31 minutes ago, Tetsuhiko said:

Completly random idea. Why not tie all victory conditions to the rings, in a way not unlike War of Honor

Set all five Rings on the board, each tie to a specific conditions (Earth=Defeat opposing armies, Fire=Win duels under specific conditions, Air=Honor or dishnor a certain number of personalities, Water=play a certain numbers of actions uninterrupted in a turn, Void=Discard a certain number of cards, which may be done intentionally )

Everytime you complete the prerequisite actions (once per turn), you add one of your tokens on the Ring (FFG loves tokens after all). You may remove tokens at any time to use the actions (repeatable) on the ring, and first player to reach either 7 tokens on a ring or 3 tokens on each rings wins the game.

This is vaguely what I'm expecting, given some of their other games. Some form of common "victory points" that all the different victory conditions feed into.

30 minutes ago, Mirith said:

This is vaguely what I'm expecting, given some of their other games. Some form of common "victory points" that all the different victory conditions feed into.

If the game came out like this, I would not play it at all.

58 minutes ago, Tetsuhiko said:

Completly random idea. Why not tie all victory conditions to the rings, in a way not unlike War of Honor

Set all five Rings on the board, each tie to a specific conditions (Earth=Defeat opposing armies, Fire=Win duels under specific conditions, Air=Honor or dishnor a certain number of personalities, Water=play a certain numbers of actions uninterrupted in a turn, Void=Discard a certain number of cards, which may be done intentionally )

Everytime you complete the prerequisite actions (once per turn), you add one of your tokens on the Ring (FFG loves tokens after all). You may remove tokens at any time to use the actions (repeatable) on the ring, and first player to reach either 7 tokens on a ring or 3 tokens on each rings wins the game.

If something like that happens, I hope they at least keep the system from attacking provinces, not other characters, so that the game maintains its essence

14 minutes ago, Sparks Duh said:

If the game came out like this, I would not play it at all.

Ignoring the fact we don't know the specifics, why not?

8 hours ago, Mirith said:

Ignoring the fact we don't know the specifics, why not?

You're the one bringing specific speculation and I just pointed out that I would hate the game if it came out the way you described.

Why? Because the game would only have one win condition. I don't want just one victory condition in L5R. Multiple victory conditions is what sets it apart from lots of other games. One of the best things a lot of players do when deckbuilding is take in to account for those multiple victory conditions and playing their decks to see if they can overcome them. It's a little more bland to only have one, imo.

Less than 2 weeks away and we will have a general idea of gameplay, I'm really excited!

Yeah, first wave of bitterness incoming...

Sitting on some cautious optimism here, which is out of character for me. Maybe because I've got a couple guys who bailed on the game shortly after Pearl Edition who are willing to get back in with me. Hopefully the game is good and I'll infect the rest of the 40K group as well.

I'll be happy enough if the game is recognizable and trims off some of the bloat.

6 hours ago, PlaguedOne said:

Sitting on some cautious optimism here, which is out of character for me. Maybe because I've got a couple guys who bailed on the game shortly after Pearl Edition who are willing to get back in with me. Hopefully the game is good and I'll infect the rest of the 40K group as well.

I'll be happy enough if the game is recognizable and trims off some of the bloat.

I got 10+ local playgroup back in Lotus/Samurai here (small town, <20000 citizens). NOBODY want to play new L5R except a total new guy i found that is FFG fanboy that play every localized LCG anyway.

Woww Thanks for technique Hope to be profitable.

Gclub

I think we've opened this can of worms on this board before, but we've got to talk about something for the next two weeks.

At first the idea of all victory advancing actions (destroying provinces, gaining honor, causing honor loss, putting rings into play) giving "points" to a single victory counter seemed a bit lame and un-L5R, but the more I think about it I can see how, if done well, it might actually be a good thing. Military decks always got honor for defeating armies anyway, so it's thematically not too much of a stretch. I had more than a few Phoenix decks that could do military switch back in the day, so a common "victory point" system would not be too dissimilar.

It also could make alternate victory condition events easier to design and streamline, but then again I don't know if there was ever any real complaint about alternate victory conditions being unviable.

Btw i've found that in middle of march 2015 AGoT players got full image of finished CS with cards templates on it etc. So they got a food for thoughs a month earlier than we. AGoT 2.0 was announced in November 2014 btw.

4th May they got this:

and this: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/5/4/the-only-game-that-matters/

There were following Houses articles with spoilers and then tutorial arrived in July:

17 hours ago, Sparks Duh said:

If the game came out like this, I would not play it at all.

Even if it was done "right"? ("Right" here meaning in a balanced, interesting, fun way").

Not that I'm in favour or against; just curious why this would be your "line in the sand".

8 hours ago, kempy said:

Yeah, first wave of bitterness incoming...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg-maXEg5K8

ups, double

8 minutes ago, Dovla said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg-maXEg5K8

Well, what a polite and well-bred personality you are.

oh come on chill, its a joke

16 hours ago, Sparks Duh said:

You're the one bringing specific speculation and I just pointed out that I would hate the game if it came out the way you described.

Why? Because the game would only have one win condition. I don't want just one victory condition in L5R. Multiple victory conditions is what sets it apart from lots of other games. One of the best things a lot of players do when deckbuilding is take in to account for those multiple victory conditions and playing their decks to see if they can overcome them. It's a little more bland to only have one, imo.

i agree with this so much and it is one of my greatest fears, as well as the game moving to one deck only. new l5r can be really good but i think it is also in danger of becoming a camel- or worse. i have so much apprehension that this completely new game will be so bland, so vanilla, so un-l5r that it will finally destroy the franchise: or worse: make it all the casual hipster gamer's favorite game. sigh. we'll know soon enough but i've learned in my life that my dread is usually correct.

Sounds like the fear is the game might be 'changed'

sounds like a lot of people will be unhappy, I'm guessing there will be 'change'

I can't imagine they'd drop Enlightenment victory. I can understand subsuming honor (which was historically about picking the next Emperor) and dishonor (which meant everyone united against you) in favor of military with massive bonuses/penalties for hitting honor goals, but Enlightenment's kind of central to the game.

5 hours ago, Isawa Syd said:

or worse: make it all the casual hipster gamer's favorite game.

You know, if it becomes "the casual hipster gamer's favorite game," but is still an enjoyable game, I really don't see a problem.

Being bland and vanilla would be a problem, though.

20 hours ago, Isawa Syd said:

i agree with this so much and it is one of my greatest fears, as well as the game moving to one deck only. new l5r can be really good but i think it is also in danger of becoming a camel- or worse. i have so much apprehension that this completely new game will be so bland, so vanilla, so un-l5r that it will finally destroy the franchise: or worse: make it all the casual hipster gamer's favorite game. sigh. we'll know soon enough but i've learned in my life that my dread is usually correct.

You can, of course, define what "un-l5r"-like is like, right?

Because I really doubt that your definition of what makes L5R into "true" L5R is the same one used by a majority of players. in fact, I don't think there is a unitary Platonic ideal of what makes L5R into "true" L5R, beyond pointing at the cards already printed for the old game, which is not the same game that FFG is making.

You may not like the changes they make. Or perhaps you will. We'll find out over the next few months of previews. But that doesn't mean that your definition of L5R is the true one that any current or future game company must adhere to.

2 hours ago, Gaffa said:

You can, of course, define what "un-l5r"-like is like, right?

Because I really doubt that your definition of what makes L5R into "true" L5R is the same one used by a majority of players. in fact, I don't think there is a unitary Platonic ideal of what makes L5R into "true" L5R, beyond pointing at the cards already printed for the old game, which is not the same game that FFG is making.

You may not like the changes they make. Or perhaps you will. We'll find out over the next few months of previews. But that doesn't mean that your definition of L5R is the true one that any current or future game company must adhere to.

To me, I wanna see L5R continue to be one of the most strategic card games around. It is what attracted me to it in the first place. If it's too watered down, then I would consider it un-L5R.

While the CCG was very strategic, it was also a hard game to teach. I'm really hoping that FFG can overcome this barrier by being able to teach the game easily while also maintaining the complex strategy behind the game.

22 hours ago, Ywingscum said:

Sounds like the fear is the game might be 'changed'

sounds like a lot of people will be unhappy, I'm guessing there will be 'change'

I wouldn't agree that this is a fair statement.

I think the vast majority of people who love and played L5R up until the end would agree that the game really needed changes.

I'd echo the fear about victory points, and I'd be worried it wouldn't do the brand justice. People aren't worried about change as much as they are worried that the game would lose it's identity. Bringing something as blunt as victory points I think would mean L5R's identity is lost.

1 hour ago, Moto Subodei said:

I think the vast majority of people who love and played L5R up until the end would agree that the game really needed changes.

Nope. i'd say that majority of people who left game earlier are looking for changes. That's why they left.

In my environment people who played till the end, or still play game in less or more official way, liked game as it was. Especially if they saw how game evolved through the years. It's really hard to compare fe Diamond with Twenty Festivals or Onyx. There's huge difference even if core of the game is same.

A problem is that many oldschoolers who left game 5/10/15 years ago and completely don't know how 20F looked and how it played. They still live in the past, remember this game as it was years ago and still keep their bad experience of previous mechanics/designs.