11 minutes ago, Wintersong said:

Are not we the "L5R guys"?

I should write CCG guys becasue overall "L5R guy" term will be just blurred with these both distinct games in existence. Because since now if you say "I love L5R card game" you'll have to add what game you have on your mind. Something that was out of question 2 years ago.

Main point of our (me vs Spark) discussion is a fact, that in Sparks opinion LCG is nothing like "polished and streamlined" CCG, when i think it's totally new game in term of gameplay, both in Rokugan setting.

2 hours ago, slowreflex said:

Not read all the posts in this thread, but keep in mind that typically 99% of a community doesn't say anything publicly. There is a vocal minority for most things and that can give the perception that something is wrong when often there isn't.

Smart words, i agree.

People will vote with their wallets. And even if there's mass hysteria (like with every new game, just check forums when previous LCGs were announced) in social media, most important will be sales results of Core Set and first two Cycles. Because it will clearly determine how FFG will care about this product in long future. In my experience FFG in most causes tries to extinguish failed stuff instead starting to fix and promote it again. They just have too many projects in the pipeline to care about.

55 minutes ago, kempy said:

"Hey, you know how to win in this game? Win 4 any Challenges by this X number on your Faction card, gain 25 Power or reduce oponent's to 0. That's all."

Now try to explain AGoT guy how to win in old CCG.

Destroy 4 provinces, gain 40 Honor, or reduce your opponent to -20 Honor. ...or get all five pieces of Exodia into play.

Honestly, I get what you're saying about differences, but the victory conditions are probably among the smallest changes that have been made, and seem like a really odd choice to single out like that.

5 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Destroy 4 provinces, gain 40 Honor, or reduce your opponent to -20 Honor. ...or get all five pieces of Exodia into play.

Honestly, I get what you're saying about differences, but the victory conditions are probably among the smallest changes that have been made, and seem like a really odd choice to single out like that.

Yes, there are smallest one, but what i wanted to achieve was to pint that even win coditions are much familiar to other games than to CCG.

1 minute ago, kempy said:

Yes, there are smallest one, but what i wanted to achieve was to pint that even win coditions are much familiar to other games than to CCG.

But apart from the removal of Enlightenment and changing some numbers, they're almost identical...

3 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

But apart from the removal of Enlightenment and changing some numbers, they're almost identical...

How permanent removal of board state (Province) is even comparable with Challenges that lead to Power Gain in AGoT or "crushing" Provinces in nL5R? Notice how i wrote my comparision to AGoT player - with AGoT terminology. When you would say "destroy Province" to same player you have to explain whole idea of Province.

1 minute ago, kempy said:

How permanent removal of board state (Province) is even comparable with Challenges that lead to Power Gain in AGoT or "crushing" Provinces in nL5R??

Ok, now you're talking about the effects of battle, rather than the win conditions. The old military condition, just like the new one, was about beating four provinces. The fact that the beaten province was destroyed rather than "broken" (whatever that term may indicate) is important for gameplay, but has nothing to do with the win condition itself. You may as well include the losing army getting wiped out in oL5R as a "win condition".

15 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Ok, now you're talking about the effects of battle, rather than the win conditions.

You may as well include the losing army getting wiped out in oL5R as a "win condition".

Becasue CCG win condition was about permanently destroying Provinces instead winning just Challenges in them.

Thanks you pointed another total difference/similiarity - wiping units in Resolution was unique to L5R when in AGoT (like in nL5R), as deafult result of Challenge, both sides are just bowed.

Also word "may" is so important here.

"Winning" battles, in form of Challenges in nL5R is now much more familiar to Challenges in AGoT, becasue abstract idea of Province seems to have no impact on board state in new game. As i wrote above in term of AGoT you have just to win 4 Challenges of any type to win.

Anyway, if, by example there's rulebook effect that says "if you win challenge on Province by X, where's X is PS, you lock it's refill effect for X turns - then i could say it's familiar to CCG, becase as in original, "destruction" leads to visible board position change (resource lockdown).

31 minutes ago, kempy said:

I should write CCG guys becasue overall "L5R guy" term will be just blurred with these both distinct games in existence. Because since now if you say "I love L5R card game" you'll have to add what game you have on your mind. Something that was out of question 2 years ago.

Main point of our (me vs Spark) discussion is a fact, that in Sparks opinion LCG is nothing like "polished and streamlined" CCG, when i think it's totally new game in term of gameplay, both in Rokugan setting.

Ok, I meant "CCG L5R guys". I agree that from a mechanics point of view, it is a new game in many of its aspects while others are still the same. Some of the changes are a great departure from the CCG usual changes (fading characters, for example) but I get the feeling of still doing, in essence if not in shape, the same stuff.

A CCG L5R player, like myself, shoud not have trouble understanding easily stuff like:

• Two decks and four provinces plus stronghold.
• No more gold, your stronghold covers what you may need with the new Fate "currency".
• Characters and holdings from Dinasty. Actions, followers, items and spells from Conflict.
• No honor requirements for characters, full cost to be paid, no honor gains on purchase, no Chi.
• Characters last a turn unless you invest extra Fate on them as you buy them (1 point for extra turn). Fate also protects characters from certain effects.
• Honorable or dishonorable gives small boost/penalty to character based on their Glory.
• Game is faster, removing "clogging" elements. Sequential (is that the word?) turns.
• Variable draw by bidding honor. Careful of (dis)honor victory.
• You only get to attack one province but get to attack twice, if you want, using different skill (courtier decks being able to win by breaking provinces!).
• Pick a Ring when starting a battle for a benefit if you win that battle. Cannot repeat Ring in the same turn.
• Break 3 regular provinces and then the enemy stronghold for conquest victory.
• Battle resolution does not kill anyone. Less snowballing.
• Broken provinces are not removed from game, still provide card, to prevent snowballing effects.
• Provinces have special region attached cards that you select in deckbuilding and that are hidden to your opponent until they attack it.
• No lobbying? Imperial Favor given after battle phase based on... ask FFG. I have not read the future article about it!!!
• You get to play stuff during battle.
• Duels are about bidding honor instead using focus from cards. Careful of (dis)honor victory.
• Cavalry just used to trigger Conflict cards.
• Honor victory at 25. Dishonor victory at 0.
• Generic characters have generic name.
• No enlightment.
• No Mantis or Spider.

And probably something more.

Not having a clue about AGoT, not sure what kind of list I would have to write to explain them (not having a clue about L5R CCG), with some detail, what is going on in L5R LCG. But L5R CCG players should pick up without much, if any, trouble what has changed and what they must consider to play the new version/game. They may hate the changes, which would be fine and valid, but it is no like it is 100% alien "Oh, noes! It is just L5R in the setting!".

That some mechanics may be insipired/similar/the-same as those in other games does not mean that they have to be bad or turn the LCG into something alien. Why deny ourselves improvements*?

About fear about sales and FFG support... yeah, like in any other game in existance by any other publisher? FFG is not charity so not enough profit has consequences.

* YMMV

21 minutes ago, Wintersong said:

Ok, I meant "CCG L5R guys". I agree that from a mechanics point of view, it is a new game in many of its aspects while others are still the same. Some of the changes are a great departure from the CCG usual changes (fading characters, for example) but I get the feeling of still doing, in essence if not in shape, the same stuff.

These radical changes, even if they keep same named terminolgy for some game components, made a game in which any experience of old L5R won't pay.

I could easily wrote same text comparing Hearstone to Magic the Gathering but it won't change a fact these games, nearly identical in term of board look, have different gameplay. Where someone naive could say that HS fe "fixed" goldscrew. No, HS was made from the start with idead of automatic resource system in mind. It wasn't fix (becasue other important components are drastically different than MtG), game was made this way to support it's own mechanic.

If i replace Warcraft pictures with Planeswalkers, it doesn't change HS into "fixed" MtG.

21 minutes ago, Wintersong said:

About fear about sales and FFG support... yeah, like in any other game in existance by any other publisher? FFG is not charity so not enough profit has consequences.

AEG, WotC? As these publishers for long time were based on their flagship products when something went wrong they tried to fix it. In L5R that was fe Lotus -> Samurai transformation, to reduce powercreep to attract new players (and that was a success).

Dedicated publishers with one or maybe two wellknown trademarks just try to keep these on the top, care about them, where wideaspread ones like FFG with plenty of products just can much easier drop one to focus on another.

[double post]

This is exactly one of the things they wanted, and had to address, the snowball effect of the 1st province (and defending army) being destroyed. Losing your whole army because of one failed defense was a direct trip to losing lane, without any chance of come back.

That's why provinces are not permanently destroyed. That's why characters are not eternal but fade away from the spotlight.

That's why this game will be more interesting.

Who cares whether this is not the same as old L5R. They never said they would make the old L5R as a LCG. This is a new game. Sharing similarities with the CCG, but this will be better. The strategic depth here will be significantly higher than with the CCG. Who cares if they have some of the game mechanics similar to AGoT? At this point in time, considering the number of CCGs and LCGs on the market, who could design a game not sharing any similarities with another CCG or LCG?

You're really getting annoyingly boring. You just spend your time on this forum being always negative. Go away.

But just in case, could someone please tell me again how you block an user's posts on the forum?

Wait, why exactly having experience in L5R CCG should "pay" when it comes to playing a new game?

1 minute ago, Ser Nakata said:

This is exactly one of the things they wanted, and had to address, the snowball effect of the 1st province (and defending army) being destroyed. Losing your whole army because of one failed defense was a direct trip to losing lane, without any chance of come back.

That's why provinces are not permanently destroyed. That's why characters are not eternal but fade away from the spotlight.

That's why this game will be more interesting.

Who cares whether this is not the same as old L5R. They never said they would make the old L5R as a LCG. This is a new game. Sharing similarities with the CCG, but this will be better. The strategic depth here will be significantly higher than with the CCG. Who cares if they have some of the game mechanics similar to AGoT? At this point in time, considering the number of CCGs and LCGs on the market, who could design a game not sharing any similarities with another CCG or LCG?

You're really getting annoyingly boring. You just spend your time on this forum being always negative. Go away.

But just in case, could someone please tell me again how you block an user's posts on the forum?

You completely missed a point of this conversation. It's not about how this game will be player, will be fun or not, but controversy of fact that many say it's "fixed" CCG, where fact show it's totaly new game.

---

Anyway i also found funny, that in social media, people easily are going overhyped and any form of criticism of this behaviour is perceived as trolling, but criticism of critical opinion is praised. Completely lack of sense.

There is difference between criticism and being a non stop stream of noxious toxicity...

4 minutes ago, WHW said:

Wait, why exactly having experience in L5R CCG should "pay" when it comes to playing a new game?

Let me say it again. A fact that experience of old game won't pay in any form in new game is a proof that new game is totally different than old one. It's not a fix of CCG, as Sparks and other try to say, it's completely new game.

I don't care it's funny or not. It doesn't matter it play well or not. I'm just trying to point they're completely different games. That's all.

It's a new game that was created with shortcomings of the old game in mind, and which was made with a specific goal of avoiding these shortcomings. Which can be phrased as "fixing them".

Just now, WHW said:

It's a new game that was created with shortcomings of the old game in mind, and which was made with a specific goal of avoiding these shortcomings. Which can be phrased as "fixing them".

So what are we arguing exactly here? That the FFG L5R has significant mechanical differences from the AEG one? Yes. And that that is a bad thing? HELL NO!

1 minute ago, C3gorach said:

So what are we arguing exactly here? That the FFG L5R has significant mechanical differences from the AEG one? Yes.

1 minute ago, C3gorach said:

And that that is a bad thing? HELL NO!

This is just personal opinion i think.

...why are you "thank youing" at something that everyone has been literally telling you for ages.

3 minutes ago, WHW said:

...why are you "thank youing" at something that everyone has been literally telling you for ages.

Becasue he didn't say "It's fixed and streamlined old one"!

I think he doesn't agree with us that a new game can "fix" an older one's flaws. Only X Edition of the old game, that would be fully backwards compatible (as long as you ignore some text on the cards, like "Yu" or anything that refers to something that's been changed) could "fix" it. Fallout 3 can't "fix" Fallout 2's flaws, because it's a different game. Same for Warcraft 3 vs Warcraft 2, I suppose.

Anything else is a new game and entirely unrelated to the old game, because things that are not identical are completely separate and exist in a vacuum devoid of context that might connect them.

Or something.

7 minutes ago, Myrion said:

Fallout 3 can't "fix" Fallout 2's flaws, because it's a different game.

This F2 to F3 comparision is just great! Look at this Thank You picture above.

6 minutes ago, kempy said:

This F2 to F3 comparision is just great! Look at this Thank You picture above.

Yeah, can we agree though that Fallout 3 is still a Fallout game that Fallout funs will enjoy?