On 3/26/2017 at 2:03 AM, Daner0023 said:

I think keywords with Rulebook meanings are an unnecessary complication and homogenizes play styles.

I much prefer cards or abilities that target keywords.

I would be okay with seppuku as a rulebook effect that targets certain keywords, because it targets a huge percentage of personalities.

Instead of Cavalry having a rulebook effect, you could simply have it as a keyword on a card. Then a Unicorn Stronghold could have a trait targeting Cavalry giving them a movement or assignment advantage.

This is much cleaner and is much easier to teach.

Do note that there might not even be provinces or moving in the new system.

But-- as the person above me noted-- it really would kill the game to a certain aspect if you could not say... equip a horse to any personality to make them cavalry-- or, rather, you could but it wouldn't have any effect unless one was a Unicorn.

1 hour ago, TheHobgoblyn said:

Do note that there might not even be provinces or moving in the new system.

But-- as the person above me noted-- it really would kill the game to a certain aspect if you could not say... equip a horse to any personality to make them cavalry-- or, rather, you could but it wouldn't have any effect unless one was a Unicorn.

I am hoping for the whole "Battlefield" concept to remain in some form, but it could be removed. I liked the whole scope concept involved (Battle actions can only target those at this battlefield, people at home can't do much, etc).

3 hours ago, TheHobgoblyn said:

Do note that there might not even be provinces or moving in the new system.

But-- as the person above me noted-- it really would kill the game to a certain aspect if you could not say... equip a horse to any personality to make them cavalry-- or, rather, you could but it wouldn't have any effect unless one was a Unicorn.

Yeah. I'm all for clans being able to have their own strengths and weaknesses, but I don't think things like (potentially) major game mechanics should be exclusive to one clan when it makes no storyline sense! The Unicorn focus on cavalry more, so it makes sense that they would have more cavalry and possibly more effective cavalry than other clans. It doesn't make sense, though, to say that no other clans would have cavalry at all! (Or, that their cavalry would be useless.)

What's next? Making duels exclusive to Crane? Making shugenja exclusive to Phoenix? Making ranged attacks exclusive to some clan which may or may not ever exist in FFG's version of the game at some point? >_>

37 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

What's next? Making duels exclusive to Crane? Making shugenja exclusive to Phoenix? Making ranged attacks exclusive to some clan which may or may not ever exist in FFG's version of the game at some point? >_>

And now we enter splashing area called "banners/alliances/something-like-that".

4 hours ago, JJ48 said:

Yeah. I'm all for clans being able to have their own strengths and weaknesses, but I don't think things like (potentially) major game mechanics should be exclusive to one clan when it makes no storyline sense! The Unicorn focus on cavalry more, so it makes sense that they would have more cavalry and possibly more effective cavalry than other clans. It doesn't make sense, though, to say that no other clans would have cavalry at all! (Or, that their cavalry would be useless.)

What's next? Making duels exclusive to Crane? Making shugenja exclusive to Phoenix? Making ranged attacks exclusive to some clan which may or may not ever exist in FFG's version of the game at some point? >_>

Does aGoT or any of the other lcgs really keep major mechanics strictly to one faction? I think it is safe to say that more than clan will have access to a mechanic like cavalry. I guess I could see a deluxe expansion with a brand new mechanic exclusive for only a single clan for a short amount of time (i.e. Naval for the Mantis or something).

11 hours ago, TheHobgoblyn said:

Do note that there might not even be provinces or moving in the new system.

But-- as the person above me noted-- it really would kill the game to a certain aspect if you could not say... equip a horse to any personality to make them cavalry-- or, rather, you could but it wouldn't have any effect unless one was a Unicorn.

Conquest had a Battle and Battlefield system similar to L5R.

The difference there was that the "Provinces" were shared objectives, as opposed to each player having their own Provinces.

It also had a "Limited Phase" where players "battled" for resources before the actual "Battle Phase" began.

I would quite enjoy a gameplay experience similar to Conquest, sans the Warlord perhaps and with more political intrigue.

My definition of political intrigue is my Duelists slicing your unneeded head from your neck, my Courtiers making it into an eloquent Haiku, which then pleases the Emperor.

14 hours ago, TheHobgoblyn said:

Do note that there might not even be provinces or moving in the new system.

If they don't I could see the Military Victory working similar to the Netrunner concept of making your opponent discard from their hand/deck(s).

crossposting this here, since its relevant to discussion about gameplay: tl;dr former netrunner lead designer says l5r will be "Entirely different from AGoT"

1 hour ago, cielago said:

crossposting this here, since its relevant to discussion about gameplay: tl;dr former netrunner lead designer says l5r will be "Entirely different from AGoT"

Oh, wow-- gee, Cielago! Entirely different from aGoT?!!

So instead of drawing cards from a deck into your hand, you start the game with all the cards in your hand and put them into the deck. Maybe you even take the cards from the other person's hand and put them into your own deck!

And instead of each player taking turns, the two players take their turn at the same time.

And instead of personalities attacking each other and doing political maneuvers to try to undermine one another, they instead send each other love letters and do nonpartisan maneuvers in order to improve one another.

Right, since aGoT is a competitive game, if L5R is "entirely different" it absolutely must be a cooperative game.

Oh, wait-- what am I saying? If there were personalities, that would be similar to aGoT!! So clearly there won't be any character cards or location cards, instead there will be... time period cards and... reason cards.

Or maybe... yes, I've got it! The game is played very similar to Old Maid or Go Fish! That would be approaching "entirely different" from aGoT.

Seriously, use a bit of common sense. Of the nearly infinite possible things one can do with cards, it is a guarantee that within that vast spectrum anything that is going to be remotely similar to L5R is going to be much closer to the "nearly identical" end of the spectrum rather than the "entirely different" end. Then again, I have heard people argue that playing Ryu and Ken in Street Fighter games play "entirely different", so people just use that label to mean "any difference at all no matter how small".

It could be as simple as "We call turning the card sideways 'bowing' instead of 'kneeling' and it is therefore entirely different." Because rationally, "entirely different" in this case cannot literally mean entirely different. As in there is no remote similarity or equivalent sort of card at all nor do you do any of the same things with the cards in either game. Magic: the Gathering and Yugioh and Pokemon and Vangard are not even entirely different from aGoT-- there are a lot of very similar concept that pop up in all of them.

Honestly, given who was involved in making it aGoT pretty much looks and plays a LOT like the guy who used to work on L5R and made aGoT was trying to make it just like they would have redesigned L5R had they been able to get rid of some of the "sacred cows".

Moreover, looking at that thread, how exactly do we know he was replying to the initial question and not the "there are multiple win conditions and people can sneak their win condition up on you without you being aware of it" part of the conversation that came right above it. Because at least THAT would not be an obvious and complete lie like saying the entirety of L5R will be unlike the entirety of aGoT in every small last aspect which is what "entirely different" literally (yes, I mean literally, not figuratively) means.

Why would he even be allowed to make a comment at this time?

1 hour ago, TheHobgoblyn said:

Oh, wow-- gee, Cielago! Entirely different from aGoT?!!

So instead of drawing cards from a deck into your hand, you start the game with all the cards in your hand and put them into the deck.

Honest question to all: who read past this point?

Clarification : I find if posts start this aggressive then I don't care if there is anything useful Inside of it, I am unwilling to slog through the toxicity to get to it.

3 minutes ago, BayushiCroy said:

Honest question to all: who read past this point?

i've got him muted so....

5 minutes ago, BayushiCroy said:

Honest question to all: who read past this point?

/me

But i read everything.

14 minutes ago, kempy said:

/me

But i read everything.

I got the feeling you read everything =P

https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?799273-First-Poster-For-L5R-LCG&p=20875869#post20875869

i said it with the supposed NDA leaks, and i said it about these on the facebook group: without some kind of verification these are the worst kind of heresay. especially when, in order to believe what they are saying, you have to take as a given that this is someone involved in the design process or employed at FFG who is risking their job and legal life and limb in order to... make a few snarky, negative remarks? don't buy it, especially when what they are saying sounds like so much BS. i'll eat a flock of crows if the lcg brings back one of magic's least popular mechanics of all time.

41 minutes ago, cielago said:

i'll eat a flock of crows if the lcg brings back one of magic's least popular mechanics of all time.

As i'm, not familiar with MtG - what mechanic?

---

Ok, got it - http://mtg.gamepedia.com/Cumulative_upkeep

Yeesh, that's even worse!

I was thinking of Fading: http://mtg.gamepedia.com/Fading

3 minutes ago, Myrion said:

Yeesh, that's even worse!

I was thinking of Fading: http://mtg.gamepedia.com/Fading

this is the one i was thinking of, but they're basically the same thing, counting different directions, they definitely both suck, and a cursory google shows cumulative upkeep was pretty unpopular too and only lasted marginally longer than fading, so that should tell you something. the only real difference is the death is assured with fading, unless you "forget" to remove a counter one turn. its just a gross amount of nonsense to keep track of every turn.

http://mtg.gamepedia.com/Banding ?

I'd say the upkeep is worse, because it binds resources you could use for other things in addition to killing that card.

But yeah, by and large, both are similarly crap.

This reminds me of my favorite MtG joke. Wanna hear?

Banding

Pshh, Banding wasn't even the worst form of Banding. Back in Legends there was the ability Bands with Other. It gave Banding, but only with other creatures that had the exact same Bands with Other. Note that the actual creature listed in the ability was immaterial - if you imagine a Santa card that had Bands with Elves, he wouldn't have Banding if you put him with Elves, but he would band with other Santas. Yeah.

I won some sealed deck tournaments back in the day with Cumulative Upkeep cards. The key was to use them as 1-2 turn game changers then let them go.

1 minute ago, Ryric said:

Pshh, Banding wasn't even the worst form of Banding. Back in Legends there was the ability Bands with Other. It gave Banding, but only with other creatures that had the exact same Bands with Other. Note that the actual creature listed in the ability was immaterial - if you imagine a Santa card that had

I won some sealed deck tournaments back in the day with Cumulative Upkeep cards. The key was to use them as 1-2 turn game changers then let them go.

That's how you play Steven Wiles in dtr.his upkeep is absurd. He hits the field and the game changes immediately for that turn.

10 minutes ago, BayushiCroy said:

That's how you play Steven Wiles in dtr.his upkeep is absurd. He hits the field and the game changes immediately for that turn.

Yeah, but it's much more fun if you catch him with

Out of curiousity, how do you mute someone on here?