3 minutes ago, shineyorkboy said:

To be fair wouldn't having cards in your hand at the end of the game imply that they were dead cards you couldn't get any use out of during the final battle?

Read what I've wrote... "on their final turns" -> plural.
Of course that when the game ended, if through Military wincon (the most usual way since Empire Edition onward), the winning player would only kept dead or unused cards in his/her hand at EOT. But I was talking of their final turns, before the last strike to break the last Province.

11 hours ago, Ishi Tonu said:

Here are some of my observations on the various card games I've played over the years.

Card games that do not have an established lore/story and have good mechanics/gameplay have greater potential to be successful than a game of similar quality with a story that is established. Were I have seen good games falter i.e. Highlander, Star Wars, Conquest, etc is that the existing fan base has certain preconceptions of what the game should be. Vader shouldn't lose to a random rebel with a blaster....so when the card game allows for things like this to happen (no matter how well done it is) there will be a portion of the playerbase that will get upset.

In addtion to this, when people who like a certain universe play a card game for the first time against players who are experienced in card games but not as invested in the lore, you can suffer some player loss because those who love the story may not want to get as competitive as those looking for a challenging game to showcase their ability.

I think FFG has given is two really good examples of this. Conquest was IMO, a very well done game. However many of the people I played against were 40k minatures players and simply not prepared to play against someone with over 2 decades of CCG experience. I also heard, many times, that the lore was off for many of the cards/factions. This ultimately lead to the game not getting played and subsequently not carried at the local store. Ultimately it wouldn't have mattered for my store if Conquest got renewed because the game was dead in my area.

FFG has also made two really well done Star Wars games. I really felt like the LCG captured the struggle between good and evil......however I did notice that the main guys seems to start getting bumped out for the strong themes and you ended up with some sting decks that would frustrate players because it was no longer capturing that Star Wars vibe. Now there is the CCG which is also a good game and is straight up a game of who would beat who? That seems to fill the void from the LCG but it fractures the playerbase as they both compete for Star Wars fans.....and that's not even considering Armada, X-Wing, and Imperial Assault player also dipping into that fan base. I'd love to play them all but I don't have that much time or money.

When L5R first came out, it didn't have an established storyline. So most of the players who were drawn to it were samurai fans and card players looking for a new challenge. Since the samurai fans didn't know who these people in the story were, they had no expectations of how battles should play out so pretty much anything was expected and the level of play was elevated from the onset. Now we're looking at a reboot of a game with 20+ years of story that was largely directed by those players. That's something L5R did not have to deal with the first time around. There are way more expectations that people have for the game this time....and it's already starting to show. From what I've seen to this point I think FFG is doing a good job at trying to clean up some of the mechanical and gameplay problems that L5R has had in the past while still keeping the essence of the game. Until I see all of the rules and cards I can't give an educated opinion about if they pulled it off and even if I was disappointed with what I've seen so far, I wouldn't pass judgement without playing it first.

For those of you that feel let down by what's being offered in the reboot, I hope you can let go of the expectations you've built in the past and can appreciate the new game enough that your be willing to support the game for the future.

For those of you like me who need to go buy a new pair of pants because they couldn't contain their excitment I can only say this.......

UUUUUUUTTZZZZZZ!!!!!!

I was curious about this post. Bolds are mine.

First point, you said you have 20 years of CCG under your belt. Cool, me too. But you say Conquest is a very well done game. And that's something I can't understand, honestly.
Have you ever played the WH40K:CCG, by Sabertooth games, or any other WH IP CCG by Sabertooth Games: Dark Millenium, Horus Heresy and WarCry (Fantasy based)?
Because any of those games, well, apart from Horus Heresy that was a neat game but nothing exceptional, were way better games than Conquest.
Also, comparing gaming styles (armies and warlords and such) there was a game that topped all of these games, that was Warlord from AEG.
And yes, I've played them all. I part-time worked in a LGS and Warhammer was something really big in my area, and anything WH related.

Conquest feels like a mix and match of previous LCGs. Have some elements of CoC:LCG (the Planets), have some elements of SW:LCG (the Shields/Hammers/something and discarding cards for them), have some elements of AGOT:LCG (the colored types of wincons in planets), the activation system like SW:LCG again...
For me, having different elements of other games matched into a single one will not make that game looks great, but looks cheap instead. It passes me the message that the design team had to design something and that they started hammering bits and bites from here and there, sweeping the workshop for scraps to make something. And the final result was a poor one, and that's why Conquest was dead in your area as were in any other areas too. But don't say it loud because some member of this forum may attack you!!
Just to point out that in my area, 40K was the "thing". And anything related with it. Several players bought Conquest. I didn't. But I've played it. Only one player, a huge 40K fanboy that has nearly everything 40K related, was still buying expansions for Conquest and telling people to play that game with him. And nobody wanted to play. I even saw people prefering to play High Command instead!! (and this, for me, is a strong proof of how a game can lack interest)

As for expectations, I am one of those. Because as I've said, I wanted to play L5R out of the CCG way of market. I didn't went into L5R as CCG because IMO is not worth the investment. In my area the L5R playerpool is something around 8~12, not that active. So why would I invest money into a CCG model for a game with 8 active players the most? I'd rather spend it on M:TG since I can play any given Sunday in 10+ players events.
But the LCG... well, I could go for that. I've invested so much in AGOT1 to just play with my girlfriend and my friends, but I've played it competitevly too. I was not that invested in AGOT2 and after the first cycle I've quit the game. And AGOT1 was one of my all favs xCG (still needs a game that would makes me feel the way Middle-Earth CCG made).
So I've waited for this day to come, the L5R announcement. And I was a bit afraid to be honest, because the design team had 2 elements from Conquest. And that was a bad sign for me.
And then... well... you prolly know how I felt about it and its changes.

But... you say they kept the essence of L5R. Can you please tell me what's in your opinion the essence of the game?
Because to me the essence was battles for territory, with Honour in the mix. And I think they pretty much screwed that...

As for the last sentence about supporting, I may not do it. I will play it, of course. I will test it. Will I buy it?! About 80% chances don't. The changes don't appeal to me. The way Honour is used with the dial, betting for cards and now betting for duels (as in their AMA thing) feels too gimicky for me. I don't want guessing and betting in my xCG, to that kind of gimmicks I have enough of them in HearthStone with all that randomness. I want my xCGs to be solid and mathy. I dislike "gotcha" moments like SW:LCG or Conquest with discarding cards in the air, or the new Arkham Horror LCG where you don't know what's going to happen everytime you proceed to an action. It's not my kind of thing.
I like games like M:TG where everything is solid and randomness is only given through card shuffling and nothing more. No "outside" elements to break a game. That's why I enjoy LOTR LCG so much and couldn't enjoy AH:LCG... and that's why I will not also enjoy L5R:LCG... way too gimmicky.

That's my initial opinion from what I've saw so far... I may change it for better... or worse... time will tell.

"But... you say they kept the essence of L5R. Can you please tell me what's in your opinion the essence of the game?
Because to me the essence was battles for territory, with Honour in the mix. And I think they pretty much screwed that..."

We still have battles for territory in the form of conflicts at provinces using military and political means. We still have honor as a primary win/loss condition. Honor is tied into many of core game mechanics like card draw, dueling, card abilities, and 1 of the 5 rings. We still have 7 clans with many of our favorite characters and the potential for others again. The setting is very similar with fantasy/mythological Asian influences. That does feel like the essence of L5R to me. But it is a very different game now mechanically. I can understand why that may not appeal to you.

40 minutes ago, oDESGOSTO said:

But... you say they kept the essence of L5R. Can you please tell me what's in your opinion the essence of the game?
Because to me the essence was battles for territory, with Honour in the mix. And I think they pretty much screwed that...

<JJ48 re-reads the previews talking about conflicts taking place at territories, and about how territories will be "broken" (presumably having some detrimental effect on the defender). He also re-reads about how everyone can now participate in some way to honor/dishonor, even if their deck isn't specifically built for that.>

Yeah...I don't really see how including the two elements that you yourself claim are the essence of the game justifies your claims that they've removed the essence of the game...

lol, I don't think reasoning is his strongpoint though. Hanging round forums moaning about a game whose just been slightly previewed seems to be though.

someone with a lot of time on their hands no doubt...

5 hours ago, slowreflex said:

Do you think the game is locked at this stage? Or do you think they still have time to change something if they uncover through feedback that something isn't quite right?

Great question! The game's probably been "locked" for months now, with little tweaks here and there. The lead-time on game design, especially card games with so many different mechanics, is going to be at least six months ahead (and is likely much longer); for comparison, Magic sets are at an almost 2-year lead time!

Playtest groups catch every issue they can; their job is to try to break the game in any way they can think of. That said, it's impossible for playtesters to catch everything - the only real metric for good design is when you release the game to the wilds of players and have thousands of people try to figure out every devious way to win!

My assumption right now is that the bamboo at the bottom of cards is like Influence in Netrunner, which allows you to play a limited amount of cards meant for other factions in your faction. As I've not played the original L5R, I was curious if something like that is in it? I'm personally 50/50 on this mechanic as it opens up a lot more flexibility, but makes it much harder to balance. Netrunner introduced a balancing mechanism to make cards cost more Influence than was printed on their cards (Most Wanted List), which can make things a bit confusing for people (not that much though). Obviously MTG has cross-faction play without limitations and they just ban cards that are an issue.

1 hour ago, oDESGOSTO said:

that's why I will not also enjoy L5R:LCG... way too gimmicky.

2 hours ago, oDESGOSTO said:

But.. this was not the game I was looking for... I was looking for a L5R game, not AGOT Lite in Rokugan ...

1 hour ago, oDESGOSTO said:

That's my initial opinion from what I've saw so far... I may change it for better... or worse... time will tell.

This could have been your entire post.

I feel like the people here on the forums have tried their best to answer your concerns and help you get as excited as we are, but from what you've been saying, you've made up your mind. And that's frustrating. Making up your mind at such an early stage that "this is not the game you were looking for" is fine - but don't try to convince me that it's not going to be fun, or sell well, or isn't well-designed. It's not your cup of tea - and that's fine - but it looks very much like a cup of tea I would enjoy, so please stop trying to convince me (and others) otherwise.

I'm excited for L5R2 and looking forward to it in a way I haven't in years. You don't like it, having made up your mind that it's "AGOT Lite in Rokugan". Dude, that's completely fine. I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong to feel that way.

So please stop trying to tell me and others that we're wrong for being excited. This is cool to us, and not to you - and that's fine. But come on, let me enjoy being excited about a game!

2 minutes ago, slowreflex said:

My assumption right now is that the bamboo at the bottom of cards is like Influence in Netrunner, which allows you to play a limited amount of cards meant for other factions in your faction. As I've not played the original L5R, I was curious if something like that is in it? I'm personally 50/50 on this mechanic as it opens up a lot more flexibility, but makes it much harder to balance. Netrunner introduced a balancing mechanism to make cards cost more Influence than was printed on their cards (Most Wanted List), which can make things a bit confusing for people (not that much though). Obviously MTG has cross-faction play without limitations and they just ban cards that are an issue.

The original game had no limits on your fate deck other only 3 copies per card. Your dynasty deck could include 3 copies of non unique personalities, 1 per unique personality. and out of clans either cost more or could not be brought into play for honor. Normally this was fine but sometimes really strong/broken personalities were in every clan's decks. Kaneka exp 2 was rampant one arc, a ratling shugenja another arc, etc.

It also led to economy problems. lion clan had less gold base on strongholds, so all their people were cheaper usually so other clans had access to them too. Unicorn always had more stronghold gold, and was using out of clans easier as a result too. The new pip system if like the netrunner system should work much better overall.

2 minutes ago, slowreflex said:

My assumption right now is that the bamboo at the bottom of cards is like Influence in Netrunner, which allows you to play a limited amount of cards meant for other factions in your faction. As I've not played the original L5R, I was curious if something like that is in it? I'm personally 50/50 on this mechanic as it opens up a lot more flexibility, but makes it much harder to balance. Netrunner introduced a balancing mechanism to make cards cost more Influence than was printed on their cards (Most Wanted List), which can make things a bit confusing for people (not that much though). Obviously MTG has cross-faction play without limitations and they just ban cards that are an issue.

Original L5R's approach was that you could include personalities from other factions (unless they had the Loyal keyword), but you would have to pay more for them and you couldn't proclaim them to get honor. On the one hand, it was pretty effective for making sure you didn't play a Crab Stronghold but make all your personalities Mantis, or something like that. On the other hand, they had some personalities who benefited from being in other clans for plot reasons, which was great thematically, but often meant these personalities didn't get used because you could find someone within your clan who could do much the same thing without all the extra baggage.

Hopefully FFG's approach, whatever it is, will allow us to mix in some other clans without totally ruining faction loyalty. If this is controlled by the stronghold, that could allow for future strongholds to play with the mechanic a bit. An ultra-loyalist Lion stronghold could allow no cross-clan mixing, but have an ability that helps offset that, while another stronghold could be weaker in some area but allow more cross-faction cards.

5 hours ago, slowreflex said:

How wide do you think their play-test group is? I always wonder why they don't make mass digital play-test groups to ensure they have the most balance. I'm not saying anything is broken, but I just find it weird how they don't do mass testing to ensure everything is working properly.

They play-test everything in-house to keep the game from leaking. Digital play-test groups are actually really card to coordinate for table-top games (in that you essentially have to make a digital copy of the game, which can take valuable resources away from other projects), and can, again, lead to leaks of important game information or assets. Mass-testing isn't usually done in the professional board/card game companies, because it's too hard to keep information confidential and keep up with the fluid nature of game design. Things happen very quickly in game design, and you might have a playtest group that's working on several different iterations of the same card/piece/concept - while replicating that process with multiple playtest groups spread out all over the country (or world) might lead to new discoveries, it also slows things down considerably.

It's very different from bug-testing in the software world - in those instances, you want as many hand/eyeballs hitting as many different aspects of the software to root out every single bug you can before shipping. In the tabletop game world, you simply don't need the redundancy as much (you might be looking at a few hundred game components, but bug-testers are looking through millions of lines of code).

I hope that helps!

12 minutes ago, slowreflex said:

My assumption right now is that the bamboo at the bottom of cards is like Influence in Netrunner, which allows you to play a limited amount of cards meant for other factions in your faction. As I've not played the original L5R, I was curious if something like that is in it? I'm personally 50/50 on this mechanic as it opens up a lot more flexibility, but makes it much harder to balance. Netrunner introduced a balancing mechanism to make cards cost more Influence than was printed on their cards (Most Wanted List), which can make things a bit confusing for people (not that much though). Obviously MTG has cross-faction play without limitations and they just ban cards that are an issue.

My assumption is that the bamboo on the cards is [REDACTED] leading to great interplay with [ALSO REDACTED] and having players win through [SERIOUSLY, THE GAME'S NOT OUT YET] and great use of [WILD SPECULATION BECAUSE WHAT ELSE ARE WE GOING TO DO]. Not to mention the great new [STOP IT] with the [SERIOUSLY] and [THE JOKE'S GETTING OLD]! In other words, I can't wait to see how it [OH, COME ON HIGOKA]!

(This message brought to you by wild speculation. And the letter R.)

One other issue with public or at least widespread playtesting is that some will enter it with less than pure motives. One year at Gen Con I was waiting in line with a playtester for some game who was bragging to his friends how he didn't report issues so he could use OP things he found before they were errataed/banned. Basically using playtesting as a way to forward scout the environment and pick out some choice strategies ahead of the crowd.

Just now, Ryric said:

One other issue with public or at least widespread playtesting is that some will enter it with less than pure motives. One year at Gen Con I was waiting in line with a playtester for some game who was bragging to his friends how he didn't report issues so he could use OP things he found before they were errataed/banned. Basically using playtesting as a way to forward scout the environment and pick out some choice strategies ahead of the crowd.

Two thoughts:

Yikes.

and Yuck.

I'm going to put it out there that whoever that guy was is in the vast minority of playtesters, but my goodness, it only takes one.

59 minutes ago, oDESGOSTO said:

I was curious about this post. Bolds are mine.

First point, you said you have 20 years of CCG under your belt. Cool, me too. But you say Conquest is a very well done game. And that's something I can't understand, honestly.
Have you ever played the WH40K:CCG, by Sabertooth games, or any other WH IP CCG by Sabertooth Games: Dark Millenium, Horus Heresy and WarCry (Fantasy based)?
Because any of those games, well, apart from Horus Heresy that was a neat game but nothing exceptional, were way better games than Conquest.
Also, comparing gaming styles (armies and warlords and such) there was a game that topped all of these games, that was Warlord from AEG.
And yes, I've played them all. I part-time worked in a LGS and Warhammer was something really big in my area, and anything WH related.

Conquest feels like a mix and match of previous LCGs. Have some elements of CoC:LCG (the Planets), have some elements of SW:LCG (the Shields/Hammers/something and discarding cards for them), have some elements of AGOT:LCG (the colored types of wincons in planets), the activation system like SW:LCG again...
For me, having different elements of other games matched into a single one will not make that game looks great, but looks cheap instead. It passes me the message that the design team had to design something and that they started hammering bits and bites from here and there, sweeping the workshop for scraps to make something. And the final result was a poor one, and that's why Conquest was dead in your area as were in any other areas too. But don't say it loud because some member of this forum may attack you!!
Just to point out that in my area, 40K was the "thing". And anything related with it. Several players bought Conquest. I didn't. But I've played it. Only one player, a huge 40K fanboy that has nearly everything 40K related, was still buying expansions for Conquest and telling people to play that game with him. And nobody wanted to play. I even saw people prefering to play High Command instead!! (and this, for me, is a strong proof of how a game can lack interest)

As for expectations, I am one of those. Because as I've said, I wanted to play L5R out of the CCG way of market. I didn't went into L5R as CCG because IMO is not worth the investment. In my area the L5R playerpool is something around 8~12, not that active. So why would I invest money into a CCG model for a game with 8 active players the most? I'd rather spend it on M:TG since I can play any given Sunday in 10+ players events.
But the LCG... well, I could go for that. I've invested so much in AGOT1 to just play with my girlfriend and my friends, but I've played it competitevly too. I was not that invested in AGOT2 and after the first cycle I've quit the game. And AGOT1 was one of my all favs xCG (still needs a game that would makes me feel the way Middle-Earth CCG made).
So I've waited for this day to come, the L5R announcement. And I was a bit afraid to be honest, because the design team had 2 elements from Conquest. And that was a bad sign for me.
And then... well... you prolly know how I felt about it and its changes.

But... you say they kept the essence of L5R. Can you please tell me what's in your opinion the essence of the game?
Because to me the essence was battles for territory, with Honour in the mix. And I think they pretty much screwed that...

As for the last sentence about supporting, I may not do it. I will play it, of course. I will test it. Will I buy it?! About 80% chances don't. The changes don't appeal to me. The way Honour is used with the dial, betting for cards and now betting for duels (as in their AMA thing) feels too gimicky for me. I don't want guessing and betting in my xCG, to that kind of gimmicks I have enough of them in HearthStone with all that randomness. I want my xCGs to be solid and mathy. I dislike "gotcha" moments like SW:LCG or Conquest with discarding cards in the air, or the new Arkham Horror LCG where you don't know what's going to happen everytime you proceed to an action. It's not my kind of thing.
I like games like M:TG where everything is solid and randomness is only given through card shuffling and nothing more. No "outside" elements to break a game. That's why I enjoy LOTR LCG so much and couldn't enjoy AH:LCG... and that's why I will not also enjoy L5R:LCG... way too gimmicky.

That's my initial opinion from what I've saw so far... I may change it for better... or worse... time will tell.

Thank you for your interest in my post. I've probably played most card games, paper or digital, at some point, but, I'm not as familiar with all the Warhammer and 40k based games......as there have been a ton. I did get the chance to push some Man O War, 40k, Necromunda and Bloodbowl minis and roll some dice at Steve Horvath's card store when I was a kid but I never had minis of mine own. I've played a few other Warhammer/40k games (paper and digital) bit bone were so memorable that I could consider them superior to Conquest. Conquest was IMO one of the few games that I enjoyed enough to actually purchase however if I had to pick between that and Warlord, I'd take Warlord too.....but it's a much diferent game and ultimately it also became a complete mess.

I loved Warlord. AEG is responsible for or involved in half of my top 10 favorite card games. All of their card games had distinctly different mechanics and Warlord was one of the few card games to successfully incorporate dice. It added an extra layer of controlable randomness to the game. Honestly I'm a little suprised to see you speak so highly of Warlord when you also say you don't like a bunch of extra randomness. Eventually Warlord got flooded with busted stuff and too many effects which made the dice element somewhat irrelevant, ruining part of what made the game special for me. I tried playing the game when it was reprinted and I enjoyed the reboot but the business model for Warlord 2nd ed. just had no realistic way to maintain the game for the long term.

Many games now share elements from other games. There are only so many things you can do with a piece of cardboard, in an industry with 20+ years of history. Getting a new game that is entirely new is near impossible. I don't mind if mechanics of one game are similar to the next.....as long as it's an improvement and not a complete rip off I'm willing to give most any game a shot.

So far I see FFG working to fix some of the things that plagued L5R in the past. It appears there will be less of an advantage for going first. The currency system being revamped with fate I feel is improved as you have more control over it. It appears that combat will play a bigger role in the reboot, thus promoting more back and forth interaction. The art looks great. The story is back to one of the more memorable periods of the game. I can't really find anything to complain about. I won't know for sure until I see the whole game, but, I like what I see so far.

I hope you end up coming around on it after you see the full game and get a chance to play a few games.

1 minute ago, Ryoshun Higoka said:

Two thoughts:

Yikes.

and Yuck.

I'm going to put it out there that whoever that guy was is in the vast minority of playtesters, but my goodness, it only takes one.

I agree he's in the minority. I've playtested several games and such a despicable strategy never even occurred to me, or anyone else I've played with. I take playtesting duties very seriously.

If some people do not like the current design, they better do not look to future card products of L5R by FFG...

3 minutes ago, Wintersong said:

If some people do not like the current design, they better do not look to future card products of L5R by FFG...

Back to your bridge, troll...

4 minutes ago, Ryoshun Higoka said:

They play-test everything in-house to keep the game from leaking. Digital play-test groups are actually really card to coordinate for table-top games (in that you essentially have to make a digital copy of the game, which can take valuable resources away from other projects), and can, again, lead to leaks of important game information or assets. Mass-testing isn't usually done in the professional board/card game companies, because it's too hard to keep information confidential and keep up with the fluid nature of game design. Things happen very quickly in game design, and you might have a playtest group that's working on several different iterations of the same card/piece/concept - while replicating that process with multiple playtest groups spread out all over the country (or world) might lead to new discoveries, it also slows things down considerably.

It's very different from bug-testing in the software world - in those instances, you want as many hand/eyeballs hitting as many different aspects of the software to root out every single bug you can before shipping. In the tabletop game world, you simply don't need the redundancy as much (you might be looking at a few hundred game components, but bug-testers are looking through millions of lines of code).

I hope that helps!

I think some people underestimate the value of keeping things confidential. They're thinking only in terms of spoilers, and seeing potential leaks as just adding to hype. But it can be problematic for two main reasons that I can see.

1. As others have pointed out, you could have multiple iterations of the game being playtested, especially if one group starts playing the new version right away and another group waits a couple months. This could lead to a lot of misinformation when one leak says that the game is practically identical to the old version and another says that the game is basically "Go Fish" with samurai. Also, sometimes game developers may have a version just to test a specific mechanic, knowing that the other mechanics aren't really polished or finalized. If a playtester doesn't understand this (or just wants to troll), he could make it sound like there are horrible mechanics in the game, just because the design team hasn't really gotten that far yet.

2. Another problem is that the way something is presented can be just as important as what is presented. With a preview like we got, FFG was able to carefully make sure things were presented as they wanted to ensure that people get the correct idea about the game. This doesn't guarantee that everyone will like it, but at least the likes/dislikes will be over the actual game and not a straw-game. Imagine if playtesters a month ago or so had leaked some information, and presented it just as, "In the newer game, you only play a personality for one turn, and players can draw as many cards as they want!" While many would still probably take a wait-and-see attitude, there would also be many who would panic over such a post, if it came from a reputable source.

2 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I think some people underestimate the value of keeping things confidential. They're thinking only in terms of spoilers, and seeing potential leaks as just adding to hype. But it can be problematic for two main reasons that I can see.

1. As others have pointed out, you could have multiple iterations of the game being playtested, especially if one group starts playing the new version right away and another group waits a couple months. This could lead to a lot of misinformation when one leak says that the game is practically identical to the old version and another says that the game is basically "Go Fish" with samurai. Also, sometimes game developers may have a version just to test a specific mechanic, knowing that the other mechanics aren't really polished or finalized. If a playtester doesn't understand this (or just wants to troll), he could make it sound like there are horrible mechanics in the game, just because the design team hasn't really gotten that far yet.

2. Another problem is that the way something is presented can be just as important as what is presented. With a preview like we got, FFG was able to carefully make sure things were presented as they wanted to ensure that people get the correct idea about the game. This doesn't guarantee that everyone will like it, but at least the likes/dislikes will be over the actual game and not a straw-game. Imagine if playtesters a month ago or so had leaked some information, and presented it just as, "In the newer game, you only play a personality for one turn, and players can draw as many cards as they want!" While many would still probably take a wait-and-see attitude, there would also be many who would panic over such a post, if it came from a reputable source.

Very well put. It's a very real concern for designers when incomplete information gets leaked - you can torpedo a game's entire launch cycle with truncated information or game concepts.

54 minutes ago, Ryoshun Higoka said:

This could have been your entire post.

I feel like the people here on the forums have tried their best to answer your concerns and help you get as excited as we are, but from what you've been saying, you've made up your mind. And that's frustrating. Making up your mind at such an early stage that "this is not the game you were looking for" is fine - but don't try to convince me that it's not going to be fun, or sell well, or isn't well-designed. It's not your cup of tea - and that's fine - but it looks very much like a cup of tea I would enjoy, so please stop trying to convince me (and others) otherwise.

I'm excited for L5R2 and looking forward to it in a way I haven't in years. You don't like it, having made up your mind that it's "AGOT Lite in Rokugan". Dude, that's completely fine. I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong to feel that way.

So please stop trying to tell me and others that we're wrong for being excited. This is cool to us, and not to you - and that's fine. But come on, let me enjoy being excited about a game!

So, it's cool to hype the game and say this is the best thing ever... but it ain't cool to say the opposite.
Ok then, I've seen your colors.

Just now, oDESGOSTO said:

So, it's cool to hype the game and say this is the best thing ever... but it ain't cool to say the opposite.
Ok then, I've seen your colors.

Can you show me where I said this is the best game ever? I said I'm excited. You don't have to be.

And remember that ad hominum attacks don't exactly help prove your point. You don't like the game. That's fine. I think I'm going to like the game. Why is that a problem for you?

2 minutes ago, oDESGOSTO said:

So, it's cool to hype the game and say this is the best thing ever... but it ain't cool to say the opposite.
Ok then, I've seen your colors.

Where did anyone claim that it's the best thing ever? We're saying that we're excited about it, but that it's also ok to be disappointed. What people don't like about your postings is that you go beyond just saying you don't like it to saying that the game has failed and isn't even L5R anymore!

33 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

Thank you for your interest in my post. I've probably played most card games, paper or digital, at some point, but, I'm not as familiar with all the Warhammer and 40k based games......as there have been a ton. I did get the chance to push some Man O War, 40k, Necromunda and Bloodbowl minis and roll some dice at Steve Horvath's card store when I was a kid but I never had minis of mine own. I've played a few other Warhammer/40k games (paper and digital) bit bone were so memorable that I could consider them superior to Conquest. Conquest was IMO one of the few games that I enjoyed enough to actually purchase however if I had to pick between that and Warlord, I'd take Warlord too.....but it's a much diferent game and ultimately it also became a complete mess.

I loved Warlord. AEG is responsible for or involved in half of my top 10 favorite card games. All of their card games had distinctly different mechanics and Warlord was one of the few card games to successfully incorporate dice. It added an extra layer of controlable randomness to the game. Honestly I'm a little suprised to see you speak so highly of Warlord when you also say you don't like a bunch of extra randomness. Eventually Warlord got flooded with busted stuff and too many effects which made the dice element somewhat irrelevant, ruining part of what made the game special for me. I tried playing the game when it was reprinted and I enjoyed the reboot but the business model for Warlord 2nd ed. just had no realistic way to maintain the game for the long term.

Many games now share elements from other games. There are only so many things you can do with a piece of cardboard, in an industry with 20+ years of history. Getting a new game that is entirely new is near impossible. I don't mind if mechanics of one game are similar to the next.....as long as it's an improvement and not a complete rip off I'm willing to give most any game a shot.

So far I see FFG working to fix some of the things that plagued L5R in the past. It appears there will be less of an advantage for going first. The currency system being revamped with fate I feel is improved as you have more control over it. It appears that combat will play a bigger role in the reboot, thus promoting more back and forth interaction. The art looks great. The story is back to one of the more memorable periods of the game. I can't really find anything to complain about. I won't know for sure until I see the whole game, but, I like what I see so far.

I hope you end up coming around on it after you see the full game and get a chance to play a few games.

Randomness was present in Warlord, indeed, in the same way it was present in Classic: Netrunner and also in Battletech CCG. As far as C:NR I've played it but was never a fan, dunno why but the game didn't appealed to me back then. But BT CCG was one of my favs and still is.
The reference I've made in Warlord was, regarding its own name, due to the Warlord factor present in Conquest (your deck having a personality that was the centerpiece of the deck) and the R&F system that card game had that could be adopted into any Warhammer game. The D20, well, it was sort of a "like it or not". I didn't like it that much but also didn't disliked it.

As for AEG and also Sabertooth and other companies that ruined card games, like UDE or Cryptozoic, we can't really blame the games but the companies instead.
In AEG catalog I liked the old Doomtown and 7th Sea, pairing along L5R and Warlord. They (AEG) were talking about a Reloaded edition of 7th Sea before the fast fall of Doomtown: Reloaded but I guess now they are not in that boat [pun intended] since they are in full-Thunderstone mode.

But the games designed in the Sabertooth house were indeed good games that were more focused over "army battle" like L5R instead of "character battle" like M:TG or AGOT and any given competitive xCG. Even Warhammer: Invasion, which I've played and still have a deck, didn't felt to me like an "army battle" game. It was not the best design, 'though, that's also why you don't see many of its elements present in later LCGs.
FFG had a great chance of making an "army battle" LCG with Conquest and instead they went into a CoC2-40K-themed game, where the focus of battle was dispersed through the planets and conquering them. I was afraid that they would put this design (Conquest design) in L5R since they lost the IP license of Conquest but still have that game design, and having French and the other dude in this design team... well... made me cringe. But at least they didn't done it.

As I've said, I'll give it time. I disliked the changes so far. I could bear the Honour thingy, I could bear the Rings... what I can't bear is the Fate/Fade mechanic. In the Team Covenant interview one them said to French when he presented the idea "players will hate this mechanic". And yes, once players will start playing this game, and "pro" players (in L5R there aren't many besides Kempy) start abusing the game to see that this was a bad idea. And then FFG will print cards (I expect Holdings) that will put Fate over Personalities to avoid their "death".
And the Conflict system not breaking Provinces (as break in the old L5R lingo = removing the card and its slot)... I honestly suspect this will generate a new kind of turtelling... just my initial thoughts!

And thank you for your coherent reply. It gets difficult to speak openly about issues related with game designs when you are surrounded by yes-men that point you that you still don't know nothing about the game but are hasty enough to tell this is the best thing ever with the exactly same knowledge base.

31 minutes ago, Ryoshun Higoka said:

Can you show me where I said this is the best game ever? I said I'm excited. You don't have to be.

And remember that ad hominum attacks don't exactly help prove your point. You don't like the game. That's fine. I think I'm going to like the game. Why is that a problem for you?

Because if enough people are excited about the game, that means he may be wrong in saying it's the worst ****** game ever? And since he's the most experienced xCG player ever with over 157 years playing all of them, he's so superior that he can't be wrong?