There seems to be a lot of talk about the new game and a lot of hype and buzz and I'm totally in favor of this but someone has to wonder; Why is this game not nearly as Tactical?

Now I'm bias in favor of tactical gameplay mostly because I started this game as a Lion player before I found the Truth of Fudo, but there's an interesting discussion to be had in the tactics vs. abstraction of interactions. In Old L5R you would swing at one or two provinces, and interact directly with your opponents pieces, bowing, killing and sending them home, force pumps and force jabs. Everyone remembers cards like "Cost of Pride", "Justly Earned Victory", "Countermove", "Unshakable", and more. Cards that felt like tactical actions, actions that would be taken on a battlefield, not just in their titles but in the effects they had on the table. "Fallen in Battle", "I Can Swim", "Admit Defeat", if anything it feels like the most interesting and dynamic cards are those taken during political fights where the courtly discussions and dissenting opinions are formed in a sort of nebulous abstraction of effects. But the military conflict doesn't feel like moving pieces on a board anymore. No more will we send Akodo Hachigoro by himself to one province, and an Army of Lions at the next. Only to force them to put all in at one and forgo the other. Do I defend against Matsu Kasei? I know he has a Final Duty in hand. What about my other province? No more, "I declare an Attack and assign no infantry"

This has been my dissent with LCG's in Fantasy Flight for a while, the only game that actually felt like it had any tactical involvement at all was Conquest, and while I have never played I know that the tournament scene was very unhealthy. Most tournaments being controlled by Dark Elves and Elves. But that game FELT tactical, like you were moving pieces, you were contending and fighting on your terms. Moving your Warlord, and defeating armies. No killing, and no ranged attacks. Was this not our gripe with the game when Ivory first came out? That the game had been defanged? Like we were playing with Socker Boppers, there was no impact. While that's not a bad thing at all, this is not why most people enjoyed playing Legend of the Five Rings. It reminded them of Go, an intensely tactical game about movement, placement, and investment in action priority.

I worry because abstract games like Game of Thrones 2.0 is also very abstract in the method of execution. But that game is so blunt in its execution, players used to try and bluff certain cards but now the best answer is to simply play as intended and if they have it... well, they have it. And So It Goes. It's a game about taxation of numbers, draining your opponents resources, denying him the ability to strike back at you, and I think this is why going first is going to be so devastating in favor of military decks.

Now I'm no expert of either game and I don't speak from a position of authority, when Game of Thrones first came out we swung into our opponents with just enough that they couldn't stop us even if they blocked with everyone, now we swing with 6 military just to see if they'll block at all. It's all about taxation of resources, which might end up to be far more interactive. No more honor solitaire, no more Temple of Purity. Maybe that's better for the game.

In the end I'm just not sure. All I know is I feel like Tactical Battle Actions, Tacticians, and the feeling of being in a tactically advantageous position might have gone away. And I'm still unsure if that's a good thing or not.

I am an avid Conquest player, having played it for two years and still enjoying it. If one wanted to argue the Conquest meta was unhealthy, I'd say they'd have better chances focusing on the importance of Command and resource denial, rather than on the fact you have to split your forces between different battlefields (i.e. the planets). In fact, the latter is one of the best aspects of Conquest game design, according to a multitude of players (myself included). As for L5R CCG, I can't tell anything about it so I can't draw any comparison with the LCG.

What I noticed when I first saw the rules for L5R LCG, comparing it to my old acquaintance Conquest, was its lack of positional elements (which I believe is the same thing you're talking about here, unless I'm wrong). Whereas in Conquest you have to carefully split your forces, so there is a strong emphasis on where you place things, L5R seems to be more about deciding what to play and when, rather than where. Speaking in Conquest terms, it's as if all Conflict cards in L5R have the Ambush keyword from Conquest - arguably the strongest keyword in that game.

However, it doesn't strike me as a weakness of L5R: the game has an entirely different focus, and it wouldn't have been possible - in my opinion - to mix the positional aspects of Conquest with L5R's new mechanics.

If there's something that bothers me about L5R, it is the very counterintuitive nature of the political conflicts, but I fully understand their need design-wise to diversify the game and make it more dynamic (clashes between similiarly oriented decks would probably end up being very static and/or one-sided depending on draws, and they would offer no "play around" possibilities).

12 minutes ago, Foxtrot Four said:

There seems to be a lot of talk about the new game and a lot of hype and buzz and I'm totally in favor of this but someone has to wonder; Why is this game not nearly as Tactical?

Now I'm bias in favor of tactical gameplay mostly because I started this game as a Lion player before I found the Truth of Fudo, but there's an interesting discussion to be had in the tactics vs. abstraction of interactions. In Old L5R you would swing at one or two provinces, and interact directly with your opponents pieces, bowing, killing and sending them home, force pumps and force jabs. Everyone remembers cards like "Cost of Pride", "Justly Earned Victory", "Countermove", "Unshakable", and more. Cards that felt like tactical actions, actions that would be taken on a battlefield, not just in their titles but in the effects they had on the table. "Fallen in Battle", "I Can Swim", "Admit Defeat", if anything it feels like the most interesting and dynamic cards are those taken during political fights where the courtly discussions and dissenting opinions are formed in a sort of nebulous abstraction of effects. But the military conflict doesn't feel like moving pieces on a board anymore. No more will we send Akodo Hachigoro by himself to one province, and an Army of Lions at the next. Only to force them to put all in at one and forgo the other. Do I defend against Matsu Kasei? I know he has a Final Duty in hand. What about my other province? No more, "I declare an Attack and assign no infantry"

This has been my dissent with LCG's in Fantasy Flight for a while, the only game that actually felt like it had any tactical involvement at all was Conquest, and while I have never played I know that the tournament scene was very unhealthy. Most tournaments being controlled by Dark Elves and Elves. But that game FELT tactical, like you were moving pieces, you were contending and fighting on your terms. Moving your Warlord, and defeating armies. No killing, and no ranged attacks. Was this not our gripe with the game when Ivory first came out? That the game had been defanged? Like we were playing with Socker Boppers, there was no impact. While that's not a bad thing at all, this is not why most people enjoyed playing Legend of the Five Rings. It reminded them of Go, an intensely tactical game about movement, placement, and investment in action priority.

I worry because abstract games like Game of Thrones 2.0 is also very abstract in the method of execution. But that game is so blunt in its execution, players used to try and bluff certain cards but now the best answer is to simply play as intended and if they have it... well, they have it. And So It Goes. It's a game about taxation of numbers, draining your opponents resources, denying him the ability to strike back at you, and I think this is why going first is going to be so devastating in favor of military decks.

Now I'm no expert of either game and I don't speak from a position of authority, when Game of Thrones first came out we swung into our opponents with just enough that they couldn't stop us even if they blocked with everyone, now we swing with 6 military just to see if they'll block at all. It's all about taxation of resources, which might end up to be far more interactive. No more honor solitaire, no more Temple of Purity. Maybe that's better for the game.

In the end I'm just not sure. All I know is I feel like Tactical Battle Actions, Tacticians, and the feeling of being in a tactically advantageous position might have gone away. And I'm still unsure if that's a good thing or not.

Without wanting to sound too critical, your very first paragraph is begging the question. And the question that it is begging is "Is this game as tactical [as the L5R CCG]?"

I think the answer to that question is 'Yes'.

Firstly, just because the conflict is a Political one doesn't mean that tactics aren't happening: you can move pieces around between the battle and home; bow them; change their honourable status etc.

Secondly, if you look at the example given in the Conflict article, you'll see all sorts of back and forth actions and cardplay between the Dragon and Phoenix. As an additional point, people immediately started talking about the example and whether the decisions and actions were tactically sound. If people can discuss whether a particular approach is the right tactics, then surely it's tactical.

Finally, there are cards like "Banzai!" and "Ready for Battle" that sound tactical to me.

I'd just like to point out that the only clan that has been fully spoiled so far is politically-focused, so it's only natural for Political Conflicts to seem a little better developed at this point.

I guess it boils down to what you consider tactics. That is certainly up for debate, although probably not worth it. When I was playing cards like Sneak Attack/Deadly Ground or Traversable Terrain I remember feeling like I was doing something tactically brilliant. However when I look back on it with an objective pair of glasses I realize I was just playing busted combos and cards that either put my opponent in no win situations or completely removed their decision making process altogether.

As someone who has played L5R for over 20 years I feel that the LCG has much more tactical depth than what I experienced when playing the CCG. So we've lost the "assign no attackers" play and the ability to attack multiple provinces at the same time. Instead you have a conflict phase where you will have to attack and defend, which to me appears to present far more tactial decisions that have to be made.

I think it's still much too early to make assessments over the tactical nature of the game. Having to attack and defend in the same turn ends up being quite similar to choosing whether or not to split attack, and battles themselves have a very similar back and forth to old L5R, something that is missing from most AGoT challenges.

The complaints about Ivory weren't really that battle actions didn't kill people- battles where people don't die tended to be more interesting because both players got to do more in them. The complaints were more that the cards everyone was playing were boring in comparison to ones they had been playing a week before the arc rotated, and the lack of kill emphasised that. New L5R is avoiding that issue mostly by virtue of the fact that it's a new game, and it's been quite a while since most players bothered with Old L5R.

If the cards (and thus the battles) are interesting, with a lot of back and forth and close battles at the final Provinces, then it'll be fine. Guessing whether they will or not will require us to see a lot more of the cards in the Core Set than we have so far.

I admit that I am disappointed that you can't declare on two provinces at the same time. That may be the one thing I like less about this new L5R.

But the other improvements they've made to the game make up for it, in my opinion.

And, let's be perfectly honest, Unicorn was never fun to play against with the amount of movement tricks and cavalry maneuvers they had. Games against Unicorn essentially boiled down to "better build fast and retaliate successfully" unless you had Reinforce the Gates or a character like Matsu Kasei that could force your opponent to come talk to you.

So, in order to remove that from the game, they kind of had to remove multiple province attacks as well.

I think that the divide-the-troops factor was not totally eliminated, but replaced cause now the first to attack will have to think about who will defend and who will attack him in the opponent's turn.

I don't think it will always be "I attack with all Military characters" for example, always favoring the first to attack.

You can defend a province with one unit and save the province, and as no one dies in the battle resolution, manage to bow all the enemy characters and make a devastating counter attack.

In fact de defender has 2 great advantages, the province and holdings abilities and knowing who will attack and who will stay home before choosing de defenders.

At first glance the new format seems to have more tactical choices, like how many cards to buy (bid), which ring to choose according to the progress of the game, and how to attack.

I bet the unicorn deck will take many actions to get in and out of the battle, replacing the old cavalry.

It is still too early to make many assumptions. This is also only a base set, and many more mechanics or concepts could be fleshed out in expansions.

2 minutes ago, L5RBr said:

I think that the divide-the-troops factor was not totally eliminated, but replaced cause now the first to attack will have to think about who will defend and who will attack him in the opponent's turn.

I don't think it will always be "I attack with all Military characters" for example, always favoring the first to attack.

You can defend a province with one unit and save the province, and as no one dies in the battle resolution, manage to bow all the enemy characters and make a devastating counter attack.

In fact de defender has 2 great advantages, the province and holdings abilities and knowing who will attack and who will stay home before choosing de defenders.

At first glance the new format seems to have more tactical choices, like how many cards to buy (bid), which ring to choose according to the progress of the game, and how to attack.

I bet the unicorn deck will take many actions to get in and out of the battle, replacing the old cavalry.

Also if you went first and attacked with everyone you risk your opponent taking 2 because you have no defenders. Remember Water doesn't work unbowing people involved in that conflict.

We haven't had enough spoiled at this point to really determine the quality of the game. I do feel that simultaneous turns are going to give us a lot of critical decisions to make about splitting our forces. This seems to be built into the game as a more core point of decision making than old5R had. In old5R some people wouldn't attack for some time, and when they did they may split the opponent's forces but the opponent would always had their next turn while everyone you attacked with was bowed. In new5R both players will need to be deciding between offense and defense at the same time. If you lay down a powerful character and feel good about making an attack, but then you must balance that with the fact that you need to defend yourself and possibly against 2 attacks before the turn is done...

4 hours ago, JJ48 said:

I'd just like to point out that the only clan that has been fully spoiled so far is politically-focused, so it's only natural for Political Conflicts to seem a little better developed at this point.

This is what I keep saying to myself - the Crane are spoiled, so of course they look great - but we don't even know what powerful cards other clans will have access to. It's really too early to get worked up about how the game is balanced.

Edit - Just saw the Lion spoilers - I think they certainly have a focus put on when they play certain cards - as they have ways of playing characters through ability - which does not allow them to add any fate to them. They will also have to bid conservatively as even bidding 3 if the opponent takes a bid of 1 could be detrimental to their honor advantage. I also think honor / dishonor is built into the game well. Dishonoring Toturi or Hotaru will mean a LOT, not just by eliminating their prowess but also by taxing the opponent's actions as they try to honor them. I'm really glad to see there is a honored / neutral / dishonored status so that the battle is fought both ways. This will likely mean the Scorpion are much more free to play with dishonor as the other clans will have ways to play the same game.

7 hours ago, Eu8L1ch said:

I am an avid Conquest player, having played it for two years and still enjoying it. If one wanted to argue the Conquest meta was unhealthy, I'd say they'd have better chances focusing on the importance of Command and resource denial, rather than on the fact you have to split your forces between different battlefields (i.e. the planets). In fact, the latter is one of the best aspects of Conquest game design, according to a multitude of players (myself included). As for L5R CCG, I can't tell anything about it so I can't draw any comparison with the LCG.

What I noticed when I first saw the rules for L5R LCG, comparing it to my old acquaintance Conquest, was its lack of positional elements (which I believe is the same thing you're talking about here, unless I'm wrong). Whereas in Conquest you have to carefully split your forces, so there is a strong emphasis on where you place things, L5R seems to be more about deciding what to play and when, rather than where. Speaking in Conquest terms, it's as if all Conflict cards in L5R have the Ambush keyword from Conquest - arguably the strongest keyword in that game.

However, it doesn't strike me as a weakness of L5R: the game has an entirely different focus, and it wouldn't have been possible - in my opinion - to mix the positional aspects of Conquest with L5R's new mechanics.

If there's something that bothers me about L5R, it is the very counterintuitive nature of the political conflicts, but I fully understand their need design-wise to diversify the game and make it more dynamic (clashes between similiarly oriented decks would probably end up being very static and/or one-sided depending on draws, and they would offer no "play around" possibilities).

I think you really hit the difference in the tactics. Conquest is about WHERE you play your cards. You need to position properly to get command and for battle, not only in this turn but future turns as well.

L5R is about WHEN you play your cards. It is much more tempo based and you need to evaluate when and how long you play your cards.