Another consideration for the long rotation is that FFG regularly releases a mechanic/keyword on a only a few cards in a set. This sometimes takes over a year for them to release enough cards in supplemental packs to make the keyword/mechanic viable. If the rotation went too fast you may never see some of these cards even be that viable.

That said, I am not sure how this will work for L5R, where in the past, the story drove numerous card decisions (such as the death of a character). AEG, after their initial, no cards banned, no cards restricted era, cycled cards fairly quickly, too quickly for me. I am not a fan of the rapid rotation of new cards like MtG.

58 minutes ago, Fumi said:

Now that I think about it, the core set always being valid poses a bit of a problem for L5R. Having timeless personalities would be really odd, lore-wise. But having core sets expire could be rough on hobby stores, and also be potentially off-putting for new players. ("I bought this boxed set and it's going to expire in 3 months? Screw this.")

Anyone have any ideas on how to resolve this problem?

To respond to my own call for ideas, maybe they could name the core cards after schools/archetypes, like "Bitter Lies Swordsman" or "Daidoji Iron Warrior". Though it might be hard to find enough of them with characterful names, so they might have to invent some new ones, but I'd be OK with that.

The advantage to doing it this way would be that if they wanted to translate a tournament win into the story, they could say "You won with a Bitter Lies Swordsman? Okay, that guy is named Bayushi X", and he might get his own card in later expansions.

32 minutes ago, Mirith said:

My issue more stems from saying blanket statements that sound like "These cards are perfect and timeless". Okay, a bit of hyperbole, but I think having "permanent" cards leads to a more restricted design space and prevents the evolution of a game. I think being able to change the 'core set' without forcing significant resets is a good policy. Some cards don't change, but some cards need to.

If things get too out of hand they could publish revised editions of the core set, with unbalanced cards removed or altered. That's what they did with Curse of the Dark Pharaoh. Though admittedly that's an expansion to a cooperative board game, so it's a pretty different animal. But it's not completely outside the realm of possibility.

2 hours ago, Fumi said:

So if you win a battle with Matsu X and Akodo Y, it's not necessarily X and Y there in a literal sense, it could just be a couple of generic samurai following in the tradition of their more famous predecessors?

I suppose that could work, though it seems a tad unsatisfying.

I always figured that's pretty much how it actually was anyway, when you can have three copies of Tsuruchi Rin on the table. (Even a Tsuruchi can't literally be in multiple places at once!)

I guess it all goes back to how abstract should a game be, and how much of that is on the players vs the game mechanics? In Lord of the Rings LCG, I can have Thorin Oakenshield (who died in The Hobbit ) and Pippin Took (who would have still been a rather young hobbit at the time) crossing Harad (where neither of them ever actually went, to my knowledge) a decade or two before the events in the books. Should such things be disallowed by the rules, or is it up to the player to decide how thematic he wishes his deck(s) to be?

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

I always figured that's pretty much how it actually was anyway, when you can have three copies of Tsuruchi Rin on the table. (Even a Tsuruchi can't literally be in multiple places at once!)

I guess it all goes back to how abstract should a game be, and how much of that is on the players vs the game mechanics? In Lord of the Rings LCG, I can have Thorin Oakenshield (who died in The Hobbit ) and Pippin Took (who would have still been a rather young hobbit at the time) crossing Harad (where neither of them ever actually went, to my knowledge) a decade or two before the events in the books. Should such things be disallowed by the rules, or is it up to the player to decide how thematic he wishes his deck(s) to be?

Yes but lotr plays like a "what if" so does agot. It created your own version if the universe.

Ideally l5r will have a continuous story where continuity is more important.

36 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I always figured that's pretty much how it actually was anyway, when you can have three copies of Tsuruchi Rin on the table. (Even a Tsuruchi can't literally be in multiple places at once!)

I guess it all goes back to how abstract should a game be, and how much of that is on the players vs the game mechanics? In Lord of the Rings LCG, I can have Thorin Oakenshield (who died in The Hobbit ) and Pippin Took (who would have still been a rather young hobbit at the time) crossing Harad (where neither of them ever actually went, to my knowledge) a decade or two before the events in the books. Should such things be disallowed by the rules, or is it up to the player to decide how thematic he wishes his deck(s) to be?

This is how you end up challenging an Oni to a duel.

1 hour ago, Fumi said:

Though it might be hard to find enough of them with characterful names, so they might have to invent some new ones, but I'd be OK with that.

At one point I made a serious effort to come up with descriptive names for every basic school, instead of just having them be "X Bushi" or "X Courtier" or "X Shugenja." Didn't quite finish the job, but I got through quite a few. I'd wholeheartedly support a shift toward unique names, even if that isn't how it's been in the past.

2 hours ago, JJ48 said:

I always figured that's pretty much how it actually was anyway, when you can have three copies of Tsuruchi Rin on the table. (Even a Tsuruchi can't literally be in multiple places at once!)

I guess it all goes back to how abstract should a game be, and how much of that is on the players vs the game mechanics? In Lord of the Rings LCG, I can have Thorin Oakenshield (who died in The Hobbit ) and Pippin Took (who would have still been a rather young hobbit at the time) crossing Harad (where neither of them ever actually went, to my knowledge) a decade or two before the events in the books. Should such things be disallowed by the rules, or is it up to the player to decide how thematic he wishes his deck(s) to be?

With LotR or GoT, the narrative isn't player-driven. So any lore-related weirdness that crops up in deckbuilding can just be dismissed as, "Well, this takes place in an alternate continuity."

The FFG story team won't have that luxury, since they're trying to build a universal continuity from this stuff. Of course, that's assuming they care about how a win came about, rather than just the win/loss record. If they don't take the actual substance of the game into account for the story, it doesn't matter what personalities you use and the whole issue is moot.

But you have a good point regarding multiple copies of a personality in play at a time. I guess this is just one of those things you're not supposed to think about too hard about .

They did the "Soul of" mechanic in the past to justify using the cards of characters long dead in the story. It confused new players most of the time, but fit with the idea that most personalities (especially non-unique ones) represented archetypes even as they also represented story characters.

That being said, if I have to play with personalities named "Phoenix Yojimbo", "Isawa Water Shugenja", and "Order of Rebirth Monk", that might actually be a deal-breaker for me.

2 minutes ago, Suzume Tomonori said:

That being said, if I have to play with personalities named "Phoenix Yojimbo", "Isawa Water Shugenja", and "Order of Rebirth Monk", that might actually be a deal-breaker for me.

I wouldn't mind an occasional personality like that, but I certainly hope that's not the norm for the core set. Though, I highly doubt it would be. I'd be surprised if they didn't put at least some highly recognizable characters into the core to help with hype.

So generic gemupuku personalities like Crab Berserker in the core set then a Unique card called Hida Amoro who is an xp version of Crab berserker and may overlay him?

Your name doesn't actually get noticed until you get some experience and make a name after all.

1 hour ago, Suzume Tomonori said:

They did the "Soul of" mechanic in the past to justify using the cards of characters long dead in the story. It confused new players most of the time, but fit with the idea that most personalities (especially non-unique ones) represented archetypes even as they also represented story characters.

That being said, if I have to play with personalities named "Phoenix Yojimbo", "Isawa Water Shugenja", and "Order of Rebirth Monk", that might actually be a deal-breaker for me.

I think some generic cards could work. Things like groups of soldiers, monks, and so on. Even lowly attendants would be fine. Just as long as they are uncommon, rare, or usually neutrals.

2 hours ago, Kubernes said:

Just as long as they are uncommon, rare, or usually neutrals.

This is an LCG! There are no uncommon or rare cards!

2 hours ago, Kubernes said:

I think some generic cards could work. Things like groups of soldiers, monks, and so on. Even lowly attendants would be fine. Just as long as they are uncommon, rare, or usually neutrals.

If my memory serves, I think that originally a single personality card was supposed to represent a unit of people in a very real sense of a named hero leading a group of retainers and attendants etc., which is how, say, "one" personality could destroy an entire province.

So the suggestion of having cards that are generic groups of soldiers and monks does make sense in that way, but I can't help but feel such a card would lack...

...personality.

3 hours ago, muzouka said:

So generic gemupuku personalities like Crab Berserker in the core set then a Unique card called Hida Amoro who is an xp version of Crab berserker and may overlay him?

Yeah but then if design wants to make another basic but mechanically different crab berserker, what do they call him?

Crab Berserker 2?

Crabby Berserker?

Crab Berserkest?

I would assume that the current narrative would be detailed in the most recent dynasty packs and less of the over all card pool being reflective of every single character active in the setting.
Remember one of the major draws to the LCG model is the some what evergreen card pool and the affordable buy in structure for competitive play.
The only work around I could see for this is a new core set every 5 years, and I don't think that cost is worth preventing anachronisms in the game it self.

Un AGoT v2.0 their are already 2-3 versions of named, unique characters, each with different game mechanics. You differentiate them by their name and cycle together. As they are unique you can only have one version in your deck (3 copies but all the same version). The meta tends to decide which cards see play but finding a new 'feature' using an old version can be a great in game moment.

Seeing as most basic berserkers under AEG have been blank meat shields I would welcome it if they made more variety to it. Crab berserker xp would do

7 hours ago, Fumi said:

With LotR or GoT, the narrative isn't player-driven. So any lore-related weirdness that crops up in deckbuilding can just be dismissed as, "Well, this takes place in an alternate continuity."

The FFG story team won't have that luxury, since they're trying to build a universal continuity from this stuff. Of course, that's assuming they care about how a win came about, rather than just the win/loss record. If they don't take the actual substance of the game into account for the story, it doesn't matter what personalities you use and the whole issue is moot.

But you have a good point regarding multiple copies of a personality in play at a time. I guess this is just one of those things you're not supposed to think about too hard about .

Isn't that how it worked under AEG? I mean you could have an undead whale skeleton wield a katana and assault a province in the mountains. Or you could have characters like Hida O-Ushi or Bayuxhi Kachiko fighting against the Spider Clan.

Plus, it's not like the characters always worked in the story like they do in the game. Otherwise Isawa Kaname could destroy anything by working with the Mantis of Koshin Keep to spam fireballs. Though I suppose that would explain how she became Jade Champion.

Also, mirror match-ups would be weird if your Clan wasn't in the midst of a civil war.

1 hour ago, muzouka said:

Seeing as most basic berserkers under AEG have been blank meat shields I would welcome it if they made more variety to it. Crab berserker xp would do

Aren't most characters essentially generic cannon fodder unless they get some attention in the story?

8 hours ago, Kinzen said:

At one point I made a serious effort to come up with descriptive names for every basic school, instead of just having them be "X Bushi" or "X Courtier" or "X Shugenja." Didn't quite finish the job, but I got through quite a few. I'd wholeheartedly support a shift toward unique names, even if that isn't how it's been in the past.

Oh, I like that idea.

Hida Bushi to Hida Heavy Defender

Isawa Shugenja to Isawa Elementalist

etc, etc... Yes!

Most cannon fodder in other clans are cheap and have proactive abilities at least. Crab cannon fodder have flavor text. Some of them have reactions or other non-proactive traits and most of them have the same cost as uniques or clan champions in other clans.

I can easily see "Crab berserkers" (note the plural) as a "generic" sort of personality base.

A lot of the cards that were Followers in the CCG could easily stand alone in a differently designed game.

12 hours ago, JJ48 said:

I always figured that's pretty much how it actually was anyway, when you can have three copies of Tsuruchi Rin on the table. (Even a Tsuruchi can't literally be in multiple places at once!)

One of the mistakes made in Imperial Edition (not Emperor) was that they forgot to put the Unique keyword on Shiba Ujimitsu, the Phoenix Clan Champion. Later (I forget where exactly) there's a bit of fiction when he's having a conversation with Tsukune where she brings up a rumour that he can be in three places at once.

(He explained it was a combination of good communication, fast horses and learning how to catnap.)

16 hours ago, Mirith said:

How does AGoT Handle this? Is Ned Stark in the core set? Is this why there is now AGoT v2? I don't pay attention to the game.

Ned Stark is not only in the Core Set, but also in the Stark box (eternally legal as well). Note that there's no "experienced" mechanics in AGoT, there is no hierarchy between different versions of a card.

7 hours ago, Tekwych said:

Un AGoT v2.0 their are already 2-3 versions of named, unique characters, each with different game mechanics. You differentiate them by their name and cycle together. As they are unique you can only have one version in your deck (3 copies but all the same version). The meta tends to decide which cards see play but finding a new 'feature' using an old version can be a great in game moment.

You've got it opposite from how the rules actually are. You're limited to three copies of a card by title in your deck. If a unique character you want to play has different versions, you can include different versions of them in your deck so long as you don't go above three total cards by their name.

Btw, the rules for unique cards apply equally to all types (locations and attachments can also be unique).