Right now, we're playtesting the format, finding issues, discovering what works and what doesn't. For the foreseeable future, the format will only use the cards from the main game (sans the restricted list).

If the format becomes popular enough, I could see FFG offering a multiplayer specific product, similar to the draft products they've offered for AGoT & ANR. If they did, I would expect the cards to not be legal in the standard format. The could then do the pack as a POD (print-on-demand) product, which is in-house in MN. If they did such a product, I expect it may contain provinces, treaty cards (2 copies, you and your opponent each get one; each treaty having a different consequence for breaking it), title cards (akin to the role cards of AGoT), maybe even strongholds. I would also like to see a neutral city (like Toshi Ranbo) that any player can attack and any one player can choose to defend.

Thus, my question is two-fold:

1. Is there any interest from the community in such a product?
2. What content would you like in such a product?

Keep in mind that the POD products are in the 40-60 cards-per-pack range.

I am no expert and claim no such thing. But in my honest and humble opinion I don't like it when products are released that can only be used in certain formats of the game. I know that such products are fun but they are essentially white elephants.

From a design perspective I love cards that are playable in every format. I absolutely admire cards that are good in single player but scale in multiplayer. And the best of both worlds is already an integral part of this game. This part i mentioned are the keywords and rules text. For example the rules text, "opponent", "player" and "each". By carefully wording cards, you can make really nice multiplayer cards that are also viable in single player formats.

34 minutes ago, moto_rudhra said:

I am no expert and claim no such thing. But in my honest and humble opinion I don't like it when products are released that can only be used in certain formats of the game. I know that such products are fun but they are essentially white elephants.

From a design perspective I love cards that are playable in every format. I absolutely admire cards that are good in single player but scale in multiplayer. And the best of both worlds is already an integral part of this game. This part i mentioned are the keywords and rules text. For example the rules text, "opponent", "player" and "each". By carefully wording cards, you can make really nice multiplayer cards that are also viable in single player formats.

Actually I prefer if the bulk of Multiplayer cards are limited to a specific set as it doesn't clog other slots in a limited release window for those cards. Since its an optional buy (only needed if you plan to play multiplayer) not being forced to buy it with other cards is the preference for me.

You have to remember these aren't for general play cards these are for cards that would be designed to interact specifically in a multiplayer environment and would have no role outside of it. Things like ally and rival cards to dictate attacks, treaties that don't apply outside of multiplayer, and possibly a few clan specific cards to replace those that may not function in the Multiplayer environment to bring parity back to the card pool if one particular clan is getting hit too hard with too many cards on the banned list (as may end up being the case with Phoenix and Dragon given the number of effects they have that key off of rings and may end up being problematic in the enlightenment format, and yes i appreciate the irony in that)

40 minutes ago, Schmoozies said:

Actually I prefer if the bulk of Multiplayer cards are limited to a specific set as it doesn't clog other slots in a limited release window for those cards. Since its an optional buy (only needed if you plan to play multiplayer) not being forced to buy it with other cards is the preference for me.

You have to remember these aren't for general play cards these are for cards that would be designed to interact specifically in a multiplayer environment and would have no role outside of it. Things like ally and rival cards to dictate attacks, treaties that don't apply outside of multiplayer, and possibly a few clan specific cards to replace those that may not function in the Multiplayer environment to bring parity back to the card pool if one particular clan is getting hit too hard with too many cards on the banned list (as may end up being the case with Phoenix and Dragon given the number of effects they have that key off of rings and may end up being problematic in the enlightenment format, and yes i appreciate the irony in that)

Yeah. I'm looking more for cards that don't appear in your decks, but rather in your provinces or stronghold or role or sundry.

Although, cards that allow you to choose two opponents, give one a thing and take something away from the other would be really neat. Other cards that allow for a dual benefit that effect you and your ally (like an event that says, "Play only if you have an ally. Action: You and your ally both draw 1 card." ) could be neat.

Or, an 2/2 oni character with the text: "Cannot be a defender. Forced Reaction: After this character participates in a successful attack against an opponent - give this character to a different opponent. This character does not bow during conflict resolution in which the attacker won. All attachments remain on this character when it changes owners. (Unlimited)".

Primarily I'm interested in cards that support the format, that don't bog down the traditional pool.

As an aside, Beastmaster Matriarch (newly added to the restricted list) was worded with multiplayer in mind. Unfortunately, the rules for multiplayer hadn't been written yet and it was likely assumed that there would only be five rings in play.

I'd be interested.

I'm sure I'd buy it, but I'd prefer an "all vs one" or "all vs the game" co-op standalone product. It could still include the accessories you described for enlightenment format but I'd rather avoid the free for all melee style of multi-player.

9 hours ago, Duciris said:

Or, an 2/2 oni character with the text: "Cannot be a defender. Forced Reaction: After this character participates in a successful attack against an opponent - give this character to a different opponent. This character does not bow during conflict resolution in which the attacker won. All attachments remain on this character when it changes owners. (Unlimited)".

There are a few problems with this:

• The first restriction should be written like Shiba Peacemaker's: "This character cannot participate in conflicts as a defender."
• The bit about attachments doesn't work, since attaching restrictions are checked continuously.
• Owners don't change, controllers do.
• The forced reaction makes it easy to gang up on a weak player.

On 6/22/2018 at 7:05 AM, HirumaShigure said:

I'm  sure I'd buy it, but I'd prefer an "all vs one" or "a  ll vs the game" co-op standalone product.     

Ooh. For instance the clans of Rokugan vs. an AI shadowlands deck. That could be fun.

3 hours ago, Froysadal said:

Ooh. For instance the clans of Rokugan vs. an AI shadowlands deck. That could be fun.

I like that idea. If we see the Spider Clan, I'd prefer it in an X versus 1 Spider player. If they could pull off an AI player, that'd be cool too.

EDIT:

An unrelated search lead me to the discovery that OL5R had a 1 Vs. 3+ variant. Namely, Siege. There was a version that claims to have been for the first cycle of L5R, as well as one for Ivory edition in 2014.

To find them, look for Siege: Clan Wars and Siege: Heart of Darkness respectively.

Not sure how it could be updated for the LCG, but I'm interested.

This game is hard enough for new players to get into in the first place. Multiplayer is a FANTASTIC way to draw new people in; as new players are far more likely to borrow a deck join in when their friends already play. If you create a necessary multiplayer-only product; you're basically telling new players that "No, you have to buy this specific product just to be ABLE to play with us ." With someone already on the edge, that's a hard-no. I think a multiplayer specific expansion would be a terrible idea if it was mandatory to play multiplayer.

That being said, I would love a co-op set; as long as it wasn't mandatory just to play multiplayer. (Something along the lines of Netrunner's Terminal Directive special expansion)

12 minutes ago, RavenwolfXIII said:

This game is hard enough for new players to get into in the first place. Multiplayer is a FANTASTIC way to draw new people in; as new players are far more likely to borrow a deck join in when their friends already play. If you create a necessary multiplayer-only product; you're basically telling new players that "No, you have to buy this specific product just to be ABLE to play with us ." With someone already on the edge, that's a hard-no. I think a multiplayer specific expansion would be a terrible idea if it was mandatory to play multiplayer.

That being said, I would love a co-op set; as long as it wasn't mandatory just to play multiplayer. (Something along the lines of Netrunner's Terminal Directive special expansion)

Not really as ideally only one player needs the Multiplayer expansion to cover the needed modification cards. And if they are already on the fence it just frankly becomes one more expansion that they need to look at buying, and if you tell them its only needed to play multiplayer that can serve to make it a little more palatable as they know they don't need it to be competitive in normal play so its not a priority to buy unlike say the three core and soon to be thirteen expansion packs (Imperial Cycle, Elemental Cycle and Phoenix pack) that will be on the market.

3 hours ago, RavenwolfXIII said:

This game is hard enough for new players to get into in the first place. Multiplayer is a FANTASTIC way to draw new people in; as new players are far more likely to borrow a deck join in when their friends already play. If you create a necessary multiplayer-only product; you're basically telling new players that "No, you have to buy this specific product just to be ABLE to play with us ."

3 hours ago, Schmoozies said:

Not really as ideally only one player needs the Multiplayer expansion to cover the needed modification cards.

And remember that we already have the multiplayer option that requires no additional buys.

I'm not interested in a must-buy product. Just something that gives more options to your play group if that's what you want to include. If there were a competitive multiplayer (which couldn't be high-level because of problems like Kingmaker), then it might be required. For playin' with buds, though, surely it would be up to your group to include them.

If there were a co-op version or many-versus-one option, I would expect that to require one person to pick up the expansion. (Got to be honest, I'm really interested in that direction which I hadn't heard/thought of earlier today!)

One versus Many was in Star was and it was good only a short time because that one quicly was outrunned by bigger card pool. Pure coop is a different beast, but would require a completely new game.

i really would like multiplayer expansion that would have something like we have in Games of thrones, aka role cards or similar. And good punch of cards that would be good in multiplayer, but Also in regular games.

Anything current regarding multiplayer?

?

The good points and weak points have remained the same.

Weak points:

• you can only win at this moment by enlighment victory
• the easiest way to win is to bash the weakness player (croup can avoid this if They chose, but it is build in option)

good points:

• it is still much faster than normal two player game
• Multiplayer is just fun compared to two player version

we need something new to solve those fist two issues to make multiplayer really good. So either store tweaks and/or new cards that solve those two things.

On 8/11/2018 at 4:20 AM, Hannibal_pjv said:

• Multiplayer is just fun compared to two player version

.... when you're not that one person getting beaten on because it's the easiest way for them to win. So I guess it works. 66% of people in a 3-player game having fun, as opposed to 50% in a 2-player game.

Heh!

in our Gaming croup we do play differently, but the optimum would be to beat the weak... but we allways try to kick the Person who is winning, so the game in our croup is much more balanced and Also fun to all... Except to player who is winning

How about of getting honor if you attack the player who has most rings at that moment and losing honor if you attack a player who has least rings? That could work...

rule suggestion

if you attack the player who has highest amounth of claimed rings, you get 2 honor.

If you attack player that has smalles amount of claimed rings you lose 4 honor...

that could work!

What if you gained or lost honour based on the difference between the highest and lowest number of rings claimed? So one person running away to win would get others lots of honour to attack, and it would be very perilous to attack the lowest player in such a case. But then if things are more even its not as big a deal?

True!

But honor mechanic could be the balancing factor that could help in here in one way or another. Your idea is good, not sure if it is punishing enoug. The good thing is that it balance things when the situation is very even.

have to test and try... one additional thing is that it could make honor victory easier as well as dishonor when attaking weaker would be punished and attaking stronger rewarded by honor.

I think that wouldn't be bad, although I haven't been able to try the rules out yet. It sounds like Enlightenment is by far the most common result, so increasing the honour conditions a little might help?

Yep. I think so also!

Jeez Louise - don’t we have any other news from FG concerning multiplayer yet??? ?

They're running a multiplayer beta event at World's so it's unlikely the October announcement will be a dedicated beta product. This lends greater and greater credence to the narrative campaign hypothesis.

Does anyone has info how that multiplayer event did work at Worlds?

A local FLGS personnel stated that a multiplayer game is in the works but no release date as of now. When I pressed him for more info or a window for release he said that it will be prior to mid 2019. 🤨 (my thoughts are how would he know this, what has FFG stated/released to stores, why is this being kept so secretive thus far?)

Is multiplayer really that difficult to put together for this card game????? 😞