Hello all.

It´´ has been only like two weeks now and we have a high level of knowledge indeed. Most of the main concepts are being discussed elsewhere, and I am happy to see that most of the irrational rant is gone. It was funny to see how some negative comments were done just the same day we could see the first article, saying the game was clearly bull… I see some negative comments now (and I have some concerns myself), but most comments are now based on reasons and analisys, and that is to thank to the comunity.

As I say, most of the main points are being dicussed in other accurate posts. Aside from the shared impressions about what we know thus far, I would like to set the light on some "side facts" we can also discuss and share.

First. It seems like the community is going to be quite huge and powerful. L5R veterans have been waiting a long time for this game, and it could be expected that the desert could have decimated the numbers and enthusiasm. I cannot measure this accurately, but we have some clues that make me think the community remains alive and kicking, and that this factor can make this one a very important game. The number of posts in these forums is the first clue. AGOT, adding both editions, has like 85k posts. I heard that LOTR is the most popular LCG (and best seller), and it adds up to 102k (a very high and consistent number). Star wars LCG is now around 24k and the rest of them is below that.

L5R is yet 6 months to be released and we have now more than 21k posts.

Well this can mean all or nothing, but it does seem like the popularity of the game is going to be on the top, at least on the beginning. This, probably, is due to the nature and strenght of the veteran comunity, and can also help to bring new players. Popular games are sustainable, as you usually want to have people to play with wherever you go. This works specially for competitive games.

Second. Even when I am hyped enough to try to transfer the hype to my playgroup, I have some concerns. I am missing some things in the previews, and the way they resolve some expectations will be quite important. I am talking about two distinctive features of the CCG: the experienced versions of the charismatic characters and the community active role in the developing of the story and the game. If I am not wrong, ffg said that these terms will remain, though they will not be the same. The fact that we know so little about it makes me curious and cautious at the same time. I don´t say this can spoil a good game, but it would make me sad to lose those good things.

Third. Another concern is growing in my mind, and is complexity. We know now many things about the gameplay, and there are some innovations and additional rules that can be good to balance the game, making it difficult to master (what is good). But I fear the game becoming too complex, and diminishing the experience. For example, the fate rule has been an innovative adding that I myself am glad for, in terms of gameplay. But I think also that taking care of the removal of the counters every turn can result on a slight loss simplicity in the mechanichs.

Fourth. Clan loyalty may remain a factor in the game. I know it is too soon, but despite the LCG format allows more variation, it seems to me that people have and will have a clan in their hearts. Most comments in this forum have a Mon attached. This happened in other LCGs in some measure, and in this one it may be a huge factor in the game. And I think it will be a good point in the community, as it will allow the development of side tactics or builds that otherwise could get missed (as players will try to adapt their playstiles to their clan pool), and it will produce a wider range of themes in the competitive play, as not everyone will be using the same two or three reliable archetypes.

So far so good for me, with an eye on the things we still don´t know. I expect some information on them in the forecoming articles…

6 minutes ago, Koriume said:

Second. Even when I am hyped enough to try to transfer the hype to my playgroup, I have some concerns. I am missing some things in the previews, and the way they resolve some expectations will be quite important. I am talking about two distinctive features of the CCG: the experienced versions of the charismatic characters and the community active role in the developing of the story and the game. If I am not wrong, ffg said that these terms will remain, though they will not be the same. The fact that we know so little about it makes me curious and cautious at the same time. I don´t say this can spoil a good game, but it would make me sad to lose those good things.

Third. Another concern is growing in my mind, and is complexity. We know now many things about the gameplay, and there are some innovations and additional rules that can be good to balance the game, making it difficult to master (what is good). But I fear the game becoming too complex, and diminishing the experience. For example, the fate rule has been an innovative adding that I myself am glad for, in terms of gameplay. But I think also that taking care of the removal of the counters every turn can result on a slight loss simplicity in the mechanichs.

How often were two personalities with the same name and different experience levels legal to play at the same time? For me, I guess I don't see much difference between having multiple personalities you can overlay in increasing Experience and having multiple versions of a personality that could replace each other (which is more what I'm expecting here). Besides the fact that having multiple personalities stacked sounds like it could get rather confusing, it also doesn't seem to make much sense to me (storywise) that once a character becomes Experienced, their unexperienced version could still exist doing other stuff. I think it makes more sense to simply increase the number of versions as a character becomes more prominent, so that switching between them is simply them switching roles; not suddenly becoming less experienced.

I have even less experience with player interaction to the story, so I can't really speak to that.

As for counters and complexity, I don't think it'll be that much of an issue. For one, it's a base rule of the game and will probably be explicitly called out on whatever phase-helper/cheatsheet card we get. For another, yes, we're getting a new mechanic, but at the same time, we're streamlining a lot of others. Keywords like "Cavalry" or "Naval" no longer mean anything on their own; now they're simply keywords that other cards can reference.

Dueling, though still somewhat complex, is also somewhat streamlined compared to the CCG. In the CCG, you had back-and-forth focusing, and having to know how many times you're allowed to focus, and having to know that you don't have to focus the max times. In the LCG, you instead just select a number on your dial. Instead of having to keep track of "Focus Effects", you just have Reactions that react to duels, that look like any other Reactions (trigger + effect).

In short, I hardly think the LCG will be more complex (in rules, at least) than the CCG was, especially right out of the base box!

Nice post; one point though regarding experienced characters. Although it's frequently mentioned by players as a concern i'm a bit surprised because so far we've only seen the core set and therefor their is no need for experienced characters. If we ever get experienced characters it will be at some point during the expansions.

What I'm trying to say is there is no need to discuss this mechanic from the standpoint of FFG.

We do know from other lcg like star wars and agot their can be multiple versions of the same character and since both are, like l5r,character driven it's safe to assume that somewhere down the line we'll have the same for l5r.

Number of posts on this site as a sign of viability isn't a very good metric. Nearly all the other LCGs have other forums where most of their discussion takes place; Netrunner, FFG's largest LCG, in particular has the vast majority of its discussion on Stimhack, various podcast discussion groups, and its Discord.

All the post numbers here show is how many people are discussing the game here, and that's about it.

Because you can run three copies of your unique characters, I highly doubt you will see experienced versions of them as they were presented in OL5R.

FFG has released alternative versions of main characters in AGOT2E, each time they have a different cost/strength/power-level to them, and you are able to run three copies of anyone unique character in your deck. It can be different quantities of different versions, as long as it adds up to 3. I would suspect you will be able to do the same in this game, if new versions are released.

That said, I highly doubt there will be many experienced versions of characters simply because of the thematic stance they have taken that everything fades. You get your one version and later on, other cool important people take their place.

I could see a potential rule being 3 copies of 1 clan champion per deck, but that is predicated on how expensive they turn out to be. The last thing anyone wants is this game boiling down to a superfriends archetype where you just pick your best clan champs and beat face because they are just that good and aren't cost restrictive enough.

Also, OL5R was a slower (relatively) game. You could afford to let an experienced character sit in a province until you brought out their 1st level version. With NL5R being a 3-6 turn game, I don't think you are going to have the time to sit and wait.

Personally, I don't think people have grasped the concept that the game could easily be over on T2 yet (though for consistency, I would expect to see a lot more finishes at the end of the first conflict of T3).

2 hours ago, Shikaku said:

Also, OL5R was a slower (relatively) game. You could afford to let an experienced character sit in a province until you brought out their 1st level version. With NL5R being a 3-6 turn game, I don't think you are going to have the time to sit and wait.

Eh...yes and no. I agree with the rest of your post, but this is iffy.

L5R was only 'slow' off-and-on. There were many times that blitz - in one form or another - ruled the roost. There's a good reason many people called the game "Legend of the Five Turns" during multiple arcs.

4 minutes ago, Togashi Gao Shan said:

Eh...yes and no. I agree with the rest of your post, but this is iffy.

L5R was only 'slow' off-and-on. There were many times that blitz - in one form or another - ruled the roost. There's a good reason many people called the game "Legend of the Five Turns" during multiple arcs.

I'll quote you maybe in 2-3 years when new L5R become "Legend of the Two Turns" aka "Legend of the Five Minutes".

That'd be amazing though. An LCG that plays really fast? I'm convinced that there'd be a pretty big niche for that.

It would appeal more to casual gamers, after all.

3 hours ago, kempy said:

I'll quote you maybe in 2-3 years when new L5R become "Legend of the Two Turns" aka "Legend of the Five Minutes".

Well, they said the average game would last 3-6 turns. It could happen in two.

57 minutes ago, Myrion said:

That'd be amazing though. An LCG that plays really fast? I'm convinced that there'd be a pretty big niche for that.

It would appeal more to casual gamers, after all.

First LCG ever with best-of-5 tournament round structure!

1 hour ago, Ser Nakata said:

Well, they said the average game would last 3-6 turns. It could happen in two.

I don't know...there would have to be a LOT of action packed into those two turns for me to consider such a game to be at all satisfying. Personally, I'd prefer to push the opposite extreme at 7-8 turns...

48 minutes ago, kempy said:

First LCG ever with best-of-5 tournament round structure!

I guess that'll be one more reason for me to avoid tournaments.

On 5/8/2017 at 3:39 PM, Ser Nakata said:

Well, they said the average game would last 3-6 turns. It could happen in two.

I'm confident sooner or later we will see turn two victories (maybe even turn one), after all in these kind of games, if a way of playing is even remotely possible, someone will eventually take it up . That being said, I don't expect it to be the norm.

15 hours ago, Togashi Gao Shan said:

L5R was only 'slow' off-and-on. There were many times that blitz - in one form or another - ruled the roost. There's a good reason many people called the game "Legend of the Five Turns" during multiple arcs.

Seconded. The first tourney I ever played had three Shiro Matsu buzz saw decks. That was the fastest I'd ever seen.

All I got from this is that we need to make more posts, so we can beat LOTR!!!

Being serious, though, interesting thoughts.

15 hours ago, kempy said:

First LCG ever with best-of-5 tournament round structure!

I honestly wouldn't mind that. Fast gameplay would help attract a lot more people and best of 5 minimises the luck aspect even more.

@JJ48 You realized that, kempy was trolling, right?

Well I am actually satisfied with the 45mins round time

45 mins is okay too.

I'd love for casual games to run around 30 mins, actually. 3-4 turns, not too crazy complicated. Makes for a much larger playerbase.

Remember, 45 min was the low end of the estimate. 45-90min is the projected length, which means probably an hour for most games.

Is there any way to find out how well a game sells? Does a distributor need to be contacted? I saw a poll last year to find out how many players voted for which game they played the most, but I really would like to see sales figures.

We have much more information now, and definitely my main concern is complexity.

As in the movie with Tom Cruise: too many mind.

Mind your hand, your opponents, both honor dials, the province, the ring, the fate on the ring, the fate on characters, the type of conflict...

too many mind.

In terms of gameplay, I like it, because I have a natural inclination for games that are difficult to master.

The good things are:

- Players can play different decks, as the skill in play is more important that deckbuilding.

- Game experience enhances when you feel that you won or you lost due to something deeper than randomness. Decisions are fun.

The bad things are:

- Complexity can reduce fun, as you have to consider many factors and the game does not advance, or you can lose the game because you forgot a small detail. That is less fun for me: decisions are fun, distractions are not so.

- Even when I like masters of game, I think it is no good for a game when a medium player has absolutely no chance against a hardcore dedicated player. I have seen this on other games, and made the competition less attractive for the middle class, what is no good I think.

Team covenant share this concern... they tell it better than me.

13 minutes ago, Koriume said:

- Players can play different decks, as the skill in play is more important that deckbuilding.

I agree with almost all of your post, except for the above.

Maybe I am not fully understanding your post, but I have to say that in my experience, deck building is the most important factor in card games, and sufficiently so with FFG LCGs. I mean, I just can't see how a finely-tuned deck, in the hands of a newb (for example) wouldn't give that player a strong advantage against a moderately built deck in the hands of an experienced player.

Am not trying to pick a bone with you here, however in my experience, deck design (overall design, availability of cards for that given theme, combinations within the deck, being able to play pretty much anything that you draw, etc) is key and at times out performs the player using it, as I have seen in my gaming history.

Overall, a solid post!

PS: I don't know how I missed this thread before.

On 5/9/2017 at 9:03 PM, Badmojojojo said:

Is there any way to find out how well a game sells? Does a distributor need to be contacted? I saw a poll last year to find out how many players voted for which game they played the most, but I really would like to see sales figures.

That is usually not public knowledge, since that affects their business decisions. You might be able to find info if someplace like BGG did a poll. If they are a publicly traded company you can check their yearly report on earnings from various parts of the company for their investors.

For the CCG, I would agree that deck building was probably a more important component than player skill. However, with the LCG, I think deck building and play skill will end up being equally important. Now with the addition of bluffing (Card bidding, duels, anything else like that), the player being able to judge when/how to use their options will be both more difficult and more important. I could see an early 5/1 card draw actually cause a loss down the line either due to honor/dishonor or due to card disadvantage and never quite catching back up. Or a player misjudging the situation and thinking that their opponent is looking to win the duel, when in fact he wants the player to just give him all the honor in exchange for not winning the province.

I think you might be underestimating player skill as a component. Given players of even skill, deck will be more important, and given even decks, skill and luck will be more important (Obvious answer), but it becomes harder define as you get into good and bad decks and skill. Because a good player with a mediocre deck could very well beat a bad player with a really good deck, if they don't know what they are doing with it. We also won't see the sort of consistent honor rockets that were easy to play, since the player relied on a lack of interaction to win. I expect Battles/conflicts will need to be fought to win, even if the end goal isn't to conquer provinces.

I always prefer a skill over luck game. Chess is more interesting than Yahtzee. A little randomness from the card draw is good, but I would not be interested in L5R if it played like Destiny. Heavy luck wins are not satisfying. .

23 minutes ago, Badmojojojo said:

I always prefer a skill over luck game. Chess is more interesting than Yahtzee. A little randomness from the card draw is good, but I would not be interested in L5R if it played like Destiny. Heavy luck wins are not satisfying. .

I will say that mitigating luck is a skill in itself

But I do agree with this sentiment in general.

They are only saying that play skill is more important than deck building in the LCG. I would tend to agree.

At the very beginning of the CCG, L5R was very much a decbuilding game. Player skill mattered but deck building was rewarded more. You could win games by just flipping strong cards and never really playing the game. Identifying the strongest cards and fitting them into your deck with a viable gold scheme was a big part of a players success. Obviously getting a fate deck to support your dynasty deck was crucial. But there were plenty of games that were won or lost without ever seeing a fate card played.....or at least any sort of sequence of play that involves skill.

The LCG won't have gold schemes that you need to figure out, and then build properly around. Your economy is flat for the most part so deck construction should not be as difficult. Additonally, you will not be building your board state in any permanent way. Your decisions will now be based in opportunity and timing and this is where superior player skill will be emphasised. Deck construction is and will always be important, I would just tend to agree it's not as important in the LCG as it was in the CCG, and likely less important than being able to assess the variety of game scenarios available and make the right choice. At least from what I've seen so far.

3 hours ago, LordBlunt said:

I agree with almost all of your post, except for the above.

Maybe I am not fully understanding your post, but I have to say that in my experience, deck building is the most important factor in card games, and sufficiently so with FFG LCGs. I mean, I just can't see how a finely-tuned deck, in the hands of a newb (for example) wouldn't give that player a strong advantage against a moderately built deck in the hands of an experienced player.

Am not trying to pick a bone with you here, however in my experience, deck design (overall design, availability of cards for that given theme, combinations within the deck, being able to play pretty much anything that you draw, etc) is key and at times out performs the player using it, as I have seen in my gaming history.

Overall, a solid post!

PS: I don't know how I missed this thread before.