I gather that FFG have sold the RPG to Edge, and that Edge will be producing new content starting sometime next year. Is this going to be a new version of the game, or a continuation of what FFG has been doing?

5 minutes ago, blackshoe said:

I gather that FFG have sold the RPG to Edge, and that Edge will be producing new content starting sometime next year. Is this going to be a new version of the game, or a continuation of what FFG has been doing?

Not quite. Fantasy Flight Games (and all its IPs) was bought by Asmodee a few years ago, who also owns several other game developing companies, including Edge. Edge was used to publish some RPGs in non-English speaking countries in Europe (primarily Spain and France, I think). They've recently restructured their Asmodee Group, transferring all RPG development to Edge.

So Edge is continuing the production of Genesys, Star Wars, and L5R as they are. These two books are the last two books that FFG worked on before this restructuring went into effect; we already know the first few books Edge is putting out, which includes another L5R book.

2 hours ago, blackshoe said:

I gather that FFG have sold the RPG to Edge, and that Edge will be producing new content starting sometime next year. Is this going to be a new version of the game, or a continuation of what FFG has been doing?

While I would love a revised edition, I wager that is not going to happen any time soon.

Hopefully, Fields of Victory will fix the mass battle system.

2 hours ago, Swordbreaker said:

So Edge is continuing the production of Genesys, Star Wars, and L5R as they are. These two books are the last two books that FFG worked on before this restructuring went into effect; we already know the first few books Edge is putting out, which includes another L5R book.

Was there word on what that next L5R book is? Having a specific book title will certainly build confidence and reassure us that good things are coming down the pipe.

2 minutes ago, neilcell said:

Was there word on what that next L5R book is? Having a specific book title will certainly build confidence and reassure us that good things are coming down the pipe.

Yes, it's the Dragon one. Writ of the Wilds .

ETA: it's been confirmed to include the Dragonfly Clan as well.

3 hours ago, Tonbo Karasu said:

Yes, it's the Dragon one. Writ of the Wilds .

ETA: it's been confirmed to include the Dragonfly Clan as well.

I was not talking about the ones that were already in development before the hand over to Edge. I meant the next book after the hand-over. Or maybe I should have said, the first book to be exclusively handled by Edge.

1 hour ago, neilcell said:

I was not talking about the ones that were already in development before the hand over to Edge. I meant the next book after the hand-over. Or maybe I should have said, the first book to be exclusively handled by Edge.

Yes. So am I. Months back, when it was announced that FFG would no longer do RPGs, the eventually said that they would publish the two books that had started development already - Celestial Realms and Fields of Victory . Writ of the Wilds was announced by Edge as the first book they are doing.

1 hour ago, neilcell said:

I was not talking about the ones that were already in development before the hand over to Edge. I meant the next book after the hand-over. Or maybe I should have said, the first book to be exclusively handled by Edge.

Writ is the one. Both the rep for FFG and Sam Stewart (now of Edge) said that Fields is the last FFG book, and Writ is the first Edge book.

2 hours ago, Tonbo Karasu said:

Yes. So am I. Months back, when it was announced that FFG would no longer do RPGs, the eventually said that they would publish the two books that had started development already - Celestial Realms and Fields of Victory . Writ of the Wilds was announced by Edge as the first book they are doing.

Ah, thanks for that clarification. I was under the mistaken impression that the Dragon book was started under FFG rather than EDGE. Thank you for correcting me. I apologize for my terse response.

So, questions about this come to mind.

what is the overall goal of this restructuring?

Are they just moving English RPG staff under the Edge umbrella to concentrate on the RPG's

or

Are they handed over the reins of the RPG's to European staff of Edge.

I ask because the European staff of Edge has not had a great track record with this as seen with the terrible translations of Anima beyond fantasy back in the days.

Will Edge have full rein over the RPG's?

Can they update, change, reworks, or are they bound to just putting out splatbooks?

Will these products follow past Edge ones in being created in Spanish, French then being translated or will they be produced from the start in English?

31 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

what is the overall goal of this restructuring?

From what I can guess, whoever was in the RPG team on FFG was fired from there and then rehired by Edge (possibly some people were permanently fired).

31 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

Are they just moving English RPG staff under the Edge umbrella to concentrate on the RPG's

Yes, it seems to be the case.

32 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

Will Edge have full rein over the RPG's?

Because of the RPGs being tied to CCG and the CCG being under FFG directly, I assume they won't have full rein. But I assume they will have some control.

34 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

Can they update, change, reworks, or are they bound to just putting out splatbooks?

I don't know, but I would love for them to announce a revised edition of the core book. 🤞

34 minutes ago, tenchi2a said:

Will these products follow past Edge ones in being created in Spanish, French then being translated or will they be produced from the start in English?

I have no clue.

2 hours ago, Diogo Salazar said:

From what I can guess, whoever was in the RPG team on FFG was fired from there and then rehired by Edge (possibly some people were permanently fired).

Yes, it seems to be the case.

Because of the RPGs being tied to CCG and the CCG being under FFG directly, I assume they won't have full rein. But I assume they will have some control.

I don't know, but I would love for them to announce a revised edition of the core book. 🤞

I have no clue.

I am less keen on a revisedncore this soon. Insuspect it would come across as a money grab. That is the kindnof crap Games workshop is notorious for.

What need fixed in the core?

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

What need fixed in the core?

You have the time? 😂

80% of the Scenes and Conflicts needs to be fixed/improved.

Skirmishes are the only type of conflict that works as it is. Intrigues have extremely few options and not enough examples/clarifications on how to run a proper one.

Duels are downright messed up.

Mass Combats take forever and do not bring the same feeling of awesomeness that previous editions brought (plus, only two stances actually have their bonus applied: Fire and Void).

Range Bands only work if you ignore them, which begs the question why bother having them, then?

The Skills chapter could have more examples skills rolls and TNs but the latest errata covered a little bit of that.

36 minutes ago, Diogo Salazar said:

You have the time? 😂

80% of the Scenes and Conflicts needs to be fixed/improved.

Skirmishes are the only type of conflict that works as it is. Intrigues have extremely few options and not enough examples/clarifications on how to run a proper one.

Duels are downright messed up.

Mass Combats take forever and do not bring the same feeling of awesomeness that previous editions brought (plus, only two stances actually have their bonus applied: Fire and Void).

Range Bands only work if you ignore them, which begs the question why bother having them, then?

The Skills chapter could have more examples skills rolls and TNs but the latest errata covered a little bit of that.

You do realize the list of options are examples not exhaustive right?

Mass combat will probably bevexpanded in the lion book. I am sure intrigues will be expanded in the scorpion book. You should probably give a listen to the intrigues episods of court games. Katrina and Max Brook give more info on them.

I have not done a lot of duels but they dont seem terrible so far.

He's also simply wrong about both Duels and Intrigues. They both work just fine.

However, the book does need more examples for stuff, although the latest errata did help.

Range bands also work. "Ignoring" in this case means "don't track them the way you would track a grid". (There is a bit of weirdness with moving to range 6, if you can make that happen, however.)

I think best a reprint Core Book would probably put the advice and options in the FAQ in the core book.

6 hours ago, Myrion said:

He's also simply wrong about both Duels and Intrigues. They both work just fine.

However, the book does need more examples for stuff, although the latest errata did help.

Range bands also work. "Ignoring" in this case means "don't track them the way you would track a grid". (There is a bit of weirdness with moving to range 6, if you can make that happen, however.)

Duels work just fine if all you do is attack. It’s the only smart option because everything else is subpar most of the time.

And intrigues need more options and clarification for a GM who is not experienced yet. Theoretically, once someone accomplishes their objective, the intrigue ends but that should not always be the case and mist of the time there should be a time constraint for the players (amount of rolls). Even mass combat, bad as it is, tell us that a full day of battle from dawn to dusk is 6 turns.

The problem really is that the book was written by two different teams with different visions. One that wanted a more narrative game and the other wanted a more tactical game and in the end they both failed when they compromised.

27 minutes ago, Diogo Salazar said:

The problem really is that the book was written by two different teams with different visions. One that wanted a more narrative game and the other wanted a more tactical game and in the end they both failed when they compromised.

Is that an opinion, or based on a statement made by somebody involved?

My opinion based on reading the book. Take Blades in the Dark. It is fully narrative and doesn’t worry about grids or range bands, only how you narrate what you want to do and the GM determines how easy or difficult it is.
Range bands on the other hand feel like someone REALLY wanted a grid for combat and was dissuaded by the use of range bands.

6 hours ago, Myrion said:

He's also simply wrong about both Duels and Intrigues. They both work just fine.

I've run a (too short) intrigue-focused campaign. It seemed to work just fine - though it was quickly found that opportunities were often more important than actual successes. Intrigues do seem to be somewhat player dependent though.

Duels... don't work the way I'd have preferred. Still, they aren't entirely broken.

To be honest, I've used them more successfully for non-violent 1-against-1 competitive activities. I'd happily use the current duel rules for eg. an intense game of Go or Insults.

As a note aside, we did have a duel. Between a Mirumoto and a Battlemaiden. On foot. The battlemaiden won because she correctly predicted that the Mirumoto wanted to move into Earth Stance . That gave him so much Strife that he knew he would loose in the following round. He should have surrendered then and there. He didn't, and nearly lost his arm because of that.

6 hours ago, Myrion said:

However, the book does need more examples for stuff, although the latest errata did help.

Indeed. It might also have been useful if less 'important stuff' had been placed into sidebars.

6 hours ago, Myrion said:

Range bands also work. "Ignoring" in this case means "don't track them the way you would track a grid". (There is a bit of weirdness with moving to range 6, if you can make that happen, however.)

Not really a fan of range bands.

20 minutes ago, Tenebrae said:

Duels... don't work the way I'd have preferred. Still, they aren't entirely broken.

To be honest, I've used them more successfully for non-violent 1-against-1 competitive activities. I'd happily use the current duel rules for eg. an intense game of Go or Insults.

As a note aside, we did have a duel. Between a Mirumoto and a Battlemaiden. On foot. The battlemaiden won because she correctly predicted that the Mirumoto wanted to move into Earth Stance . That gave him so much Strife that he knew he would loose in the following round. He should have surrendered then and there. He didn't, and nearly lost his arm because of that.

I agree. Duels now are supposed to be used whenever you have a martial conflict involving two characters. Not only the formal duels where someone issued a challenge and they had to go through all the paperwork for approval.

Zatoichi meeting the rōnin at night by the side of the road? Duel.
Two samurai meeting on opposite sides of a bridge too narrow for both? Duel. Granted in the story they both decide to depart. That's actually one other complaint I have with the duel system that it is impossible for a character to asses his opponent DURING the duel.
Any Kurosawa standoffs? Duel.

My problem with Predict is that you know your opponent took a Predict action, so you just need to go Void and attack "for free". You won't incur in extra Strife and if you were lucky with explosive dice and opportunities you can deal a critical hit with no risk of becoming Compromised yourself.

The only moment Predict is worth it is if you know your opponent is close to becoming Compromised and decides to go Water so they can keep striking and take a Calming Breath (because that's the most optimal choice for them at this point), but then again, you could just have chosen to attack again instead and let them become Compromised the next round.

Center, on the other hand, is only worth it if you want to show off against a weaker opponent.

Another problem I have is with the one roll duel mechanics. They don't give us any examples on the GM should adjudicate for the narrative of what the player wants to do with the duel. Which, for experience GMs, won't be a problem, but for new ones, definitely will. Which, I guess, goes back to the inherent problems of L5R, that it seems you need someone already experienced with the lore and system to bring in new players.

36 minutes ago, Diogo Salazar said:

I agree. Duels now are supposed to be used whenever you have a martial conflict involving two characters. Not only the formal duels where someone issued a challenge and they had to go through all the paperwork for approval.

You keep saying that, despite various people havng disagreed with you. We have yet to find anywhere saying that you must use a Duel if there are two people fighting each other. The very first line of the section titled Duels is "Duels are stylized engagements, usually fought to ...". The sidebar next to it starts "Duels almost invariably result from one character challenging another...". This language strongly implies that we're talking mainly about formal duels.

There is a continuum between competely formal duel and 2 people brawling in the street. Somewhere along that is the point past which a Duel Conflict is not appropriate. Each GM will likely make that decision in a different place, and possibly vary depending on circumstances.

59 minutes ago, Diogo Salazar said:

I agree. Duels now are supposed to be used whenever you have a martial conflict involving two characters. Not only the formal duels where someone issued a challenge and they had to go through all the paperwork for approval.

Zatoichi meeting the rōnin at night by the side of the road? Duel.
Two samurai meeting on opposite sides of a bridge too narrow for both? Duel. Granted in the story they both decide to depart. That's actually one other complaint I have with the duel system that it is impossible for a character to asses his opponent DURING the duel.
Any Kurosawa standoffs? Duel.

My problem with Predict is that you know your opponent took a Predict action, so you just need to go Void and attack "for free". You won't incur in extra Strife and if you were lucky with explosive dice and opportunities you can deal a critical hit with no risk of becoming Compromised yourself.

The only moment Predict is worth it is if you know your opponent is close to becoming Compromised and decides to go Water so they can keep striking and take a Calming Breath (because that's the most optimal choice for them at this point), but then again, you could just have chosen to attack again instead and let them become Compromised the next round.

Center, on the other hand, is only worth it if you want to show off against a weaker opponent.

Another problem I have is with the one roll duel mechanics. They don't give us any examples on the GM should adjudicate for the narrative of what the player wants to do with the duel. Which, for experience GMs, won't be a problem, but for new ones, definitely will. Which, I guess, goes back to the inherent problems of L5R, that it seems you need someone already experienced with the lore and system to bring in new players.

I see nothing that says you shouldnt use skirmish for these things.

We can always agree to disagree, but my point is on this red sidebar on page 258.

Quote

WHEN TO USE A DUEL
Duels almost invariably result from one character challenging another, who accepts the challenge in the hope of humbling or even killing their foe (or who finds themself in a position where they cannot afford to refuse). Duels should be used for one-on-one martial contests.

Like you said, duels ALMOST invariably result from a challenge. But sometimes the challenge doesn't even need to be spoken or it can be implied.

The scene above is clearly a duel, no matter how much you want to say it isn't. Even though there was no formal challenge. (Unless you count throwing a tantō as formal challenge).

A contest of Sumai would be duel. A Shinobi jumping on someone in a back alley I would still treat as a duel if the Shinobi was unable to neutralize his target with the element of surprise. Heck, the skirmish system already has a built-in system to transform a 1-1 skirmish (which I find unnecessary) into a duel anyway so you might as well go into that already.

But going back to my problems with duels. Besides the subpar options, there's also the fact that by the rules as written, range bands don't matter at all because on page 260, it says that every character is in range of the opponent which is just dumb. Taking, a different setting, the duel between Ser Gregor Clegane and Oberyn Martell, with the L5R rules, mean that Oberyn would be screwed anyway for equipping himself lightly and with a spear, against the heavier and slower Clegane because no matter what, he would be crushed by The Mountain. That's just idiotic. A duel totally should care about positioning and stance, otherwise, it's just two people swinging sticks as heavy as they can against the other hoping the other one will fall faster (which is essentially every duel, really, but at least you could have some elegance in that).

We agree on one thing though. Each GM will adjudicate differently.

13 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

I see nothing that says you shouldnt use skirmish for these things.

For one, duels instead of skirmishes when you have only two people fighting guarantees a quicker end of the whole conflict because someone will become Compromised. So that helps move the game faster for all the other players who are just watching.