Based on everything heard up to date since the realease of Netrunner, I have heardd nothing but good things so far. However Im still trying to figure out wich would be the best LCG to spend money getting into. I do realize i am in the netrunner forum, but i was hoping to see if someone had an opinion as to which one is better in the other or as to why it would be better to engage in one over the other.

Depends on what you are looking for. I own almost every card for AGoT. It is a lot of fun, the game plays amazing at multiplayer. Both games are great games and personally I will be collecting both as I really enjoy both games. The nice things about LCG's is they are affordable enough to do that.

What are you looking for out of game ? Might help me to help you with your decisions.

Well i have been a MtG player most of my card gaming life, but due to the money problems with the game that everyone encounters I decided to bow out. AGoT seems more familiar to me due to the whole concept of the Attack > Defend with Kneeling and stuff of that sort which originally inclined me more towards AGot, but i played Netrunner recently i think its a breath of fresh air to what i am acostumed to. So to be honest like you said i was considering getting into both games and playing them but what discouraged me a bit is the insane amount of cards already released for Agot, too many expansions and cycle packs which kinda scare me to spend so much money. But in terms of your question I am not sure as to what exactly I want, I just really enjoy card games that challenge you in the decisions you make, and keeps you in your toes. I know it is a very vague description what i just gave so i am sorry. Lol. Hope that helps a bit.

Maybe get core set of each. Both games right out of the core set are very playable. If you want to expand AGoT but not get all of the chapter packs you could buy just the deluxe expansion for the house or houses that interested you the most. That is more than enough to make usable decks.

Catching up on all the expansions and deluxe expansions for AGoT is going to be very expensive. I had been thinking about getting back into it early this year (I gave up on finding a regular play group by the end of the first round of chapter packs), and the up–front investment—even with buying only the packs I would need for the decks I was looking at—was discouraging, to say the least. Cheaper than MtG or something, for sure, but still non–negligible.

There are things I really like about AGoT: I like that it lends itself to aggressive gameplay; I like the melee variant; I like the ‘flavor’ of it. I think the core of that game is great.

But, there are things I like about Netrunner better (at least in theory at this point): The asymmetric gameplay, which lends itself to two very different deck–building and strategic skillsets you have to learn; the subtleties involved in the bluffing tactics by the Corp and the Runner's need to figure them out; what the asymmetry does to player interaction, &c.

It's hard to see what a few cycles worth of data packs will do to the game, however. Yet, the investment is low, the core of the game is fantastic, and I'm willing to give it a go.

Im sorry maybe i should have mentioned i currently own a core set of each. My doubt was in which direction to expand at the moment more than anything. Like the previous comment says its a bit discouraging to get fully into Agot, without making a decision into which house you wish to play, since getting all packs would be way to expensive for my budget. But asides from the monetary problem, if that was not an issue, which game would be the best to get involved in? Or would it just be better to jump into the netrunner just because it will be more accesible to get the cards as the packs come out?

That all depends on which game you enjoy more and find more interesting. There's no objective answer to this question—at least in an accessible sense—the games are very different.

I think the primary difference that can make or break a decision is that AGoT is best multi-player, and Netrunner is only two-player. If you're usually playing together with three or four (thinking back to my old days of playing Emperor at college MtG nights) then AGoT is better, and can manage a two player game.

Netrunner is, currently, only set up for two players. This isn't a bad thing, it's just the nature of the game.

Both are great games. It's a tough decision.

ArachneJericho said:

AGoT works fine at two player games.

I have to echo the above. AGoT is not exclusively best multiplayer. The 2 player version is just as popular and considered the far more valid competitive format.

AGoT seems to have have an incredibly mature community for a card game. Most of the people I've played with loved the books, so the game doesn't seem to attract the typical MtG player. That doesn't mean you won't find intensely competitive players and play, but that will be more based on your local meta. As far as game play goes, AGoT is currently as much, if not more so, about deck design as it is about skilled play. The game is at a point where your deck construction has to be able to compete with your opponent's deck before you sit down to play. There are still significant in game considerations, but if you plan to play competitively, expect to need to build a good deck. If you play casually, you won't have this problem obviously. As far as in game play, it depends on which house you choose. Targ burn tends to be the most thought intensive. Stark and Bara tend to be very straigh-forward. Each house has decisions to make during the challenge phase, they generally just differ on what kind of decisions, and how many.

I can't tell what the NetRunner community is yet, but the community at the GenCon Icebreaker felt like it leant a little more towards the MtG type of community. The crowd was good, but it certainly didn't feel like the AGoT community, of which most guys I've played with you feel like you could go to a bar afterward and have a good time. It could be true of NetRunner, but only time will tell. Also consider that NetRunner is a Richard Garfield game. As far as game play, the card pool is so limited and the cards not particularly powerful in NetRunner (more to say there aren't must-play cards yet). This sounds bad, but I really never found it to be a problem. The factions are so different, that you may not even notice the limited card pool. NetRunner also feels more about play to me than deck build currently. I don't know how that will play out, and I'm getting to a point where deck construction seems to be mattering a little more, but how you play the game definitely counts for a lot.

Both are solid games, so you can't really go wrong with either of them. I lean towards NetRunner right now because I just enjoy its game play more. I've gotten to a point in AGoT where I don't particularly like the deck I'm playing, but my friends play tier 1 decks and I need to play that deck to have a chance of winning. NetRunner hasn't reached that yet for me.

Both games have great qualities, but in my view, you should stick to Netrunner simply because it's the most recent one and you'll be able to own all the cards as they come out. As mentionned by another poster, catching up on all the AGoT expansions will require a huge investment…

SiCK_Boy said:

I did it when I started out. Took me about 6 months to do it. So it can be done if you want to. Of course you don't need to own every single card to play. Honestly a core set and a deluxe expansion for your favorite house is the best way to go.

mdc273 said:

I can see Netrunner community ending up being more like AGoT or say L5R due to the fact the game is more complicated than something like Magic. As well some of the players are people who used to play it in 96 so they tend to be older than your typical age for a Magic player.

One point in Netrunner's favour is the chance to get in on the ground floor of an LCG. Financial advantages aside, I am greatly looking forward to seeing the meta develop from its earliest stages. Although there are a lot of opinions flying around as to what decks/cards are best, both at my local level and on forums, conventions of deckbuilding and play are not yet established. To me this is very appealing.

Your mentioning of money problems may be the key here. AGOT means doing some catching up which may mean spending more than you'd like even if the LGC format makes things more affordable. We're all standing at a new beginning with Netrunner so you don't have to do more buying at this point since you already have the Netrunner Core Set.

I posted on the AGOT boards in response to the same question, so I won't rehash in full here. Basically, I agree with mdc273 above's post that the AGOT community is unique and likely going to be more mature and better to spend time with. That said, Netrunner has an amazing combination of mechanics that feels like in-game play has more choice. As another mentioned, getting in at the very beginning is neat too.

I personally will play both, and that likely means playing AGOT as my primary, but Netrunner as a close second, primarily with AGOT friends who also play Netrunner.

Thanks for everyones opinion. Like many of you suggested playing both is gonna be a bit harder, but if i mantain netrunner as my main game, I might be able to keep up to date while in the back i try to catch up a little on Agot. I was hoping to see if the shift in the games would be big enough to pull me from one side or another but maybe i should just try to make the best out of both of them as many have suggested. Thanks.

Warhammer Invasion.

If you liked MtG consider that Netrunner was designed by Richard Garfield… if you even know who he is.

vermillian said:

There's not much comparison, though. Netrunner was Garfield's second CCG, and he wanted to make sure it didn't just turn into a re-themed Magic. So, he deliberately made it as different from Magic as possible. The resources are done entirely differently, there's no "tapping", and the "combat" doesn't involve elimination of the "combatants". In the original Netrunner, there weren't even factions---just a corp side, and a runner side. Of course, there is also the asymmetrical gameplay. In Magic, all colors play by the same rules, and their "character" comes from the types of cards they have (red destruction, white protection, etc.) But in Netrunner, it's like each side is playing a different game.

Invasion is a great game, too, and much more like Magic…but Netrunner is far superior, IMO.

IconBreaker said:

I'd prefer Netrunner. At least up to now, there are not so many awkward situations and in-play discussion, timing questions, though this might change.

Keeping up on AGoT, I would say from my experience of buying two years worth of chapter packs, that I was overwhelmed by the number of cards and deckbuilding options. My advice: Don't buy everything in chronological order, but pick the chapter packs that provide game mechanics you like or focus on the houses you feel comfortable with. Cardgame DB is a good basis for a decision what to buy.

My most humble opinion

Sorry for the typos but I can't edit that , … well I actually could took some search