So far the only thing I am iffy on is the characters fading. I am thinking its going to take several games to figure out when will be a good time to put extra tokens on characters and when to save fate for later turns. It could be the thing that makes this game great, but it could also be the thing that kills this game in the face.

2 hours ago, Sendatsu said:

Or you defend with the Initiate and later attack to get the Fate back.

Edited: Dismiss it all, as it says attacking.

If you are second and put fate on the ring you are currently using, by the reading we have, it should stay there until you can reclaim it with your first attack next turn.

2 minutes ago, clanmccracken said:

So far the only thing I am iffy on is the characters fading. I am thinking its going to take several games to figure out when will be a good time to put extra tokens on characters and when to save fate for later turns. It could be the thing that makes this game great, but it could also be the thing that kills this game in the face.

It really seems hard to evaluate. I'm not particularly repelled by it and it seems mechanically interesting, but it could end off being frustrating.

For all it's worth I did enjoy fading in M:tG.

Any logic why you have to only break 3 provinces before you can attack the Stronghold? Doesn't bother me per se, but am curious why it wasn't all 4.

3 minutes ago, slowreflex said:

Any logic why you have to only break 3 provinces before you can attack the Stronghold? Doesn't bother me per se, but am curious why it wasn't all 4.

I don't know if they had specific reasons, but in Old5R you had 4 provinces and the stronghold was its own separate thing. So when you destroyed those 4 provinces the game was over. Now it's still breaking 4 provinces, just slightly different.

4 minutes ago, slowreflex said:

Any logic why you have to only break 3 provinces before you can attack the Stronghold? Doesn't bother me per se, but am curious why it wasn't all 4.

If you imagine the 4 provinces as surrounding the stronghold, then by taking three it's easy to assail the central "capital". Also, it shortens the length of the game by 20%, roughly.

2 hours ago, AkodoD said:

Not sure if this was a mistake in the preview article or actual mechanics, but did anyone else notice that the combat example between Lion and Unicorn didn't add the Lion's glory to the total for the defenders?

It's not a mistake, Glory is added to the skill only for honored characters. In this example, the Shinjo Outrider is honored, the Lion's Pride Brawler and the Aggressive Moto are not (doesn't change anything for this one anyway), so only the Outrider adds his Glory.

I am really enjoying how the game is shaping up.

12 minutes ago, slowreflex said:

Any logic why you have to only break 3 provinces before you can attack the Stronghold? Doesn't bother me per se, but am curious why it wasn't all 4.

Possibly a balance thing-ish. If there's some extremely annoying single province with a really strong province card and some über-holding on top of it, you can still ignore it.

5 hours ago, JJ48 said:

Didn't one of the cards say something like, "Discard a character with no Fate. Or, discard one Fate from a character"? I would expect that if an effect just says "Discard a character", that it would ignore things such as Fate

I've found two of the cards I was thinking of earlier: The Phoenix character Isawa Masahiro, and the Scorpion event I Can Swim (sorry I can't link the images as I'm on the move ☺).

Both are straight out Discard From Play effects, albeit with caveats (2-cost or lower; Dishonoured, etc.). So I'm guessing its not wise to overload your characters with too much extra Fate (unless you are playing Crab!)

27 minutes ago, Koriume said:

Does anyone have the same impression, that this is going to be quite a tough game to master?

Without reading the rules or even more, without playing a few games, I cannot say if the gameplay is going to be simple or complex yet (and I value simplicity in regards of "how to play"). But what we have seen thus far makes me think that this game is going to be a very complicated game to master (which I also value, even when that brings me often to a disadvantage versus great players).

There are many things to consider in order to gain advantage in any match: card bid, choose province, choose ring, choose conflict. Concentrate on certain provinces/rings, avoid your rival´s, gain fate on rings, leave rings unclaimed and consider how you will begin next turn after your samurai fade... and these are only some of the choices you have to do, every turn. Add to this the text of cards in play and the tricks in both hands, and we could have quite a challenging game, in which details will bring small advantages that can make the difference.

If this is confirmed (games need to be played), it is good news for me.

12 minutes ago, YasukiKaito said:

My impression so far is that the game will not be very static - in the sense that one individual strategy won't always be the best way to go. It seems to me that the game is designed to reward flexible play styles and reading your opponent well. There are so many decisions each turn that interact with each player that I think the game state will change very quickly and will reward flexible players. In that sense I think it will be a difficult game to master, but relatively easy to pick up. And I think that's awesome!

That's sort of the vibe I'm getting. In Old L5R, I could very often point to a single choice (mine or the opponent's) that won/lost the game. With New L5R, I get the feeling it'll be more like a sequence of smaller choices for both characters, and it'll be much harder to point to a single choice that made/broke the game, since any single choice could probably still be undone by some other choice.

I'm also liking that, without gold-producing holdings, it should be a bit easier to throw a deck together since you won't have to worry about your economy so much. Incidentally, this will probably almost double your options, since the deck sizes will be about the same, but now you won't be using half of it for gold!

9 minutes ago, clanmccracken said:

So far the only thing I am iffy on is the characters fading. I am thinking its going to take several games to figure out when will be a good time to put extra tokens on characters and when to save fate for later turns. It could be the thing that makes this game great, but it could also be the thing that kills this game in the face.

I think it'll take some getting used to, but the more I think about it, the more I like it. Especially with the ability to spend more to keep people out longer, do I invest in this one character, or save my money for someone or something else (especially since it appears as if most of the Conflict cards will have Fate costs)? It's possible that it could crash-and-burn, but I'm thinking it'll more likely just add another layer of trade-off decisions to help keep the games exciting!

One way to look at Fate costs and extra Fate is to think of buying the same card over and over. Extra fate on a 1 cost card is buying you card economy - you could replace it every turn for the same cost, but you're using up card draws to do so. Once you get to higher costs, the benefit is clearer. On a 2 cost card each extra fate is saving you resources; not only are you saving a card draw, but it would cost you 2 to replace the card every turn. So the more a dynasty card costs the more value you get from extra Fate on it. But, you have to weigh this savings versus your opponent's card removal and the anticipated end of the game, because extra fate on a character is wasted if the game ends or they are discarded.

11 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I think it'll take some getting used to, but the more I think about it, the more I like it. Especially with the ability to spend more to keep people out longer, do I invest in this one character, or save my money for someone or something else (especially since it appears as if most of the Conflict cards will have Fate costs)? It's possible that it could crash-and-burn, but I'm thinking it'll more likely just add another layer of trade-off decisions to help keep the games exciting!

That is exactly what I mean. Its a complex (relatively) mechanic. and it will take several games to really get the hang of when and how they should spend their focus. The game is going to boil down to fate management and Honor bidding. Mastering these two mechanics is what this game is going to boil down to. Not saying its a bad thing, just saying.

The idea that your board state is ephemeral seems core to every aspect of the new design. Characters have fate. Holdings cost you card draw. Honor/dishonor mechanics hook to cards leaving play.

It's a very, very different style than most CCGs have been, and I'm very intrigued by it. Most games tend to make everything a net positive - you spend resources, and your board state improves. It's a race on the upward curve. This is far more ups and downs, and timing your attacks to your opponent's weakness will be critical, and your strength will be temporary. Everything about the design seems focused on stopping snowballing.

I think anyone who's focusing on "Well there are two kinds of attacking so it's just AGOT!" or "Well, Magic has fading too" is missing just how disruptive these mechanics are, and how univerally they're woven through the design. At this point I have no idea how well it will work, but it's definitely going to be a very, very different beast.

The rules of this game seem quite simple. The gameplay decisions seem quite complex. And the "bookkeeping" will be odd. Like it will matter what your opponent might have but only in broad terms.

I also get the vibe that you're going to have to be very "zen" or like in that episode of "Highlander" where the character tells Duncan "You must be like a reed in the wind, neither breaking nor giving way" when you play. As someone said "flexible." It also has that needing to know if you need to be patient or take a gamble.

Buhallin makes a good point about a lot of these CCGs being a race. A race to your "win condition" (all those decks in MtG with Ulamog who essentially amounts to an "I win" card.) Whereas this will be a very different beast and unlikely to have that thing MtG seems to have now where a deck "goes off" and nothing you've done could have been done differently to change it.

3 hours ago, KerenRhys said:

It's not a mistake, Glory is added to the skill only for honored characters. In this example, the Shinjo Outrider is honored, the Lion's Pride Brawler and the Aggressive Moto are not (doesn't change anything for this one anyway), so only the Outrider adds his Glory.

To make it clearer, when you pay for a character, he enters the game in a 'neutral' state, and not honored ? So there are three states and not two : honored, 'neutral', dishonored ?

It was not clear for me it was that way...

I'm also really looking forward to it. It definitely has the "hard to master" aspect going for it. Unfortunately, I think the lack of "easy to learn" will hold it back from being anything like MTG level of players. That is why you don't tend to see card games this complex. However, I think they've taken a gamble that if they can have a smaller piece of the pie, but a very loyal and active piece of the pie, then that's a good thing. I think I tend to agree. Don't get me wrong, this could easily by their biggest LCG, but if anyone though it could be a "MTG-killer", that just won't happen.

Then again, maybe it's simply the shock of seeing all these pieces thrown at me in a short time-frame that makes it seem overly complex. Or maybe there is an "easy-mode" for teaching people how to play. I know I can count on the community to welcome and try to get newcomers up to speed on the game as well. Anyway, I'm just waffling on now. We'll just have to see how it goes.

1 minute ago, Katsutoshi said:

To make it clearer, when you pay for a character, he enters the game in a 'neutral' state, and not honored ? So there are three states and not two : honored, 'neutral', dishonored ?

It was not clear for me it was that way...

This trinary situation seems to be the case. It appears to be a -/0/+ situation. An unanswered question remains: Does Honoring/Dishonoring slide the character one step along this path or do they simply override each other?

7 minutes ago, slowreflex said:

I'm also really looking forward to it. It definitely has the "hard to master" aspect going for it. Unfortunately, I think the lack of "easy to learn" will hold it back from being anything like MTG level of players. That is why you don't tend to see card games this complex. However, I think they've taken a gamble that if they can have a smaller piece of the pie, but a very loyal and active piece of the pie, then that's a good thing. I think I tend to agree. Don't get me wrong, this could easily by their biggest LCG, but if anyone though it could be a "MTG-killer", that just won't happen.

Then again, maybe it's simply the shock of seeing all these pieces thrown at me in a short time-frame that makes it seem overly complex. Or maybe there is an "easy-mode" for teaching people how to play. I know I can count on the community to welcome and try to get newcomers up to speed on the game as well. Anyway, I'm just waffling on now. We'll just have to see how it goes.

I don't think it will be any harder to learn than any of the other FFG LCGs. So far the basic rules seem pretty straight forward, especially if you know how to play a card game. As for the more complicated rules interactions, Magic's is just as bad (or worse) than most any LCG I've seen (There are just more rules in Magic), and in part that is because FFG has learned to design around complex interactions.

6 minutes ago, slowreflex said:

I'm also really looking forward to it. It definitely has the "hard to master" aspect going for it. Unfortunately, I think the lack of "easy to learn" will hold it back from being anything like MTG level of players. That is why you don't tend to see card games this complex. However, I think they've taken a gamble that if they can have a smaller piece of the pie, but a very loyal and active piece of the pie, then that's a good thing. I think I tend to agree. Don't get me wrong, this could easily by their biggest LCG, but if anyone though it could be a "MTG-killer", that just won't happen.

Then again, maybe it's simply the shock of seeing all these pieces thrown at me in a short time-frame that makes it seem overly complex. Or maybe there is an "easy-mode" for teaching people how to play. I know I can count on the community to welcome and try to get newcomers up to speed on the game as well. Anyway, I'm just waffling on now. We'll just have to see how it goes.

IDK, have you looked at the MTG rules lately? Sure, MTG can be very simple if you play vanilla creatures and commons but if you look at the rules required to play on the competitive level it is way more complex than L5R is at this point.

I'm not sure if you've played other LCGs but FFG LCGs are actually fairly simple to learn. I always had a lot easier time getting new players to understand AGOT than I did MTG.

Just now, Mirith said:

I don't think it will be any harder to learn than any of the other FFG LCGs. So far the basic rules seem pretty straight forward, especially if you know how to play a card game. As for the more complicated rules interactions, Magic's is just as bad (or worse) than most any LCG I've seen (There are just more rules in Magic), and in part that is because FFG has learned to design around complex interactions.

I don't think anyone would say magic is as hard to learn as say, Netrunner. Well, as in how to play the base game. The difficulty with Magic is in the complexity of all the different keywords.

1 minute ago, SlackerHacker said:

IDK, have you looked at the MTG rules lately? Sure, MTG can be very simple if you play vanilla creatures and commons but if you look at the rules required to play on the competitive level it is way more complex than L5R is at this point.

I'm not sure if you've played other LCGs but FFG LCGs are actually fairly simple to learn. I always had a lot easier time getting new players to understand AGOT than I did MTG.

I've played MTG for over two decades. I've played Netrunner for a year. Netrunner is undeniably a harder game to learn in my opinion. Well, not just my opinion. I've see other people learn both and have taught both games to my kids. MTG is much easier to grasp in my opinion. That's not saying anything bad about L5R, it's just how I think about it (pretty sure the majority of people are in the boat with me on this).

2 minutes ago, slowreflex said:

I don't think anyone would say magic is as hard to learn as say, Netrunner. Well, as in how to play the base game. The difficulty with Magic is in the complexity of all the different keywords.

Netrunner is probably the most complex of the LCGs by a good margin. Like you said base magic is fairly simple, base Netrunner isn't. I think base AGOT is pretty simple though.

1 minute ago, SlackerHacker said:

Netrunner is probably the most complex of the LCGs by a good margin. Like you said base magic is fairly simple, base Netrunner isn't. I think base AGOT is pretty simple though.

You might be right. I've never tried AGOT. In fact Netrunner is the only LCG I've ever played. I think the asymmetry is what makes it particularly challenging.

On 5/3/2017 at 2:51 PM, slowreflex said:

We now see the mini cards: Honor and Imperial Favor. Would also assume Dishonor.

Question I had was what if Imperial Favor bid is a tie?

The Crane Player?