2 minutes ago, Myrion said:

I'd also be all over an MtG 2.0 with no resource screw. Really, everything else, as much as some stuff needs an overhaul, everything else can stay the same, just fix mana and it will never, ever be unseated from the throne of biggest cardgame outside poker.

I agree with your points, having played MTG for over 20 years. As a side note, I've played some games like Force of Will that have a separate deck for "mana". Works pretty well and would love to see this in MTG, but understand it would probably unbalance the game a bit in certain areas.

Yeah, Force of Will really shot itself in the foot thematically and with the art style, though.

To unseat MtG, you'd have to be the better game in almost every aspect and have the multi-theme going so that you can pull in every game group that's currently playing. Convincing lone people isn't gonna cut it, and with the borderline loli, they kept away plenty of people they might've drawn in with the better game design. Quite apart from anime not appealing to many people.

4 minutes ago, slowreflex said:

I agree with your points, having played MTG for over 20 years. As a side note, I've played some games like Force of Will that have a separate deck for "mana". Works pretty well and would love to see this in MTG, but understand it would probably unbalance the game a bit in certain areas.

The current econ system works perfectly well for MTG. Wizards is constantly coming up with ways to fix later draws and "mana screw". The most recent set has a large focus cycling as well as the introduction of the "Embalm" mechanism which is essentially "Flashback" for creature spells.

The problem I've personally found with games like Force of Will that "fix" Magic's econ is that these games still miss what makes Magic good which is a simple play system with fairly easy lines of play to read. Most of the art choices for those games are pretty sub-par for me as well.

56 minutes ago, oDESGOSTO said:

For me and looking how those guys talked about the original L5R proves that they didn't made that "research" into how this game was played, and created this abomination instead.

You not liking a game does not make it an "abomination". You do not get to define if other people like games.

The fact that we don't even have the rules and cards to play the game yet make your whining about the changes even more ludicrous. Unless there's a playtester in the audience, none of us here have held the cards, made a deck, or played a game of the new L5R. Nobody here will know if it's good until we do.

We know you don't like the designers due to your own personal biases. We know you don't like the new rules (less than 5% so far of all total new rules to be, but whatever). None of this makes the game horrible (or good). It does make you look bitter and incoherent.

I watched that Team Covenant interview with the design team. I saw a bunch of guys who recognized the problems of the old rules and set about to update a pretty creaky old game system to a time period more than 20 years ahead of where it was. Meanwhile, you're seeing what you want to to confirm your biases. Good for you. It doesn't make your arguments valid, or even anything anyone else can engage with. You hate it because you hate it. Fine. We can't respond to that beyond shaking our heads and "whatever, man".

In my experience it still doesn't work very well. Well enough for those who are already heavily invested, but not for casual players.

Not all blocks feature heavy cycling, so if your deck was based on one without, and you're not looking to build another deck right now, you're still getting mana screwed. Plus, if you're cycling for land, you're losing tempo and handing your opponent card advantage, which is crucial in MtG.

I agree though, that Magic is (deceptively) simple to begin playing and that's yet another point in its favor. It really does many things right enough to draw you in, past the point where the flaws keep you away

2 minutes ago, Danwarr said:

The current econ system works perfectly well for MTG. Wizards is constantly coming up with ways to fix later draws and "mana screw". The most recent set has a large focus cycling as well as the introduction of the "Embalm" mechanism which is essentially "Flashback" for creature spells.

The problem I've personally found with games like Force of Will that "fix" Magic's econ is that these games still miss what makes Magic good which is a simple play system with fairly easy lines of play to read. Most of the art choices for those games are pretty sub-par for me as well.

Yeah, I agree. I don't think it needs an overhaul. It wouldn't have lasted this long if it did. To be honest, I haven't really kept up with the changes the past couple of years (got wrapped up in X-Wing and Netrunner). I've just been playing Modern using the cards I already have. I didn't get into Force of Will, just played a few games and like that aspect of it. It was certainly missing a spark though.

I am very excited for the new game and so far love what I have seen.

But I must admit it was troubling when they didn't know how many win cons there were.

At the same time, 2/3rds of the designers are new eyes. And the lead designer knows the old game well and so does horvath. We will be fine

1 minute ago, BayushiCroy said:

I am very excited for the new game and so far love what I have seen.

But I must admit it was troubling when they didn't know how many win cons there were.

At the same time, 2/3rds of the designers are new eyes. And the lead designer knows the old game well and so does horvath. We will be fine

I think it's a good mix. Sometimes a set of fresh eyes is just what's needed.

Indeed, and they all seemed genuinely excited for what they've done, while at least keeping the old stuff in mind.

Plus, most of them didn't seem very used to interviews (which I think the AMA also showed) and it's easy to forget stuff like numbers when you're super nervous.

"Oh ****, I think it's four, is it four, wait, might be five? Three is our game, so it's not that, better ask my friend :S"

4 minutes ago, BayushiCroy said:

I am very excited for the new game and so far love what I have seen.

But I must admit it was troubling when they didn't know how many win cons there were.

At the same time, 2/3rds of the designers are new eyes. And the lead designer knows the old game well and so does horvath. We will be fine

He could also just have been wondering if some win cons he remembered were rulebook effects or event induced win cons (so guessing between "4 or more" instead of "4 or less" like some here seem to think).

We don't know why he was hesitant on the subject so it may be a little rude to assume it's just because he doesn't care (not implying you said that BayushiCroy).

5 minutes ago, KerenRhys said:

He could also just have been wondering if some win cons he remembered were rulebook effects or event induced win cons (so guessing between "4 or more" instead of "4 or less" like some here seem to think).

We don't know why he was hesitant on the subject so it may be a little rude to assume it's just because he doesn't care (not implying you said that BayushiCroy).

I don't know them personally, by work, or by name. Which sucks. But the 2 new guys seemed very interested in marrying theme with mechanics. While the lead would be used to keep the game similar to the old

This works out just great for me. Additionally they have a legit story lead, and assuming it's a paid position, I am excited for the focus in all the right places. Especially since she is the one that gave the designers books to read. Again tying back into marrying theme with mechanics.

Which l5r should do as its 2nd greatest strength. 1st being community involvement

I enjoyed the devs' enthusiasm. But I didn't get a sense that they had a great grasp of the old game (which was infamously difficult to pick up, especially concepts like military tempo) because they made some comments about it that didn't really seem correct to me. I also kind of got the impression that they may have been playing with the rules circa Samurai Edition (since they mentioned playing with one of the dev's old decks), which seemed a little strange. Neither of those are really problems, as I think the decision to make a new game had already been made and they were playing the old game just to get some inspiration. But it did make all the discussion of how they had successfully captured the "essence" of the old game seem a little unfounded to me.

Well, that depends on whether the "essence" was more of a theme thing or more of a mechanics thing for you, right?

For theme, they don't need to understand the mechanics perfectly to capture the essence, and I'd say they succeeded well from this PoV.
For mechanics, I think they certainly got the highlights right, but I don't have the long history with the old game to claim that they got everything plus they do want to change it much more mechanically.

Personally, I place much more value on the theme, so I'm perfectly happy so far.

1 minute ago, Myrion said:

Well, that depends on whether the "essence" was more of a theme thing or more of a mechanics thing for you, right?

For theme, they don't need to understand the mechanics perfectly to capture the essence, and I'd say they succeeded well from this PoV.
For mechanics, I think they certainly got the highlights right, but I don't have the long history with the old game to claim that they got everything *plus* they do want to change it much more mechanically.

Personally, I place much more value on the theme, so I'm perfectly happy so far.

I also value theme more. But not by much.

It's also hard for me to remember we still know shockingly little about the game.

14 minutes ago, BayushiCroy said:

I don't know them personally, by work, or by name. Which sucks. But the 2 new guys seemed very interested in marrying theme with mechanics. While the lead would be used to keep the game similar to the old

I believe Nate is probably the lead designer on L5R given his history at FFG designing a number of LCGs, my favorite being LotR:LCG, but especially given his experience with the GoT reboot. Brad was the co-designer on 40k Conquest, and it looks like he learned a lot from that experience based on the AMA. Erik is the only one with explicit experience with L5R, and I believe he did some work on Android Netrunner.

Quote

1st being community involvement

I'm actually interested to see how this goes with the LCG given that the format kind of eliminates some of the reason for clan cohesion I've read and heard about from Old5R. Additionally, I wouldn't put a lot of faith in FFG to maintain the in-game story from tournament results etc with any level of confidence based on how they manage their other products.

4 minutes ago, BayushiCroy said:

I also value theme more. But not by much.

Rules that reflect theme are better than theme that reflects rules. FFG is using a different surface to create those reflections but so far the reflections seem good. While for some the LCG is just a FFG no Oni of shorts, only time will tell. Everything else is passing time waiting for more news.

42 minutes ago, Gaffa said:

I watched that Team Covenant interview with the design team. I saw a bunch of guys who recognized the problems of the old rules and set about to update a pretty creaky old game system to a time period more than 20 years ahead of where it was. Meanwhile, you're seeing what you want to to confirm your biases. Good for you. It doesn't make your arguments valid, or even anything anyone else can engage with. You hate it because you hate it. Fine. We can't respond to that beyond shaking our heads and "whatever, man".

I believe that there is more to it than "they hate it because they do/chose so".
I see quite a few people, some of em which really contribute to the scene and are usually very reasonable people...
But when it comes to such meaningful changes, to their beloved game, they go nuts.

Not to be offensive here, but I do believe that is a result of not being able to approach the topic from a different view, narrow logic, etc.
They do not like the vision of new game, because they have their one and only proper vision in their mind and hearts.

What FFG is preparing for us differs greatly from that sacred cow and that may be the very reason of saltyness towards them and their baby.

That is the reason why I wish all of fans, that they could stay open minded, leave past behind, let L5R CCG rest deep in their hearts, so they will be able to have fun with LCG version.

3 minutes ago, Myrion said:

Well, that depends on whether the "essence" was more of a theme thing or more of a mechanics thing for you, right?

For theme, they don't need to understand the mechanics perfectly to capture the essence, and I'd say they succeeded well from this PoV.
For mechanics, I think they certainly got the highlights right, but I don't have the long history with the old game to claim that they got everything *plus* they do want to change it much more mechanically.

Personally, I place much more value on the theme, so I'm perfectly happy so far.

From the context, it seemed to me that they were primarily referring to mechanics (frantically playing cards back and forth in battles, etc.).

Theme strikes me as separate, deriving first and foremost from the IP. That is, they may have captured the Rokugani theme wonderfully in the LCG (and that'd be great), but that doesn't mean they've drawn from the old game. The primary thematic element they've introduced so far, the Fate system, is completely different from anything in the CCG, after all.

I suppose that's a fair point of view.

I still say that they captured the old game's essence, because to me that was to have mechanics that carry all that wonderful, wonderful flavor.

It just came to my mind but....

Imagine that if you will be able to let it go, and leave your beloved L5R CCG rest, as it has met its fate, then you are ready for upcoming fate mechanic

15 minutes ago, Danwarr said:

Additionally, I wouldn't put a lot of faith in FFG to maintain the in-game story from tournament results etc with any level of confidence based on how they manage their other products.

Well, the only example I know of this (I'm sure there are others) is that the Netrunner World Championship gets to co-design a card. I know, it's a stretch, but they do do something vaguely like what they are talking about...

11 minutes ago, Arkhonai said:

I believe that there is more to it than "they hate it because they do/chose so".
I see quite a few people, some of em which really contribute to the scene and are usually very reasonable people...
But when it comes to such meaningful changes, to their beloved game, they go nuts.

Not to be offensive here, but I do believe that is a result of not being able to approach the topic from a different view, narrow logic, etc.
They do not like the vision of new game, because they have their one and only proper vision in their mind and hearts.

What FFG is preparing for us differs greatly from that sacred cow and that may be the very reason of saltyness towards them and their baby.

That is the reason why I wish all of fans, that they could stay open minded, leave past behind, let L5R CCG rest deep in their hearts, so they will be able to have fun with LCG version.

I completely agree. Once people (if they can) let go of the old history, this will be far more fun for them. I really believe there will be many, many people who will grumpy-old-men about how "this ain't muh rokoogAn" and besmirch the game simply because it's different.

For me, I'd love it if the story was so completely different it was unrecognizable to the old game. We did that story. I want a new game with new players and a new story with them.

2 minutes ago, slowreflex said:

Well, the only example I know of this (I'm sure there are others) is that the Netrunner World Championship gets to co-design a card. I know, it's a stretch, but they do do something vaguely like what they are talking about...

They do, but they are very very slow about it. From what I understand about Old5R, AEG was very responsive to the community. FFG is not.

I'm not making a big deal of Nate French not being up on all the victory conditions in the video, because it's not like L5R is the only game he has to be thinking about.

As Nate said, he really didn't play the game until he was assigned to work on it. That was 2-3 years ago. At that time Nate was just finishing working on his huge project of rebooting FFG's flagship LCG, Game of Thrones, a game he's still in charge of. Plus he was working on developing and producing what would turn out to be the new smash hit of the Arkham Horror LCG, a game he's still in co-charge of. Plus he's still working on Lord of the Rings. Plus he's probably also helping out on other games behind the scenes, as FFG loves to have their designers cross-pollinate teams for experience and fun.

So not having the knowledge of how many victory conditions on hand in an interview on a game he was developing at the same time as at least two other major games of his career doesn't seem weird to me. He never played the old game until it was his job to. He seemed passionate and engaged about working on the game. Unlike in a live interview, it's not like he couldn't and wouldn't look up in the old rules if he really had a question on how many old victory conditions there were when working on the new game.

36 minutes ago, BayushiCroy said:

They have a legit story lead, and assuming it's a paid position, I am excited for the focus in all the right places. Especially since she is the one that gave the designers books to read. Again tying back into marrying theme with mechanics.

Cherry blossoms and mono no aware are an ingenious addition. Now that I've seen it, I can't un-see it. ❤