2 hours ago, Spawnod said:

Lore every other week would be great, but that is not what we really saw the first couple of months. I would say it was 1 lore a month that was split up into every other week.

Well yes, in practical terms that's true. But the intent from FFG was that it was something lore related to keep us interested every couple weeks. I wouldn't mind if they even decided to serialize longer stories like that, breaking it down into say, 5-6 biweekly installments. Longer installments would be nice as well, but I won't hold my breath.

I still think it would have made more sense to just release a "deluxe" expansion than 6 small packs in 6 weeks. It seems like a much more economical model for both the consumers and FFG.

1 hour ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

I still think it would have made more sense to just release a "deluxe" expansion than 6 small packs in 6 weeks. It seems like a much more economical model for both the consumers and FFG.

Clearly the decision to release the six packs in six weeks was taken after the packs were all designed and ready.

I personally would like a distribution model with 60 card expansions that are released 4 times a year.

55 minutes ago, Tabris2k said:

Clearly the decision to release the six packs in six weeks was taken after the packs were all designed and ready.

How is that clear? I don't recall seeing anything indicating when a decision was made.

19 minutes ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

How is that clear? I don't recall seeing anything indicating when a decision was made.

It is no proof, but I heard the same information from a playtester. I heard that there were massive concerns about the balance of the clans and cards that had too few answers for too much time. To prevent a backlash FFG decided to release the packs within a very short time period.

58 minutes ago, Ignithas said:

It is no proof, but I heard the same information from a playtester. I heard that there were massive concerns about the balance of the clans and cards that had too few answers for too much time. To prevent a backlash FFG decided to release the packs within a very short time period.

I find the idea of it being due to balance issues being very unlikely. It's not like this is their first LCG, and that there haven't been balance issues before (e.g. first cycle Lannister in Thrones 2.0). But overall FFG tends to be pretty cautious about innovation or changing their basic model of operations; I can see them designing the Core and first cycle, then realizing the marketing potential of doing a fast release of the first cycle. But probably not straying too far from the basic idea of Core -> Cycle -> Deluxe -> repeat.

1 hour ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

How is that clear? I don't recall seeing anything indicating when a decision was made.

Well, in all FFG’s LCGs, there has been always a 1 pack/month release schedule.

Pre-launch, everyone assumed this was gonna be also the case with L5R. There were talks about this, there were pre-launch interviews and previews, and not a single time FFG said the contrary.

They only announced this after launch, when everybody had their cores already. Not only that, but if FFG had this release planned as it has been, then probably it would have been cheaper for them to make it in a single box.

27 minutes ago, Abyss said:

But probably not straying too far from the basic idea of Core -> Cycle -> Deluxe -> repeat.

They've already strayed from that: in non-coop games, the release schedule for deluxes is no longer tied to that for cycles, meaning deluxes can come out in the middle of a cycle. Case in point, in AGoT 2nd ed (the game where they started diverging from that): the 1st deluxe came out after the 1st cycle, the 2nd came out after the 4th pack of the 2nd cycle, the 3rd came out after the 2nd pack of the 3rd cycle and the 4th came out after the 3rd cycle. If they continue on this schedule, the 8th (and last, assuming 1 per faction) deluxe should come out after the 4th pack of the 6th cycle.

2 hours ago, Abyss said:

I find the idea of it being due to balance issues being very unlikely. It's not like this is their first LCG, and that there haven't been balance issues before (e.g. first cycle Lannister in Thrones 2.0). But overall FFG tends to be pretty cautious about innovation or changing their basic model of operations; I can see them designing the Core and first cycle, then realizing the marketing potential of doing a fast release of the first cycle. But probably not straying too far from the basic idea of Core -> Cycle -> Deluxe -> repeat.

I heard that the first cycle was developed together with the core set and the cards were balanced that way. They started playtesting with 3 core sets and some playtesters reported back, that starting first was too much of an advantage and that especially Unicorn, but also Dragon was too strong. FFG designed the first cycle with that in mind. Before finalising the core set FFG feared that an unbalanced metagame would endanger the game, because it is built around clan loyality. This resulted in rules being changed (having to declare attackers; passing first gives fate; second player gets a fate and second player can put two fate on two rings, which was revoked later; being able to play conflict cards outside the conflict Phase, Toturi and Hotaru rule) and especially Unicorn getting hit by the nerfhammer. After the core set hit the shelves and the first cycle was finalised, they realised that the first cycle will unbalance the game and to combat this they wanted to release the whole first cycle so that Unicorn (and also Dragon) players won't have to play a game stacked against them for 6+ months and maybe lose interest in the game.

If they do this in the future, I'd prefer they stick to deluxe boxes only and do a couple a year.

I'm fine with the traditional method though.

2 hours ago, Ignithas said:

I heard that the first cycle was developed together with the core set and the cards were balanced that way. They started playtesting with 3 core sets and some playtesters reported back, that starting first was too much of an advantage and that especially Unicorn, but also Dragon was too strong. FFG designed the first cycle with that in mind. Before finalising the core set FFG feared that an unbalanced metagame would endanger the game, because it is built around clan loyality. This resulted in rules being changed (having to declare attackers; passing first gives fate; second player gets a fate and second player can put two fate on two rings, which was revoked later; being able to play conflict cards outside the conflict Phase, Toturi and Hotaru rule) and especially Unicorn getting hit by the nerfhammer. After the core set hit the shelves and the first cycle was finalised, they realised that the first cycle will unbalance the game and to combat this they wanted to release the whole first cycle so that Unicorn (and also Dragon) players won't have to play a game stacked against them for 6+ months and maybe lose interest in the game.

Now, no one wants to go first, even in Unicorn. Also, I don't see the metagme being stacked against Dragon.

I'd rather swap to a pack every two weeks schedule.

And I hope they don't make a break longer that a month. That won't be good for the game.

Tell you what... give me 6 packs in ONE DAY -- release the whole **** thing at once, whether in individual dynasty packs or a big ol' box -- and I'd actually be pretty happy.

Whilst I'm fine with the accelerated release to get the game up and running, I wouldn't really like the 6 packs in 6 weeks approach to become the standard. 1 pack a month would work for me as it gives time to build decks and have games with the new cards before the next pack comes along.

The other alternative I wouldn't mind if we were to go for burst releases would just be to release all the packs at the same time. This would work better though if the individual packs were themed in some way such as doing a pack per clan, so even if you weren't the sort to just buy everything you could focus on buying the packs for your primary and secondary clans. I suspect FFG would also not go this route because it would make it easier for people to not buy cards they don't want.

24 minutes ago, nekomatafuyu said:

The other alternative I wouldn't mind if we were to go for burst releases would just be to release all the packs at the same time. This would work better though if the individual packs were themed in some way such as doing a pack per clan, so even if you weren't the sort to just buy everything you could focus on buying the packs for your primary and secondary clans. I suspect FFG would also not go this route because it would make it easier for people to not buy cards they don't want.

Retailers would dislike it as well, depending on your meta you end up with dead stock sitting on shelves because no one plays that faction locally. You would see it all the time in the old CCG days and more recently I've seen it with mats. My local store brought in two of each mat on release and has brought in three shipments of Crane, Lion, Dragon and Scorpion. Still has both the original Crab mats and one of the Unicorn mats collecting dust on the shelf.

7 hours ago, Khudzlin said:

Now, no one wants to go first, even in Unicorn. Also, I don't see the metagme being stacked against Dragon.

They really should change it. Instead of giving player 2 +1 fate at the start of the game, they should just give each player 1 fate after they pass, instead of just 1 to whoever passed first. After the first turn, give the fate to whoever passed first as normal.

This would actually balance it a lot better - as +1 fate during the first dynasty is WAY more powerful than 1 fate afterwords... So even if player 1 passes first the game isn't balanced by this, combined with the fact that player 1 turn 1 has no opportunity to gain fate from a ring and we can see why no one likes going first turn 1...

No. I haven't had time to pick up my second and third core sets, which were pre-ordered, let alone any of the packs yet. I will just quickly fall behind and then stop if this continues, likely even with much of a gap inbetween.

However, I loved the constant steady updating and modifying, and I'm looking forward to that with Legend of the Five Rings.

12 hours ago, Khudzlin said:

Now, no one wants to go first, even in Unicorn. Also, I don't see the metagme being stacked against Dragon.

I like to go first.

On 11/27/2017 at 9:43 PM, OokamiGauru said:

I like the 6 in 6 to get started, as it does seem to help complete the core set, but beyond that, I think it would be too much. A pack every month is perfect, with a deluxe helping fill the rest of the year up, maybe 3 months after the last pack of the cycle.

I agree as long as the deluxe is balanced and not favoring one clan as rumors are suggesting!

15 hours ago, Khudzlin said:

Now, no one wants to go first, even in Unicorn. Also, I don't see the metagme being stacked against Dragon.

Yes, Dragon is in a really strong position right now due to arguably the strongest role.

I dislike it, and I really hope they don't do it again.

A pack a month means that you have a decent number of games to try each new card in, and a feel for how it changes the environment. A pack a week, at my current rate of play, means I sometimes struggle to have played at all before the next set of cards turn up. It feels like as soon as a pack arrives I have to be online ordering the next one. It isn't like CCG boosters, which I might have bought at the same rate, but at a time (and quantity) of my choosing, it's just a deluge, and by the end of it I think I'm going to feel like I bought a rather overpriced boxed-set with 6 times the postage cost and a lot of excess packaging.

I understand why they did it, but I pray that they switch to monthly packs, and that they take a good long break before they do. I need time to assimilate and play (and my wallet needs a rest as well). If they kept on with weekly packs indefinitely I'd have to quit.

They can't keep on with weekly packs anyway. It takes time to design and playtest cards.

26 minutes ago, Khudzlin said:

They can't keep on with weekly packs anyway. It takes time to design and playtest cards.

Nah, everyone just starts getting Unicorn cards...

1 hour ago, Zesu Shadaban said:

Nah, everyone just starts getting Unicorn cards...

Nah, without playtesting, we'd get a mix of overpowered and useless cards.