With regard to the Spider - Look, you know better than anyone that Fu Leng/Daigotsu's boys (and girls) are never, ever, EVER, really truly gone.

The Spider Clan's not dead. They're hiding.

And waiting.

1 minute ago, Shikaku said:

Just think, in two to three years, all those neutral minor clan mantis characters they could make could be used in a deck to make a Faux Mantis deck!

I want to see a Minor Clan Alliance stronghold even more than I want Mantis to be a playable faction again. Since "Imperial" seems to be its own tag, I'd imagine a "Minor Clan" tag might exist too, so a stronghold to tie them together would be nice...

Though possibly just a pipe dream, I'm not sure how well it'd work with the design philosophy here.

The neutral icon seems to be a wave, which goes with ronin being known as "wave men."

That unicorn province is nasty if used correctly - surprise! your guy is toast!

1. bidding for cards: FAIL.

i have never seen a cardgame where card draw was not disproportionaly overpowered. lets say we bid. i bid to draw 5 cards, he bids 1. i lose 4 honor he gains 4.

...and then i attack and he gets REKT because I have 7-8 cards and he has 3-4. card advantage is absolute . it will be ok at first, until truly powerful conflict cards come out and handing out card advantage like that means the end . soon, all will bid for full cards. never lower.

2. consequently, honor and dishonor will become rarer and rarer as bidding low will be suicide, being reduced to a form of "switch". the new honor/dishonor will be "political attack decks", their goal the same as military ones; attack provinces.

this game's design has flaws. we'll see if its meta/cards used can be careful enough to fix it.

I'm liking the looks of the game so far! The bidding mechanic looks interesting, as do several of the other changes (though I still need to go about picking a new clan...)

To the people complaining about how different it is, what were you expecting? We got two decks, four provinces, a stronghold, and multiple victory conditions, which is a bit more than I thought would carry over, personally. Was there anyone who was honestly thinking they were just going to release Onyx with a slightly different distribution scheme? As soon as it was announced that they were taking time between the sale and re-release to revamp the game, it should have been expected that differences would exist. Maybe we should actually try the game, or at least wait for the rules, before deciding we don't like it.

As for requiring three sets to get a full playset, how do even know if we need a full playset or not, without seeing which cards have how many copies? Personally, I just plan to buy one copy of the game initially (I'm not really worried about being tournament-competitive), but buying two, or even three, is still much cheaper than buying enough packs to draw a complete set in the CCG, and with much less frustration ("Oh, look! Another of the overpriced, rare personalities that I already have five of, rather than any of the ten rares I actually want from this expansion!")

I kind of get the impression some of the people on here would have found a reason to grouse even if they had just introduced a new expansion to the old game using all the same rules (What? They've had all this time and they didn't even fix <insert mechanic that you think is broken but others like just fine>?)

3 minutes ago, Ryric said:

The neutral icon seems to be a wave, which goes with ronin being known as "wave men."

It's an ensō .

Just now, Kikaze said:

1. bidding for cards: FAIL.

i have never seen a cardgame where card draw was not disproportionaly overpowered. lets say we bid. i bid to draw 5 cards, he bids 1. i lose 4 honor he gains 4.

...and then i attack and he gets REKT because I have 7-8 cards and he has 3-4. card advantage is absolute . it will be ok at first, until truly powerful conflict cards come out and handing out card advantage like that means the end . soon, all will bid for full cards. never lower.

2. consequently, honor and dishonor will become rarer and rarer as bidding low will be suicide, being reduced to a form of "switch". the new honor/dishonor will be "political attack decks", their goal the same as military ones; attack provinces.

this game's design has flaws. we'll see if its meta/cards used can be careful enough to fix it.

It will largely depend on the interplay Honor has with the rest of the game. If Honor has more importance attached to it than "win condition", that will help balance things out.

To the card advantage point - yes, card advantage is the golden metric in games, and it does seem like this iteration of L5R is handing out cards too easily. However, I think the scenario in the press release (bidding 1 against 5) is unlikely - more often, we'll probably be bidding 4-5 or some other close amount... unless there's an additional advantage to low/high honor.

And with so few resources (fate points per turn), that may balance things a bit more as well. We'll have to see.

1 hour ago, judoka13 said:

1. The removal of enlightenment: Removing it as a core win condition is a blow to the flavor of the game. If they make a card to make it an alternate win condition, then that makes enlightenment seem gimmicky rather than something worth striving for.
2. Characters just disappearing makes them less like characters and more like fodder. Why should I feel attached to Matsu Gohei when he only stays for such a short time? Making characters disposable removes any emotional attachment and therefore diminishes Clan attachment. Basically, if I don't care about my Clan or characters why am I playing a game based on a story about them?
3. Bidding on hand size every turn. I can't even begin to tell you how much I hate this concept. Cumbersome, unnecessary, slows the game down, I could go on but why it's terrible.
4. This is the same thing UDE just did with Vs. Take a game that works and screw it up to the point where it's unrecognizable. Why?

To sum up as a player that has played since the beginning (have a Lion Mon tattooed on my arm) i have zero desire to even read your rulebook much less waste my time or money on this. Thanks for destroying my favorite game.

LOL

2 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I'm liking the looks of the game so far! The bidding mechanic looks interesting, as do several of the other changes (though I still need to go about picking a new clan...)

Wait... why? Be the subversive Mantis!

2 minutes ago, BuzzsawMF said:

LOL

I don't even think it was meant ironically.

13 minutes ago, Ryoshun Higoka said:

...have you met Kisada?

Missing the Ancestral Sword of the Hantei.

Just now, Ryoshun Higoka said:

Wait... why? Be the subversive Mantis!

Mantis? This is just a very odd-looking Wasp!

Just now, Kakita Shiro said:

Missing the Ancestral Sword of the Hantei.

*Darn it, it was around here somewhere...*

Just now, JJ48 said:

Mantis? This is just a very odd-looking Wasp!

Bwa-ha-ha!

1 hour ago, judoka13 said:

1. The removal of enlightenment: Removing it as a core win condition is a blow to the flavor of the game. If they make a card to make it an alternate win condition, then that makes enlightenment seem gimmicky rather than something worth striving for.
2. Characters just disappearing makes them less like characters and more like fodder. Why should I feel attached to Matsu Gohei when he only stays for such a short time? Making characters disposable removes any emotional attachment and therefore diminishes Clan attachment. Basically, if I don't care about my Clan or characters why am I playing a game based on a story about them?
3. Bidding on hand size every turn. I can't even begin to tell you how much I hate this concept. Cumbersome, unnecessary, slows the game down, I could go on but why it's terrible.
4. This is the same thing UDE just did with Vs. Take a game that works and screw it up to the point where it's unrecognizable. Why?

To sum up as a player that has played since the beginning ( have a Lion Mon tattooed on my arm) i have zero desire to even read your rulebook much less waste my time or money on this. Thanks for destroying my favorite game.

Do you think you can get a refund on the tattoo as well?

5 minutes ago, Kikaze said:

1. bidding for cards: FAIL.

i have never seen a cardgame where card draw was not disproportionaly overpowered. lets say we bid. i bid to draw 5 cards, he bids 1. i lose 4 honor he gains 4.

...and then i attack and he gets REKT because I have 7-8 cards and he has 3-4. card advantage is absolute . it will be ok at first, until truly powerful conflict cards come out and handing out card advantage like that means the end . soon, all will bid for full cards. never lower.

2. consequently, honor and dishonor will become rarer and rarer as bidding low will be suicide, being reduced to a form of "switch". the new honor/dishonor will be "political attack decks", their goal the same as military ones; attack provinces.

this game's design has flaws. we'll see if its meta/cards used can be careful enough to fix it.

I've played a lot of MTG, and even there card advantage isn't absolute. It's usually the strongest thing you can do, but it is always at odds with your tempo; there's a reason why Deaths Shadow aggro is one of the strongest decks in Modern. Having 4 more cards than your opponent only matters if you can actually leverage those cards. Do you really want to bid 5 when you have 1 fate left and let your opponent tax you for 4 honor almost for free?

I like the art very much. Wish they bring back the experienced system. Feels great to see characters evolve and see their art change as well.

Would be nice, imo, if the fate icon on a personality is tailored to their specific clan. The pink flower looks so 'craney'. lol

...can't wait to experience the game, wish my store can get the core boxes sooner.

6 minutes ago, Builder2 said:

I don't even think it was meant ironically.

I expected some previous L5R folk to have some trouble adapting to a new iteration of their game but the level of trigger in some is beyond my most hilarious dreams. To good to be true.

Also, I know this is the internet and all, but I think some people are jumping to conclusions pretty hard.

1 hour ago, judoka13 said:

1. The removal of enlightenment: Removing it as a core win condition is a blow to the flavor of the game. If they make a card to make it an alternate win condition, then that makes enlightenment seem gimmicky rather than something worth striving for.
2. Characters just disappearing makes them less like characters and more like fodder. Why should I feel attached to Matsu Gohei when he only stays for such a short time? Making characters disposable removes any emotional attachment and therefore diminishes Clan attachment. Basically, if I don't care about my Clan or characters why am I playing a game based on a story about them?
3. Bidding on hand size every turn. I can't even begin to tell you how much I hate this concept. Cumbersome, unnecessary, slows the game down, I could go on but why it's terrible.
4. This is the same thing UDE just did with Vs. Take a game that works and screw it up to the point where it's unrecognizable. Why?

To sum up as a player that has played since the beginning (have a Lion Mon tattooed on my arm) i have zero desire to even read your rulebook much less waste my time or money on this. Thanks for destroying my favorite game.

Aw, don't go away mad. Why toss out a game that's meant so much to you just because it's changed?

1: Agreed. It's changed. It's not necessarily a bad change. Let's see how it feels when we actually play a game.

2: Hey, people die. Life is ephemeral. What matters is how you spend your time here.

3: I think this is going to be the hardest new mechanic to defend until the games have actually been played.

4: UDE is hardly alone - my personal game-company villain was, and always will be, Decipher. Anyway, FFG said they were going to change the whole game right at the outset - and while it's changed, it's still very recognizable. It's a new game in the same world, and that's good enough for me.

...and don't go away mad. New can be scary and change can be hard, but if we dismiss it out of hand, what are we doing?

10 minutes ago, Kikaze said:

1. bidding for cards: FAIL.

i have never seen a cardgame where card draw was not disproportionaly overpowered. lets say we bid. i bid to draw 5 cards, he bids 1. i lose 4 honor he gains 4.

...and then i attack and he gets REKT because I have 7-8 cards and he has 3-4. card advantage is absolute . it will be ok at first, until truly powerful conflict cards come out and handing out card advantage like that means the end . soon, all will bid for full cards. never lower.

2. consequently, honor and dishonor will become rarer and rarer as bidding low will be suicide, being reduced to a form of "switch". the new honor/dishonor will be "political attack decks", their goal the same as military ones; attack provinces.

this game's design has flaws. we'll see if its meta/cards used can be careful enough to fix it.

The old game was dominated by cards of all types that were insanely strong simply because they could draw more cards for you. Card advantage definately is absolute so moving it to a rulebook effect and making the emphasis on player choice is refreshing. If i need cards now i don't have to pray I topdeck my card draw, or cringe as my draw holding is evaporated into dust, or sit there for 5 turns drawing one card a turn to rebuild my fate hand. I think the new mechanic is awesome.

2 minutes ago, GoblinGuide said:

I've played a lot of MTG, and even there card advantage isn't absolute. It's usually the strongest thing you can do, but it is always at odds with your tempo; there's a reason why Deaths Shadow aggro is one of the strongest decks in Modern. Having 4 more cards than your opponent only matters if you can actually leverage those cards. Do you really want to bid 5 when you have 1 fate left and let your opponent tax you for 4 honor almost for free?

Not when you have 1 fate left, but you could for the first 2 turns, get a ton of cards in hand to help you crush provinces if you are not pursuing an honor or dishonor victory and potentially wipe the floor with them as they bid low to try and get to their win conditions before you achieve yours. We've seen some province strength amounts now and can see how Lion can ramp up quickly with little Fate investment... By T3 even if you bid 5 on T1 and T2 you would still have 4 honor left (baring any other losses - ie dishonored characters/ring of air effect - that we know of.) By then you can probably say with the Lions penchant for military might they have probably taken 2 of the 4 total victories they needed... potentially 3 if they get their hands on the right political characters... then where are their opponents? close to winning but not quite there and the Lion with a pretty good looking position, imo.

Just now, chaosvt80 said:

The old game was dominated by cards of all types that were insanely strong simply because they could draw more cards for you. Card advantage definately is absolute so moving it to a rulebook effect and making the emphasis on player choice is refreshing. If i need cards now i don't have to pray I topdeck my card draw, or cringe as my draw holding is evaporated into dust, or sit there for 5 turns drawing one card a turn to rebuild my fate hand. I think the new mechanic is awesome.

"Awesome" is a little strong before a game's been played, but I like it too. It is a significant change, though - remember when Modifications and De Bellis Yoditorum were hugely expensive because of the card advantage in a game starved for it? Now everybody gets to play!

Jim Ward gave an interview years ago in which he talked about Magic, and specifically, why he disliked Counterspell: "It's more fun to let players play their cards". I like that.

1 minute ago, Ryoshun Higoka said:

Aw, don't go away mad. Why toss out a game that's meant so much to you just because it's changed?

1: Agreed. It's changed. It's not necessarily a bad change. Let's see how it feels when we actually play a game.

2: Hey, people die. Life is ephemeral. What matters is how you spend your time here.

3: I think this is going to be the hardest new mechanic to defend until the games have actually been played.

4: UDE is hardly alone - my personal game-company villain was, and always will be, Decipher. Anyway, FFG said they were going to change the whole game right at the outset - and while it's changed, it's still very recognizable. It's a new game in the same world, and that's good enough for me.

...and don't go away mad. New can be scary and change can be hard, but if we dismiss it out of hand, what are we doing?

My 2 cents on the card draw system. I am unsure why people think it is so terrible. The amount you draw depends on the situation and the cards in hand. If I have a deck that relies on having less honor than your opponent, then I am drawing 5 every time. Or maybe you build a deck that is designed on draining your opponent for an honor loss. One would imagine that you would build inherent draw within your deck with effects, so you bid low so your opponent gives you honor. But then you know your opponent's plan, so you play carefully and draw only 2 instead of 5. You have a good board setup and you don't need a fist full of cards. So you counter your opponent.

Really, the draw system just adds depth.

16 minutes ago, Kikaze said:

1. bidding for cards: FAIL.

i have never seen a cardgame where card draw was not disproportionaly overpowered. lets say we bid. i bid to draw 5 cards, he bids 1. i lose 4 honor he gains 4.

...and then i attack and he gets REKT because I have 7-8 cards and he has 3-4. card advantage is absolute . it will be ok at first, until truly powerful conflict cards come out and handing out card advantage like that means the end . soon, all will bid for full cards. never lower.

And if you do this three turns in a row, you lose.

8 minutes ago, Ryoshun Higoka said:

It will largely depend on the interplay Honor has with the rest of the game. If Honor has more importance attached to it than "win condition", that will help balance things out.

To the card advantage point - yes, card advantage is the golden metric in games, and it does seem like this iteration of L5R is handing out cards too easily. However, I think the scenario in the press release (bidding 1 against 5) is unlikely - more often, we'll probably be bidding 4-5 or some other close amount... unless there's an additional advantage to low/high honor.

And with so few resources (fate points per turn), that may balance things a bit more as well. We'll have to see.

Well, I believe at least one of the cards referenced low honor (or did I imagine that?), so I would think there will be some advantages/disadvantages. Also, having few resources could impact things, as you point out. Will I want to draw five cards every turn if I know I'm only going to be able to play one or two of them, and the others are going to put me over my hand limit and force me to discard?

Not to mention, why would the bidding even need to be a massive decision every time anyway? In the AEG game, buying a holding or a personality was often a no-brainer, but when it did matter, it could occasionally be a game-changing choice! Similarly, I expect that many people will establish a pretty good bidding routine that they'll stick with, but when they do mix it up it'll have a potentially massive impact!

1 minute ago, BuzzsawMF said:

My 2 cents on the card draw system. I am unsure why people think it is so terrible. The amount you draw depends on the situation and the cards in hand. If I have a deck that relies on having less honor than your opponent, then I am drawing 5 every time. Or maybe you build a deck that is designed on draining your opponent for an honor loss. One would imagine that you would build inherent draw within your deck with effects, so you bid low so your opponent gives you honor. But then you know your opponent's plan, so you play carefully and draw only 2 instead of 5. You have a good board setup and you don't need a fist full of cards. So you counter your opponent.

Really, the draw system just adds depth.

I think a lot of the knee-jerk reaction might be due to the fact that it's a real, significant departure from "the way things are done". That's my guess, because I had the same initial reaction ("The card-drawing mechanic is WHAT?!?"). After giving it some thought, I've come around to it.