12 minutes ago, Ser Nakata said:

but there are quite a few of us who will just find it awesome.

Awesome, indeed. And that is what really matters.

Those who prefer L5R Classic can play it as long as they have opponents and those who prefer L5R New can play it as long as they have opponents.

There's a fair few of us that plan to do both

If there is one thing that has held true about CCG's is that they rarely truely ever die. There are plenty of people for example still playing Game of Thrones LCG 1st edition, as there are people who will continue to play Lot5R after the new LCG is released.

My problem is always with people who come from old editions and demand that the new game be created in the old games image aka "like the old game" or adhere to some sacred cows that must be in the game or they proclaim its doom. My issue isn't so much with the forum discussions about the topic, but how it actually impacts and often hurts the game to do that sort of thing, not just the old one but the new one as well.

A good example of how destructive this sort of attitude can be is to have a look at D&D's history leading up to the 5th. Edition. After 3rd edition, when 4th edition was released it was all out war on the new edition, to the point that not only did they ensure the premature death of 4th edition, but they severly damaged D&D in general and it effectively forced Wizards of the Coast to turn back the clock and create 5th edition which is kind of a compromise. It was by sheer luck that 5th edition turned out good (by some opinions, mine included) because there was a lot of hate directed at the game and at the company making it.

Nothing good comes out of fighting the enevitable and especially in the case of Legend of the Rings, what is about to happen, the release of this new version of the game is no longer a topic of discussion. It IS happening and you can either embrace or not, but trying to derail it and hurt it through negativity and this propogation of the old game which was well on its way to an imminant defuncing due to a complete lack of interest from gamers does little more than damage the IP.

39 minutes ago, BigKahuna said:

If there is one thing that has held true about CCG's is that they rarely truely ever die. There are plenty of people for example still playing Game of Thrones LCG 1st edition, as there are people who will continue to play Lot5R after the new LCG is released.

My problem is always with people who come from old editions and demand that the new game be created in the old games image aka "like the old game" or adhere to some sacred cows that must be in the game or they proclaim its doom. My issue isn't so much with the forum discussions about the topic, but how it actually impacts and often hurts the game to do that sort of thing, not just the old one but the new one as well.

A good example of how destructive this sort of attitude can be is to have a look at D&D's history leading up to the 5th. Edition. After 3rd edition, when 4th edition was released it was all out war on the new edition, to the point that not only did they ensure the premature death of 4th edition, but they severly damaged D&D in general and it effectively forced Wizards of the Coast to turn back the clock and create 5th edition which is kind of a compromise. It was by sheer luck that 5th edition turned out good (by some opinions, mine included) because there was a lot of hate directed at the game and at the company making it.

Nothing good comes out of fighting the enevitable and especially in the case of Legend of the Rings, what is about to happen, the release of this new version of the game is no longer a topic of discussion. It IS happening and you can either embrace or not, but trying to derail it and hurt it through negativity and this propogation of the old game which was well on its way to an imminant defuncing due to a complete lack of interest from gamers does little more than damage the IP.

Was 5E really "sheer luck", though? It appeared to me more of an intentional response to the positive and negative feedback of the previous two (3E has a lot of depth and variety, but weapon-based classes don't ever do anything except swing their weapons and some of the magic gets too complex! 4E has actions for everybody, but many of the classes just feel too similar and the world doesn't feel dangerous enough!) I know there was more to the discussion than that, but I kind of got the impression 5E was a result of listening to what people liked and disliked about both editions and trying to strike a balance that would satisfy the majority of people. If it was luck, they sure had a lot of it!

1 hour ago, BigKahuna said:

Nothing good comes out of fighting the enevitable and especially in the case of Legend of the Rings, what is about to happen, the release of this new version of the game is no longer a topic of discussion. It IS happening and you can either embrace or not, but trying to derail it and hurt it through negativity and this propogation of the old game which was well on its way to an imminant defuncing due to a complete lack of interest from gamers does little more than damage the IP.

While I don't agree with everything said, I feel like this last part is my most salient concern as well. This game is coming. Having a bunch of people online being detractors can only potentially hurt the game. That either leads to the game prospering despite losing some players of the older game or dying a slow death as negativity overtakes the community. In the latter case, can L5R survive without a company supporting it? Maybe FFG would sell the IP but who would buy it if it becomes so unprofitable? Or, in the pipe dream of the naysayers, the game may get a 2E like GoT did that completely returns it to the older edition. But, that probably won't be for at least several years and the IP and community would have already suffered a terrible beating.

Either way, I am optimistic about the game. I never got into the original CCG despite being a huge fan of the RPG because there wasn't a local presence, I disliked the distribution format, and the gameplay was very complicated in a way that I found discouraging to those that I tried to teach the game. This new edition has already gotten a few locals interested (with the 3 core sets needed being the only grumble). It's a chance to embrace the new game and start fresh for those of us who struggled with the previous edition.

4 minutes ago, gistrationp said:

[lot of text]

If this game is really good, there's no any doomsayer around able to stop it growing.

But if it's not...

6 minutes ago, gistrationp said:

While I don't agree with everything said, I feel like this last part is my most salient concern as well. This game is coming. Having a bunch of people online being detractors can only potentially hurt the game. That either leads to the game prospering despite losing some players of the older game or dying a slow death as negativity overtakes the community. In the latter case, can L5R survive without a company supporting it? Maybe FFG would sell the IP but who would buy it if it becomes so unprofitable? Or, in the pipe dream of the naysayers, the game may get a 2E like GoT did that completely returns it to the older edition. But, that probably won't be for at least several years and the IP and community would have already suffered a terrible beating.

Either way, I am optimistic about the game. I never got into the original CCG despite being a huge fan of the RPG because there wasn't a local presence, I disliked the distribution format, and the gameplay was very complicated in a way that I found discouraging to those that I tried to teach the game. This new edition has already gotten a few locals interested (with the 3 core sets needed being the only grumble). It's a chance to embrace the new game and start fresh for those of us who struggled with the previous edition.

I don't think there's much cause to worry about detractors. There are really only a handful of people who are predicting outright failure, and while some people may be a little skeptical about a mechanic or two, the overwhelming majority seem to be cautiously optimistic. It's still possible that the game could be poorly received if it fails to deliver, but I don't think there's much chance of it being condemned before it even gets a trial.

I'd expect most of the old school fans to either come around and give it a shot or decide that it's not for them and move on fairly soon. I'm definitely in the first camp, but I know that if I hate it I'd just stop posting and find a new hobby (or play the old version online with like minded folks).

2 hours ago, JJ48 said:

Was 5E really "sheer luck", though? It appeared to me more of an intentional response to the positive and negative feedback of the previous two (3E has a lot of depth and variety, but weapon-based classes don't ever do anything except swing their weapons and some of the magic gets too complex! 4E has actions for everybody, but many of the classes just feel too similar and the world doesn't feel dangerous enough!) I know there was more to the discussion than that, but I kind of got the impression 5E was a result of listening to what people liked and disliked about both editions and trying to strike a balance that would satisfy the majority of people. If it was luck, they sure had a lot of it!

I think your misreading what I meant by luck, I wasn't suggesting that there wasn't a lot of work and effort made in creating 5e, but the lucky aspect of it was that the community didn't destroy their efforts to that. The absolute most hostile and turbulent time for D&D and Wizards of the Coast was during the development of 5e. The fact that they where actually able to get the community to put down their burning crosses and even give 5e a try was nothing short of a miracle given how divided and outraged the community was.

The point is that it wasn't fans of D&D that were creating opportunities, but the anti-fans holding on to the past that created all the hurdles and made it nearly impossible to have a positive discussion about the game without a whole lot of angry people crapping all over it. Its really bad for communities.

2 hours ago, Kiseki said:

I'd expect most of the old school fans to either come around and give it a shot or decide that it's not for them and move on fairly soon. I'm definitely in the first camp, but I know that if I hate it I'd just stop posting and find a new hobby (or play the old version online with like minded folks).

Have similiar feeling, but i'm not giving up because of alternative plan:

On 4/25/2017 at 8:28 AM, BigKahuna said:

If there is one thing that has held true about CCG's is that they rarely truely ever die. There are plenty of people for example still playing Game of Thrones LCG 1st edition, as there are people who will continue to play Lot5R after the new LCG is released.

My problem is always with people who come from old editions and demand that the new game be created in the old games image aka "like the old game" or adhere to some sacred cows that must be in the game or they proclaim its doom. My issue isn't so much with the forum discussions about the topic, but how it actually impacts and often hurts the game to do that sort of thing, not just the old one but the new one as well.

A good example of how destructive this sort of attitude can be is to have a look at D&D's history leading up to the 5th. Edition. After 3rd edition, when 4th edition was released it was all out war on the new edition, to the point that not only did they ensure the premature death of 4th edition, but they severly damaged D&D in general and it effectively forced Wizards of the Coast to turn back the clock and create 5th edition which is kind of a compromise. It was by sheer luck that 5th edition turned out good (by some opinions, mine included) because there was a lot of hate directed at the game and at the company making it.

Nothing good comes out of fighting the enevitable and especially in the case of Legend of the Rings, what is about to happen, the release of this new version of the game is no longer a topic of discussion. It IS happening and you can either embrace or not, but trying to derail it and hurt it through negativity and this propogation of the old game which was well on its way to an imminant defuncing due to a complete lack of interest from gamers does little more than damage the IP.

I would not say that 4th ED is a good parallel to L5R ccg vs L5R lcg. This was more of Wizards fault then people trying to deep six the game. 3rd ed went through the same thing with the 2nd ed players but managed to become one of the best selling ed that Wizards ever put out because it added to the game and fix a lot of issues that most if not all player found in 2nd. Having played 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th beta tester. 4th was a cluster .....k. they tried to get MMO gamers to play a pen & paper game by designing a module system into the character creation. This had been tried before with the Everquest and WOW d20 games and failed, so not sure what they where thinking.

The problems were that:

1. Most of the classes didn't work

2. There were a large amount of options but you could not use them or your group would suffer.

3. There was little to no testing so some class combs where way broken(see Horizon Walker, Battle Captain, etc.)

4. Book overload, They tried to put out to many books to fast. Unlike card gamers, Role players tend to not want to buy a book every month.

5. Releasing core books in multiple parts. When you play a game you want to have all the core rules in one or two books not spreed out over 6+ books.

5th is better but , has to compete with pathfinder and all the d20 produces out there from the OGL I just have an issues with them ignoring most of the responses of the beta testers.

Now on to L5R LCG. I will be truthful here. I have not played the L5R ccg in years (Switched to the RPG) but, seeing what they have done to the game. I think that they have fixed most of the issues I had with the game when I played. Will it bring me back No.

1 hour ago, tenchi2a said:

I would not say that 4th ED is a good parallel to L5R ccg vs L5R lcg. This was more of Wizards fault then people trying to deep six the game. 3rd ed went through the same thing with the 2nd ed players but managed to become one of the best selling ed that Wizards ever put out because it added to the game and fix a lot of issues that most if not all player found in 2nd. Having played 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th beta tester. 4th was a cluster .....k. they tried to get MMO gamers to play a pen & paper game by designing a module system into the character creation. This had been tried before with the Everquest and WOW d20 games and failed, so not sure what they where thinking.

The problems were that:

Odd. None of those problems were seen by any of the professional game designers I know and play with in 4th Edition. Indeed, 4th Edition D&D is largely considered the single most mechanically tight and sound edition of any of the D&Ds. It ran smoothly, powerfully, and did exactly what it promised to do. And it sold quite well (well enough they delayed 5th for a few years to continue prodding 4th along for a while).

I'm happy with the retro 2nd feel of 5th Edition D&D, but 4th is still the best version of the game so far for pure playability.

8 minutes ago, Gaffa said:

I'm happy with the retro 2nd feel of 5th Edition D&D, but 4th is still the best version of the game so far for pure playability.

I think that is fair for a certain type of gamer, most rpg`ers I know did not like the hit and bash of 4E.... 5E went back to the roots of 2nd Ed, but kept some of the better elements of 3/4th. 3E has been overtaken by Pathfinder. The sad thing for 4E players is their is no real support.

Well I think the main take away and kind of the point I was trying to make wasn't so much about the quality of any edition, that's basically a matter of personal taste, but more about community perception and reception of the editions. Its one thing to like or dislike something, its another to make it your mission in life to sabotage anything you don't like and that's really what the D&D community was doing. Wether 4th edition was loved or hated and wether that was a majority or minority of the community really didn't matter, what mattered was that the people disliked it where so vocal they become a constant headache for the community as no matter what the topic of discussion was, fans weren't allowed to have it without constant negative interjection. More than that it was incredibly hostile towards the community, if you just went out on a limb and claimed you liked 4th edition you were persecuted and cursed. It was very ugly and it was all very pointless and meaningless since 4th edition was released, it was the current edition and no one could do or say anything to change that. Instead of just leaving it be and allowing fans of the game to enjoy and discuss it, people had to instead deal with constant insults and commentary from the people who hated the game.

Its these people that I have a beef with, no so much there opinion. The truth of the matter is, unless your a fan, no one is interested in your comments. Its one thing to have an objective discussion, its another to sing the constant mantra of "X previous edition was better, this one sucks" and harass people for disagreeing with you. As fans, we all have our likes and dislikes in our games, but those discussions only carry weight and value if you are actually a fan of the product. For example y X or Y card is unbalanced or problematic (or whatever) is a perfectly reasonable discussion for debate. "This game sucks and your idiots for liking it", is not something that belongs in a fan forum, fans don't really want to engage with people who very specifically don't like their game and understandably so, there is really no point to such a discussion.

I could agree with you to a certain extent... but by having D&D on the cover made it part of the D&D rpg community which is a well established long running entity... and 4E was very much what a large majority of the rpg community did not like. If you had just made it another game not called D&D those people would have looked laughed and walked away, maybe with derision rightly or wrongly.

2 minutes ago, Isawa Tasatu said:

I could agree with you to a certain extent... but by having D&D on the cover made it part of the D&D rpg community which is a well established long running entity... and 4E was very much what a large majority of the rpg community did not like. If you had just made it another game not called D&D those people would have looked laughed and walked away, maybe with derision rightly or wrongly.

That's the thing, there really is no evidence that it was a "large majority". Its a presumption that is always made without any clear evidence, in fact with 4e there was a lot of evidence to the contrary given the success sales wise of the game.

Besides its really no excuse anyway. Going to a fan forum and crapping all over a fan-base is inexcusable. Wizards of the Coast didn't make 4e in some vein effort to exclude their community, they made it because its their license and they are entitled to create it in whatever vision they see fit. The response to 4e was not nearly as negative as people make it out to be, I mean I personally didn't like it at all and pretty much stopped playing D&D for its lifetime, but I held no ill will towards the community, its not like they created 4e, WoTc did.

I really didn't see the point of all the hate against the fans of 4e, that to me was just ridiculous. Its the same case here. I'm excited about Legend of the Five Rings the Living Card Game. I had no desire to play the previous versions and I'm completely unconcerned about whether or not its created in its image. No one on this forum should be attacked because they support and like the game, if you have a problem with it, send a letter to FFG. This is a fan forums, for fans, who want to discuss the game because.. well there fans. They shouldn't need to justify or defend that to anyone, its all Im saying. I get that people might not like it, but why hang out here if that is the case?

Ok when I say a majority did not like, I think it was a majority of the then current D&D fans did not like.... but only some behaved like actual pricks. As someone who first played in AD&D before moving into 3E I got similar reactions because AD&D players where "this is the proper way to rpg". However 4E was the culmination of forward movement by WoTC to open up to a broader market that included more table top board players and possibly even PC gamers; and to a certain extent it was successful sales wise but alienated their base.

But as to the poor reactions and bullying behaviour from some people.... well that is just apparently how some people like to behave and it is deplorable. I just try ignore it can`t do anything else, they behave in that manner because they can get away with it sitting on their computer which would not be tolerated in a face to face setting.

The comparison with D&D and L5R here is that there is a very committed base of quite historically strong support... I had serious problems with the old CCG mechanics wise and by the end storywise as well; I would not recommend it to anybody to start fresh with it; (unless you know somebody and want to play with their cards). Otherwise what I have seen so far I like; I like they went back to the beginning story-wise. I like the general mechanics I`ve seen and I like that they have tried (and apparently succeeded) to keep the feeling of Rokugan. The story is all important to L5R. Generally the majority of the L5R fan base is a great community, I think it will stay the same.

I hope you continue to be excited about the game, I know I am, and I hope you find some great people to play against. L5R is not just a card game it is an instution that always wants new members (provided you don`t play Unicorn and Lion!)

On 25/04/2017 at 5:48 PM, gistrationp said:

While I don't agree with everything said, I feel like this last part is my most salient concern as well. This game is coming. Having a bunch of people online being detractors can only potentially hurt the game. That either leads to the game prospering despite losing some players of the older game or dying a slow death as negativity overtakes the community. In the latter case, can L5R survive without a company supporting it? Maybe FFG would sell the IP but who would buy it if it becomes so unprofitable? Or, in the pipe dream of the naysayers, the game may get a 2E like GoT did that completely returns it to the older edition. But, that probably won't be for at least several years and the IP and community would have already suffered a terrible beating.

So, if a game is solid enough as a game do you think "a bunch of people online being detractors can only potentially hurt the game"?
Because Magic The Gathering is a solid game (like it or not, it's solid) and it has a vaaaaaaaast array of "detractors", even some of them playing on Pro Tours and having coverage.

I speak for myself and I have an opinion about this game, and as subjective as opinions may be, this one is my own, based in my own judgements and not blindfolded by hype or the amount of time waiting for a game to come out. And I think many of those who are overoptimistic are just being dragged by the hype-train or just too eager to play a game that was put on hold for almost 2 years.
It's a matter of liking it or not, not a matter of being right or wrong.

But it's cool to see so many people wanting to play A Game of Rokugan?! Legend of the Five Thrones?! A Game of Five Legends?!

31 minutes ago, oDESGOSTO said:

or just too eager to play a game that was put on hold for almost 2 years.

What do you mean "put on hold"? FFG was very clear about doing their own reboot of L5R from the beginning.

35 minutes ago, oDESGOSTO said:

So, if a game is solid enough as a game do you think "a bunch of people online being detractors can only potentially hurt the game"?
Because Magic The Gathering is a solid game (like it or not, it's solid) and it has a vaaaaaaaast array of "detractors", even some of them playing on Pro Tours and having coverage.

I speak for myself and I have an opinion about this game, and as subjective as opinions may be, this one is my own, based in my own judgements and not blindfolded by hype or the amount of time waiting for a game to come out. And I think many of those who are overoptimistic are just being dragged by the hype-train or just too eager to play a game that was put on hold for almost 2 years.
It's a matter of liking it or not, not a matter of being right or wrong.

But it's cool to see so many people wanting to play A Game of Rokugan?! Legend of the Five Thrones?! A Game of Five Legends?!

I've never played A Game of Thrones LCG. Is it really pretty much identical to what we've seen so far, or are there just a few similarities?

I mean, Star Wars LCG involved adding and removing tokens to effectively remove a character for a couple rounds, so maybe this should be called Ring Wars?

Arkham Horror and Lord of the Rings both have rotating a character 90 degrees to indicate they've done something, so maybe we could refer to it as Rokugan Horror: The Fellowship of the Five Rings?

...or maybe there are just some elements that work in multiple games, and FFG selected whichever ones they felt would most fit with the game as they envisioned it. Also, your statements of opinions being subjective and not a matter of being right and wrong would carry a lot more weight if they weren't bracketing an implication that everyone who's excited about the game is doing so out of blind hype. Some of us have actually read the articles and are genuinely interested in the mechanics as portrayed, you know.

8 hours ago, Gaffa said:

Odd. None of those problems were seen by any of the professional game designers I know and play with in 4th Edition. Indeed, 4th Edition D&D is largely considered the single most mechanically tight and sound edition of any of the D&Ds. It ran smoothly, powerfully, and did exactly what it promised to do. And it sold quite well (well enough they delayed 5th for a few years to continue prodding 4th along for a while).

I'm happy with the retro 2nd feel of 5th Edition D&D, but 4th is still the best version of the game so far for pure playability.

4th Edition was easily and insanely breakable. Bring only strikers, trip opponents, get bonus damage vs. prone feat. Most published encounters lasted one - two rounds and opponents didn't get to act unless they won initiative. CR was nearly meaningless in this scenario as well. Look, I know this scenario is not role-playing and it is munchkin-ing, but I refute the claim that 4th Ed D&D was "mechanically tight and sound."

Still, my Minotaur Monk was -fun-... I back-flip whirl-kick over the wall, then charge! MOOOO!

13 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I've never played A Game of Thrones LCG. Is it really pretty much identical to what we've seen so far, or are there just a few similarities?

Handful of similarities based on the fact that Nate French was the lead for the GoT 2.0 reboot and being a longtime GoT player himself.

Limited keyword, the multiple conflict types, the Ring resolution effects are all very similar or straight ripped from GoT.

1 minute ago, Danwarr said:

Handful of similarities based on the fact that Nate French was the lead for the GoT 2.0 reboot and being a longtime GoT player himself.

Limited keyword, the multiple conflict types, the Ring resolution effects are all very similar or straight ripped from GoT.

So, less than the amount of similarity it has to L5R the CCG.

3 minutes ago, Danwarr said:

Handful of similarities based on the fact that Nate French was the lead for the GoT 2.0 reboot and being a longtime GoT player himself.

Limited keyword, the multiple conflict types, the Ring resolution effects are all very similar or straight ripped from GoT.

No default dying in Challenges/Conflicts.

1 minute ago, Tonbo Karasu said:

So, less than the amount of similarity it has to L5R the CCG.

Seems more like a healthy amalgamation and update to the game to me. They kept Provinces, the dual deck system, Honor, and the theme. The econ switch is a major improvement I think but the Fate/Fading mechanism going to be the thing that makes or breaks the game more than likely.