38 minutes ago, Ryoshun Higoka said:

So, let's broach a topic that has absolutely no disagreement whatsoever... what's everybody think about the new Fate system?

My first reaction was honestly negative; building up a character or an army or a stronghold or whatever is a fun part of a lot of games. This Fate system means that it looks like we won't get to have that kind of fun in L5R 2.

That being said, reading a lot of the discussion on the board has got me to thinking about the ways that the mechanic is interesting. There are a lot of things it does for game flow; now, you can do stuff from turn 1. And because the board state is transient, it could mean that there is more chance for come backs even after a few encounters go poorly for you. Since cards are fading out of play anyway, you are not getting too far behind your opponent. It may help prevent the situation where a game's result is already basically decided early on but the two players have to play it out anyway. (The changes to province breaking also help with this, too.)

So while I'm not sure I like the idea of the mechanic per se (and that is probably due to L5R 1 nostalgia baggage, I will admit) I am looking forward to trying out this fate mechanic and seeing how it plays.

1 minute ago, Matrim said:

the fate system allows them to reduce the cost of uniques so I don't expect any high cost characters.

I don't know - if you're going to create a cost system, you need to use all of the design space it offers. I'd love to see a 14-cost Oni no Akuma hit the board for ridiculous province-chewing.

1 minute ago, Matrim said:

the fate system allows them to reduce the cost of uniques so I don't expect any high cost characters.

There also doesn't seem to be much, if any, meaningful ramp to economy, which means that costs will have to have a practical limit unless there is something we don't know yet.

Meh, non-0 cost Akuma are poseurs.

Just now, Kiseki said:

There also doesn't seem to be much, if any, meaningful ramp to economy, which means that costs will have to have a practical limit unless there is something we don't know yet.

Well, you do get to keep your unused Fate until next turn, so you could have 15 Fate come turn 2 for both of the Strongholds we've seen so far.

1 minute ago, Suzume Tomonori said:

My first reaction was honestly negative; building up a character or an army or a stronghold or whatever is a fun part of a lot of games. This Fate system means that it looks like we won't get to have that kind of fun in L5R 2.

That being said, reading a lot of the discussion on the board has got me to thinking about the ways that the mechanic is interesting. There are a lot of things it does for game flow; now, you can do stuff from turn 1. And because the board state is transient, it could mean that there is more chance for come backs even after a few encounters go poorly for you. Since cards are fading out of play anyway, you are not getting too far behind your opponent. It may help prevent the situation where a game's result is already basically decided early on but the two players have to play it out anyway. (The changes to province breaking also help with this, too.)

So while I'm not sure I like the idea of the mechanic per se (and that is probably due to L5R 1 nostalgia baggage, I will admit) I am looking forward to trying out this fate mechanic and seeing how it plays.

My first reaction was not very thrilled, either. But the potential for comebacks (and I definitely had to check some nostalgia baggage in the overhead bin) and the fluid board-state concepts are making me very interested.

"There's a lot we don't know yet"!

Just now, Himoto said:

Meh, non-0 cost Akuma are poseurs.

I literally want Akuma to mirror his past incarnation when he's printed. (Adjusted for different mechanics, of course).

I expect to see some people at least try the strategy of brining out nothing on turn one, letting their opponent have their way with province that turn, then having a turn two of epic proportions for a big swing back.

For example, you draw conflict cards after buying dynasty - do you start with an opening hand? We don't know. It makes a big difference if I know what I want to spend fate on in my hand before I spend it on peeps.

3 minutes ago, Ryric said:

I don't know about Windows, but SimCity and Age of Empires II had their own ccgs.

My friend who plays Crab has some tokens that have the clan mon embedded in them.

Again, he's not kidding.

I have some Crab tokens too, but those were made by a third party.

3 minutes ago, Ryric said:

I don't know about Windows, but SimCity and Age of Empires II had their own ccgs.

My friend who plays Crab has some tokens that have the clan mon embedded in them.

A couple years ago, I was seriously working on a SQL Database card game, though it would have been stand-alone rather than a CCG. XD

Man, I may need to drag that out again and continue!

1 minute ago, Tonbo Karasu said:

Well, you do get to keep your unused Fate until next turn, so you could have 15 Fate come turn 2 for both of the Strongholds we've seen so far.

True, I honestly hadn't thought of that.

5 minutes ago, Himoto said:

Meh, non-0 cost Akuma are poseurs.

Sitting in internet cafes, sipping lattes, talking loudly about their "book, well, more of a concept, really... you probably wouldn't get it". I hear you, man.

The only 0-cost I really want to see is Toku! Come on, you can't have a Clan War-era game without our boy!

4 minutes ago, Tonbo Karasu said:

Well, you do get to keep your unused Fate until next turn, so you could have 15 Fate come turn 2 for both of the Strongholds we've seen so far.

You would be only 1 Fate over your opponent and they might close that gap if they finish first on turn 2.

1 minute ago, Ryoshun Higoka said:

The only 0-cost I really want to see is Toku! Come on, you can't have a Clan War-era game without our boy!

Akuma needs its food, indeed.

2 minutes ago, Ryric said:

I expect to see some people at least try the strategy of brining out nothing on turn one, letting their opponent have their way with province that turn, then having a turn two of Epic Proportions for a big swing back.

For example, you draw conflict cards after buying dynasty - do you start with an opening hand? We don't know. It makes a big difference if I know what I want to spend fate on in my hand before I spend it on peeps.

I think there are a number of problems with doing nothing on turn 1.

1. You are limited to two attacks per turn meaning that you can only really break two Provinces a turn.

2. You can only muster 4 Dynasty cards per turn. Obviously this doesn't mean you are limited to 4 characters per turn as some can come out of your Conflict deck, but that requires digging in your Conflict deck which is sure to be a mix of attachments, events, as well as characters.

3. From the Province cards we've seen, some of the break values are rather large and they have some pretty back-breaking effects. Because those aren't flipped up until invaded, going all in on an unknown Province could just wreck you or end up being not the result you were looking for. Additionally, because some of the break values are so high your opponent simply has to "not lose" by committing minimal resources as there is no character loss.

In any case I'm interested to see how all of this plays out.

2 minutes ago, Wintersong said:

Akuma needs its food, indeed.

I mean, yes, that happened a lot too.

4 minutes ago, Ultimatecalibur said:

You would be only 1 Fate over your opponent and they might close that gap if they finish first on turn 2.

But it's the decision-making that leads to that moment that creates interesting design space.

9 minutes ago, Ryric said:

I expect to see some people at least try the strategy of brining out nothing on turn one, letting their opponent have their way with province that turn, then having a turn two of epic proportions for a big swing back.

For example, you draw conflict cards after buying dynasty - do you start with an opening hand? We don't know. It makes a big difference if I know what I want to spend fate on in my hand before I spend it on peeps.

I disagree. I think a small people flood and purposefully ineffective attacks on turn one would provide the necessary recon so that wiser investments can be made later. I mean, wouldn't you like to know where that Unicorn province that discards people is before you commit a 3 fate manbeast to blind face-check it?

21 minutes ago, Ryoshun Higoka said:

But it's the decision-making that leads to that moment that creates interesting design space.

My intent was to point was that skipping a turn for economic advantage doesn't create a large economic gap the same way a failed turn 2 blitz would in oldL5R.

1 hour ago, oDESGOSTO said:

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.

I can't claim to have a vast teaching knowledge of the Warhammer 40k universe. I've only played the minatures game a handful of times, but, I'm of the opinion that it simply can't be captured in full by a card game unless it's so complex it's essentially replacing the figures with cards and then what would be the point. Some of the past 40k card games tried to hard and while I'm sure there may have been a card game in the past that did a better job of capturing the 40k vibe than Conquest, I never came across any that I could actually enjoy playing. But everyone is going to have different opinions on what is enjoyable about the card game.

For example I like the change to the fate system for currency. As good a L5R was the gold schemes could be really problematic at times and had a very big impact on deck design. Its pretty frustrating to want to play a certain style of deck only to find out your clan doesn't have a hold scheme to support it. Over time this was mostly fixed but I always felt it was somewhat of a detractor to the game. As much a I love L5R I'm not blind to the fact that it had its flaws.

By changing to the fate system it would seem you have more control over the state of your economy. You get X fate per turn and keep what you don't use to play other cards or carry over to the next turn. As opposed to hoping to see those guys you want after you've met your honor requirements and have enough hold to but them.....because if the cards don't flip the way you want them you can be dead before you ever see a guy.

Characters not sticking around is understandably a tough sell. The game has enough of an established story and fan base that there are people who are atached to these characters and want to see them stick around. I totally get that.....but you will have control of that by being able invest more fate in that character to keep them around longer. If anything I feel like this would get people more invested in that personality they like because they are literally investing more into them. It would track that someone willing to do that would build the rest of their deck around that idea to make sure their investment isn't wasted. As opposed to just finding characters to fit into a gold scheme.

I could be wrong but to me that's what I see happening. "Oh man did you see the guy who dumped all his fate on Toturi and was going to win the next turn but his opponent swapped rings at their battle and stole the ring of void to remove his last fate token and kill him....." that sounds like a game I want to play.

5 minutes ago, Iuchi Toshimo said:

I disagree. I think a small people flood and purposefully ineffective attacks on turn one would provide the necessary recon so that wiser investments can be made later. I mean, wouldn't you like to know where that Unicorn province that discards people is before you commit a 3 fate manbeast to blind face-check it?

Again, layers upon layers. The decision tree looks like (with the limited info we have) a very complex, but still accessible, one. Throwing away a few bits of fodder to find out what your opponent's provinces contain is a valid tactic - and again, as jj48 pointed out, it's more about tactics and strategy in-game than in deck building.

1 minute ago, Ultimatecalibur said:

My intent was to point was that skipping a turn for economic advantage doesn't create a large economic gap the same way a failed turn 2 blitz would.

I'm with you! However, as Toshimo pointed out, a failed blitz still gets you information in a game where hidden information is part of the design. Either way you choose to play, it looks interesting!

1 hour ago, Ryoshun Higoka said:

Hm. A little layer of extra complexity. And a little gamble. Classic carrot-and-stick design. Will you be passing, risking the end of the phase, or stick to your plan and turn down an extra Fate? Reminds me of Courtesy, a little.

I think this design is mostly due to Brad Andres from Conquest. In Conquest, a lot of people tried to stall their deployment by doing other actions, so that they could see what their opponent planned to do first. This at least incentivises people to actually get stuff done.

Just now, Ryoshun Higoka said:

I'm with you! However, as Toshimo pointed out, a failed blitz still gets you information in a game where hidden information is part of the design. Either way you choose to play, it looks interesting!

True. A big point I'm seeing is that FFG has set things up so that gap in player purchasing power naturally stays in a smaller range. In a 6 turn game the most you can be is 6 Fate over during the final conflict phase and more often than not its going to be closer to a 1 to 2 gap at most.

2 minutes ago, Ishi Tonu said:

I can't claim to have a vast teaching knowledge of the Warhammer 40k universe. I've only played the minatures game a handful of times, but, I'm of the opinion that it simply can't be captured in full by a card game unless it's so complex it's essentially replacing the figures with cards and then what would be the point. Some of the past 40k card games tried to hard and while I'm sure there may have been a card game in the past that did a better job of capturing the 40k vibe than Conquest, I never came across any that I could actually enjoy playing. But everyone is going to have different opinions on what is enjoyable about the card game.

For example I like the change to the fate system for currency. As good a L5R was the gold schemes could be really problematic at times and had a very big impact on deck design. Its pretty frustrating to want to play a certain style of deck only to find out your clan doesn't have a hold scheme to support it. Over time this was mostly fixed but I always felt it was somewhat of a detractor to the game. As much a I love L5R I'm not blind to the fact that it had its flaws.

By changing to the fate system it would seem you have more control over the state of your economy. You get X fate per turn and keep what you don't use to play other cards or carry over to the next turn. As opposed to hoping to see those guys you want after you've met your honor requirements and have enough hold to but them.....because if the cards don't flip the way you want them you can be dead before you ever see a guy.

Characters not sticking around is understandably a tough sell. The game has enough of an established story and fan base that there are people who are atached to these characters and want to see them stick around. I totally get that.....but you will have control of that by being able invest more fate in that character to keep them around longer. If anything I feel like this would get people more invested in that personality they like because they are literally investing more into them. It would track that someone willing to do that would build the rest of their deck around that idea to make sure their investment isn't wasted. As opposed to just finding characters to fit into a gold scheme.

I could be wrong but to me that's what I see happening. "Oh man did you see the guy who dumped all his fate on Toturi and was going to win the next turn but his opponent swapped rings at their battle and stole the ring of void to remove his last fate token and kill him....." that sounds like a game I want to play.

The Sabretooth CCG he referenced before was a pretty good attempt at making the miniatures into cards. And it was fun! (And then Sabretooth got reabsorbed, dissolved, and poof went the game, along with a really neat LotR miniatures game).

Replacing currency with Fate - there's a Magic variant called "Speedchoice" that I love to play. At the beginning of the game, you get 5 mana in your mana pool of any combination of colors you like. Unspent mana stays in your pool from turn to turn. During your draw phase, you fill your hand to seven cards. Your deck must be 40 or more cards, with no more than 2 rares and 6 uncommons. Everything else is the same. It's fast and requires building a very different deck than a regular magic game, and it feels somewhat similar to this new L5R concept. There's no gold shortage. There's no gold glut. Everyone gets the same amount of "bring-into-play" resources - it all comes down to how you choose to spend them.

As for the cycling of characters, I like your point of investiture. It'll be up to you how long your favorite mook stays around, and that's a neat idea.

And your story at the end... those are the games of L5R that I love, past and (hopefully) future!