16 minutes ago, TheHobgoblyn said:

Well, here is how a Game of Thrones card game works. A demonstration from FFG's own YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1s54Wlgfyo

And a more comedic tutorial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPs57td0YLw

Quite honestly, I could see how a lot of this would work quite well for the L5R setting. It'd be an adjustment, no doubt. But, sure-- you have "military", "honor" and "dishonor opponent" baked right in there. Not really sure how one would handle enlightenment... and it seems like the "rings" would no longer be cards in the game unless they were somehow incorporated.

But, no more dynasty slots, instead you put your personalities, items, followers and strategy cards (which you use fewer of) straight from your hand. Your event cards effectively become your stronghold for each turn, changing your gold value, initiative and maximum hand size each turn as well as having a special effect. And you get to choose which order you play them in.

And the only part of the post on Kempy's second link that set off alarm bells as the game would "miss the point" doesn't appear to be a feature of the A Game of Thrones gameplay at all.

I can certainly live with the idea that both dueling and military action ultimately just eliminate personalities from the board and are in no way distinct things. Other than dueling being its own little mini-game within a game it functionally wasn't terribly different from Fear or Ranged/Melee Attacks in battle... or, assassination, in the cases you could do it in the limited phase.

So, sure. Dividing the clans up between specializing in some combination of Military, Intrigue and Power (i.e. Honor) and then have individual card text supporting if they are better at attacking or defending against it. So you could have...

Crab - Almost pure Military (Yasuki cards bring in Intrigue)
Crane - Almost pure Honor (Daidoji and Kakita offers military, particularly in defense)
Dragon - Balance of all three, particularly strong in defending
Lion - Military/Honor, best on offense
Mantis - Offensive Military/Defensive Intrigue
Phoenix - Military/Honor, best on defense
Scorpion - Almost pure Intrigue (Ninja bring in some offensive Military)
Shadowlands/Spider - Military/Offensive Intrigue
Unicorn - Balance, best on offense

Otomo/Seppun/Miya - Honor/Defensive Intrigue
Ronin, Naga, Ratling, etc. - Pure Military

With the understanding that no faction is going to be 100% vulnerable to any of the particular three strategies and that there will be additional complexities on the character cards.

Ok, pal. But if you have a game called AGoT with it's unique mechanic what's the point making same (reskinned) game again?

/and adding rulebook end turn phase named Fury of the Dark Lord, hehe/

10 minutes ago, kempy said:

Ok, pal. But if you have a game called AGoT with it's unique mechanic what's the point making same (reskinned) game again?

/and adding rulebook end turn phase named Fury of the Dark Lord, hehe/

Video games do it all the time. You take what you learned from the previous game, tweak the mechanics just a bit and then put out what amounts to a reskinned game.

"You already have a game called WarCraft, why would you reskin it into a game called StarCraft"
"You already have a game called Total War that takes place in Europe, what's the point of reskinning it to make it take place in Japan?"
"You already have a game called Street Fighter, what's the point of reskinning it to make these Darkstalkers or X-Men games?"
"You already have a successful series called Dynasty Warriors, why would you just reskin it and make it take place in Japan called Samurai Warriors? And you are going to reskin the Romance of Three Kingdoms game into this 'Nobonaga's Ambition' thing, are you mad?! And then make a 'Gundam' version of it too?!!"

Anyway, the mechanics of the Game of Thrones card game match what L5R was generally going for a LOT closer than either the Star Wars or WarHammer games (which are extremely similar to one another with just a handful of mechanical tweaks.)

Fundamentally it wouldn't just be a reskin though. You would use the same basic set up, the same basic mechanics... but you do have a totally different set of factions that aren't going to be 1-to-1 comparisons. Sure, if there are cards that are really, really basic and fundamental or really, really solidly good mechanics or really, really clever... then, by all means, you shouldn't go vastly out-of-your way to avoid some cards having identical mechanics in both games. But as long as the entire card base isn't identical and factions are not 1-for-1 comparisons, there is nothing wrong with being similar.

Have you forgotten that AEG made a "Legend of the Burning Sands" card game that was very, very similar to L5R except well... it had a less popular theme?

The mechanics for a Game of Thrones generally match what we have seen in the L5R faction a lot closer than the original mechanics of the card game-- after all, we have never seen a Clan stronghold completely over-run and burned to the ground nor an entire Great Clan being wiped out as is the result of half the matches ever played in the card game. And it fixes a few issues that always plagued the card game (non-interactive honor decks, honor vs dishonor match ups, etc.)

As much as I understand the reaction of "Ewwww!! Its different!! I hate it forever and always!!"

But, I look at it and say.... you know what? It does work. It's fine. It is worth giving it a shot.

Also-- one more reason for making a "reskin" beyond "well, you have practiced making a game under these rules, now put what you have learned to making this new game from the ground up"... Well... you see....

The TV Show "Game of Thrones"? Its got one season left. And there are two more books to put out and the author is likely going to have spoiled the ending for his book in the TV show conclusion. After that, all interest in that IP is going to be pretty dead.

But you get ahold of an IP that you control entirely, a storyline you can shape and control and even get input on the players from? Something that can continue to produce new content for as long as you like and has already shown its staying power for 20 years?

Yeah, it is worth setting this new IP up and running, even if it is nearly identical to your current one, because your current one is about to give out under you and you need to have the second one going. Particularly since the issues with Games Workshop have shown how... unreliable... it can be for your entire business to be riding on an IP you have no control over.

Again, given how the WarHammer and the Star Wars games are very similar with just a handful of differences, I see no reason to think that A Game of Thrones and Legend of Five Rings are going to be vastly different. Not when I look at the game and can see very easily how the mechanics match up better than the Star Wars/WarHammer mechanics.

And, now that I think about it, the one thing in that post that seemed alarming to me... it might have just been a bad play experience based on a mechanic not having been explained properly. It sounded a bit like feeding the troops was a mechanic in the game and the designer didn't mention this so the player didn't buy any food and then the designer told them their whole army dies because they have no food. That left them with a very negative impression of the game.

Although, a "you have to feed your troops" mechanic isn't the sort of mechanic one should tag on to make the game more fun, particularly if this rule being in the game isn't really, really clear. With 5 months until public unveiling, I hope they either drop that mechanic or find a better way to handle it so that players that pick up the game don't always make this mistake.

Anyone think it'll still be a two-deck game? I'm trying to think of what some more dramatic changes might be.

It will no longer be a game about samurai waging war in the court and on the battlefield, but rather a game about peasants and merchants trying to survive harsh winters, samurai bullying and heavy taxes.

Is that a big enough change for you ;).

1 minute ago, Tetsuhiko said:

It will no longer be a game about samurai waging war in the court and on the battlefield, but rather a game about peasants and merchants trying to survive harsh winters, samurai bullying and heavy taxes.

Is that a big enough change for you ;).

Maybe not l5r, but I'd play that game

5 minutes ago, BayushiCroy said:

Maybe not l5r, but I'd play that game

So try this: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/20551/shogun

My cubes in Shogun really like the tower; they tend to stay there for the whole game.

4 minutes ago, Barbacuo said:

My cubes in Shogun really like the tower; they tend to stay there for the whole game.

Oh, you also noticed there's free "tower defence" minigame included.

10 hours ago, Tetsuhiko said:

It will no longer be a game about samurai waging war in the court and on the battlefield, but rather a game about peasants and merchants trying to survive harsh winters, samurai bullying and heavy taxes.

Is that a big enough change for you ;).

That would be a significantly big change. That wouldn't seen like L5R at all, it would entirely miss the point.

Although none of those aspects were showcased in the demo for A Game of Thrones. Instead, in case you didn't watch the video, players put down personalities who have a strength and then the ability to engage in Military, Intrigue or Power contests. Military wins remove personalities from the board, Intigue wins remove cards from the player's hand (recall here that dynasty and fate are in the same hand) and Power swaps the victory tokens bringing you closer to victory and them further from it. In addition to personalities, you can also purchase holdings and items to attach to the personalities.

Then each turn you reveal an event card which tells you your initiative for the turn, how much gold you get for the turn and how many cards you are allowed to have at the end of the turn as well as some ability you get for that turn. You can play your 10 events in any order you like.

Also, if uniquely named personalities get killed, you can't play them again-- but you can have more than one in your deck to increase the likelihood they will be drawn.

So to that degree, saying the system will be a lot like the Game of Thrones game doesn't sound bad to me. Any specifics beyond that I imagine could all be adjusted to fit Rokugan better.

AEG adapted the key concepts of L5R into a single deck game called Legend of the Burning Sands. I honestly think it was a better game (and I liked playing the Khadi), so I think that a single deck game is quite likely.

9 hours ago, Tonbo Karasu said:

AEG adapted the key concepts of L5R into a single deck game called Legend of the Burning Sands. I honestly think it was a better game (and I liked playing the Khadi), so I think that a single deck game is quite likely.

Dueling was also significantly better. Duelists had an edge, not the full fight.

On March 7, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Tetsuro said:

There was once an optional rule that you would lose 1 Honor when touching another player's cards without permission.

There were few things more satisfying than either playing Scorpion and touching cards until you could Breach your opponent again or playing Junzo and just touching all their cards all the time.

I may or may not have done both of those things at one time or another.

I just started giggling uncontrollably when I read this.

21 hours ago, Tonbo Karasu said:

AEG adapted the key concepts of L5R into a single deck game called Legend of the Burning Sands. I honestly think it was a better game (and I liked playing the Khadi), so I think that a single deck game is quite likely.

Well, the game is being developed by a publisher who likes to have multiple decks in their games.... and multiple sorts of tokens... and maybe a big counter.

On 2017-03-08 at 2:05 PM, TheHobgoblyn said:

Video games do it all the time. You take what you learned from the previous game, tweak the mechanics just a bit and then put out what amounts to a reskinned game.

"You already have a game called WarCraft, why would you reskin it into a game called StarCraft"
"You already have a game called Total War that takes place in Europe, what's the point of reskinning it to make it take place in Japan?"
"You already have a game called Street Fighter, what's the point of reskinning it to make these Darkstalkers or X-Men games?"
"You already have a successful series called Dynasty Warriors, why would you just reskin it and make it take place in Japan called Samurai Warriors? And you are going to reskin the Romance of Three Kingdoms game into this 'Nobonaga's Ambition' thing, are you mad?! And then make a 'Gundam' version of it too?!!"

Anyway, the mechanics of the Game of Thrones card game match what L5R was generally going for a LOT closer than either the Star Wars or WarHammer games (which are extremely similar to one another with just a handful of mechanical tweaks.)

Fundamentally it wouldn't just be a reskin though. You would use the same basic set up, the same basic mechanics... but you do have a totally different set of factions that aren't going to be 1-to-1 comparisons. Sure, if there are cards that are really, really basic and fundamental or really, really solidly good mechanics or really, really clever... then, by all means, you shouldn't go vastly out-of-your way to avoid some cards having identical mechanics in both games. But as long as the entire card base isn't identical and factions are not 1-for-1 comparisons, there is nothing wrong with being similar.

Have you forgotten that AEG made a "Legend of the Burning Sands" card game that was very, very similar to L5R except well... it had a less popular theme?

The mechanics for a Game of Thrones generally match what we have seen in the L5R faction a lot closer than the original mechanics of the card game-- after all, we have never seen a Clan stronghold completely over-run and burned to the ground nor an entire Great Clan being wiped out as is the result of half the matches ever played in the card game. And it fixes a few issues that always plagued the card game (non-interactive honor decks, honor vs dishonor match ups, etc.)

As much as I understand the reaction of "Ewwww!! Its different!! I hate it forever and always!!"

But, I look at it and say.... you know what? It does work. It's fine. It is worth giving it a shot.

Also-- one more reason for making a "reskin" beyond "well, you have practiced making a game under these rules, now put what you have learned to making this new game from the ground up"... Well... you see....

The TV Show "Game of Thrones"? Its got one season left. And there are two more books to put out and the author is likely going to have spoiled the ending for his book in the TV show conclusion. After that, all interest in that IP is going to be pretty dead.

But you get ahold of an IP that you control entirely, a storyline you can shape and control and even get input on the players from? Something that can continue to produce new content for as long as you like and has already shown its staying power for 20 years?

Yeah, it is worth setting this new IP up and running, even if it is nearly identical to your current one, because your current one is about to give out under you and you need to have the second one going. Particularly since the issues with Games Workshop have shown how... unreliable... it can be for your entire business to be riding on an IP you have no control over.

Again, given how the WarHammer and the Star Wars games are very similar with just a handful of differences, I see no reason to think that A Game of Thrones and Legend of Five Rings are going to be vastly different. Not when I look at the game and can see very easily how the mechanics match up better than the Star Wars/WarHammer mechanics.

And, now that I think about it, the one thing in that post that seemed alarming to me... it might have just been a bad play experience based on a mechanic not having been explained properly. It sounded a bit like feeding the troops was a mechanic in the game and the designer didn't mention this so the player didn't buy any food and then the designer told them their whole army dies because they have no food. That left them with a very negative impression of the game.

Although, a "you have to feed your troops" mechanic isn't the sort of mechanic one should tag on to make the game more fun, particularly if this rule being in the game isn't really, really clear. With 5 months until public unveiling, I hope they either drop that mechanic or find a better way to handle it so that players that pick up the game don't always make this mistake.

But FFG isn't a video game company and L5R isn't a video game. When was the last time they just reskinned one of their games?

On 2017-03-09 at 7:06 AM, Tonbo Karasu said:

AEG adapted the key concepts of L5R into a single deck game called Legend of the Burning Sands. I honestly think it was a better game (and I liked playing the Khadi), so I think that a single deck game is quite likely.

I doubt it's likely, the two deck system/style was a defining part of L5R

On 3/8/2017 at 0:21 PM, Nickciufi said:

Anyone think it'll still be a two-deck game? I'm trying to think of what some more dramatic changes might be.

I hope it's a two deck game, it's one of the Iconic things that made L5R different. Other things I hope they keep: Strongholds, Rings, Multiple victory conditions, Provinces.

1 hour ago, El_Ganso said:

I hope it's a two deck game, it's one of the Iconic things that made L5R different. Other things I hope they keep: Strongholds, Rings, Multiple victory conditions, Provinces.

of all that, the thing i think least likely to survive is the victory conditions. provinces, strongholds rings are all things you can find vague analogs of in other lcgs. they aren't hard to do, so theres no reason to think they couldn't be done. i'm not saying they will, just that theres nothing preventing them. but the victory conditions are a pain. they were the source of much of the mechanical problems with l5r through the games history, they multiply the card design requirements. if i had to guess, i think they're probably try and simplify this into a single mechanic ("favor" or some such) and then have there be multiple ways to achieve that. granted, netrunner provides a counterexample here. it has its own versions of multiple victory conditions, so i could be wrong. just my feeling.

Technically, there's at least a loss condition in each of their games (usually decking). But it's not always possible to consistently leverage it (Netrunner is the exception here, with flatline and, for a time at least decking the Corp; maybe Warlord kill in Conquest), so it's more a mechanic to prevent infinite games.

12 hours ago, cielago said:

of all that, the thing i think least likely to survive is the victory conditions. provinces, strongholds rings are all things you can find vague analogs of in other lcgs. they aren't hard to do, so theres no reason to think they couldn't be done. i'm not saying they will, just that theres nothing preventing them. but the victory conditions are a pain. they were the source of much of the mechanical problems with l5r through the games history, they multiply the card design requirements. if i had to guess, i think they're probably try and simplify this into a single mechanic ("favor" or some such) and then have there be multiple ways to achieve that. granted, netrunner provides a counterexample here. it has its own versions of multiple victory conditions, so i could be wrong. just my feeling.

I don't think that L5R was populat thanks to their polished mechanics. I mean, they can refine the game mechanics, but maybe some people will skip the game then, since it will miss something important to them, that were multiple victory conditions. Me included.

Take into account that their goal is not only to keep old players, but above all else to attract new ones. They will keep the spirit of the game in the mechanics, but it won't come in the way of making a game attractive to new players who have not played the ccg for 20+ years.

I think the same can be said for the story.

To be fair... the guy either works for FFG or is at least their absolutely biggest fan. More than half the tweets from that account are advertising for FFG different games.

But, it is good to hear at least someone who played it had a positive experience?

1 hour ago, TheHobgoblyn said:

To be fair... the guy either works for FFG or is at least their absolutely biggest fan. More than half the tweets from that account are advertising for FFG different games.

But, it is good to hear at least someone who played it had a positive experience?

Check position Brand Manager in this Gold Edition rulebook.

This guys is now Chief Marketing officer in Asmodee North America (owner of FFG). It's really, really strange he uses word "beta" at this point of time. This is in many ways wrong written twitter, especially for someone who's responsible for marketing.

50 minutes ago, kempy said:

Check position Brand Manager in this Gold Edition rulebook.

This guys is now Chief Marketing officer in Asmodee North America (owner of FFG). It's really, really strange he uses word "beta" at this point of time. This is in many ways wrong written twitter, especially for someone who's responsible for marketing.

granted, that lcg design and software design are pretty different, but in software this would be right in the window for late beta/early RC, depending on what kind of development the team used. these days SCRUM and its hip, filthy variants are all the rage, but my somewhat rambly point is i don't see anything remotely wrong with that tweet. the game is six months out, its about the right time for official channels to start admitting it exists. "beta" is a generally understood concept. i'm not sure i follow what your beef with it is.

Okay, as the chief marketing officer his opinion cannot really be taken seriously one way or the other.

I am not sure what to make of him having been a brand manager for the game 16 years ago. Every edition of the game had its good aspects and its mistakes.