Seems like way too long for netrunner to cycle through its cards. I think I'd rather cycle every two story sets, which would be essentially two deluxe expansions and 2 sets of those monthly releases (which is 6?). I suppose it would similar to Lord of the Rings where the deluxe expansions set the stage and the monthly packs continue the story. Of course, this largely depends on how many cards are in these monthly releases and how the core set ends up.

Seems like way too long for netrunner to cycle through its cards. I think I'd rather cycle every two story sets, which would be essentially two deluxe expansions and 2 sets of those monthly releases (which is 6?). I suppose it would similar to Lord of the Rings where the deluxe expansions set the stage and the monthly packs continue the story. Of course, this largely depends on how many cards are in these monthly releases and how the core set ends up.

That is way too few cards. A cycle tends to be around 120 different cards. And deluxe expansions areound 165 different cards. The card pool is going to be much, much smaller than you are used to.

Seems like way too long for netrunner to cycle through its cards. I think I'd rather cycle every two story sets, which would be essentially two deluxe expansions and 2 sets of those monthly releases (which is 6?). I suppose it would similar to Lord of the Rings where the deluxe expansions set the stage and the monthly packs continue the story. Of course, this largely depends on how many cards are in these monthly releases and how the core set ends up.

That is way too few cards. A cycle tends to be around 120 different cards. And deluxe expansions areound 165 different cards. The card pool is going to be much, much smaller than you are used to.

It could be. There's always the possibility of having separate deluxe sets to be included as well. These could be as simple as adding clans that were not in the original core set to new deluxe sets to simply solve the potential problem of too few cards.

Or just go to three cycles? What sucks is waiting to see how they are going to do things!

That is way too few cards. A cycle tends to be around 120 different cards. And deluxe expansions areound 165 different cards. The card pool is going to be much, much smaller than you are used to.

Seems like you're talking unique cards in one case and total cards (3x of each in the other), right? So 120 + 55 for cycle plus box, in term of individual cards, at 3x of each included. Just for the sake of putting the right numbers out there.

This seems like another case where I'd put my money on FFG doing things the way they do for their other games, with one cycle equaling a story unit. Do boxes tend to be connected to the cycle near them? I know they are for LotR, as they serve as the "base set" for the shadow cards in the following cycle, but I think the other games are a bit looser about it. I know Star Wars is, with the big boxes being more or less standalone. Not sure about ANR.

I could see them going either way, or maybe have the deluxe box follow the cycle before it and portray a climactic conflict between 2 specific clans, it they stick with the 2 faction format for deluxes. I'd be surprised if they extended a major plotline beyond that, though.

Seems like way too long for netrunner to cycle through its cards. I think I'd rather cycle every two story sets, which would be essentially two deluxe expansions and 2 sets of those monthly releases (which is 6?). I suppose it would similar to Lord of the Rings where the deluxe expansions set the stage and the monthly packs continue the story. Of course, this largely depends on how many cards are in these monthly releases and how the core set ends up.

That is way too few cards. A cycle tends to be around 120 different cards. And deluxe expansions areound 165 different cards. The card pool is going to be much, much smaller than you are used to.

It could be. There's always the possibility of having separate deluxe sets to be included as well. These could be as simple as adding clans that were not in the original core set to new deluxe sets to simply solve the potential problem of too few cards.

Wouldn't be unheard of. IIRC, Star Wars squeezed out an extra box early in its life, for the sake of the Scum and Smuggler factions (this might've even dropped before the first cycle, but I don't remember?). Or for the sake of the multiplayer box, depending on how you look at it. 2 boxes for 1 cycle, in any event.

On the other hand, Conquest did a whole cycle before it added the Tyranids in a deluxe box, with no sign of extra boxes.

Seems like you're talking unique cards in one case and total cards (3x of each in the other), right? So 120 + 55 for cycle plus box, in term of individual cards, at 3x of each included. Just for the sake of putting the right numbers out there.

This seems like another case where I'd put my money on FFG doing things the way they do for their other games, with one cycle equaling a story unit. Do boxes tend to be connected to the cycle near them? I know they are for LotR, as they serve as the "base set" for the shadow cards in the following cycle, but I think the other games are a bit looser about it. I know Star Wars is, with the big boxes being more or less standalone. Not sure about ANR.

I could see them going either way, or maybe have the deluxe box follow the cycle before it and portray a climactic conflict between 2 specific clans, it they stick with the 2 faction format for deluxes. I'd be surprised if they extended a major plotline beyond that, though.

Yeah, I screwed up the number cards in the big box expansions.

Netrunner, there isn't really a narrative. There has been a bit of a shift in Netrunner design philosophy, changing from designing a cycle, than splitting the cards up by seemingly random choice, to focusing on splitting up the design into packs before hand. Along with some fun thematic stuff. But, there isn't exactly a narrative, and the big boxes are fairly standalone.

Star Wars was a weird situation. The first cycle had some massive delays. So, I am unsure where there first two deluxe expansions where supposed to be released. About the only thing about the deluxes is that they want to be a focus on a faction.

I do hope they go more along the lines of AGOT rather than Conquest. I can only imagine the... anger if any factions had to wait 8 months to well over a year for their factions to appear in game. And we have no idea how they are going to do Conquest big boxes after they introduce the other factions, or how they will the new AGOT big boxes. I suspect that FFG isn't going to do single faction boxes again, like they did in 1.0. Even with 2 per box, it will be a while before some factions get love.

Seems like you're talking unique cards in one case and total cards (3x of each in the other), right? So 120 + 55 for cycle plus box, in term of individual cards, at 3x of each included. Just for the sake of putting the right numbers out there.

This seems like another case where I'd put my money on FFG doing things the way they do for their other games, with one cycle equaling a story unit. Do boxes tend to be connected to the cycle near them? I know they are for LotR, as they serve as the "base set" for the shadow cards in the following cycle, but I think the other games are a bit looser about it. I know Star Wars is, with the big boxes being more or less standalone. Not sure about ANR.

I could see them going either way, or maybe have the deluxe box follow the cycle before it and portray a climactic conflict between 2 specific clans, it they stick with the 2 faction format for deluxes. I'd be surprised if they extended a major plotline beyond that, though.

Even with 2 per box, it will be a while before some factions get love.

Maybe they could tease some of them before hand with flavor or even have a card or two show up?

Seems like you're talking unique cards in one case and total cards (3x of each in the other), right? So 120 + 55 for cycle plus box, in term of individual cards, at 3x of each included. Just for the sake of putting the right numbers out there.

This seems like another case where I'd put my money on FFG doing things the way they do for their other games, with one cycle equaling a story unit. Do boxes tend to be connected to the cycle near them? I know they are for LotR, as they serve as the "base set" for the shadow cards in the following cycle, but I think the other games are a bit looser about it. I know Star Wars is, with the big boxes being more or less standalone. Not sure about ANR.

I could see them going either way, or maybe have the deluxe box follow the cycle before it and portray a climactic conflict between 2 specific clans, it they stick with the 2 faction format for deluxes. I'd be surprised if they extended a major plotline beyond that, though.

Even with 2 per box, it will be a while before some factions get love.

Maybe they could tease some of them before hand with flavor or even have a card or two show up?

I think in most cases, the deluxe boxes will be 2 clans already being supported, so just a boost. They'd be getting cards throughout the cycle, if other LCGs are any judge.

The other case is deluxes that introduce new factions, and I think there's precedent either way. Scum and Smugglers got a few cards in the core box, even though the bulk of them came in their shared introductory deluxe box. On the other hand, as far as I know, Tyranids in Conquest were completely absent before their deluxe dropped, but someone who knows that game better can probably say if there was a tease card or flavor or whatever that I missed.

I wouldn't be surprised either with either approach, when it comes to L5R.

Tyranids, Necron, Martell, Greyjoy, Silver Twilight and the 3 neutral Runners are examples of factions introduced to existing LCGs by the method of big box expansions. Greyjoy and Martell did get cards in the first cycle and their house card was included in the core set, but you really could not use those cards until their deluxe boxes were properly released.

Seems like way too long for netrunner to cycle through its cards. I think I'd rather cycle every two story sets, which would be essentially two deluxe expansions and 2 sets of those monthly releases (which is 6?). I suppose it would similar to Lord of the Rings where the deluxe expansions set the stage and the monthly packs continue the story. Of course, this largely depends on how many cards are in these monthly releases and how the core set ends up.

That is way too few cards. A cycle tends to be around 120 different cards. And deluxe expansions areound 165 different cards. The card pool is going to be much, much smaller than you are used to.

55 actually. 165 is the total number of cards in the box.

So by keeping all 4 big boxes evergreen, Netrunner has a guaranteed card pool of 220 x 3 cards that will never rotate along side the Core set's 123(?) x 3 cards. It's also worth noting that not every card is allowed x3 in a deck, for example certain unique cards/IDs.

343 x 3 cards total that will never rotate. FFG have already stated that Data & Destiny is Netrunner's final Big Box Expansion, since 6 cycles add 720 x 3 giving a grand total of

1063 cards total

thus when they add another 2 cycles to that, that brings the card pool to

1303 cards

Where did they state that Data and Destiny is Netrunner's final big box?

Where did they state that Data and Destiny is Netrunner's final big box?

When they announced cycles to begin with.

They don't want a Netrunner card pool greater than 1,500 x3

They had charts showing the size of the card pool with each cycle and how rotation would affect it. Adding 110 cards every year would defeat the entire purpose of rotation since the static card pool would still just be getting larger and larger.

So by 2018, they could easily add 330 cards to the static card pool before cycling happens. That would do nothing to stop the problem that forced FFG to make AGoT 2.0.

When they announced cycles to begin with.

Got a link? That'd be a pretty notable announcement, and I definitely don't remember it in the article that introduced cycles. ( https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2014/11/5/a-new-stage-of-growth/ )

Even on the chart they show there, they say actual numbers may vary. Doesn't really seem conclusive either way regarding deluxe boxes.

Did they talk about it at an in-flight report at GenCon or something?

No. It was verbal during the inflight of worlds 2014 'state of the lcg team covenant video' when they initially announced AGoT 2.0 and rotation. The ffg website article uses stills from the presentation they used. Cant remember where in the video they discuss netrunner though.

Keeping big boxes evergreen means limiting their releases to ensure the cardpool remains sustainable. 1500 was their target, thus rotation means losing 240 cards every few cycles so it never goes above that.

You cant add 110 cards every year to the pile as it defeats the purpose of rotating out the 240 cards.

Well according to the article it is quite clear how it goes.

6 packs per cycle and 20 diffrent cards per pack makes 120 cards per cycle.
Having 6 active cycles means having 720 rotatable cards.
Having a maximum card pool of about 1500 cards would result in 780 evergreens.

The Netrunner core set has 245 diffrent cards (without the seven unique identity cards)
Each deluxe expansion has 55 diffrent cards (each in 3 copies as 165 cards).
Would result in 9 to 10 deluxe expansions in total before going on full rotation mode.

Keeping big boxes evergreen means limiting their releases to ensure the cardpool remains sustainable. 1500 was their target, thus rotation means losing 240 cards every few cycles so it never goes above that

I've always rather suspected that when the rubber hits the road on keeping boxes evergreen, that policy might be revisited. I suspect rotating out the cycles on either side of a big box and leaving the big box in the environment is going to create some weird meta situations. We'll see what the actual impact is. Still be a while before we'll find out though, I guess.

As to the announcement re: the future of Netrunner big boxes... A simple miscommunication seems easy in a forum like that. Even assuming it was understood and repeated correctly here, the speaker might have meant, "Last box announced," or "Last box to complete the cycle before we start again," or whatever, and just not communicated that clearly. I'll take it with a grain of salt until I see it in print. Or at least until they don't announce another box after the current cycle when they normally would. By your own math, with 8 legal cycles (960 cards) and 4 extant boxes (220 cards) plus core (123 cards) totalling 1303 cards, they still have room for another round of 4 big boxes before they hit 1500 cards.

In any case, I think (for any game) they'll stop doing big boxes when they're no longer profitable, not when they hit some arbitrary card count.

Edit: Ninja'd! Dishonor!