I am a long time Magic the Gathering player (been playing off and on since mid to late 90's) and I recently discovered Android: Netrunner. I do not play/collect any other card game, so finding Android: Netrunner had me very excited.

After buying a bunch of cards and playing with friends and family, I decided to look more into other games Fantasy Flight Games makes, to see if any others caught my eye (none of them did).

In looking at the other games, I noticed the two separate Game of Thrones games, and a few Google searches later I discovered that the Game of Thrones LCG is being discontinued, all of its deluxe expansions, and "data packs", will not be compatible with the second edition. When I read this, I was worried. GoT has many more expansions than ANR, and they are just giving up on the game, and making a (non backwards compatible) second edition. If I were a GoT LCG player, this would be a huge slap in the face.

This has me worried that FFG will do the same thing with ANR. The more that I read about others being dissatisfied with the meta, the more I feel that this is a likely path that they will take at some point, and they have already shown that they are willing to take it with a game that has many more sets than ANR.

I am enjoying ANR far more than I do MTG, but the idea that all of the cards I am buying now, might not be compatible with a future version they print (not just because of format restrictions, but because they decide to deprecate that version of the game) and that they have set a precedent with Game of Thrones, has me reconsidering "investing" in this game.

I do not intend my post to be a complaint, I am just worried about the future of ANR because I am used to card games that continue to build on the same foundation for many years, rather than throw the whole thing out and start over; and I really enjoy ANR, but I am loathe to buy into the game only to have to start all over again when they decide to re-reboot it.

I guess what I am asking is: is this a worry that others have as well?

AGoT was rebooted because it was in a pretty much unfixable state. Netrunner is avoiding many of the issues of AGoT 1st ed by using set rotation instead, though it is possible we may see a rebooted Core set in the future. Currently there are zero plans for the game to be rebooted, we're at least a year away from the first set rotation which will dramatically shift the metagame, and we've just started to see the first packs where Damon Stone was lead designer rather than Lukas Litzinger. The game isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Gonna second CommissarFeesh, AGoT never had rotation and would have been WAY too much to fix, from what i'd heard of it, just beacuse of the sheer size of the game. Netrunnner's gonna rotate, which means that there's a static card pool size, so it likely won't have that problem.

Many GoT players were happy about the reboot, actually, or at least understanding. The thing to understand is that GoT's situation was unique:

• It was not only FFG's first LCG, but had been a CCG for five years before that. Because of this, the ruleset had gotten hugely unwieldy: too many keywords, a very confusing timing system, and awkward and sometimes redundant mechanics (like the three-card draw cap instituted in the first year or two of the CCG, or having both influence and gold as resources).
• The core set, being the first of its kind, was a bad entry point that weighed the game down.
• It had a huge card pool without rotation, which made designing new cards increasingly difficult. Due to the other aforementioned issues, adding rotation would have been a temporary band-aid fix at best.
• Secondarily, there are other smaller things the reboot allows that would not have been possible otherwise, such as the expanded cost and strength curve or the improvements to attachments (this alone isn't a reason to reboot it, but it's a benefit).

Basically, there were good reasons for the reboot and it wasn't just a cash grab. The game could not have been fixed in the long term without it. Here is an article about it:

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2014/11/11/the-things-we-do-for-love/

Whatever balance issues Netrunner may have, they are not fundamental and structural like GoT's were.

The problem with AGOT was twofold--one, a clunky, outdated ruleset cobbled together from years worth of FAQ entries and rulings and card-specific edge cases. That wouldn't go away with rotation.

Second were some design issues--a secondary resource type called "Influence", some keyword bloat, and some clunky mechanics that were too deeply-rooted to try and rotate out. Implementing the rotation schema they divised would have cut the card pool in half at a stroke and left much of the rest in an unplayable state due to reliance on past cards.

Bottom line, they decided that even with rotation, that they wouldn't be able to keep the game alive more than another couple of years.

(The title was supposed to say: "I am worried about a "second edition" anyone else?" unfortunately I cannot edit the title to fix that)

@ CommissarFeesh

I assume what you mean by a rebooted Core set, is just a 1:1 reprint of the core set with many cards "fixed" or rebalanced. I think that is actually a pretty good idea.

@starwarstsg

Rotation does not make a difference to me because I have never had any desire to play games in a competitive environment. I play with friends, family, and coworkers.

@Grimwalker

Your post makes sense, my worry was simply that ANR would reach this point too. Not out of some internal knowledge of the situation, just a knee jerk reaction to reading about AGoT. The question that keeps running through my head is that if AGoT was so broken, why on earth did they drag it out for so long? Why wait until players have invested in that many cards before they decide it needs to die?

I just do not want to get into the situation where I have built up a large collection over 5-10 years of card releases, only to be told that that version of all of my cards are deprecated and that I should, instead, start investing in this other version of the game. This is exactly what is being done with AGoT, and I am worried that it might set a precedent, especially if AGoT SE sells well, as a way to "reset".

I am just expressing personal concern because I enjoy this game and I want to dive in without worrying about the future.

@Grimwalker

Your post makes sense, my worry was simply that ANR would reach this point too. Not out of some internal knowledge of the situation, just a knee jerk reaction to reading about AGoT. The question that keeps running through my head is that if AGoT was so broken, why on earth did they drag it out for so long? Why wait until players have invested in that many cards before they decide it needs to die?

I just do not want to get into the situation where I have built up a large collection over 5-10 years of card releases, only to be told that that version of all of my cards are deprecated and that I should, instead, start investing in this other version of the game. This is exactly what is being done with AGoT, and I am worried that it might set a precedent, especially if AGoT SE sells well, as a way to "reset".

I am just expressing personal concern because I enjoy this game and I want to dive in without worrying about the future.

AGOT 1.0 still has a number of partisans who think it was a superior game to 2.0. My description is...well, uncharitable.

Essentially I imagine the discussion went like this:

"We need rotation for our LCGs, AGOT in particular is too big. New players can't buy in easily and our retail and distributors are complaining about how many SKUs they have to stock"

"1500 seems like a good size for the card pool to max out at."

"Um, guys, that's going to cut AGOT by about 1/3 in one go and we're going to lose a LOT of important stuff that everything later was built around. The longer the advance notice we give to the player base the bigger the cut will be when it lands."

"So we're going to break the game, leave a lot of people in the lurch, and basically have to rebuild the card pool to repair the damage? ****, why don't we just do a new edition and spare ourselves two to three years of damage control?"

Bottom line, Netrunner started being designed around the idea of rotation from about the third cycle onward. AGOT never had that much advance warning. Rotation would just straight up break the game. Whereas Netrunner would lose some staple cards, true, but it has had lots of lead time to do Future Proofing, make sure that when old stuff rotates out that new product is not just in the pipeline, but already in print which will keep the game functioning. Because Netrunner *is* going to be rotating, the explicit goal is never to have to do a full-game reset.

If you're considering jumping in, that's great! I just wouldn't advise you to immediately buy the entire card pool. The first actual block to rotate is going to do so in about a year's time--as a matter of fact I'll bet a decent amount of money that they'll try and jigger things so that Gen Con 2017 is either the first of the new meta or the "swan song" of block 1. So, you might not get your money's worth from those cards.

More reading here: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2014/11/5/a-new-stage-of-growth/

@GrimWalker

Buying the earlier cards that are going to be rotating out is not an issue, I dislike the concept of rotation (although I understand the perceived benefits), and refuse to play in any scene/venue where such a thing is active. Thankfully I enjoy playing with friends and family a lot more than random strangers, so this has never been a deal breaker for me.

I just don't understand the reasoning for the AGoT shutdown. Are you saying that they were worried about the fallout of deprecating 33% of the card pool, so their solution was to deprecate 100% of it instead?

@yttrium13

Thanks for that link, I was looking for an article about that.

I cannot stress enough that I am not trying to complain or troll. I am legitimately looking for information and discussion. I just hope there is a lot more to it than card rotation, because that line of thought doesn't put me at ease.

Edit:

The link provided by yttrium13 explained a bit more, touching on the broken mechanics. I guess the question becomes: why didn't they put it out of its misery before it got so big? I don't buy that they woke up one morning and thought "Oh, hrmm, its broken, lets reboot it." No rotation was only a small part of it it seems, which means that the rotation that we now have, will not prevent the same thing from happening if FFG's decides that the mechanics of ANR are broken (who decides this?). Still its more information than I had before. Thanks for all the replies!

Well, ANR was designed with a lot more experience in card game design. AGOT was designed in 2002, and by the time ANR came along, they had a lot more to draw on. Also Netrunner *already* had a 1.0 version from the original 1990s game, so they had a lot of lessons learned from that game too. I feel that the likelihood of a game wide reset is negligible. Not enough to prevent me from playing.

As for when, if you know anything about FFG, you know that they don't "wake up one day" and decide *anything.* the conversation I satirized above probably took the better part of a year to be decided and planned. As for the when, the why not sooner? I don't have a clue. Probably had to do with sales and growth. We in the community have no way of knowing.

The rotation schedule is *extremely* generous, with new product getting a minimum of three years in the sun. That's more than enough time to get your money's worth. If it prevents a bloated game that's way too expensive for new players to consider and warps the design of future cards, I'm all for it.

The rotation schedule is *extremely* generous, with new product getting a minimum of three years in the sun. That's more than enough time to get your money's worth. If it prevents a bloated game that's way too expensive for new players to consider and warps the design of future cards, I'm all for it.

From what I read of FFG's rotation schedule, I agree, its much more generous than MTG, but thats like saying: "Five lashes is surely more generous than fifty lashes." I would rather have no lashes! I do not agree with rotation as a solution to the problems. This is a slight derailment of the topic though, and a much longer conversation. I did not intend to complain about the rotation. Its a part of ANR, so as with MTG, I choose to play with people, and at places, that do not enforce such restrictions, and refuse to play with others that do.

A lot of what I have read in this topic, puts to rest a few fears about FFG eventually treating ANR as they did AGoT, but not enough that I would recommend friends (that are not as eager as me) invest much beyond the core set. I hope this changes, and FFG making it known that AGoT's was a one time thing, would be a pretty good way inspire trust.

I cannot stress enough that I am not trying to complain, I apologize if my posts come off as such. I am just trying to convince myself that ANR is worth the investment (time and money) over the long term, and the troubles with AGoT is worrying. I appreciate all of the feedback.

The problem is that rotation is ultimately very necessary for the health of the game. The larger the card pool, the higher the cost to buy into the game. The more product that has to be kept in stock by retailers and distributors. The more difficult it becomes to keep the game balanced overall.

It is a VERY good idea on every level. They tried it the other way, and the end result was that they had to end the existing version of AGOT and start a new one. You absolutely cannot be opposed to game resets while simultaneously being against rotation.

The problem is that rotation is ultimately very necessary for the health of the game. The larger the card pool, the higher the cost to buy into the game. The more product that has to be kept in stock by retailers and distributors. The more difficult it becomes to keep the game balanced overall.

It is a VERY good idea on every level. They tried it the other way, and the end result was that they had to end the existing version of AGOT and start a new one. You absolutely cannot be opposed to game resets while simultaneously being against rotation.

You seem intent on making this post an argument about rotation. I will be clear in that I understand that ANR has a rotation, and I understood this before I started playing, I start this game knowing full well what that means, so this is not a complaint about it per se, since I know it exists, and I don't expect them to change it.

That being said I disagree on every point. Rotation is nothing but harmful to the players and community, and there is absolutely no reason that a game without rotation will end up as a broken mess. Often rotation is cited as a solution to numerous problems that arise, and it can be, but its treating the symptoms, its not a cure.

The point about retailers is a pretty flimsy excuse, there is nothing requiring retailers to carry every pack, especially when you can have your local game store order them for you, or buy them directly from FFG. In fact I don't actually know of a game store that carries even a full cycle, let alone every cycle (I live in a decent sized city, ~165k population) and at most the biggest game store in town has have 5-7 (seemingly random) data packs and no deluxe expansions. I am sure there are some game stores that do carry everything, or a lot of it, but if its too much for them, they can easily just carry the most recent few cycles, and "order" the others on demand. Its a mechanism that has worked for decades in every other brick and mortar store.

A larger card pool is always better, always. Every argument against a larger card pool always comes down to: "its easier for them to make cards, they don't have to pay attention to as many cards when balancing". The only "legit" argument against a larger card pool always comes down to something thats better for the company, not better for the player. I say "legit" because a smaller card pool doesn't actually solve the problem, it just makes it less visible, and any mistakes only last a few years. Instead, spend more time balancing cards (this is not as hard in a LCG where there are not hundreds of thousands of filler cards). If this means that card releases have to be every two months instead of one, or cards cost $20 instead of $15 because they have to double the size of their design/balancing team, then do that.

Taking the cards that people have already bought, and saying: you will only get these for a few years, and then they will be mostly useless, is a pretty extreme solution. What if we did that with other products? You think it makes sense only because you are used to it, because this is how competitive card games work, this is how they "stay relevant", but what if its not? There are plenty of competitive games, sports, activities, etc... that require purchasing of products, and very rarely do they ban products you bought a few years ago.

I play ANR fully aware that it has rotation, and unlike MTG, it had rotation before I started playing. I simply refuse to play in a venue or with people, that play by rotation rules. Again this is not an issue with me, since I don't generally like playing with random people. I just do not agree that rotation is the only solution, nor the right solution, to the problems that arise with card games like these.

...

A larger card pool is always better, always. Every argument against a larger card pool always comes down to: "its easier for them to make cards, they don't have to pay attention to as many cards when balancing". The only "legit" argument against a larger card pool always comes down to something thats better for the company, not better for the player. I say "legit" because a smaller card pool doesn't actually solve the problem, it just makes it less visible, and any mistakes only last a few years. Instead, spend more time balancing cards (this is not as hard in a LCG where there are not hundreds of thousands of filler cards). If this means that card releases have to be every two months instead of one, or cards cost $20 instead of $15 because they have to double the size of their design/balancing team, then do that.

Taking the cards that people have already bought, and saying: you will only get these for a few years, and then they will be mostly useless, is a pretty extreme solution. What if we did that with other products? You think it makes sense only because you are used to it, because this is how competitive card games work, this is how they "stay relevant", but what if its not? There are plenty of competitive games, sports, activities, etc... that require purchasing of products, and very rarely do they ban products you bought a few years ago.

I play ANR fully aware that it has rotation, and unlike MTG, it had rotation before I started playing. I simply refuse to play in a venue or with people, that play by rotation rules. Again this is not an issue with me, since I don't generally like playing with random people. I just do not agree that rotation is the only solution, nor the right solution, to the problems that arise with card games like these.

Latreides,

Your arguments only make sense in a theoretical way (read as non-commercial). More specifically, FFG has limited resources (like any gaming company), and they make Netrunner for profit. What you are asking FFG to do is cripple their profitability by requiring dramatically increased (and every increasing) playtesting resources, slowing their product release schedule, and make their product less attractive to new players (via both higher prices and an ever increasing cardpool). That is just not going to happen... nor should it in a "for profit" endeavor like a commercial card game.

Thaddok

Edit grammar

What you are asking FFG to do

I am not asking FFG to do anything. I have not requested this, nor did I complain about how it is currently. I have tried to make this absolutely clear as often as possible.

I have simply outlined the reasons that I think rotation is a bad idea, and I have only done so after being prodded. Its a problem that I have easily solved by not playing in a venue where rotation enforced.

Well, then, I think you're going to wind up playing in a tiny clique of like-minded people, because to a person, people who play Netrunner, and every other LCG, tend to adhere to the tournament rules, which means respecting rotation. You're also going to run into problems because the cards are being designed with rotation in mind. Part of the reason Museum of History is so busted is because it exists alongside Jackson Howard, but once he's gone Museum becomes a slower version of what he does, combatting agenda flood.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Your reasons against rotation have, quite simply, been *empirically* falsified. Your cavalier dismissal of the retailer/distributor stocking issue is particularly egregious, because *that feedback was real.* In addition to taking up space in stores and warehouses, it also takes up space in the company warehouses and the company production chain. I'm a project scheduler for a living, and I can tell you, the number of products in your pipeline requiring prints and reprints simply cannot continue to always increase. The scheduling and dependency issues are extremely complex. There are capacity and profitability issues, particularly when older product is only salable to *new players*, which means your game must constantly be growing fast enough to justify it, which works exactly contrary to having a large card pool with a price tag soaring past $1,300, which is where AGOT was by the end. Making older cycles available as POD product only reduces the problem, not eliminates it.

Your arguments about the feasibility of keeping an unlimited size card pool, with slower product releases or a cost increase to allow more testing, also exist only in the realm of fantasy. I have been a Netrunner playtester, and the sad and simple truth is that no amount of testing up front can equal what a few thousand players, plus unlimited time, plus cards that aren't constantly being iterated based on test results, can come up with. And like a running theme, this only gets worse with an expanding card pool, because what you're printing has to be tested in combination with *everything else.* From about the ninth set onward, the rate at which new AGOT 1.0 cards had to land on the Restricted list started going up with every cycle. It's an extremely difficult and time consuming task, which is part of the reason I'm not playtesting anymore.

And even if your perception of product and development were right--and it's not--then you're still signing up for the hardest solution to the problem. Removing cards from the metagame is a benefit to the player base because it keeps the game constantly changing. A Data Pack set which is ten percent of the card pool is twice as impactful as one which is five percent, or four percent, or three percent of the total. So in terms of return on investment, the worth I'm getting out of every purchase keeps going down. To me, that is clearly a benefit, well worth accepting that the $15 I spend today has about a three-year period to make good. Rotation also removes old, dominant archetypes and provides fertile ground for innovation, again increasing my return on investment for what I purchase.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Your reasons against rotation have, quite simply, been *empirically* falsified.

General opinion, even a consensus, is not the same as fact. To have empirical falsification, such a thing must have been attempted (more than once) with many variations, to show that it doesn't actually work. Until such experiments have been conducted, and documented, its all opinion. Show me where this through research has been done and documented. Company X saying that they did Y or thought about doing Y and decided Z was best based on opinionated feedback, is hardly empirical falsification.

Your cavalier dismissal of the retailer/distributor stocking issue is particularly egregious, because *that feedback was real.*

Feedback is hardly fact. Fact: most (video) game retailers only refresh stock the latest X amount of games for a certain platform. Just because there are over 1000 PS3 disc based games, doesn't mean that Gamestop has to stock all 1000. The same can be said of nearly every market where there is the potential for "old, but still viable" product stock. They have proved, over many decades, that its a perfectly viable way to do business.

There is no requirement for players to buy earlier sets of cards. ANR is not going to suddenly stop working if you only have the newer cards. Your deck isn't going to spontaneously combust. Its going to work just fine. This is the very concept that rotation relies on. What harm does it do, what empirical evidence do you have to show that it would be bad for a game shop to just only sell the newest X amount of cycles? Remembering that this is exactly what rotation is trying to achieve. Why can they not simply, just, you know, not sell the older sets in stores? Thousands of stores throughout the world have proved, time and again, that having a limited "in store stock" and a much larger "we can order it for you though" is a viable business model. There is absolutely no reason that this won't work for card games too. Your opinion otherwise does not make it fact.

The only difference between having rotation and carrying the last X cycles, and not having rotation and carrying the last X cycles is...well...almost nothing. Most game stores will still order the early cycles for you, if FFG's keeps selling them (otherwise they create the very rarity that LCGs are designed to combat). The only difference then, would be simply fewer people would request ordering sets, which doesn't make a difference to the game store at all.

Removing cards from the metagame is a benefit to the player base because it keeps the game constantly changing.

The game also changes when you add cards to the card pool, because, you know, there are new cards. You will never convince me that deprecating a product I buy after a couple years (assuming I bought it day one!), is a benefit to me.

I understand their desire for rotation, its a quick, lazy "solution" to a problem, that requires very little investment, and has the added benefit of forcing your players to continue to buy cards if they want to continue to play.

MTG had to do this. The core cards were absolutely broken. They used the rarity of cards to balanced them which resulted in some serious imbalance when people made decks with only the rare cards. They were the first in this market, they had to learn lessons the hard way. They also flood the card pool with hundreds of filler cards each set, that have to be balanced against any potential combos in future sets, making the number of permutations that they have to deal with, astronomical, compared to how FFG does it with their, superior, LCG model.

All that being said, you have your opinions (and thats what they are, even if they are shared by many others, until you produce the data from those empirical results that you talk about) and your opinions are neither more or less valid than any others (just as mine are not either). You think rotation is a silver bullet that solves problems, I think its a poison that causes problems, and doesn't actually solve anything. The great thing about this "argument" is that I don't really care. Rotation is not an issue for me because I do not play in a venue that enforces a rotation, its that simple. If this limits the number of players I can play with, I am more than happy to do so. Its worth it to not have to worry about something I buy being deprecated in a couple years.

To be clear, even though I started MTG in the mid 90's, I refuse to play in "Standard" (their rotation type) there as well. In the last two decades of playing MTG, my desire to play with people that don't use rotation aka "Standard", has not had any noticeable impact. I have played many thousands of MTG games, with hundreds of players. I doubt that not playing in venues/with players, using rotation with ANR, will have any more of an impact.

To reiterate a final time, I am not whining/complaining about rotation in ANR. I think its a bad idea, anti-consumer, and outlined my reasons above, but I am able to play how I like, with the people I want to play with, and we don't/won't use rotation, so its a minor issue. The original goal of this topic was to judge whether or not FFG might take the axe to ANR like they did AGoT, and I think we already discussed that at length. We seem to be just running in circles talking about rotation.

What they need is a new core to replace the old one. You only go second edition if you want to change the rules.

I heard a rumour I haven't found anything about on the 'net yet: A core 2.0 with slightly different card combinations, including new identities. I have no idea where this comes from, and I think it would be really confusing. Obsoleting the core would REALLY piss off a lot of players, I think.

I heard a rumour I haven't found anything about on the 'net yet: A core 2.0 with slightly different card combinations, including new identities. I have no idea where this comes from, and I think it would be really confusing. Obsoleting the core would REALLY piss off a lot of players, I think.

The precedence for this may be with X-Wing Miniatures game that now has original and Force Awakens starter sets. Both have the same models and rules but different cards and characters.

In A:NR a second core could be released with a new mix of cards, either new or rereleases from the original core or any of the deluxe expansions. With rotation these would be evergreen cards that stay available unlike data pack cards that change with the meta.

New identities would be nice and this could be a way to bring the three new Runner factions to a more prominent position

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Your reasons against rotation have, quite simply, been *empirically* falsified.

General opinion, even a consensus, is not the same as fact. To have empirical falsification, such a thing must have been attempted (more than once) with many variations, to show that it doesn't actually work. Until such experiments have been conducted, and documented, its all opinion. Show me where this through research has been done and documented. Company X saying that they did Y or thought about doing Y and decided Z was best based on opinionated feedback, is hardly empirical falsification.

em·pir·i·cal

əmˈpirik(ə)l/

adjective

based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

You don't need double-blind controlled experimental trials to verify a fact. It is a FACT that FFG was receiving complaints that the store space and warehouse space needed to stock the LCG product was ever-increasing. It is a FACT that the need to keep twelve AGOT Chapter Pack cycles in print for perpetuity was occupying space in FFG's production pipeline. The profitability of this space on store shelves, distributor warehouses, and in the print pipeline has a certain value. The profitability of freeing up that space for other product might very well be more so. But it is a FACT that if the ratio exceeds a certain point, then it becomes sheer perversity to continue. Since your existing player base essentially owns the whole card pool, it is a FACT that the reprints of existing product is heavily dependent on new player growth. And since the price tag for entry is continually increasing, it should be uncontroversial that it was a FACT that the rate of new players coming into the game was in decline.

Removing cards from the metagame is a benefit to the player base because it keeps the game constantly changing.

The game also changes when you add cards to the card pool, because, you know, there are new cards. You will never convince me that deprecating a product I buy after a couple years (assuming I bought it day one!), is a benefit to me.

Leaving aside the fact that whenever you say "you will never convince me" the conversation is over, but lets continue for the benefit of others who aren't wholly convinced that their opinions are unassailable. So, I am done talking to you and instead will address other people who have not decided that their minds cannot be changed.

Let's do the math: AGOT had seven cycles, six deluxes, and a Core Set when I bought in, for a total of 1248 cards. The eighth set, 120 cards, was a change of 9.6% The returns diminished to 8.7%, 8.1%, 7.4%, and the final cycle was a total change of 6.9%

Now let's look at where Netrunner is.

At the end of Mumbad Cycle, Netrunner had 928 cards, so the increase from Flashpoint cycle 12.9%. Almost twice as much change as the final cycle of AGOT! Much better value for buying those cards! Once we get to the eighth cycle, the increase *would* be down to 10.3% but since rotation will be removing cards (itself a colossal change of 20.5%) the change is instead back to 12.9%.

So, Latreides really cannot argue that continuously adding cards to the card pool is a workable solution. Latreides would constantly raise the barrier of entry for new players, taxing the distribution and sales infrastructure, all for diminishing returns on the impact of those cards. Simultaneously, he argues for making the design and playtesting of those cards more difficult with every cycle.

This is hardly a "quick, lazy solution," I believe it is more appropriate to say "impactful" and "cost-effective."

And let's not forget the elephant in the room--even with rotation applied, FFG gave AGOT no more than two to three years to live. Without rotation, it would have been cancelled outright. If Latreides thinks that isn't deprecating a product he buys, I truly can't help him.

By saying that the brokenness of the early core cards in MTG is the reason that game rotates, Latreides show's he's quite simply not cognizant of that game's model. (The endlessly ramifying permutations of card interactions he mentions basically makes my point for me, because the lack of low-impact "common" cards in LCGs mean those interactions are far more frequent.) For more information on MTG rotation philosophy, I'll provide this link, in which it is pointed out (as I numerically proved above) "a metagame is more shaped by what leaves the environment than what enters."

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mm/metamorphosis

To reiterate a final time, I am not whining/complaining about rotation in ANR.

Yes, he absolutely is.

I think its a bad idea, anti-consumer, and outlined my reasons above

Latreides' reasons are not simply objectively, empirically wrong, they are in fact perverse. Without rotation, it is absolutely certain that Netrunner will one day get the axe, because of the effects of an ever-expanding card pool. His proposed workarounds would mitigate the logistical issues only marginally, and the metagame issues would not be affected in the slightest. If he does care about the game, he ought to reconsider his position. Obviously there's no wrong way to play and he can do what he wants with the product he's bought, but if he's not going to participate in the larger Netrunner community, I'd argue that's the worst deprecation of his investment imaginable.

To reiterate a final time, I am not whining/complaining about rotation in ANR.

Yes, he absolutely is.

Not even close. Your continued mention and badgering about rotation gave me cause to reply with my own opinion about it as a general mechanic , but I honestly could not care less about ANR having rotation since it doesn't actually affect me at all . I am more than happy to exclude myself from playing with people that utilize rotation, and have no complaints about doing so. I did not bring rotation into the conversation, and in fact tried multiple times to dismiss it, but with each new reply, your mantra seemed to be "rotation rotation rotation" so I responded with my views on rotation.

Latreides would constantly raise the barrier of entry for new players,

You keep saying this, which makes absolutely no sense. You make the assumption that a new player would need to buy every single set that has ever come out. Thats absurd. Even in a world with rotation there is no need for a new player to buy all of the in rotation sets, no more than there is a need for a new player to buy all of the sets in a non rotation world.

In the world of CCGs (not LCGs), MTG for example to get a full play set (thats 4x each card) of the latest set (Eldritch Moon), right now is over $1000. Add to that the value of a complete play set of all of the cards in rotation, and its an absurd price. Nobody buys complete play sets of even everything in rotation for MTG. They buy some random boosters, and mostly singles to get specific cards they need for specific decks. While LCG's are far superior in this aspect, there is still no need to buy every single set of every single cycle to "stay competitive". Even if you really, really, need a card from an earlier set to complete your deck, you can pick and choose which sets you want throughout the history of the game, all divided into neat 20x3 card, non randomized packs.

And let's not forget the elephant in the room--even with rotation applied, FFG gave AGOT no more than two to three years to live. Without rotation, it would have been cancelled outright. If Latreides thinks that isn't deprecating a product he buys, I truly can't help him.

You seem to think that without rotation a game cannot last. A few examples of failed games does not make this true. Democracy failed, time and time again throughout history, until it didn't. Rotation is not the only solution to the problems that card games face.

Latreides' reasons are not simply objectively, empirically wrong, they are in fact perverse. Without rotation, it is absolutely certain that Netrunner will one day get the axe, because of the effects of an ever-expanding card pool. His proposed workarounds would mitigate the logistical issues only marginally, and the metagame issues would not be affected in the slightest. If he does care about the game, he ought to reconsider his position. Obviously there's no wrong way to play and he can do what he wants with the product he's bought, but if he's not going to participate in the larger Netrunner community, I'd argue that's the worst deprecation of his investment imaginable.

Two things to mention here, maybe it will clarify things for you. First, I care nothing for the metagame. I do not care about what other people are doing with their decks, or how popular a certain card or deck type is. I care about the game, its mechanics, the mechanics on the cards and how they interact. I do not make decks that target a specific type of deck, or a specific type of gameplay that is popular this month. The metagame means nothing to me. When I read/hear someone talk about the metagame (of any game) my interest in the conversation wanes considerably. I actually have strong opinions on the idea of the metagame, but as with rotation, that is far, far outside of the original topic of this post and I won't be pulled in to a discussion about that, too.

Second, every game will one day get the axe. I do not worry about that as much as I worry about a reboot. Since ANR is one of FFGs biggest selling LCGs, its chance of being outright canceled is a lot less than its chance of being rebooted.

Latreides would constantly raise the barrier of entry for new players,

You keep saying this, which makes absolutely no sense. You make the assumption that a new player would need to buy every single set that has ever come out. Thats absurd. Even in a world with rotation there is no need for a new player to buy all of the in rotation sets, no more than there is a need for a new player to buy all of the sets in a non rotation world.

While LCG's are far superior in this aspect, there is still no need to buy every single set of every single cycle to "stay competitive". Even if you really, really, need a card from an earlier set to complete your deck, you can pick and choose which sets you want throughout the history of the game, all divided into neat 20x3 card, non randomized packs.

You've also managed to discover yet another self-contradiction in your own position: the existence of rotation makes the need to be completionist even more optional: a new player buying in today, intending to grow their collection only modestly, can afford to compeletely ignore those sets that have less than a year to live. That would be a much harder decision to justify if everything was evergreen.

But, all that said, approximately 100% of players in competitive play are completionists or nearly so. In order to remain competitive against the demands of the changing metagame, they really need to own almost everything. I know you don't care about that apparently, but the game does not revolve around you--you've listed a litany of reasons why your opinions need not be taken seriously by anyone with decision-making power.

And let's not forget the elephant in the room--even with rotation applied, FFG gave AGOT no more than two to three years to live. Without rotation, it would have been cancelled outright. If Latreides thinks that isn't deprecating a product he buys, I truly can't help him.

You seem to think that without rotation a game cannot last. A few examples of failed games does not make this true. Democracy failed, time and time again throughout history, until it didn't.

Empirical Fact 1: All Competitive card games greater than ten years old have implemented rotation.

Empirical Fact 2: All Competitive card games greater than ten years old without rotation have folded.

Empirical Fact 3: Competitive card games without a rotation model face challenges to cost, production, sales, design, and balance which no solution other than rotation addresses as well as rotation does.

You seem to think, based on your repeated insistence, that "Rotation is not the only solution to the problems that card games face." Well, I'm sorry, but no other approach has ever worked, no other approach even theoretically can address all of the problems that the growth of the game presents. This is that "wishful thinking" versus "actual reality" that seems to trouble you so much.

Latreides' reasons are not simply objectively, empirically wrong, they are in fact perverse. Without rotation, it is absolutely certain that Netrunner will one day get the axe, because of the effects of an ever-expanding card pool. His proposed workarounds would mitigate the logistical issues only marginally, and the metagame issues would not be affected in the slightest. If he does care about the game, he ought to reconsider his position. Obviously there's no wrong way to play and he can do what he wants with the product he's bought, but if he's not going to participate in the larger Netrunner community, I'd argue that's the worst deprecation of his investment imaginable.

Two things to mention here, maybe it will clarify things for you. First, I care nothing for the metagame. I do not care about what other people are doing with their decks, or how popular a certain card or deck type is. I care about the game, its mechanics, the mechanics on the cards and how they interact. I do not make decks that target a specific type of deck, or a specific type of gameplay that is popular this month. The metagame means nothing to me. When I read/hear someone talk about the metagame (of any game) my interest in the conversation wanes considerably. I actually have strong opinions on the idea of the metagame, but as with rotation, that is far, far outside of the original topic of this post and I won't be pulled in to a discussion about that, too.

Your proposed workarounds would not affect the overall health of the total game design and the balance of the entire card pool in the slightest. Is that better?

Second, every game will one day get the axe. I do not worry about that as much as I worry about a reboot. Since ANR is one of FFGs biggest selling LCGs, its chance of being outright canceled is a lot less than its chance of being rebooted.

Regardless, Rotation is an excellent tool to maintain the health of the game: it's the easiest, most cost-effective, most powerful tool for the task of obviating the need to reboot the game, and that's the tool FFG is going with. Without rotation, the difficulty of avoiding a reboot or a cancellation skyrockets, and there is absolutely no reason to run the risk--you certainly haven't provided any rational reasons for them not to.

This whole thread can be summed up as follows:

-"I'm worried about a reboot."

----"Don't worry, they don't like reboots either, that's why they are starting rotation next year."

-"But I don't like rotation! I refuse to play with rotation!"

----"Well, then I hope you like reboots."

-"They just need to try harder!"

----"That's not going to solve anything."

-"Nuh-uh!"

And also? All product from the SanSan Cycle onward has been designed with rotation in mind. For example, once Pre-Paid Voicepad rotates out they are free to start printing impactful events whose costs would be impossible to balance under the possibility of a $3 cost reduction. If you think that's not going to affect you, then you're going to have a bad time. You're going to have recursion effects designed around the absence of Jackson Howard. You're going to have Meat Damage protection effects designed around the absence of Plascrete Carapace. You're going to have Fast Advance mechanics designed around the absence of Beale, Vitruvius, Atlas, and Braintrust. You're going to have trashing mechanics designed around the absence of Whizzard. And so on, and so on, and so on. If you think the game is going to be balanced once all the Genesis/Spin cards are supposed to be gone and they're not, you ought to think again.

BEST OF LUCK.