As most of you know, and for the benefit of those who do not, MTG and old L5R (note that people I know still play the old AEG version) have cycles in which cards are declared non-standard but would still be retained in other formats, example modern, commander, legacy, ect. I think that in the future FFG will probably implement a similar concept in the future, provided that it lasts a long time, and hopefully it will.

Here's what I expect, my cards to last at least a year in "standard" before it phases out and will belong to a "Modern" format. Now this opens up a plethora of possibilities that can make or break the game. I for one do not think that the current coreset will be printed after 2 or so years and FFG will probably release new coresets with expansions every 2 to 3 years, which I hope they will so as not to make the game stale. This will of course make it easier for newer players to jump into the game, while giving the older players a fresh set of cards to play with. And sticking to this coreset only serves the newer players and the older ones probably wont buy a set, predicting the supply and demand could be detrimental should the supply run low, a potential player may have trouble getting into the game, should there be an overestimation of the demand, FFG might abandon this game when it loses money, we ALL lose.

Of course it won't be for free, that's the downside, we the pioneers of this new card game will have to shell out a few dollars every now and then, this is after all a business. But as long as I am having fun with my friends and enjoy the game, I am down with that. But at the same time I don't want to put too much money into this game as much as I want to.

Here is what I expect:

-It won't cost more than $200 a year to be competitive. IF it comes to that, I'd rather play boardgames or share with my playgroup, and if I have to spend more than $200 a year i'd rather play video games or MTG.
-There will be a Modern format where all cards from all sets are playable
-That standard cards will at least have a 2 year playing time. I don't want to buy a booster that would last only 6 months or a year.
-Storyline events!
-NO storyline events that potentially kill off clans.
-NO dominant decks that would see play 80% of the tournaments. I would like to see each clan winning a Kotei or at least have a chance.
-NO HARD COUNTERS TO DECKS AS TO RENDER A DECK USELESS. Example: Scorpion dishonor against Oni Shadowlands not losing honor.
-Foils. Yes foils. Do it. And don't get me those cheapo versions of MTG foils that bend and curls when it rains in the summer. I want an all foil deck pls. I'll pay an extra $100 for it too, i can make the buget work...
-Merchandise. I want to go into a tournament looking like the son of bayushi himself. Hat, collared shirt, rings, the works. Don't give me $100 shirt though, thats stupid.
-NO exclusive membership to get powerful cards. NO, just NO. I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH... NO. PLease. No. Paying an extra $10 a year to get game changing cards? WTH. No.
-Can you improve the imperial assembly website to reflect the newer cards so that we the players can easily reference the cards? I have to search google just to look at some cards. I am sure it wont be that hard.

Don't have time for a full response just now, but regarding expectations for cost. With the standard model of 1 dynasty pack per month, you're already looking at $180/ year. That's not figuring deluxe expansions, 1-2 per year at $30 each. You might not have to buy all to be competitive for a single clan, but I suspect you'll be close or over $200 a year with that model.

I'd rather be spending $230 a year rather than $300 every 3 months on Destiny. As a former player I can tell you that game is in a really bad spot with its players right now. At least in my meta anyway. With no rules errata and 2 new product announcements less than a month after the newest set was released and a "supposed release date on the 15th of December" for one of them. It's just too much and most people I know are losing interest quickly.

Lets not forget the unbelievably warped meta right now. The Australian nationals, for example, The top 32 were all Villain decks. The Top 8 I think the character variance was something like 5-6 characters. There was not a single Hero Deck in the Top 32, not a single one. With no errata to FN-2199, people are going to drop like flies. Inaction kills games, especially with broken cards that make it through a sub-par testing process.

Regarding your final point - the Imperial Assembly was first a fan club and then a website ran by AEG. FFG have never ran it, and never announced any intentions of doing so, so I'm not sure what you're expecting to get updated, dude.

1 hour ago, jowisu said:

Here's what I expect, my cards to last at least a year in "standard" before it phases out and will belong to a "Modern" format. Now this opens up a plethora of possibilities that can make or break the game. I for one do not think that the current coreset will be printed after 2 or so years and FFG will probably release new coresets with expansions every 2 to 3 years, which I hope they will so as not to make the game stale. This will of course make it easier for newer players to jump into the game, while giving the older players a fresh set of cards to play with.

This statement is both hilarious and deeply saddening at the same. If you think FFG is smart enough to have revised core sets printed every couple years and card rotations that keep a cardpool 2-3 years old at a time you're in for quite the surprise.

2 hours ago, kiramode said:

This statement is both hilarious and deeply saddening at the same. If you think FFG is smart enough to have revised core sets printed every couple years and card rotations that keep a cardpool 2-3 years old at a time you're in for quite the surprise.

What's a reasonably sized card pool for rotation purposes? Thrones 2nd ed has been out for 2 years now with a steady release schedule and it's just about to hit 800 cards. L5R may be different, but LCGs get about 300 cards a year not including the core set.

Are we not expecting this game to follow FFG's established rotation policy? Core set, all deluxe expansions, and the most recent five to seven expansion cycles? Even if the 6-in-6-weeks pattern continues, we're probably still a couple of years away from the Imperial cycle rotating out.

Lcgs don't have a modern and standard format. This one could be different, but that hasn't been announced by FFG. Rotation happens after the first pack in the eighth cycle is released, at least how netrunner is doing it. Not sure if L5R will be the same. Otherwise all cards released are available to play. I am almost 100% sure that foils have not been a part of any lcg. Doubt this will be different since this isn't a collectible game.

I would like FFG to have story events in their tournaments much like I have heard that AEG did, where characters can change, weapons can break, and playstyles can change a little bit. That is what I want from this iteration of the game.

I suspect FFG might try something new. The 6 packs in 6 weeks is new. The L5R IP has proven it has staying power. If there ever were a time for FFG to try and break out of their established pattern for release and rotation of an LCG, this would be it. I'm going to remain optomistic and hope that they eventually have some sort of "eternal" format after several years of the game to compliment a standard rotation that keeps changing with new card releases.

And if it doesn't happen, at least I've got a great game built around one of my favorite IP's to play with for the foreseeable future.

Netrunner is the first LCG to hit rotation. They revisited the core set to reflect this. I guess that their rotation policy for L5R (and AGOT) will depend on how well it goes for it. They already said that they are listening on the rotation feedback to find the perfect system, so theres nothing set on stone yet.

I would wish for a slower release cycle so that players get enough time with cards to really learn them before everything changes again. Plus they are going to have to be VERY careful with power balancing between the Clans as cards come out as if a Clan gets nerfed even temporarily those players will be upset (especially if during Tournament Season).

I really think the accelerated release of the Imperial cycle is simply a one-time thing to keep a core-only environment from becoming stale. A good influx of new cards should help get some deck variety going so players don't keep running into the same seven clan decks until January.

I can only say that based on current ffg pattern, the first revised core set occurs on netrunner after 7cycles I think? And I do think the 6weeks 6 packs is a new strat they are trying just to have a larger cardpool for a new game rather than a persistent one.

FFG is smart enough to figure out a different way of doing cardgame. I don’t think they will revert to ccg style of discontinuing cards every 2 years

Nothing will stop being printed until it has rotated out of legal play. Legal play is already determined at this point, and it will be some time before L5R even comes close.

What FFG has done to keep L5R meta shifting is introduce Role cards which can shift the meta of a large card pool by rotating which seeker / keeper cards are used and by whom.

It's really hard to work out how "fast" I want content for LCGs. I think if I had to sum up my position it would be "the larger the card pool, the slower the releases". Like, I'm incredibly happy about this 6 packs in 6 weeks thing as it'll give the card pool a massive boost and add a lot more choice to the decks you're building (one would hope, at least).

But then I recall back to when I was playing AGOT v1, with a pretty much complete card set. After a while with that I was very much shifting over to "I wish they'd just do a deluxe box twice a year". The card pool was massive, and I was struggling to keep it all in my head, especially as we have a pretty even House distribution among the people I played with. I feel in the end that I like regular packs, but after a while I'd drop them to two-monthly rather than monthly to give me time to absorb and mess about with what I've got.

That's all from the biased perspective of a filthy casual though, I don't really do tournaments and my games of L5R thus far have mostly been a "meet with some mates down the pub on a Sunday afternoon and making everyone else around you feel uncomfortable by talking about how you want to make a challenge with the Fire Ring" and all that - and I guess the opposite side to the coin is that these games can absolutely be treated as "lifestyle" games, where you'll play a lot and be continually hungry for content.

I know the solution to my side of things is to say "just buy stuff more slowly", but that means I have to tackle that voice in the back of my head which pretty much goes "you've got to buy it now. Now. Do it now. If you don't do it now, it'll sell out and you'll never be able to buy it. No? Dreamlands Cycle. **** you. Buy it". And so I do.

I think what most people fail to realize is that the overwhelming majority of card players do not play competitive, I would venture its less than 5% of the consumers of any game actually compete, and I think that is being very generous. Its also worth pointing out that the forum community is not at all representative of the wider audience, in the same way say Boardgamgeek.com is not at all representative of the majority of gamers, if they where, Monopoly and RISK would be the number one games on that list. There is this weird perception that forum discussion and competitive play make and break a game and represent the core "beliefs" of the general consume, its a really silly notion. What it represents is a minority of the community who typically is self-destructive anyway. I have NEVER seen any game launch without it kicking off with outrage about how horrible one thing or the other is and the end result is always that the game makes it on the merits of gameplay.

Just look at Star Wars Destinty, there was so much hate on this forum for that games model, if the forum discussion was any indication it failed before the game even hit the market. The result? One of THE most popular games to release in a decade jumping to the number 4 spot instantly trump only by the big three (Magic, pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh).

It was the same with X-Wing, god did that game get a lot of hate, again, people predicted its doom, they considered the game failed and outrageously terrible, end result...again, one of the most popular miniatures games on the market today, stronger today then it has ever been in its entire history, officially beating out Warahmmer 40k as of last year.

All I'm saying is that all the hoopla-ha of this forum is going to end up being dead wrong, as always. The most likely reason that they are releasing 6 packs in 6 weeks is not because of some new business strategy but out of the realization that based on the core set sales they can make a ridiculous amount of money if they release the stuff faster, all this "theory" stuff is ridiculous, FFG is a business and as a business, they are in the business of making money. They will make a crap ton of it on Lot5r because its a very successful and popular franchise, everything else is just non-relevant smoke.

16 hours ago, Hinomura said:

Regarding your final point - the Imperial Assembly was first a fan club and then a website ran by AEG. FFG have never ran it, and never announced any intentions of doing so, so I'm not sure what you're expecting to get updated, dude.

But what will I do now with all my left over koku :<

Cheers @BigKahuna. People get too emotional about this stuff and often forget they represent the extreme end of consumers.

On the LCG/CCG topic, I personally way prefer CCG. I'm glad Destiny is a CCG because I can pick up the less powerful characters for a few bucks and put together decks for friends. There's been an uptick over the last decade of people who feel like they need to commit 100% to a game for it to be worth it. I don't mean to say there aren't tons more casual players or casual-core players, but the amount of 'hardcore' players is greater than it used to be, and because of platforms connected via the internet, they're way more vocal.

It turns into a kind of 'keeping up with these joneses'. Some people get really turned off by that and feel burned.

About future ``````````````````````````"surprises". FFG is now testing something "fresh" with AH LCG. They are just realeasing stand alone books with playable LCG cards as add-ons that are available only this way. So, should we expect fe Way of Clan RPG books in future with exclusive L5R LCG cards attached?

1 hour ago, kempy said:

About future ``````````````````````````"surprises". FFG is now testing something "fresh" with AH LCG. They are just realeasing stand alone books with playable LCG cards as add-ons that are available only this way. So, should we expect fe Way of Clan RPG books in future with exclusive L5R LCG cards attached?

I'm iffy on this - I like the idea of tying it in, but it can be frustrating to buy a book for 40 bucks that you aren't interested in, but you need that lcg card...

I'm all for alternate art, or full art promos being put in with ancillary products, but not original cards that you can't acquire normally.

20 hours ago, jowisu said:

than $200 a year to be competitive. IF it comes to that, I'd rather play boardgames or share with my playgroup, and if I have to spend more than $200 a year i'd rather play video games or MTG.

-Foils. Yes foils. Do it. And don't get me those cheapo versions of MTG foils that bend and curls when it rains in the summer. I want an all foil deck pls. I'll pay an extra $100 for it too, i can make the buget work...

That you see nothing wrong with this logic is mind boggling to me. You say if the game costs more than $200 you'd rather play a boardgame, but apparently this concern goes away if the cards are shiny? I find it strange that your enjoyment of the game is so dependant on how shiny the cards are that you're willingness to invest jumps 50%.

20 hours ago, kiramode said:

This statement is both hilarious and deeply saddening at the same. If you think FFG is smart enough to have revised core sets printed every couple years and card rotations that keep a cardpool 2-3 years old at a time you're in for quite the surprise.

But wouldn't it be a wonderful world if they actually did this?

3 minutes ago, PinnacleOfJimbo said:

But wouldn't it be a wonderful world if they actually did this?

Yes and no.

Yes - because I like the idea of the story evolving over time, and I know that the way MtG does their blocks, and legality limits helps give varied metas and game types. This lets players involve themselves on their own level - a new player being able to compete quicker in block format, with less burden on owning and knowing a vast number of cards, and a more seasoned player favoring Modern which allows them to draw from a deeper card pool and utilize their wider knowledge of cards and effects to give them an edge.

No - While MtG's system obviously works, that doesn't mean its the only way.

I'm very curious to see how much the Roles system will fluctuate our meta each year even without rotating old sets out. The LCG model introduces much fewer cards compared to the CCG model. This naturally stretches the space of time a game can build before the same burden of knowledge starts to be too much for a new player. A new player can also shot-gun purchase any older cards as needed in an LCG, where a CCG requires they look to the after-market collectors pricing to pick up older cards they couldn't get fresh from a booster.

Because of these differences between a CCG and an LCG, I'd like to see FFG explore what solutions work best for their own games. I do want to see older cards rotate out, but I'd prefer that to be a way of showing the time that has passed in the story as lives are lived and lost than to simply clone MtG's legality cuts.

The roles system will only affect so much if Keeper/Seeker is the only limitation for cards. Sure, if a clan switches from one to the other, a handful of cards change legality. I'd be more interested if there were powerful neutral cards tied to element roles, etc. More things that change the meta in significant ways.

Shosuko I am actually ok with this for Arkham Horror, but would not be for L5R. L5R at its core is a competitive game and Akham Horror is a Cooperative game. I play Star Trek Attack Wing and that particular game has a lot of promo only ships and cards. I can make the game into a more snowbally thing where those that win tend to win more. In a Cooperative game it doesn't matter if one of the players has a different version of one of the characters.

1 hour ago, Evilgm said:

That you see nothing wrong with this logic is mind boggling to me. You say if the game costs more than $200 you'd rather play a boardgame, but apparently this concern goes away if the cards are shiny? I find it strange that your enjoyment of the game is so dependant on how shiny the cards are that you're willingness to invest jumps 50%.

Hi! There is a difference between spending $200 a year to be COMPETITIVE and spending an extra $100 on COLLECTIBLES. Both of which I am willing to do. Whats illogical with that? For the record if it does go beyond my bugdet to play competitively I'd still buy the foils if they are good.

See not everyone will buy the foils, but I will, I enjoy collecting things, nothing wrong with that. In fact I am willing to bet there are things that you spend more on then necessary just because you enjoy it, also nothing wrong with that. See I am not the type of person to judge people who buy RGB on their computers, or people who buy sports cars, or people who have subscriptions to pornhub, that's their money, that's what they want to do that's what they can afford and I respect that.

And while where at it, I just might buy an extra $100 on merchandise because I have a decent job and can afford it.

21 hours ago, kiramode said:

This statement is both hilarious and deeply saddening at the same. If you think FFG is smart enough to have revised core sets printed every couple years and card rotations that keep a cardpool 2-3 years old at a time you're in for quite the surprise.

Well hopefully your prediction is wrong, this game isn't like the previous LCG's that FFG made, hopefully they will change it, that is what I expect (as an optimist.)

21 hours ago, Hinomura said:

Regarding your final point - the Imperial Assembly was first a fan club and then a website ran by AEG. FFG have never ran it, and never announced any intentions of doing so, so I'm not sure what you're expecting to get updated, dude.

Aside from the Koku (as stated by Tebbo), which I still have an abundance of, the also had oracle with advanced search mechanics that would really help me out, and it needs updating.

17 hours ago, Joelist said:

I would wish for a slower release cycle so that players get enough time with cards to really learn them before everything changes again. Plus they are going to have to be VERY careful with power balancing between the Clans as cards come out as if a Clan gets nerfed even temporarily those players will be upset (especially if during Tournament Season).

Yes! A slower release cycle would be nice after the game develops a decent card pool with decent options for every clan. And yes, I'd rather have balance over substance any day of the week, but I believe it is possible to have both.

28 minutes ago, shosuko said:

No - While MtG's system obviously works, that doesn't mean its the only way.

I'm very curious to see how much the Roles system will fluctuate our meta each year even without rotating old sets out. The LCG model introduces much fewer cards compared to the CCG model. This naturally stretches the space of time a game can build before the same burden of knowledge starts to be too much for a new player. A new player can also shot-gun purchase any older cards as needed in an LCG, where a CCG requires they look to the after-market collectors pricing to pick up older cards they couldn't get fresh from a booster.

Because of these differences between a CCG and an LCG, I'd like to see FFG explore what solutions work best for their own games. I do want to see older cards rotate out, but I'd prefer that to be a way of showing the time that has passed in the story as lives are lived and lost than to simply clone MtG's legality cuts.

I for one do not want the cycles to end every year with an introduction to a new cycle. Hypothetically I believe this is the best possible rotation:

Year 1 Imperial Cycle = First Coreset and Imperial Expansions.
Year 2 Imperial Cycle = Deluxe Imperial Cycle release and Emerald Expansions release
Year 3 Emerald Cycle (Hypothetical) = First corset and Imperial expansions go out of standard rotation, Deluxe Imperial and Emerald expansions remain, Emerald Coreset introduced.
Year 4 Emerald Cycle = All Emerald expansions rotate. Deluxe Emerald and Diamond Expansion released.
Year 5 Diamond Cycle (Hypothetical) = Emerald coreset rotates ect...

That way we can always have a decent card pool regardless of what cycle we play in. Also I'd like to have 4 Strongholds playable at a time, and at least 2 champs playable. The issue of balance can easily be solved through rotations.