It exists, but it's pretty clunky. I wouldn't mind at all if FFG replaced their forum software someday with, well, ANY other forum software ever made.

Buhallin said:

That would make it far too convenient. It's clear enough they want the PM feature to be used only sparingly.

KEM said:

Frankly, you really need to understand the very nature of the game is asymmetric. It's not a limitation, it's the design of the game. The corp has hidden info and tries to protect assets and score points, while the runner can only succeed by cracking through corp defenses and stealing their points, having to often run blind into hidden cards and weigh risks. One side is bluffer, the other bluffee. Corp vs corp would be a solitaire race with no way to attack each other, and runners have no ways to inherently score points in their deck and their deck is all about interacting with the corp defenses, do runner v runner makes zero sense either.

I suppose each side could play one of each deck and you could make rules on up on victory being a combo of stolen and advanced agendas somehow…but that's really more a weird 4 player variant. Each side is so fundamentally different and use different cards, it's not like a control vs weenie rush matchup I magic the gathering. It's like a complaint that d&d doesn't support dungeon master vs dungeon master. Think of the corp as dungeon master, laying traps and hiding their intent, and the runner as the clueless adventurer out looking for booty. It really ISN'T a limitation, it's the fundamental mechanics of the game and the asymmetry is the whole reason the game is awesome…

flamejuggler said:

That's actually a really good comparison there. And, as pointed out before, two different sides to play is already one side more than most CCGs.

flamejuggler said:

I wonder if it will be possible to play a "Runner" who is performing freelance espionage for the Corporations themselves. That's the kind of flavor I could get behind. I like privateering a bit more than pirating.

MarthWMaster said:

Sounds like a Criminal Runner to me

• Anarchs like Noise Reilly work from their hatred for corporate corruption. Some might say they champion the oppressed and the downtrodden, but it’s more likely that they’re interested purely in the act of ripping apart corporate lies and spreading their viruses to hinder the corporate machine.
• Criminals like Gabriel Santiago are in it for the credits. They get paid for the secrets they uncover. Consummate professionals, these runners believe in taking as few risks as possible, and never the ones they consider unnecessary.
• Shapers like Kate McCaffrey are considered idealistic naifs by many. They’re not in the business to tear down corporations nor for personal gain. They run because they can. They take joy runs to see what they can make out of new combinations of hardware and software. Accordingly, their tech is usually among the most modded and sophisticated of any runner’s.

flamejuggler said:

How does the fact that it's the design of the game not make it a limitation? I understand that by focusing on that one small aspect of the genre it allows them to get pretty in depth on that aspect. But in the process they cut off a lot of potential aspects that could also be a part of the game. Corp vs. Corp wouldn't have to be a "solitaire race" if the game was designed from the get-go to take that into consideration.

My main issue here really is that in a constructed deck game I expect to be able to make and play the deck I want to play. So if I build a Runner deck I want to be able to play a Runner. Now if my opponent wants to play his Runner, the game says we cannot play. One of us has to put away their Runner deck and play a deck they don't necessarily want to play. I don't care how you cut it, that is a limitation. Yes it is a fundamental aspect of the game, that limits it to one particular type of play.

I should probably point out though that this really isn't the main problem with this game for me. The real problem with this game for me is the lack of multiplayer. I didn't really bring it up before because that is more an issue with my personal play-group than anything else. In fact my core play-group kind of boils down to 3 players, so any game that cuts off one of those players is not going to get a lot of play time. Heck, I think having some form of multi-player would actually help mitigate the Corp vs. Runner requirement. At the very least I suspect it would make that requirement a little onerous by spreading it over multiple players.

Anyway, thank you all for your replies. I'll keep poking my head in every now and again since I do like some aspects of the game (the artwork, the universe, etc.). We'll see how things go.

KEM said:

The thing is, you don't make a Runner deck. Similar to Decipher's Star Wars CCG, with it's Light/Dark side cards, in Netrunner every player is expected to have both a Runner and a Corp deck. Most games are actually a pair of games, each player playing each side.

You may not be comfortable with that, maybe because you don't want to have to collect both sides, or don't like the idea of ever playing the Corp, whatever. That's fine. But I think most people are taking exception to your describing it as a limitation - if you only want to play half the game, that's fine, but that doesn't really fit the definition of a limitation.

yeah, the game wouldn't be the same at all. "Limitation" sounds like you are implying it would be better if it was as flexible as you describe. It would be a VERY different game if what you describe was possible. The magic of the asymetrical matchup would be totally different, and not the same game at all. The thing you are complaining about is what makes netrunner great. It really isnt a limitation, its a choice. Don't play if you only play multiplayer and things that can be totally symetrical. This isnt that game. Everything you are complaining about is WHY the game is awesome. try it, or don't, but don't diss it for not being a game its not trying to be…

All game design is about limitation. There is no game that is not without its limitations on you the player. This one is not more limiting than any other, it just has one you dislike, which is certainly your right. Thanks for sharing with us. Now that you know it is not the game for you, you won't mind of course if we politely move on to other topics that don't include why you don't like the game but feel the need to publicly post such dissatisfaction instead of just going to a forum for a game you do like.

Carrying on, we know that there are factions, we can extrapolate that the economy of the game was adjusted a little bit, the art and graphic design has eben completely redone, it is not compatible with the old cards, walls have become barriers…

What else?

Penfold said:

Well, we know that there is a new type of card called an Identity card, and that they belong to factions too. It seems likely that your identity card functions as a leader for your deck in some way and additional Identity cards will come out for each faction as time goes on. It is unknown whether your Identity is public from the start or revealed during play.

We know that there is a card limit now, almost certainly 3x.

The type "Fracter" seems to be a new keyword to refer to Barrier icebreakers. In other FFG LCG's, they seem to like releasing cards later on that use these keywords.

The "Noisy" keyword appears to no longer exist, this is suspected to be one reason why the Barrier ice we've seen has been amped up considerably - because it no longer requires the use of a type of icebreaker with a built-in drawback. It might also be that Stealth cards will refer to the "Fracter" keyword directly to accomplish a similar effect to the old Noisy.

Tags are certainly in the game still, we've seen them mentioned on many cards. But, we have not seen anything about Trace or Link. This mechanic may have been simplified or removed. That is, we may just see "give a tag" subroutines instead of trace subroutines. Also, cards that in the old game gave a base link value may be replaced with ones that have you pay a set amount to avoid a trace, or pay a value related to the strength of the ice, etc… This is just conjecture though.

I don't really get the logical leaps people are taking, that because a feature has not been seen in a handful of examples, it therefore risks being cut from the new release. In addition to the trace/link mechanic we haven't seen any fort upgrades and Sysops yet- are we to assume they have been cut as well?

I agree with you there. The entire talk about Trace/Link being removed was from Wormhole Surfer and we all know that he was a reactionary poster. Not to say he always has been just the guy was caught off guard (thought he had the inside track on info and turns out he was wrong) and responded poorly to it.

There has been nothing to indiate that Trace/Link has been altered in anyway… though I kind of hope it has been. Same reasons why I hope all references to dice have been removed. A streamlined game that is, IMO, easier to understand, has less fiddly bits, is easy to play and to teach, and puts the emphasis on the primary strategies involved in game play rather than side interactions.

I hope FFG simplifies some aspects of Netrunner and makes the core rules more solid but doesn't limit the tactical choices of the old games. More complicated rules doesn't mean better strategy for me. It means poorly written rules more. I would like to see dice gone also. I am ok with some minor random effects but I would not want to lose the game because of the die roll. Also card game shouldn't need dice. You can create some random effects with cards also.

Surreal said:

If "Crypsis" is any indication, it looks like they are moving away from dice rolls.

I am reminded of a card game, cyberpunk, that came out… a WHILE a go. That game was clunky. Likely a result of its 'corp vs. corp' and 'anything vs. anything' style of play. Made it untenable, uncollectable and unmanagable. IMO

vermillian said:

I think you might be remembering the attempt at a Shadowrun CCG. I remember it being pretty clunky.

Nope. Cyberpunk the ccg

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/11826/cyberpunk-the-collectible-card-game

And yes, also Shadowrun, but that was in 97 when CCGs really still didn't know what they're doing (not that half of them now know…).

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2123/shadowrun-the-trading-card-game

Penfold said:

HI, didn't find the tiem to reply yet here … couldl you explain me in details what you mean about me please ? my non native english maybe make me understand the thing in a wrong way

thx so much

Surreal said:

did you really lost some games with dice roll ?

I am saying that you posted what you did the way you did because of emotion, not because of facts. That you thought there was an understanding between you and the various people who owned the rights to Netrunner and apparently they had a different opinion on the relationship. That Trace/Link being removed was speculation on your part based on a single card that tagged a runner without running a trace and that is not a logical assumption to make given how little information we have about the game.

Emotional reactions to things the we care deeply about are understandable and unavoidable. Posting about them is avoidable though. I think the time you've taken off has hopefully allowed you to get some perspective and distance. It is fine if you have opinions on how you would have preferred things to have gone, but they didn't go that way. It is better for everyone, and for both games, if we all learn to accept this is the reality of things and move on from there.

I'm sure FFG is aware of all the opinions being expressed too some amount and will do what they can to get the largest audience possible for this game. That is almost certainly going to mean disappointing some of the older players. For some of them no changes are acceptable and any version that does not allow their old cards to be used will be panned. It is sad but true. From a business perspective FFG should not even attempt to interact or cater to these players.

Some of the older players will be happy with the game if it is just loosely based on the game they remember and loved because there will be leagues of new players and new cards coming out on a regular basis that will be easily available for a reasonable price. From a business perspective FFG has no reason to not try to make the largest most attractive game for these fans as possible.

Somewhere in between are people who would love this game with any and all changes but will be instantly unhappy and suspicious of any changes or updates to the game. They won't let go of "their" netrunner. They will constantly harp about how the old game did things and always view the original game as the superior game. FFG may reach out to these players in an attempt to show how great this game is, personally I think most of them will be so locked into their mindset it will only dawn on them a year or two later that perhaps this game is a worthy successor to the original Netrunner, and maybe a couple years after that maybe even come to realize that some of the changes made in the system are improvements (considering the track record FFG has with LCG's and the 16 years of evolution and development of the customizable card game genre I think it is fair to say there is a decent chance there will be actual improvements to the game).

I can't help but wonder how many of their playtesters are old Netrunner players and how many of their feedback began and ended with "This isn't the way Netrunner did it," filled with "You're ruining my game" in between.

Me I can't wait to get my paws on the cards and see what changes have been made. Muy list of changes that would be seen as immediate improvements are as follows:

1. Get rid of dice. (It is a card game. I just can't love a card game that requires me to use dice anymore)
2. Simplify Trace/Link. I liked it, didn't love it, Teaching it I never saw anyone who did love it. The game within a game actually bogged the system down in my opinion.
3. Strict card limits. I've ranted about this here and there and everywhere. The reason why Netrunner was SO popular in sealed was because you didn't have to deal with this.

That is pretty much it. As a fan of the old game I'll view every other change with suspicion and fear. Okay, that is lie. Factions intrigue me… but I still kind of fear them. They have been handled in their other games marvelously well… so I have a kernel of hope I am nursing, but I really want more info about how they are going to be intergrated. I am about half way through the first novel in the Android universe. It is very cool. It is a murder mystery with deep philosophical questions poised that I have a feeling are never going to be sufficiently answered in this book. I hope the factions come across well and add to the games theme rather than detract from the games mechanics.

Penfold,

Loved your post. You distilled my sentiments to a T.

However, I have high hopes for FFG's rendition of Netrunner; though I can't profess much experience with the original, it struck me as a bit unwieldy, what with the multitude of chits and counters. I have every confidence that FFG will make a game worthy of much enjoyment, even if the simplifications strike some as blasphemous defamations.

I have total faith in FFG. Despite the lumpy distribution for the base set, I'm totally loving the Lord of the Rings LCG. If FFG can make a decent LotR card game, they can revive Netrunner.

Penfold said:

*slow clap*