1 minute ago, Ryric said:

I enjoyed the Decipher SWCCG, but wow did it get cumbersome with fiddly little rules there. You could explain the basic game to a newbie in a few minutes, then show them the 40 page tiny print book of exceptional rules that each applied to 1-2 cards.

The Decipher license situation is complicated. As around the time for negotiations, they discovered the embezzlement. Once I learned about the massive embezzlement Decipher had, it makes me look at their decisions post 2000 differently.

1 minute ago, Coyote Walks said:

Rings are gained by cracking provinces. If you can take all Five provinces, You've bloody well won the game.

Rings are gained by winning challenges, breaking provinces happens if you win the challenge by enough.

1 minute ago, oDESGOSTO said:

Try some Scrye mags from 2001, they were the ones that published mostly pieces about Decipher where InQuest published everything related with the WOTC group.

Also, I guess the wikipedia entry mentions that.

Time to dig out the ol' Scryes/Inquests, then!

1 minute ago, Sithborg said:

The Decipher license situation is complicated. As around the time for negotiations, they discovered the embezzlement. Once I learned about the massive embezzlement Decipher had, it makes me look at their decisions post 2000 differently.

*Chuckles* Ay-yup. And a few decisions pre-2000, as well.

Just now, Ryoshun Higoka said:

*Chuckles* Ay-yup. And a few decisions pre-2000, as well.

Considering it was discovered in 2001, not really. It wasn't Warren Holland, but his brother in law, who embezzled from the company.

3 minutes ago, Ryric said:

Well, you can get rings by winning conflicts without having enough "oomph" to break the province.

That's some interesting design space there, as well - capitalizing on "failed" attempts to break a province? Rebuffing victory at the last minute? and so on...

2 minutes ago, Yoritomo Kazuto said:

It seems to me it is a small loud minority that has become openly hostile to the new LCG, even though there is still a substantial amount of information that has yet to be released. FFG seems to have looked at many of the strengths and weaknesses of the old L5R with the intent of making it a faster, sleeker, and more fluid game. It seems to have removed the avalanching of the old game, it looks like the turtleing is gone, honor rockets and honor solitaire is gone, gold screw/flood is gone. So far many of my complaints of the old L5R are seemingly absent while still maintaining a high level of strategic and tactical acumen required for a substantial victory.

Now I will hold final judgement of the game until I play it, but based upon what is currently visible it appears to be a fast paced, tactics based game where every decision you make can swing things in one direction or another. With this in mind it also seems that the chances of developing a fun unique deck built around your strategy will be likely to occur. I hope the game will be as good at it is looking right now, both art wise and game play wise.

I went through a legitimate grieving phase when the game was first acquired. It really helped my outlook to consciously decide to accept that this will be a new game, and to approach it as such. I'm going to let the new incarnation hold or not hold me as its own entity, and not in comparison to my memories of the old game.

The main issue I always had with Decipher is their decision that rare cards should just be better than other cards. It meant you had to chase down multiple rares to be competitive because your deck needed to be about half rares. It also meant sealed deck was likely to be a miserable experience because the player with the best rare pull pretty much won.

Just now, Ryric said:

The main issue I always had with Decipher is their decision that rare cards should just be better than other cards. It meant you had to chase down multiple rares to be competitive because your deck needed to be about half rares. It also meant sealed deck was likely to be a miserable experience because the player with the best rare pull pretty much won.

Well, that was 90's CCG design.

Just now, Sithborg said:

Considering it was discovered in 2001, not really. It wasn't Warren Holland, but his brother in law, who embezzled from the company.

Sorry, I just meant license-wise. And general unsavory business-stuff. The embezzlement was kind of a cherry atop a nasty pie - I remember reading about it and instead of going "wait, what?", my reaction was more of "oh, that too?"

And design teams. There's a lot to question...

Also, about Worlds and the success of Conquest and SW LCG: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2016/11/16/2016-world-championships-recap/

2 minutes ago, Ryric said:

The main issue I always had with Decipher is their decision that rare cards should just be better than other cards. It meant you had to chase down multiple rares to be competitive because your deck needed to be about half rares. It also meant sealed deck was likely to be a miserable experience because the player with the best rare pull pretty much won.

said every TCG and CCG game ever made...

3 minutes ago, Sithborg said:

Considering it was discovered in 2001, not really. It wasn't Warren Holland, but his brother in law, who embezzled from the company.

Although, Eddleman had been VP Finances for Decipher since 1993... and the embezzlement stuff had been going on for a while...

1 minute ago, oDESGOSTO said:

Also, about Worlds and the success of Conquest and SW LCG: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2016/11/16/2016-world-championships-recap/

So, by your metric, Armada is a failure?

1 minute ago, oDESGOSTO said:

Also, about Worlds and the success of Conquest and SW LCG: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2016/11/16/2016-world-championships-recap/

Hey, 990 unique players is nothing to sneeze at! Do we have numbers from previous years for comparison?

Just now, Ryoshun Higoka said:

Hey, 990 unique players is nothing to sneeze at! Do we have numbers from previous years for comparison?

That's about capacity for their game center. Which is why we now have 2 worlds and tournament seasons.

Just now, Ryoshun Higoka said:

Hey, 990 unique players is nothing to sneeze at! Do we have numbers from previous years for comparison?

Have to dig deeper but I've seen numbers from Team Couvenant who made the coverage in 2015.

1 minute ago, Sithborg said:

So, by your metric, Armada is a failure?

Don't know what was the target for Armada, but if the new Runewars miniatures game provides a similar kind of number, I would say it was a flop (Runewars).

Wiki entry for SW CCG Decipher:

At the end of 2001, after much negotiation, Lucasfilm chose not to renew Decipher's license to use the Star Wars intellectual property. The license was granted to Wizards of the Coast, which used it to create their own game, the Star Wars Trading Card Game. Decipher can no longer legally create new expansions to SWCCG; many cards that were in development can never be released to the public.

Just now, Sithborg said:

That's about capacity for their game center. Which is why we now have 2 worlds and tournament seasons.

Not too shabby!

1 minute ago, oDESGOSTO said:

Have to dig deeper but I've seen numbers from Team Couvenant who made the coverage in 2015.

Don't know what was the target for Armada, but if the new Runewars miniatures game provides a similar kind of number, I would say it was a flop (Runewars).

I think you're pulling the trigger a little quickly on "flop". Without internal company numbers we really don't have a good way of making judgements like that.

23 hours 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.

1. 90% of Decks played one or two Rings, at most. Enlightenment Decks were largely non-interactive.

2. Characters disappearing prevents players from attacking with 14 guys and the defender defending with 14 guys. It's too complex and time consuming.

3. You can reload your hand every turn, but there's a price. It's better than relying on Peddler every turn. The growth and strategy mechanics off of this are endless.

4. I haven't played the second iteration of Versus, but L5R CCG had Core mechanical issues. In FFG's version, you can attack first turn with upwards of 4 guys. That instantly ramps up the action, but you do it against an opponent that can not only oppose you, but can strike back immediately. The L5R CCG constantly struggled with game ramping, FFG fixed it.

Also, you didn't like when I would sit there and bow out all of your guys in the Open Phase with Political Actions and Duels. It was non-interactive. Then, you would swing with two guys, I would send your biggest guy home and send my guy home and the rest of the battle would be you try to get your Force over my Province Strength. If you did, I just played Outer Walls without Presence and you bounced. Completely non-interactive. Throw in Cavalry and how Non-interactive their play style was until the final battle and you have enough reasons to change the game to what FFG has created.

I'm going Gen Con, giving them $150 for 3 Cores and if I hate the game, which I doubt, I'll donate my cards to my LGS.

What amazes me is that they had over 52,000 twitch views for the event. If anything this is a great sign for the health of the games involved, because not everyone who plays will watch the twitch stream, but almost everyone who watches the stream plays.

1 minute ago, oDESGOSTO said:

Wiki entry for SW CCG Decipher:

At the end of 2001, after much negotiation, Lucasfilm chose not to renew Decipher's license to use the Star Wars intellectual property. The license was granted to Wizards of the Coast, which used it to create their own game, the Star Wars Trading Card Game. Decipher can no longer legally create new expansions to SWCCG; many cards that were in development can never be released to the public.

Right, I read that. I'm looking for the "denied Decipher the license so they could give it to WotC" language.

Just now, oDESGOSTO said:

Don't know what was the target for Armada, but if the new Runewars miniatures game provides a similar kind of number, I would say it was a flop (Runewars).

There you go, moving goalposts. Your argument is, that DUE TO THE LICENSE, SWLCG is a failure due to not being the biggest LCG game. And look, at Worlds, the Armada playerbase is the smallest there. And it gets even worse when you compare it to X-wing, which by your logic, is the base by which all Star Wars minis games should be judged.

As a player, the only judgement I made is: how many players are out there playing this game?

Based on that answer I'll evaluate if it makes or breaks. A game can be really good, but if there are no players to play it... I'd rather play LOTR solo!

1 minute ago, Ryoshun Higoka said:

Not too shabby!

I think you're pulling the trigger a little quickly on "flop". Without internal company numbers we really don't have a good way of making judgements like that.

2 minutes ago, Daner0023 said:

1. 90% of Decks played one or two Rings, at most. Enlightenment Decks were largely non-interactive.

2. Characters disappearing prevents players from attacking with 14 guys and the defender defending with 14 guys. It's too complex and time consuming.

3. You can reload your hand every turn, but there's a price. It's better than relying on Peddler every turn. The growth and strategy mechanics off of this are endless.

4. I haven't played the second iteration of Versus, but L5R CCG had Core mechanical issues. In FFG's version, you can attack first turn with upwards of 4 guys. That instantly ramps up the action, but you do it against an opponent that can not only oppose you, but can strike back immediately. The L5R CCG constantly struggled with game ramping, FFG fixed it.

Also, you didn't like when I would sit there and bow out all of your guys in the Open Phase with Political Actions and Duels. It was non-interactive. Then, you would swing with two guys, I would send your biggest guy home and send my guy home and the rest of the battle would be you try to get your Force over my Province Strength. If you did, I just played Outer Walls without Presence and you bounced. Completely non-interactive. Throw in Cavalry and how Non-interactive their play style was until the final battle and you have enough reasons to change the game to what FFG has created.

I'm going Gen Con, giving them $150 for 3 Cores and if I hate the game, which I doubt, I'll donate my cards to my LGS.

If you give them $150, aren't you overpaying by $30?