3 minutes ago, BayushiCroy said:

Fair enough. I must not be thinking of the correct format name. There was strict, modern, and wasn't there one inbetween those formats? Or am I just misremembering entirely.?

Official formats: Strict, Arc, Extended

+

Draft, Modern, Legacy

8 minutes ago, kempy said:

Official formats: Strict, Arc, Extended

+

Draft, Modern, Legacy

Yes I was misremembering. Thanks. How do extended and modern differ?

21 minutes ago, BayushiCroy said:

Yes I was misremembering. Thanks. How do extended and modern differ?

Starting with Ivory AEG introduced new system, with base sets every year. Every year has it's own "bug/kanji"

Strict - last Base Set + onward

Arc - Previous Base Set + onward

Extended - Base Set before previous Base Set + onward

All standard 40/40 constructed decks.

Modern is kind of Legacy format with cards legal since Samurai edition. It is also highlander type, so only one copy of every card. Decks min. is 50/50.

There's also another highlander format - Big Deck. All cards legal, 80/80.

4 minutes ago, kempy said:

Starting with Ivory AEG introduced new system, with base sets every year. Every year has it's own "bug/kanji"

Strict - last base set + onward

Arc - Previous Base Set + onward

Extended - Base Set before previous Base set + onward

All standard 40/40 constructed decks.

Modern is kind of Legacy format with cards legal since Samurai edition. It is also highlander type, so only one copy of every card. Decks min. is 50/50.

There's also another highlander format - Big Deck. All cards legal, 80/80.

Have you ever played Big Deck? It sounds interesting. MRP Castle of the Wasp looks like it could be the basis of a pretty insane deck... (Even if the image from Lotus Edition looks far too Western for my taste. Apparently the Wasp Clan completely renovated their castle after Diamond.)

1 minute ago, JJ48 said:

Have you ever played Big Deck? It sounds interesting. MRP Castle of the Wasp looks like it could be the basis of a pretty insane deck... (Even if the image from Lotus Edition looks far too Western for my taste. Apparently the Wasp Clan completely renovated their castle after Diamond.)

No, i haven't.

What's more important, as Modern utilizes modified Twenty Festivals ruleset, Big Deck returned to most pre-ivory rulings so no gold pooling, old Cavalry, gold discount etc. That was good move, becasue most of whole cardpool was designed with these rules in mind.

Fun fact: I've only played in one BigDeck tournament, which was also the first time I've ever played the format at all, and I'm the current reigning BigDeck World Champion

Both Modern and BigDeck are a lot of fun, but as Kempy rightly states, they're very different formats, even though they share surface similarities. I definitely recommend giving both a try, but be aware the power level in BigDeck can be absolutely insane, as you're drawing from the best cards across all L5R eras.

6 hours ago, Sparks Duh said:

Well... I was going to engage you with more serious debate, but I can see now that you are only trolling people and actually have no clue what you're talking about.

Really? Cause Ivory murdered the game where i was at, tournament attendance plummeted, and the game was sold off soon after. On the internet people who had defended AEG and the game simply stopped, calling it the return of gold edition but without any of the good cards. I mean i get that since tons of the people who used to play aren't around anymore its easy to kind of rewrite the games history on these boards, but ivory did nothing good for L5R and it ended up sold before a new arc could come out, despite apparently being into the design process for Onyx.

I think its generally accepted that ivory was bad. 20F however was well received and provided a good base for Onyx, which was going to be really good and well received in my opinion.

There are a few misconceptions ive seen throughout this thread, one being that L5R wasn't making money. This isn't true at all, and from conversations I've had, the regret was that money L5R generated was subsidising other sides of the business rather that going back into the game which led to the stagnation of Ivory, rather than not having any money.

Saw another thing about turn order in this thread. For me one quick way of fixing clan imbalances was making who goes first completely randomized. The honor idea was nifty and all, but it was a relic that meddled with game mechanics which provided very little in favour in return.

One last thing, clan holdings. The logic about removing clan holdings was pretty simple, and it was a very good idea. The logic was, there was no decision about them going in your deck. They are just auto includes. So you have 3 slots of every deck (about 8% of your deck) that were already decided. This isn't good design.

43 minutes ago, Moto Subodei said:

Saw another thing about turn order in this thread. For me one quick way of fixing clan imbalances was making who goes first completely randomized. The honor idea was nifty and all, but it was a relic that meddled with game mechanics which provided very little in favour in return.

When I first started playing L5R in about 1998 or 1999, I remember the rule was something like "cut your fate deck and compare focus values, the one with the highest focus value starts". Maybe that would be a good system. At least it provides a random method, although decks with high focus values would have the advantage. Maybe that was the point, perhaps defensive decks tended to have higher focus values in Obsidian Edition.

45 minutes ago, Moto Subodei said:

Saw another thing about turn order in this thread. For me one quick way of fixing clan imbalances was making who goes first completely randomized. The honor idea was nifty and all, but it was a relic that meddled with game mechanics which provided very little in favour in return.

45 minutes ago, Moto Subodei said:

I think its generally accepted that ivory was bad. 20F however was well received and provided a good base for Onyx, which was going to be really good and well received in my opinion.

There are a few misconceptions ive seen throughout this thread, one being that L5R wasn't making money. This isn't true at all, and from conversations I've had, the regret was that money L5R generated was subsidising other sides of the business rather that going back into the game which led to the stagnation of Ivory, rather than not having any money.

Saw another thing about turn order in this thread. For me one quick way of fixing clan imbalances was making who goes first completely randomized. The honor idea was nifty and all, but it was a relic that meddled with game mechanics which provided very little in favour in return.

One last thing, clan holdings. The logic about removing clan holdings was pretty simple, and it was a very good idea. The logic was, there was no decision about them going in your deck. They are just auto includes. So you have 3 slots of every deck (about 8% of your deck) that were already decided. This isn't good design.

MTG has like 25 to 30% of their deck preset. Any card game with a limited card pool is going to have some % of its deck preemptively decided. 8% is hardly onerous.

And frankly, there was no reason whatsoever to upend the basic ruleset of the game for Ivory. Free gold from phoenix and mantis strongholds hammered EE, not the basic ruleset.

I believe L5R's success and perceived failure to be an incredible confluence of factors. To debate small bits in isolation seems borderline arbitrary. Otherwise we risk a perpetual mud fight consisting of personal pet-peeves. Granted, Jerry Springer was a thing for a reason, but I'm not sure its good for our collective soul.

Looking back at 20 years of game history, its perfectly reasonable to point out likes/dislikes, fond memories, and deal-breaking moments. But to think any one of us has bulletproof knowledge of L5R's past or potential future, seems over indulgent, to say the least.

20 hours ago, McDermott said:

MTG has like 25 to 30% of their deck preset. Any card game with a limited card pool is going to have some % of its deck preemptively decided. 8% is hardly onerous.

And frankly, there was no reason whatsoever to upend the basic ruleset of the game for Ivory. Free gold from phoenix and mantis strongholds hammered EE, not the basic ruleset.

I never said it was onerous, just not optimising design potential.

I can only assume you disagree with me on the holdings so answer this for me. Why is printing 10 individual cards that function in the same way for every clan - but only for one clan each, better design than printing one agnostic card that does the same for all? There is opportunity cost with everything you print in a set, wouldn't it be better design to print that one agnostic holding, and 9 other holding cards that do something different? If not, then why? What are the reasons that clan holdings are in your view are better design than the aforementioned?

21 hours ago, FunTimeTeddy said:

I believe L5R's success and perceived failure to be an incredible confluence of factors. To debate small bits in isolation seems borderline arbitrary. Otherwise we risk a perpetual mud fight consisting of personal pet-peeves. Granted, Jerry Springer was a thing for a reason, but I'm not sure its good for our collective soul.

Looking back at 20 years of game history, its perfectly reasonable to point out likes/dislikes, fond memories, and deal-breaking moments. But to think any one of us has bulletproof knowledge of L5R's past or potential future, seems over indulgent, to say the least.

But if we can't yell and scream about who's right, then what's the point of the internet? FunTimeTeddy, I don't know you from Adam but I think we're going to get along famously.

I hereby motion that we turn this thread into a celebration of the stuff we loved about the game! What better way to re-dedicate a trolling thread than into a relentlessly positive experience?

I mean, we'll all have different opinions about what we enjoyed, but if we all follow the same ground-rules of civil discourse and respect the opinions of others, I think we'll have a good time!

With that being said, can I gush for a minute about the art direction? I mean, those early frames were very "busy" by design standards, but they were just so darn pretty ! While I wasn't completely sold on the "Pearl" card frames, the "Celestial" frames were wonderful. And the art just kept getting better and better over the years, but a lot of those early pieces still hold up beautifully. Art establishes tone, and L5R's art (or L5Art, if you prefer) set a very, very high tone. High-fives, guys - I'm looking forward to seeing it continue.

And the basic design of the game lent itself to storytelling so easily - especially in those early days with tiny card pools, every game was a thrilling wartime epic with heroes rising from the ranks of unsung samurai (Toku, anyone?) and glorious and bloody battles for the fate of kingdoms (well, fiefdoms, but you know what I mean). I loved that I could sit down with my friends and family and that each game would tell a different tale, each with its own cast of heroes and villains. My Beiden Pass set got worn out , with each battle for the pass taking a different tone and shape. We even started a little campaign, with each clan receiving bonuses and penalties depending on the outcomes of games, gaining and losing fiefdoms... in short, the game transcended the table into legend. Which is all I can ask for in a gaming experience.

What about you? Unabashed enjoyment, go!

3 hours ago, Moto Subodei said:

I never said it was onerous, just not optimising design potential.

I can only assume you disagree with me on the holdings so answer this for me. Why is printing 10 individual cards that function in the same way for every clan - but only for one clan each, better design than printing one agnostic card that does the same for all? There is opportunity cost with everything you print in a set, wouldn't it be better design to print that one agnostic holding, and 9 other holding cards that do something different? If not, then why? What are the reasons that clan holdings are in your view are better design than the aforementioned?

Keyword cards. L5r is a game that ran off keyword cards and keywords played a huge role in various clan themes.

Yes it would have been more efficient to have a solitary 2 for 3 that everyone could use, but having cards that key off mines/ports/etc had a role in the game, albeit an underutilized one.

22 hours ago, FunTimeTeddy said:

I believe L5R's success and perceived failure to be an incredible confluence of factors. To debate small bits in isolation seems borderline arbitrary. Otherwise we risk a perpetual mud fight consisting of personal pet-peeves. Granted, Jerry Springer was a thing for a reason, but I'm not sure its good for our collective soul.

Looking back at 20 years of game history, its perfectly reasonable to point out likes/dislikes, fond memories, and deal-breaking moments. But to think any one of us has bulletproof knowledge of L5R's past or potential future, seems over indulgent, to say the least.

Also it isn't about personal pet peeves, its about claiming a thing "was good for the game" when its presence coincided with participation rates dropping drastically, and the game that was apparently successful enough to prop up other games being sold off. Because it was so successful.

6 hours ago, McDermott said:

Keyword cards. L5r is a game that ran off keyword cards and keywords played a huge role in various clan themes.

Yes it would have been more efficient to have a solitary 2 for 3 that everyone could use, but having cards that key off mines/ports/etc had a role in the game, albeit an underutilized one.

Not having clan holdings is actually an argument for developing a suite of keyword holdings. For example, We ended up with too many mines and not geisha houses because the card pool was restricted by clan holdings.

Key word holdings require significant design space, this is solved by adding 9 free slots into the equation, if that really is your concern.

Make the economy not rely on gold-producing holdings, even more design space. The holdings should be locations with an effect on the game, not a necessity to develop your game plans.

That way is the way of the gold-screws and the economic frustration.

Of course, there will probably be characters with a positive effect on your economy or a negative effect on your opponent's, but this shoudl probably wait a bit, because choke decks are most likely NPE decks, and you don't want that in the first months of the game life, as it could probably drive away potential new players.

16 hours ago, Ryoshun Higoka said:

...I hereby motion that we turn this thread into a celebration of the stuff we loved about the game! What better way to re-dedicate a trolling thread than into a relentlessly positive experience?...

You know what I loved early on, and missed in later editions? Epic multiplayer games. This could have purely been a function of my community, whose people and preferences changed over time, but when I started in late Imperial/early Jade, there was a group of 5-10 players at our local store who would get together on Sundays and play all-in matches lasting 3,4,5 hours. These were essentially non-competitive. While there were some players who were obviously more skilled and built better decks, so much of the fun was politicking, role playing, and human connection.

When War of Honor came out, my group played occasionally, but it never stuck. By that time, interest had migrated to competitive dueling (one on one) and that was the focal point of our allotted gaming time. Don't get me wrong: Celestial Edition era was amazing. It was probably the high point of local interest and local tournament attendance. Certainly it felt like the most dynamic and exciting competitive environment for me. But I definitely remember fondly those early years. Which gets to this point:

16 hours ago, McDermott said:

Also it isn't about personal pet peeves, its about claiming a thing "was good for the game" when its presence coincided with participation rates dropping drastically, and the game that was apparently successful enough to prop up other games being sold off. Because it was so successful.

I've seen the game ebb and flow several times. Personally, I've even checked out for years/arcs at a time, which had nothing to do with game environment, just life stuff. Those early players who I found so inspiring: none made it through Lotus. By the time I plugged back in during Samurai, they had all moved on to other things, and the community had become something new and different - which was really strong through Celestial then tapered off in Emperor. I'd be hard pressed to say exactly why, but I believe it to be a combination of FL, competitive power imbalances, bans/errata, and...life stuff.

In my mind, the changes in Ivory were actually a desperate attempt to reinvigorate sagging sales and interest. I highly doubt that it was just a hare-brained change for change's sake. Does that mean that it was implemented perfectly? No. But was it inherently bad? No, I don't think so. I happened to quite liked Ivory. Sure it was maybe a bit of an extreme pendulum swing from the power curve of Emperor - but there was such widespread complaint then - what did you expect them to do?

In short: Just because Ivory arc was when the game was sold, does not mean that Ivory was what killed it. All of the explanations I've heard have been anecdotal or he-said-she-said: nothing affirmative. And in truth, I think it's kind of a mute point now. We have a new company who gets to re-imagine the game as they see fit. We can all argue about their idiocy with 20-20 hindsight after the fact.