17 minutes ago, Daner0023 said:

The Crane Player?

Given the current state of affairs, I'd say the Scorpion player =(

1 hour ago, 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 think a large point in FFG's favor is that they seem to be minimizing keywords with rules, so that you can pretty much just look at the cards directly. The rulebook should pretty much just tell us the phases and mechanics, with keywords only really existing for other cards to reference (e.g. "Move your Cavalry...", "Play on a Monk...")

6 hours 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 that there's probably going to be several ways to manipulate fate to increase or decrease it.

Obviously you will want to find ways to add or not lose fate on your most important characters.

If I had a guess I'd say some of the more powerful characters will have ways to manipulate their fate or fate on other characters. There will almost certainly be other card types that can do that as well.

4 hours ago, Buhallin said:

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.

I'm really looking forward to this game in part because of this. Right now I'm kind of burning out of Magic (I'll never get completely out of it, but nothing since the first two sets of Tarkir block has really captured my interest). I think part of the reason I'm getting tired of Magic is the way board state works--in most games you reach a point where you know you'll either win or lose, and there's little chance to turn the game around if you suffer bad luck early on. With L5R I'm sure that can still happen, but the fact that nothing will stick around forever means that the board is more fluid, and that early bad luck might be mitigated to some degree. Also, the recourse system is annoying, although I tend to be much better at balancing that out than my friends. But I still like that, rather than a ramp, this game feels like it will be a flow (if that makes sense).

So I was playing FFG's "Blood Bowl: Team Manager" just the other day with a friend, and I realized that basically the way it handles characters is similar to how new L5R does. That is to say, each round you and the opponent draw six personalities and take turns playing them at different matches on the board. After each round you get rewards for the matches you win, all the characters are discarded, and you draw a new hand of six characters and begin the next round. It seemed functionally somewhat similar to these "fading" personalities from L5R (though the systems on the whole still are still quite different.)

It actually made me much less apprehensive about the new Fate system for personalities. Resetting the board made it easy for me to get back into the game even after a bad round or two, and it keeps you feeling like you have a chance up until the very end. It also keeps you on your toes; you can't get complacent after a good turn or two.

But anyway, the whole time I was playing Blood Bowl I was thinking "Wait, FFG has done this fading thing before..."

9 hours ago, twinstarbmc said:

One of the big benefits of attachments in this format over others (Old5R, Magic, etc) is that they can come out of your hand mid-combat, providing both a bonus that lasts as long as the character it's on and an element of surprise. That right there makes them a little stronger here than in other games.

Yeah, but there's been 'stant' creature enchantments in Magic too, and they're pretty much been meh. The best creature enchantments, in constructed, was typically something like Rancor, Elephant Guide, or Shield of the Oversoul which could give a sizable buff while also minimizing card disadvantage and mana cost. You could also add Pattern of Rebirth to that too. Black also had a few good creature enchantments but that's usually because they were necromancy stuff that let you 'cheat' out a big creature.

Of course, I'd have to see some of the attachments for the lcg. The Phoenix one is ok for a core set but it might simply be relegated to a meta call or to fill space before long.

The keywords might allow keyword-themed deck building, similar to their LotR LCG, where you have Noble, Gondor, etc.

5 hours ago, Kubernes said:

Yeah, but there's been 'stant' creature enchantments in Magic too, and they're pretty much been meh. The best creature enchantments, in constructed, was typically something like Rancor, Elephant Guide, or Shield of the Oversoul which could give a sizable buff while also minimizing card disadvantage and mana cost. You could also add Pattern of Rebirth to that too. Black also had a few good creature enchantments but that's usually because they were necromancy stuff that let you 'cheat' out a big creature.

Of course, I'd have to see some of the attachments for the lcg. The Phoenix one is ok for a core set but it might simply be relegated to a meta call or to fill space before long.

The other good thing about Rancor is that it went back into your hand when the creature it was attached to was removed from battle, so it could be used again. I suspect we'll see something similar in L5R at some point. I also think they'll probably do things like have characters that can't be removed from battle through events if they have an attachment on them (or an attachment that grants this).

2 hours ago, ichaos1985 said:

The keywords might allow keyword-themed deck building, similar to their LotR LCG, where you have Noble, Gondor, etc.

I hope not. One of the things the o5r ended up doing was this. You lost a lot of clan flavour and decks became highly predictable.

15 hours ago, Kiseki said:

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.

Also, if you have no fate on the Initiate, that's +1 Honour coming your way during the regroup phase.

7 hours ago, ichaos1985 said:

The keywords might allow keyword-themed deck building, similar to their LotR LCG, where you have Noble, Gondor, etc.

...and in LotR LCG, my favorite theme is Dunedain, who didn't really show up much in the base set but were fleshed out later. So that means that my favorite clan in L5R...

MANTIS CONFIRMED!!

In all seriousness, though, I like the way FFG is handling keywords, but I do hope that they still keep clan differences. That is, Crab scouts should have a different feel from Unicorn scouts, and both should fit their clans. If people want to build a deck of strictly one keyword, they should be able to (once the card pool is large enough), but at the same time the cards should also be at home in a more general, clan-wide deck.

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

...and in LotR LCG, my favorite theme is Dunedain, who didn't really show up much in the base set but were fleshed out later. So that means that my favorite clan in L5R...

MANTIS CONFIRMED!!

In all seriousness, though, I like the way FFG is handling keywords, but I do hope that they still keep clan differences. That is, Crab scouts should have a different feel from Unicorn scouts, and both should fit their clans. If people want to build a deck of strictly one keyword, they should be able to (once the card pool is large enough), but at the same time the cards should also be at home in a more general, clan-wide deck.

It might just end up being like the ccg, where the personalities with similar traits have mechanics closer to their clan but also generic cards that assist the trait.

8 hours ago, slowreflex said:

The other good thing about Rancor is that it went back into your hand when the creature it was attached to was removed from battle, so it could be used again. I suspect we'll see something similar in L5R at some point. I also think they'll probably do things like have characters that can't be removed from battle through events if they have an attachment on them (or an attachment that grants this).

Hence the "minimizing card disadvantage". There will most likely be a spread of different attachments, from reducing stats, raising stats, cantriping, and so on.

Gotta win using that Ornithopter and Rancor!

16 hours ago, Iuchi Toshimo said:

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?

FFG is usually pretty good about the wording on the cards. I think the honor/dishonor mechanic is going to be like a light switch after you are honored or dishonored you can only exist in those states. If there were a track system I would imagine that the cards we are seeing would make even a slight reference to the sliding scale. Something to the effect of "Honor this character even though they are dishonored."

While attacking and dishonored The Ring of Air (as an example) and the Togashi Initiate's ability must be used to gain the glory force bonus - assuming that is how it will work. The trend for the game information that has been revealed so far has lead me to believe that FFG is looking for streamlined gameplay. This also make the honor state much more integral to the mechanics and it means that no clan can afford to ignore it. People can't say "oh no, I'm dishonored and not playing against Scorpion whatever will do (insert fake crying here)" Just a thought.

23 hours ago, JJ48 said:

I think a large point in FFG's favor is that they seem to be minimizing keywords with rules, so that you can pretty much just look at the cards directly. The rulebook should pretty much just tell us the phases and mechanics, with keywords only really existing for other cards to reference (e.g. "Move your Cavalry...", "Play on a Monk...")

FFG uses 2 different words for AEG's keywords, and you'll have to get used to them. "Keywords" have a definition in the rules ("Limited" comes up in most of their games, and there are others - AGoT2 started with 9 and added a 10th in the 3rd cycle). They're in normal type, left-aligned, before abilities. "Traits" do not have a definition in the rules, they're just descriptors that can be referred to by card effects. They appear in bold italics, centered, just beneath the illustration. Cavalry is a trait, which means there are no rules attached to it, just like Bushi. But that doesn't mean there won't be keywords.

On 5/4/2017 at 6:13 PM, Kakita Shiro said:

Given the current state of affairs, I'd say the Scorpion player =(

Heresy!