|
Eh, I'm glad of glad I will hopefully never have to play the equivalent of the EE Spider Ninja deck where it was near impossible to actually engage them. Ditto for a lot of Unicorn decks. I'm pretty positive about the changes, to be honest: no longer losing provinces prevents the spiral of "Welp, I'm down two provinces better hope I never have a bad flip".
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
It is a little disappointing that the only zones are whatever province you're fighting in and home, but since most of the time people split back in the day were ninja/cavalry shenanigans I'm not too depressed about it. The thing right now I'm interested to know about is what the differences between the provinces are, and what a province being broken means beyond the terminology used. The cards previewed so far look very spare in terms of things they do so I want to see more action cards as well and get a feel for the unique characters. I like that they combined provinces with fortifications, that's a good change. PaybackJack fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Apr 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
There are some example provinces here: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/legend-five-rings-showcase/
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
I get why they dumpstered movement, assignment, and all the accomplanying fiddly complexity. I get it. It's probably necessary given how hard it was for new players to grasp it. But man, this game won't feel like L5R. That said, I do want to play it. Every other change (including fading) ranges from good to downright excellent. The new economy is particularly good compared to how L5R economics have always worked in the past, and I loving adore the new region system (aka Netrunner mind games: the mechanic).
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
PrinnySquadron posted:There are some example provinces here: Yeah, I want to know what the little mon on the bottom of the card is for. Each one has a different ring on it. A benefit if that's the element contested, or a deckbuilding limitation meaning you need 1 of each ring as a province. So far all of them have the same effect that only works for the battle they're in but I wonder if we'll see more later with generic effects, and does breaking a province turn off their abilities? So many questions. edit: Combining regions and provinces is probably the more correct way of thinking about it. Fortifications could still come up later. Corbeau posted:I get why they dumpstered movement, assignment, and all the accomplanying fiddly complexity. I get it. It's probably necessary given how hard it was for new players to grasp it. But man, this game won't feel like L5R. FFG really doesn't seem to like having resource mechanics tied so closely to randomized draws, and I gotta say that I've enjoyed their different ways of getting around this. Each of their systems feels different and unique and while this one seems to feel closest to Star Wars, it's still implemented in a different enough way that I'm curious to see how they build on it. PaybackJack fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Apr 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
PrinnySquadron posted:There are some example provinces here: These seem sorta...dull? I realize that the fading mechanics makes removal, like the Endless Plains (except they seem lovely?), seems sorta eh. Given that the Dragon Clan's theme seems like it's "attachments matter," is equipment going to be like GOT or like Auras from MTG? Edit: Some cards have marks on the bottom as well. I thought that they would be those sorta superfluous "how many there are in Core" marks, but they're not on all the cards. Doesn't seem restricted to type, either. Edit 2: Oh it's influence. And currently are only on cards that would be in the Conflict deck. GrandpaPants fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Apr 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
I have to imagine equipment will return to your hand (or maybe your deck?) in most cases, otherwise you wouldn't want to play it on the majority characters. Decking isn't a win condition, maybe there's a shuffle mechanic. Reading those province cards shows a mechanical difference between claimed/unclaimed rings, so I wonder where they'll go with that mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:Another question: Part could just be lack of time playing the game. Like I had said, I was quite disappointed so didn't play as much as I could have-others have mentioned it but it feels kinda like a watered-down AGoT. People here seem a lot more accepting of the fading than I was, so maybe they'll appreciate the game a bit more but everything just feels kinda weak? There's no real room for big spashy cool effects. There's also the issue that certain clans focus heavily on certain things by design. Like the preview card Matsu Berzerker, the "-" for political means you can't participate in those challenges at all (if an effect would move you into the challenge, you're immediately booted). And that's part of the thing about why I said clans have a different feel but it's kinda artificial-the desire to cover both bases makes you tend to want to build to include dudes to fight in both challenges, which negates a bit of the heavy military/heavy political feel. And as for the scorpion comment, their dishonor stuff was extremely strong and most honor mechanics aren't absolute-like most of the honor character effects are something like "if you win, honor this dude, if you lose, dishonor him". Honor gain is way more limited than it was in the old game. PrinnySquadron posted:I'm pretty positive about the changes, to be honest: no longer losing provinces prevents the spiral of "Welp, I'm down two provinces better hope I never have a bad flip". PaybackJack posted:It is a little disappointing that the only zones are whatever province you're fighting in and home, but since most of the time people split back in the day were ninja/cavalry shenanigans I'm not too depressed about it. When you break a province, you turn the province card under it sideways and it's effect is no longer in play. However, since the effects I remember were pretty much just stuff at that province, and a lot of them were combat focused, it doesn't really have much impact besides being part of the win condition. It doesn't really feel like you actually lose anything. PaybackJack posted:Yeah, I want to know what the little mon on the bottom of the card is for. Each one has a different ring on it. A benefit if that's the element contested, or a deckbuilding limitation meaning you need 1 of each ring as a province. So far all of them have the same effect that only works for the battle they're in but I wonder if we'll see more later with generic effects, and does breaking a province turn off their abilities? GrandpaPants posted:These seem sorta...dull? I realize that the fading mechanics makes removal, like the Endless Plains (except they seem lovely?), seems sorta eh. The whole game felt kinda dull to me. There's a bunch of minor niggling effects in low-impact challenges with dudes that just kinda disappear. Stronghold abilities are also significantly weaker than they used to be (or so it feels so far) which honestly could be considered an improvement seeing how many old strongholds needed errata/banning. Corbeau posted:I get why they dumpstered movement, assignment, and all the accomplanying fiddly complexity. I get it. It's probably necessary given how hard it was for new players to grasp it. But man, this game won't feel like L5R. The thing is, I think the game really could've used some of the movement complexity. It feels very sparse. As you mention though, the economy is improved (it's simplified, but they also don't need to add 10 different holdings with different pregame/out of game effects to try to combat getting gold screwed ). The provinces never really end up feeling like there's any mindgames going on though-you just pick a province and go there since there's really no differentiation between them it's entirely random. long-rear end nips Diane posted:I have to imagine equipment will return to your hand (or maybe your deck?) in most cases, otherwise you wouldn't want to play it on the majority characters. Decking isn't a win condition, maybe there's a shuffle mechanic. Equipment goes away unless it has the ancestral keyword, then it goes back to your hand. As for the rings, basically if one's been picked for a battle and the battle won, it's "claimed" which removes it from the pool for the remainder of the turn. At the end of the turn, every ring that's not been claimed gets a fate placed on it for the next turn. I do hope people give it a chance, and maybe there's been some changes that I missed. I want the game to do well, but I also want it to be a good game. Like I mentioned, I may pick it up if a ton of people around me do, or if they add a lot more meat in the future but AGoT just seems to do much of the same stuff, only better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Thanks for explaining a bit more in depth. I can see what you're saying in regards to battles having low consequences, but I'm optimistic given how the Unicorn province blows itself up, and with unit being more temporary the pace of the game is going to be really quick and reward riskier plays.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
alansmithee posted:Basically you choose one province of each element that your clan can use (there's both clan-specific ones and neutral ones). At the start of the game, you place those randomly under each of your provinces + stronghold. First time there's a fight there, it's revealed. So like, that Unicorn province is just useless if you get it under your Stronghold?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
From FFG:quote:Important Note: Though only one core set is needed to both build decks and play games of Legend of the Five Rings: The Card Game, competitive players may wish to purchase additional copies of the core set to gain more copies of individual cards. Some cards will require two core sets to collect a full playset of three cards, while others will require three core sets. So it's Netrunner style. Frankly, that's enough to make me give it a pass. Tripling the intro cost is absurd and, frankly, not forgivable after how long they've had to process feedback on this practice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
Its the same thing for GoT. I thought it was standard practice across all their LCGs
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Anyway if you think that's bad this version of GoT (LCG 2.0) will be the third time I've had to throw out my entire collection and start from scratch
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Corbeau posted:From FFG: That describes a GoT 1x, 2x neutrals style. If you're going to rage out and throw a fit over LCG core sets not having playsets at this point in the game that's wholly on you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
PJOmega posted:That describes a GoT 1x, 2x neutrals style. If you're going to rage out and throw a fit over LCG core sets not having playsets at this point in the game that's wholly on you. There have been multiple LCGs (by other companies) that don't do this. FFG is the only one, and they can get hosed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
A BIG loving BLUNT posted:Its the same thing for GoT. I thought it was standard practice across all their LCGs i thought all their co-op lcgs only required two cores for playsets, but now i'm second guessing that too, maybe just arkham i guess the part that bugs me the most is by doing this, you end up with a bunch of pointless garbage from all the extra packaging and cards you have like, 9 copies of now
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Hauki posted:i thought all their co-op lcgs only required two cores for playsets, but now i'm second guessing that too, maybe just arkham Arkham only has 2 copies max of each card in the deck, and I think they did it that way because they knew people would be getting a lot of redundant mystery cards. I was okay with the way Conquest and GOT did it, in that the number of redundancies was very low. Just make everything 1x except neutrals imo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Arkham only has 2 copies max of each card in the deck, and I think they did it that way because they knew people would be getting a lot of redundant mystery cards. Sounds like that's how they're doing it. "Some cards will require 2 core sets, while others will require 3." As for "other non-FFG LCGs have done full playsets in the core" I'm left questioning. Deadwood required 2 cores, and that leaves what, the relaunch of Vs?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:So like, that Unicorn province is just useless if you get it under your Stronghold? He's saying that you get to choose which province card goes under which province. It's only "random" to your opponent unless they have a way to look.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Ashes was good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
Corbeau posted:Ashes was good. Shame about their distribution issues, totally killed the game where I live.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Corbeau posted:Ashes was good. Ashes was a good game. Too bad it didn't really take off. They did give a full playset of cards but their deck size was half the size of aGoT2e. There weren't faction specific cards beyond the individual Phoenixborn and their unique cards either so you could mix and match more. My only problem with the 3 core model is that they have had issue with distribution and also been withholding stock to drum up demand in the post-Gencon months and it makes it really hard to get a group going when your distributor is getting shorted on his orders and not everyone gets their product. They said that L5R is their largest print run, but I'd bet my non-existent pet that people are still going to get shorted and there's going to be a lack of supply.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 04:22
|
|
PaybackJack posted:
Calling it now. Won't go on sale till Words, limit one per person. No limit on the decks, Gencon goers have massive advantage.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
Am I the only one that dislikes the faction style deckbuilding of almost all LCGs? It turned me off the Netrunner reboot also. Let me deckbuild how I want to deckbuild, and find the optimal strategy. Like in Magic, I can technically play five colors in any deck I want, but I'm totally going to get mana screwed and my opponents are going to beat me with much more streamlined decks. Then there's always some kind of splashing mechanic where I can play cards from another faction in my deck, but there's arbitrary limits like "make sure these numbers don't add up to more than fifteen" or "you need to pay one more upkeep to keep this guy in play because he's not the same color as your faction card". I get that L5R is going to have it because the original game did, and it's a way to sort of make the designers' jobs of creating a diverse metagame easier, but I'd like to see an LCG without that for once. It's a strange dynamic that TCGs almost always give you more freedom on what to put in your deck than LCGs do. TCGs sometimes have the faction deckbuilding, but I can't think of an LCG that goes the other way. And yes, I get that this is personal preference. I mostly hate the outside-faction influence stuff, because it always feels like an afterthought and almost always takes away from the intended goal of making factions have a certain playstyle as well as feeling unique lore-wise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
Strange complaint to have about L5R, of all games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Corbeau posted:Strange complaint to have about L5R, of all games. Nah I'm not complaining about L5R, they're a great fit there. I wonder how/if they're going to introduce more clans, like that one that always had the least honor possible and couldn't gain or lose honor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
BJPaskoff posted:Nah I'm not complaining about L5R, they're a great fit there. I wonder how/if they're going to introduce more clans, like that one that always had the least honor possible and couldn't gain or lose honor. Conquest added new factions through the big box expansions, then through the regular cycles. Unfortunately, it died before at least one of those factions could be really developed  Conquest was still the best LCG.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Conquest added new factions through the big box expansions, then through the regular cycles. Unfortunately, it died before at least one of those factions could be really developed Shame that some of the released packs are impossible to find. I take it they can't ever be reprinted, what with the GW/FFG relationship dissolving?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
BJPaskoff posted:Am I the only one that dislikes the faction style deckbuilding of almost all LCGs? It turned me off the Netrunner reboot also. Let me deckbuild how I want to deckbuild, and find the optimal strategy. Like in Magic, I can technically play five colors in any deck I want, but I'm totally going to get mana screwed and my opponents are going to beat me with much more streamlined decks. Then there's always some kind of splashing mechanic where I can play cards from another faction in my deck, but there's arbitrary limits like "make sure these numbers don't add up to more than fifteen" or "you need to pay one more upkeep to keep this guy in play because he's not the same color as your faction card". I get that L5R is going to have it because the original game did, and it's a way to sort of make the designers' jobs of creating a diverse metagame easier, but I'd like to see an LCG without that for once. It's a strange dynamic that TCGs almost always give you more freedom on what to put in your deck than LCGs do. TCGs sometimes have the faction deckbuilding, but I can't think of an LCG that goes the other way. Star Wars really doesn't, assuming you take dark side/light side as essentially separate factions. And you'll see the faction stuff in games where the main purchasing resource is the same (AGoT=Gold, Netrunner=Credits, etc). Magic essentially has 5* resources for putting cards in to play. Now, if AGoT had lannister gold, stark gold, etc you could probably get rid of the faction restrictions but otherwise it's almost impossible to balance because everything becomes generic "take whatever's best". Not to mention that the FFG LCGs are pretty much all properties that natively have heavy factional makeup. BJPaskoff posted:Nah I'm not complaining about L5R, they're a great fit there. I wonder how/if they're going to introduce more clans, like that one that always had the least honor possible and couldn't gain or lose honor. As was mentioned, big box expansions added new factions to Conquest (also AGoT 1.0=initially Greyjoy and Martell weren't in the game). That said, they'll still miss out on some of the cool outside factions assuming they stick to their fairly symmetrical way of producing expansion packs. Off the top of my head, L5R had the original 7 clans that were pretty much always present (Scorp, Lion, Crane, Unicorn, Crab, Phoenix, Dragon), and you had Yoritomo's alliance/Mantis and Shadowlands (which became Spider) for the majority of the game (I'd expect them to get a box in the future). But you also had a couple of Monk strongholds, a Spirits stronghold, a couple Ninja strongholds, a few Ratling and Naga strongholds, Totori's Army/Wolf clan, etc. I don't know how you'd really fit those in to the LCG format.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
I'm curious why you think there's no room for big splashy effects: I'd assume you could do big splashy characters pretty easily, they just won't stick around for as long as some smaller dudes, but may make more of impact. On the other hand, they haven't really shown anything about the economy stuff yet, which I'll be interested to see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 08:27
|
|
|
PrinnySquadron posted:I'm curious why you think there's no room for big splashy effects: I'd assume you could do big splashy characters pretty easily, they just won't stick around for as long as some smaller dudes, but may make more of impact. Yeah, if anything the fading model would allow bigger splash. Kakita or Akodo wouldn't be so game warping if they could only have a maximum of 1 fate or what not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
I'm both surprised and concerned that we aren't getting a lot of keywords on characters. Even if we don't ever get a "monk" faction they'd be able to throw a bone of a "monk" stronghold running off of a theoretical monk keyword. But unless I'm mistaken there's no possibility for that sort of thing if they're all identified by border.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
BJPaskoff posted:Am I the only one that dislikes the faction style deckbuilding of almost all LCGs? It turned me off the Netrunner reboot also. Let me deckbuild how I want to deckbuild, and find the optimal strategy. Like in Magic, I can technically play five colors in any deck I want, but I'm totally going to get mana screwed and my opponents are going to beat me with much more streamlined decks. Then there's always some kind of splashing mechanic where I can play cards from another faction in my deck, but there's arbitrary limits like "make sure these numbers don't add up to more than fifteen" or "you need to pay one more upkeep to keep this guy in play because he's not the same color as your faction card". I get that L5R is going to have it because the original game did, and it's a way to sort of make the designers' jobs of creating a diverse metagame easier, but I'd like to see an LCG without that for once. It's a strange dynamic that TCGs almost always give you more freedom on what to put in your deck than LCGs do. TCGs sometimes have the faction deckbuilding, but I can't think of an LCG that goes the other way. I would also like to see an LCG from FFG without any deckbuilding restrictions amongst the entire card pool. PJOmega posted:I'm both surprised and concerned that we aren't getting a lot of keywords on characters. Even if we don't ever get a "monk" faction they'd be able to throw a bone of a "monk" stronghold running off of a theoretical monk keyword. I miss the keywords as well. Question for anyone who played the game till the end: Did they ever print a character that had more than 3 lines of keywords? I remember a lot of the Champions had 3 lines of keywords, but I don't remember if any broke 4. Which character had the most keywords?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 11:22
|
|
|
I don't really mind FFG factionality (other that wondering why they always keep pushing for such a large amount of them), as I accept it as a part of non-poo poo resource systems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 11:28
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:
Kanpeki had a whoole bunch by the end: http://imperialassembly.com/oracle/#cardid=12327,#hashid=2d12740441d52fb4ec02193adac637f0,#cardcount=19
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 12:10
|
|
|
BJPaskoff posted:Am I the only one that dislikes the faction style deckbuilding of almost all LCGs? It turned me off the Netrunner reboot also. Let me deckbuild how I want to deckbuild, and find the optimal strategy. Like in Magic, I can technically play five colors in any deck I want, but I'm totally going to get mana screwed and my opponents are going to beat me with much more streamlined decks. Then there's always some kind of splashing mechanic where I can play cards from another faction in my deck, but there's arbitrary limits like "make sure these numbers don't add up to more than fifteen" or "you need to pay one more upkeep to keep this guy in play because he's not the same color as your faction card". I get that L5R is going to have it because the original game did, and it's a way to sort of make the designers' jobs of creating a diverse metagame easier, but I'd like to see an LCG without that for once. It's a strange dynamic that TCGs almost always give you more freedom on what to put in your deck than LCGs do. TCGs sometimes have the faction deckbuilding, but I can't think of an LCG that goes the other way. I'm a big fan of faction-based deck building personally. I feel that MtG style rules leads to a much more homogenized metagame, while the faction based rules allow for more unique, specialized, and in some cases almost asymmetrical decks being built. You're playing the same game with the same win condition, but decks can operate wildly different from one another. Each color in Magic has it's own themes and feel, sure, but that same experience feels more pronounced with factions. It was one of my favorite things about the WoW TCG in its time. It had two factions, but also 10 classes for which each deck was built around, making 20 different core deck combinations, not counting extra odd-ball Heroes you could play (random demons, monsters, dual-class, etc.). It was a good middle ground between the two styles, because choosing one of the two factions meant getting access to at least half the card pool still in terms of your creature-equivalents, while you then had to specialize in your class for what other abilities you wanted to use. But because of all that specialization, an Alliance Warlock could play wildly different from a Horde Warlock within the same format, for example. I'm certainly not a Magic expert, but it seems to me that a red deck splashed with green isn't going to feel terribly different from a red deck splashed with black. Might be wrong there though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Merauder posted:I'm certainly not a Magic expert, but it seems to me that a red deck splashed with green isn't going to feel terribly different from a red deck splashed with black. Might be wrong there though. Kind of depends on the format. Power cards in block are going to be seen across more color combos but in Legacy or Modern you will definitely see a wider range of cards and those cards will serve different needs based on the deck. Magic has 3-4 roles for each color that are fairly clearly defined so you don't tend to always see the same color represent the same role all the time. Blue doesn't necessarily just mean counterspells and card draw anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
quote:Dueling involves a challenge between two characters based on those character's stats (military or political). Each player will make a bid on their honor dial to add to their participant's stat. This works just like the bid in the draw phase: the higher bidder gives honor equal to the difference to the lower bidder. The character with the higher total stat at the end wins, with consequences determined by the card that started the duel. Was there anything else picked up from the AMA?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Was there anything else picked up from the AMA? Cavalry is a trait, decks are between 40 and 45 cards, games are supposed to last between 3-6 turns, Imperial Favor is still a thing, and they aren't outright saying they're adding shadowlands/mantis but they're totally adding shadowlands/mantis. long-ass nips Diane fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
long-rear end nips Diane posted:Cavalry is a trait, decks are between 40 and 45 cards, games are supposed to last between 3-6 turns, Imperial Favor is still a thing, and they aren't outright saying they're adding shadowlands/mantis but they're totally adding shadowlands/mantis. That seems to be a really short game. 3 turns is incredibly fast, and shows the possibility of double province busting at least.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 17:48
|
|