but was brought back from the dead entirely, and is flourishing as an LCG?

Ccgs make deck design and evolution of play part based on skill and part on contributions .ie buying the game.

I'm unimpressed. LCGs make deck design decisions, are hugely skill-based, and as far as "contributions" goes, varying success based on how much money you spend can go die in a fire. Why do you think the same names repeatedly make Day 2 and Elimination brackets year after year? It's not because they're just copying decks, and if you bother to learn you'll find that the ones who enjoy competitive success are very often the originators of popular decks, and the copycat try-hards don't enjoy the same success. Your judgment of LCGs is empirically false.

Every lcg ive played had copycat decks no real community and no pick up games.

As opposed to what? L5R as published by AEG has been moribund for years, and the only other game with enough saturation to regularly see pickup games is MTG. And if your sole point of comparison is Magic, I'm sorry, but I discount that line of argument entirely, because nothing whatsoever is comparable to MTG in terms of popularity or market share. (By the way, though, it is another data point in that a game can endure major mechanical changes and not die off, so, you're wrong again.)

And even if an LCG won't be as successful as Pokemon or YuGiOh or MTG, so the frak what?!

I have never gone into any of the lgs near me and seen anyone playing lcgs

Null point. There are thousands of games that you can say the same about and the notion that printing any of them in the first place is a mistake or that they're not good games is risible.

my group experminted with game of thrones . w40k conquest and lotr. And we. Unanimously found they lacked depth and enjoyment. Asside from a few silly card interactions we boiled down the mechanics and worked out from within a few turns in multiplayer who would win everytime.

Translation: "we dabbled, came to a quick conclusion and never bothered to learn more." How could you possibly have played out the card pool of three different games in the offhanded manner you describe? You probably bought a single core set at best, so of course your experience was shallow. But the notion that this experience is representative of the games' potential is completely asinine. What you find as "much less tactical meaning" or "predictable" or "dull" based on minimal play and no consideration of the entire card pool is something that can be written off entirely. I mean, hell, you're basing your judgment of AGOT on * multiplayer * for god's sake, which few serious players of the game consider a competitive format and those that do freely admit is a completely different animal with different deckbuilding demands, valid strategies, and overall dynamics.

Firstly, congratulations on your thirty years experience with a genre widely thought to have only been around since mid-1993.

Secondly, well done on making an account just to come on a board dedicated to the relaunch of the game and tell everyone that it will fail.

Thirdly, I don't think 'your' L5R community was perhaps as good as you thought it was if you are determined to write off a game that has some incredibly talented, passionate, and dedicated old-school L5R people involved in it.

Fourthly, good luck on whichever fandom's board you decide to pollute next! Fortunately there will be plenty of people still willing to give the game a try before condemning it.

Mark

Firstly, congratulations on your thirty years experience with a genre widely thought to have only been around since mid-1993.

Secondly, well done on making an account just to come on a board dedicated to the relaunch of the game and tell everyone that it will fail.

Thirdly, I don't think 'your' L5R community was perhaps as good as you thought it was if you are determined to write off a game that has some incredibly talented, passionate, and dedicated old-school L5R people involved in it.

Fourthly, good luck on whichever fandom's board you decide to pollute next! Fortunately there will be plenty of people still willing to give the game a try before condemning it.

Mark

Well said, Mark!

I think that what will be the biggest guarantee of L5R LCG's success is its community. Of course, the game will need to attract new players to stay successful on the long run, but the launch will most certainly go way over FFG's expectations.

Will the game be good? I don't know for sure, but I'm convinced FFG has done a tremendous job with it.

Do I care about the game keeping its mechanics? Not really. I would be happy even if they had just stamped L5R art and names on AGoT cards... But we know there are people at FFG who are really passionate about L5R and who are invested in the development of the new LCG.

The fact that FFG has bought the entire IP makes me think they'll develop it on multiple platforms, which can only be good for them, the game, and bad for our wallets.

And Mark, where did you get that penguin picture you're using as your avatar? It's definitely brilliant.

To a certain extent the op is just carrying out a standard troll, though it was interesting that his repost indicated that he was one of the 'ccg is best' brigade.

Who really cares though (beyond having fun showing him up) - we are going to start seeing cards and plar articles this year (all going well). I am soooo looking forward to it.

Personally I'll be happy about not having so many extras of unplayable cards. What I like about LCGs is that the most you have of unplayable cards is three-of.

There were two options what to do with extras in CCG:

1) trashcan

2) dump them into box in nearest store where all wanna-be new players would take them from to built theirs first peasant/bushi style decks.

There were two options what to do with extras in CCG:

1) trashcan

2) dump them into box in nearest store where all wanna-be new players would take them from to built theirs first peasant/bushi style decks.

Yes, I know, but there was no new players for L5R CCG so the store didn't want us to leave our extars lyings around in a box, and although I really disliked the idea, I threw the extras.

Which is stupid, because I paid for unusable cards (or I won the boosters I got them in), and the money it had cost manufacturing them could have been spent on something more interesting by AEG... Like pro playtesters.

There were two options what to do with extras in CCG:

1) trashcan

2) dump them into box in nearest store where all wanna-be new players would take them from to built theirs first peasant/bushi style decks.

Like pro playtesters.

Thankfully FFG have full time well paid pro testers! And i heard they are as good as they quality control guys.

PS. Tip. Don't want extras in CCG? Don't blind buy.

PS. Tip. Don't want extras in CCG? Don't blind buy.

Oh no, I had a better idea, I just completely stopped playing CCGs.

It's only because it's coming back as a LCG that I'm willing to play it again.

Oh how wrong you are. First off they cant keep the mechanics as the bought the brand and the mechanics are not covered.

As someone already said, FFG didn't just both the brand, they bought they whole IP, including the mechanics (CCG and RPG), so yes, we're right on this. I suggest you dig a little more on this topic. You basically think that AEG sold the rights, but it's the whole intellectual property, which means that AEG cannot say anything about what FFG keeps or drops.

Perhaps. They will manage it but considering my 30 yrlears in card games and the number of games i. Have seen fail after changing hands or a major mechanic shift. I speak from experience of games.

First of all, you may have 30 years in card games, but you sure write like a 12 years old!

Now as for the comment, I've seen a lot of those changes, but it's failing mainly because of the communauty seeing this change negatively right off the bat. I'll look at the RPG which was purchased by WotC and it failed, yes. However, it was print out as a D&D supplement, which was problematic. In the current situation, most of the communauty is looking foward the next release. Mainly because it needed a bit of fresh air.

Ccgs make deck design and evolution of play part based on skill and part on contributions .ie buying the game. Every lcg ive played had copycat decks no real community and no pick up games.

Wait... what? CCGs aren't that different from LCG, I've seen a lot of copycat decks in CCGs! I suggest you to look a little more around you. I'll take MtG as the best example. After each major tournament, you'll see a lot of people changing their decks to match as close as possible the winning deck. I don't see any deck design skills in this, it's mainly one person finding a deck design and others copycat it. Also, based on the last time I've saw MtG (a little more than 1 year ago), each release was almost pinpointing the optimal decks at each releases. Of course, there was some hidden combo found after, but most of the best combo was pretty clear and were placed next to another in the preview... Such skill, much wow, very doge!

I have never gone into any of the lgs near me and seen anyone playing lcgs my group experminted with game of thrones . w40k conquest and lotr. And we. Unanimously found they lacked depth and enjoyment. Asside from a few silly card interactions we boiled down the mechanics and worked out from within a few turns in multiplayer who would win everytime..

Ah the "MtG elitist attitude"! Where I live, I'll be honest, I rarely play in store, because of that attitude. If it's not MtG, it's not a game or very flawed! Basically exactly the attitude you're displaying. As if MtG wasn't flawless! lol! I would like you to explain, IN DETAILS, why those game lacks of depth and enjoyment. Yes, I emphased "IN DETAILS" because you displayed nothing to let us understand your point of view.

I really like when you said: "Aside from a few silly card interactions we boiled down the mechanics", it's exactly as the same thing I've heard from MtG players about every other games. It's silly if you don't want to give it a real try.

Ill keep an eye out and i hope im wrong but 40k to conquest. Became a ranged game with much less tactical meaning . game of thrones was far to predictable. And lotr we found dull...

Honestly, don't, just give up. With your "12 years old MtG elitist attitude", you'll find a way to hate it, of you'll force yourself to think to hate it, specially if your "so awesome communauty" hates it while you enjoy it.

And "40k became a ranged game with less tactical meaning", since when WH40K wasn't a ranged game? It's based on the mini-wargaming and it's mainly a ranged game. They just adapted it to keep the same feeling. I didn't like WH40K because of that but I'm not saying it's a bad game, I simply say: "I do not like it."

"Game of Thrones was far too predictable" Well... no surprised here neither, it's based on a very small universe inside a very generic medieval theme. I'm not saying that Game of Thrones is bad, but doing a game based in it, it's exactly what "juicing a franchise" is. The goal is to create a small enjoyable game close to the universe using the big name on it. How is it called already? Merchandising! no surprised here...

The same goes with LotR, specially since that part of the huge universe has been juiced to every corner, removing the magic around it. I'll compare it to Star Wars to show you why Star Wars is more successful. Unlike LotR, Star Wars games focus on the whole universe and not only on the movies... This is the biggest difference between those two. So it's normal that, at some point, any LotR gets dull. I find most LotR games dull because of that.

On this, I'll repeat myself, just give up, don't play LCG L5R and keep that "12 year old MtG elitist attitude" since it makes you feel better. I will not say it's your case, but the way you're talking, it's mainly like someone I know who likes CCGs because he can win with his wallet and feels skilled because he owns a 2.5k$ deck which wins every games he plays in his "communauty" since its communauty doesn't have the money to have a fair competition. This is where I see LCG being very interesting, because every deck will worth the same amout of money, so deck building skill and tactical gameplay skill would mean even more than filling up the deck with foiled rare cards...

It was "nice" knowing you (Not really) and it was "nice" to have a "decent" discussion with a "lot" of back and forth on facts. (Again, not really)

Well, 30 years of card games means you started in 1987...

Exactly what card games were you playing at that time?

Because Magic wasn't out until 1993...