Personally, I was hoping for the same rules with new cards, same as how the old non LCG GoT became the LCG GoT.

What we are given now is a game with different rules and mechanics, with some similarities with the old one.

As far as I am concerned this is a negative for me, and it will take a lot more information, even some playtesting with some actual decks that others will buy when the game hits the stores, in order to make a decision on whether to buy it or not.

So far not so good, imho.

8 minutes ago, Belechael said:

Personally, I was hoping for the same rules with new cards, same as how the old non LCG GoT became the LCG GoT.

What we are given now is a game with different rules and mechanics, with some similarities with the old one.

As far as I am concerned this is a negative for me, and it will take a lot more information, even some playtesting with some actual decks that others will buy when the game hits the stores, in order to make a decision on whether to buy it or not.

So far not so good, imho.

Seems like a reasonable stance. I'm going to buy in day one because I love the memories that the old game gave me. I'm not 100% sure if I'll love the game or not, but I want to at least find out. If you lived near me, I'd ask which clan you wanted to try and hand it to you.

To be quite frank what they have shown so far is much better then what I was expecting.

All of the stuff looks good the rules sound good, when it plays good as well it is amazing.

The hard re-boot of the story makes sense, and to start out with the 7 Major Clans is clever. Additional Factions can be added later down the line.

1 hour ago, Belechael said:

Personally, I was hoping for the same rules with new cards, same as how the old non LCG GoT became the LCG GoT.

What we are given now is a game with different rules and mechanics, with some similarities with the old one.

This stance confuses me. From almost the moment of the purchase it was indicated that the new game would draw some inspiration from the original, but would ultimately be a different game that was incomparable with the original. Why would anyone expect them to simply reuse the same game with different cards? The CCG had much deeper problems than a bad card base.

4 minutes ago, PlaguedOne said:

This stance confuses me. From almost the moment of the purchase it was indicated that the new game would draw some inspiration from the original, but would ultimately be a different game that was incomparable with the original. Why would anyone expect them to simply reuse the same game with different cards? The CCG had much deeper problems than a bad card base.

Not to mention, that the old L5R CCG was not really constant either... They changed the rules every edition, which is why the Legacy format remained very fringe for the whole lifetime of the game, because those cards were not really compatible with each other.

Dueling, Enlightenment, Gold Pooling, Reactions/Interrupts, Playable Factions, Blood Money, Honor Requirement, Keywords (especially the bold faced once Tactician, Naval, Cavalry, Duelist) , Senseis, Kihos, Spells, Celestrials, Events and the list goes on and on...

There were iterations of games which were similar, but never quite the same...

And they hit all the major notes: Two decks, provinces which need to be broken, honor which can win you the game.

Even the card types are similar: You have card types which are bound to provinces like Fortifications and Regions were. Attachments which go on Personalities. Even the Personality stats are surprisingly close: Gold Cost is now Fate Cost, Force/Chi are not Military and Political Power and Personal Honor is Glory...

They got the look and feel right the main question remains if it plays well...

43 minutes ago, PlaguedOne said:

This stance confuses me. From almost the moment of the purchase it was indicated that the new game would draw some inspiration from the original, but would ultimately be a different game that was incomparable with the original. Why would anyone expect them to simply reuse the same game with different cards? The CCG had much deeper problems than a bad card base.

He didn't take a stance, he expressed a concern.

I played L5R for about a decade ending in 2006. I was very excited about this transition, many people I know would love to play the CCG but its hard to figure out how to get them into at this point. This could of been a great opportunity for me to introduce it to a whole new community and generation of gamers. It is unlikely I'll be doing that now.

My surprise is how much they seem to have changed, and how little respect and understanding it seems to show for what L5R was. Listening to the designers was helpful in that it allowed me to understand wher they were coming from, and disappointing how little they know about the game. None of them had played the game at all, and frequently said things, even now after completing their design, that showed they didn't understand the CCG. It's not that I expected it to be entirely the same, I just didn't expect such a departure from the CCG design, and its a little bit of salt in that wound that the designers didn't seem to take the time understand the CCG at all before making the LCG.

I'm not sure what 'deeper problems' you are speaking of honestly, the system design of L5R was incredible allowing for all the variations in additional mechanics that Yandia mentions above. Some successful some not, but in every set it still primarily played like L5R. This won't.

I'm incredibly skeptical of many of the choices right now... just to name a few: system design allowing for only 1v1, the betting mechanic, the ring mechanic, and the dumbing down of the open phase into just a attack phase variant, generic names of cards that are likely to threaten the immersion and story aspects of the game significantly, and even simply changing the names of key characters.

I fully understand that designers don't want to be entirely derivative of the old game but there is no shame in doing an old thing well. It is hard to respect a team that shows so little respect to a game so many people love. Hopefully, as more information comes out my opinion will change. Right now I'm extremely disappointed, as are the people I hyped this game to when I saw the FFG acquisition.

2 hours ago, Belechael said:

Personally, I was hoping for the same rules with new cards, same as how the old non LCG GoT became the LCG GoT.

What we are given now is a game with different rules and mechanics, with some similarities with the old one.

As far as I am concerned this is a negative for me, and it will take a lot more information, even some playtesting with some actual decks that others will buy when the game hits the stores, in order to make a decision on whether to buy it or not.

So far not so good, imho.

The last edition's rules were literally the worst the game had ever operated under. I'm unbelievably glad they didn't do this

1 hour ago, Yandia said:

Not to mention, that the old L5R CCG was not really constant either... They changed the rules every edition, which is why the Legacy format remained very fringe for the whole lifetime of the game, because those cards were not really compatible with each other.

Dueling, Enlightenment, Gold Pooling, Reactions/Interrupts, Playable Factions, Blood Money, Honor Requirement, Keywords (especially the bold faced once Tactician, Naval, Cavalry, Duelist) , Senseis, Kihos, Spells, Celestrials, Events and the list goes on and on...

There were iterations of games which were similar, but never quite the same...

And they hit all the major notes: Two decks, provinces which need to be broken, honor which can win you the game.

Oh yeah, that was Always my worry when seeing a new card: "Ok wich one of these keywords actually has special rules, and wich ones are just to tell me what sort of character this is?"

I'm wondering why they took out the Enlightnement (5 rings in play) win. Maybe because of the draw-cards-equal-to-honor mechanic would make it to easy?

L5R players are complaining about the game?

1 minute ago, Robin Graves said:

Oh yeah, that was Always my worry when seeing a new card: "Ok wich one of these keywords actually has special rules, and wich ones are just to tell me what sort of character this is?"

I'm wondering why they took out the Enlightnement (5 rings in play) win. Maybe because of the draw-cards-equal-to-honor mechanic would make it to easy?

Probably because the CCG also never got the rings right.

They also updated with every edition: from ways to bring them into play, to the effects they had in play and if it counted for enlightenment if you did not play them by their text.

Usually you just put the rings in the deck because they were really powerful action cards. In the end L5R was unfortunately rarely about the rings...

1 hour ago, Yandia said:

To be quite frank what they have shown so far is much better then what I was expecting.

All of the stuff looks good the rules sound good, when it plays good as well it is amazing.

The hard re-boot of the story makes sense, and to start out with the 7 Major Clans is clever. Additional Factions can be added later down the line.

I'm not quite sure I'm sold on the whole Fate mechanic. Itherwise I like the new stuff. especially the fact each character has combat/politics stats.

I also get the reboot, altough seeing your clan get hit with the History Eraser kinda hurts.

18 minutes ago, Robin Graves said:

Oh yeah, that was Always my worry when seeing a new card: "Ok wich one of these keywords actually has special rules, and wich ones are just to tell me what sort of character this is?"

That's why two years before sell they introduced boldfaced keywords that were rulebook effects. List of such keywords of the last edition you can fe find here: https://rules.alderac.com/cr_for_20f/#appendix-b

Just now, kempy said:

That's why two years before sell they introduced boldfaced keywords that were rulebook effects. List of such keywords of the last edition you can fe find here: https://rules.alderac.com/cr_for_20f/#appendix-b

Thanks but to late now! getting ready for the new game. But this is the stuff I meant:

If you see this thing for the first time you have no (visual) clue wich keywords had special rules attached to them. "shugenja" just says "this is a magic user."while Conqueror says this unit dosn't go home bowed from the battlefield.

9 hours ago, PlaguedOne said:

This stance confuses me. From almost the moment of the purchase it was indicated that the new game would draw some inspiration from the original, but would ultimately be a different game that was incomparable with the original. Why would anyone expect them to simply reuse the same game with different cards? The CCG had much deeper problems than a bad card base.

I wasn't paying attention to news, apart from the game going to FFG, and as to "why would anyone expect them to simply reuse the same game with different cards?" I already answered: GoT.

Now, as to the problems with the cards no argument, but I just wanted to see Force, Chi, dueling, enlightenment, use of gold and permanent status on the personalities, that stuff. Now we get fate mechanic and temporary personalities, political battles, etc. They might work great, I can't say as it's too early, but it's not my cup of tea.

Just now, Belechael said:

Now, as to the problems with the cards no argument, but I just wanted to see Force, Chi, dueling, enlightenment, use of gold and permanent status on the personalities, that stuff. Now we get fate mechanic and temporary personalities, political battles, etc. They might work great, I can't say as it's too early, but it's not my cup of tea.

Interesting how much tastes can diverge. I was sold on the new game as soon as they announced no more gold. Getting rid of chance in terms of resource generation is a huge draw for me.

5 minutes ago, A_to_the_C said:

Interesting how much tastes can diverge. I was sold on the new game as soon as they announced no more gold. Getting rid of chance in terms of resource generation is a huge draw for me.

I would not say they got rid of gold, they just moved it entirely to the stronghold and changed its name.

They could have easily said it was gold and the extra was just how long there finances could support the character.

Now this would not be L5R so they changed the name to fate and gave it a spiritual overtone.

Overall I like what they have done with the game.

being an ex-phoenix player I know the hardships of have to make a jack-of-all-trades deck just to survive.

One of the devs is a phoenix fan

22 minutes ago, Belechael said:

I wasn't paying attention to news, apart from the game going to FFG, and as to "why would anyone expect them to simply reuse the same game with different cards?" I already answered: GoT.

Now, as to the problems with the cards no argument, but I just wanted to see Force, Chi, dueling, enlightenment, use of gold and permanent status on the personalities, that stuff. Now we get fate mechanic and temporary personalities, political battles, etc. They might work great, I can't say as it's too early, but it's not my cup of tea.

I find it fascinating that people like you had this idea of what the game should be like when FFG expressly said it was gonna be rebuilt from the ground up when they acquired the game. Obviously, you had your mind made up before any announcement because drawing the line of needing force, chi, use of gold is your reasoning to quit is pretty dumb, imo.

The fact that you can't ever be gold screwed/flooded should be one of the best reasons to play the game. And you are dismissing it because you like getting gold screwed is pretty **** messed up.

23 minutes ago, Sparks Duh said:

IObviously, you had your mind made up before any announcement because drawing the line of needing force, chi, use of gold is your reasoning to quit is pretty dumb, imo.

So very true in discussion lately.

I must say that original game had so many good sides, but when i look back, it had a horrendous amount of mechanical clutter which had to be adressed. I think FFG is on the right track now.

24 minutes ago, Sparks Duh said:

The fact that you can't ever be gold screwed/flooded should be one of the best reasons to play the game. And you are dismissing it because you like getting gold screwed is pretty **** messed up.

This is so spot on, so many MAJOR issues in the game came from uneven resource development between clans, players, entire factions.

8 hours ago, Robin Graves said:

Thanks but to late now! getting ready for the new game. But this is the stuff I meant:

If you see this thing for the first time you have no (visual) clue wich keywords had special rules attached to them. "shugenja" just says "this is a magic user."while Conqueror says this unit dosn't go home bowed from the battlefield.

And? How long it took to new player, who read manual, to discover what is what? Was that really a problem? Really? Warhammer Conquest in it's 2 years long lifespan gathered nearly 100 thematic keywords that were confusing for someone who didn't get into WH lore earlier. Was it problem? None.

That's not a good comparison, conquest was never this cluttered on a single card and better structured, you took the wrong game for comparison, seriously. Conquest was very well designed in this aspect.

I think it is reasonable for the old fans to be upset. The two things that kept a lot of people in L5R were the gameplay mechanics and the story. Fantasy Flight greatly changed the gameplay mechanics and tossed out a big chunk of the story.

I will give them a lot of credit for making it an LCG instead of a CCG. There is stuff I like in the recent press release but there is also stuff that makes me hesitant. I went from this being a must by to being on the fence. If this had been a CCG, I most likely would have just washed my hands of it and never looked back.

10 minutes ago, TechnoGolem said:

I think it is reasonable for the old fans to be upset. The two things that kept a lot of people in L5R were the gameplay mechanics and the story. Fantasy Flight greatly changed the gameplay mechanics and tossed out a big chunk of the story.

I will give them a lot of credit for making it an LCG instead of a CCG. There is stuff I like in the recent press release but there is also stuff that makes me hesitant. I went from this being a must by to being on the fence. If this had been a CCG, I most likely would have just washed my hands of it and never looked back.

Interestingly enough it is the opposite with me. I went from "I will probably not spend money one this" to "I will definitely by one box and if I like it probably more..."

Just now, Yandia said:

Interestingly enough it is the opposite with me. I went from "I will probably not spend money one this" to "I will definitely by one box and if I like it probably more..."

Just curious what made you feel this way. Did you not like the old mechanics or the story? Are you excited for a fresh start or is it something else?

2 hours ago, kempy said:

And? How long it took to new player, who read manual, to discover what is what? Was that really a problem? Really? Warhammer Conquest in it's 2 years long lifespan gathered nearly 100 thematic keywords that were confusing for someone who didn't get into WH lore earlier. Was it problem? None.

It's about good card design. To be able to tell at a glance the difference between "what I am" and "what I do". You shouldn't have to flip trough the rules index checking each keyword to see if t does anything. Take creatures from MTG for example: Legendary zombie warrior is on one part of the card and you only need it when other cards refer to it. (all zombies get +1/+1) and all the key words Flying, Indestructable, etc. who do have their own rules are in another part of the card. Clear Design.