Can anyone here confirm this?

According to http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/890876/card-preview-on-the-back-of-game-trade-magazine , it appeared in an ad for that data pack.

E3 Feedback Implant

Criminal. Cost: 2 Credits.

Hardware: Mod

Whenever you break (a subroutine on a) piece of ice, you may (break) 1 additional subroutine (for free).

Card # 24. Influence unknown.

It's most likely true as that magazine does have the occasional sneak peek in it.

Sounds very good.

It sounds like you could do that multiple times per ice, the way it is worded. So if the ice had 4 subroutines, you'd only have to break two. Does that sound right? It's pretty rare that a piece of ice has even 3 subroutines, let alone 4, so I don't think that that adds too much power.

Toqtamish said:

I think the guessed parts of the text are reasonable, though I wonder about the difference in length. Perhaps the second line reads "…you may pay 1 [credit] to break …" which would be closer to "a subroutine on a" in length, making for more even formatting.

That would still be a wicked good deal against HB ice.

Saturnine said:

I thought the same thing. That missing bit of text is quite important. Either way I think this card will be going in my Criminal deck.

Saturnine said:

Messenger said:

I think situational is what you want to go for. Breaking another routine for free might make it a tad too efficient. Also, it's likely we'll see more ICE in the future with a cost greater than 1 credit to break a subroutine. So I'm leaning towards paying a credit for the extra sub break, but it could go either way. We'll see.

Saturnine said:

That only works in CCGs like Magic: the Gathering, where they keep printing huge expansions around the year and where the game is almost entirely about combos and stringing card effects together. Situational cards can exist there because there's so much room for them and because there's a chance for them to be used in all its crazy combo making.

Remember: situational cards are usually bad cards to use because they're so specific . If they can't be used, they're just dead weight. When asked why Magic regularly prints so many "bad" cards, their design team actually answers, "Because you can't have good cards without bad ones."

FFG's take on Netrunner is quite different. As an LCG, its expansions are smaller and its cards come in complete sets. The rules and gameplay of Netrunner restrict combo making a lot, so FFG can't really print crappy cards that are only possibly good for combos. Neither do they have room for cards with super specific uses.

Take note that I'm not saying A:NR doesn't have situational cards. It has lots. However, their being situational isn't as narrowed down and particular as the speculated E3 Feedback Implant with a 1 credit cost to break just one additional subroutines. That's something that all icebreakers except one can already do.

Yes, it's possible for future icebreakers to cost 2 credits to break subroutines, but remember that those icebreakers are going to be competing with the icebreakers we already have. They're going to have to be just as good in their own way, despite the costs, because we're going to be choosing between them + the E3 Feedback Implant with a 1 credit ability and icebreakers that simply cost 1 to break each subroutine and don't need any other card to make them better.

You can't just make cards that are good everytime all the time. Otherwise people will just run the most efficient of those and every deck will be the same. You need to find niches for cards that will allow for varied builds. And that's how other LCGs have been designed so far. LCGs just keep growing as there's no rotation. Take A Game of Thrones which has 1000+ cards. Plenty of situational cards there. Now arguably, quite a few are too situational and never see play, but others have new life breathed into them by new synergies from a new card that's released.

Indeed, I say the very core of the game is about cards that are situational. My sentry icebreaker does nothing against a barrier ice. So I find your assertion a crass distortion of both the reality of the current state of the game as well as the game's future.

Think about future icebreakers that might come out that may require you to pay 2 or even 3 credits to break a subroutine. Why would they design it to be that expensive? Because the card offers some additional great effect. Many people will not use it because it's too costly as an icebreaker. Enter a card like E3 Feedback Implant. Suddenly you might be able to find a way to build a deck around those expensive icebreakers, taking advantage of their additional effects while mitigating their cost.

This would pair nicely with a reprint of Black Dahlia.

Not everyone remembers what these old cards do. What did it do?

ffaristocrat said:

What's wrong with Femme Fatale?

Saturnine said:

Actually , FFG should print good cards all the time because those are the cards that actually open up new strategies and provide greater options to deckbuilders and players. If all cards and strategies in the game are equally viable then players have a good reason to pick and play what they want rather than going for just what is most effective and efficient. If all the cards are equally good (or close enough), then all paths to victory are equally good as well.

This is why I'm guessing E3 Feedback Implant breaks additional subroutines for free. It's with that power and usefulness that it goes well even with icebreakers that cost 1 credit- and is even better with 'breakers that cost more to do it.

Furthermore, neither did I say that FFG can't and won't design icebreakers that don't cost more than 1 credit to break subroutines.

• In the first place, they already have: Aurora .
• In the second place, if you read what I posted carefully, you'll see that I did mention that those icebreakers have to be as good as their 1-credit counterparts, implying they provide a benefit that offsets their higher cost to operate. Already existing example: Battering Ram .

Lastly, I take offense with your calling my analysis of the game's situational "crass" and "distorted", especially where I took care to be respectful in my disagreement.

• First, I already admitted that a lot of cards in the game are by nature situational.
• Second, the various kinds of ICE and icebreakers in the game is a given part of the game's strategy and workings, hence not that situational, especially where deckbuilders are wise to vary the kind of ICE and 'breakers in their decks.
• Third, it's certainly not even as close to situational as the version of E3 Feedback Implant that you suggest; sure, you have to match 'breakers to ICE, but E3 Feedback Implant by itself is useless without a way to break ICE to begin with.
• Fourth, going back to my first point in this reply: it's not good cards that prompt players to play the same kind of deck and strategy all the time- but bad ones.

Messenger said:

The disagreement is the same, whether you put a "respectfully" in there or not. You think I'm wrong, and I think you're wrong. It's unfortunate you feel like I stepped on your toes, but I was just stating my opinion. It doesn't mean I disrespect you. You're putting forth your arguments in a well-articulated and coherent manner. Props to you, I appreciate it. But I still disagree with a lot of it.

Now, I think you raise some fair points, but the problem is that you think that a version of Implant that requires you to pay 1 credit is inherently and unredeemably bad, and I don't. I'm not arguing that such a version would be as good as the "break for free" version, that'd be silly -- of course, it's worse. I'm merely saying I can envision an environment where it still has value. Also, I'm not convinced, it'll be the "pay" version, I'm just saying I find it plausible (and indeed, the reason I thought of it was text formatting, not efficiency considerations, so there's that).

You make it sound like I'm proposing FFG should design "bad" cards on purpose, which I am not. Maybe we just have different ideas about "situational" means. But I think it's impossible for FFG to design set after set designing cards that are efficient in every deck, or against every deck (because in the case of Implant, the kind of ice you're facing has a large impact on its efficiency). And I think it's unavoidable that there will be cards that people think "suck," and some of them will hardly ever see play, and others might be hidden gems and someone will find a way to use them, or they become more valuable as the overall meta game shifts. I've seen it happen in the A Game of Thrones LCG.

Saturnine said:

• Icebreakers that cost more than 1 credit to break subroutines that thus need E3 to give them a cheaper way to break;
• The use of deck slots to fit the E3 in to support them;
• Those icebreakers providing other benefits that compensate for their high cost to operate and the usage of a deck slot for E3;
• Those icebreakers being not that good that people will run them without the E3 anyway despite the high cost to operate.

That is so much trouble for so little value. That is a card that FFG has to design so much around just to make it work. That is a card you have base other cards on.

That's compared to an E3 that breaks for free, that is so simple and yet does so much more. No problems for the A:NR's design team and more likely to be accepted and used by players, and yet without being overpowered.

And who said anything about cards that are super efficient in every deck and against every deck? That is neither what we're talking about nor how Android: Netrunner operates. The free-costing E3 isn't even such a card. That version is not a must-have, especially given the speed and evasion Criminals usually use. It's good and exciting, but it's just one path to victory. It's a good card; it's just right.

What we are talking about is the version of it that costs credits to operate. While the speculated free-costing E3 is useful but not overpowered, balanced and not a waste, the E3 with a credit cost is too limited and specific to be used easily or well. If most cards in A:NR are situational, then costing credits to work takes E3 to a much higher level that makes it such a problem to put into the game and employ.

As a very competitive Criminal player, I have to agree with Saturine. If there is any cost at all to using E3 (based on what we think it does) then I simply won't be using it. With no sideboard, every card needs to pull it's weight in every matchup, and frankly, I have little enough trouble with HB that I wouldn't use E3 even if I did have a sideboard.

I'd go so far as to say that if FFG printed something so janky for Criminal in the first few sets (when the card pool is so small, and every card matters so much), I'd be fairly cross with them.

Silent Requiem said:

I think you meant to say you agree with Messenger

@Messenger: Well, I apologize for wording my opinion in a way that made you uncomfortable. I didn't mean it to come across so antagonistic.

Saturnine said:

lol - I did indeed. And now I can't seem to edit my post…

Noah D from the BGG forums analyzed the most likely scenarios involving said card. I think his is a reasonable argument, with which I tend to agree:

". . .with credits it's certainly anti-bioroid tech

Spend 2 credits:
Too bad and too situational. Would only be played if the meta were 90% HB

Spend 1 credit:
No effect with most Breakers that break for 1
Good with breakers that break for more than 1
Hits bioroids hard

Spend 1 click:
Provides additional options, but in practice usually not worth it with breakers that break for 1
Good with breakers that break for more than 1
No effect with bioroids

For free:
Gets added to every deck
Bioroids are worthless
Multi-subroutine Ice takes a serious hit.
Tollbooth becomes the best piece of Ice er… wait"

Saturnine said: