|
Phrosphor posted:I see a lot of negative reviews for TD here and on Reddit. I was thinking of picking it up for some casual games with a friend, neither of us are big netrunner players but we both like the setting and game. Is it worth it for the narrative or are we better off just avoiding it? I'm not a super competitive player or anything but I do really enjoy netrunner & I've been playing for a while now. I've been playing TD with my SO and we are both having loads of fun. The narrative is admittedly kinda pasted-on and not as integrated as it is with, say, Pandemic Legacy, but it's still fun! The legacy elements just add interesting/challenging conditions to your play; opening SECRET PACKS OF CARDS, destroying components etc is always cool, and plus, more generally, you get lots of new netrunner cards to add to your pool and expand your play. Put it this way: my SO enjoys netrunner but not as much as me, one game at a time is enough for her. When we broke out this box *she* was the one asking *me* if there was time for "just one more game" at half past eleven at night. I think it's a really solid next purchase after Core for newer players for sure.
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
I just realised how horrible facechecking Bloodletter out of Skorpios is and I love it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
I'd say TD is great if you're going into it as a casual fun experience. It recpatures a lot of those early games of Netrunner where you almost felt surrounded by all the ideas, and it was this cool unknown thing. Playing it with any kind of 'high-level' ambition is probably a mistake. Also, based on experience I'd recommend matching up Weyland and Criminal. Recurring and removing cards becomes a big thing between themm and there were a few people at the store event I went to who had a less interesting time with Shaper - Weyland because there was very little ID interaction. Tirranek fucked around with this message at 23:40 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
A friend of mine and I are going to play TD soon, but I have to wait from him to get back from Star Wars Worlds where he's playing I think every game. Maybe not Armada.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
I think an interesting way to open up a lot of play possibilities would be to give corps a way of defending more than one remote. I wonder how something like an ICE that, if played on a remote, counts as defending the remote to the left and the remote to the right would work. Moat Barrier Unique Str 3 rez 5 If Moat is protecting a remote server, it also counts as protecting the remote servers immediately to the left and right, if any. -> End the run It would be a big boost to assets, which are already pretty dominant. But it's always bugged me that defending more than one remote is almost impossibly hard. Edit: maybe a less clunky way to get the same effect would be: When you rez Moat on a remote server you may search HQ and R&D for up to two copies of Moat. You may then install and rez these copies on two different remote servers, ignoring all costs. If you do, shuffle R&D. Zephro fucked around with this message at 23:02 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 22:51
|
|
Zephro posted:I think an interesting way to open up a lot of play possibilities would be to give corps a way of defending more than one remote. I wonder how something like an ICE that, if played on a remote, counts as defending the remote to the left and the remote to the right would work. Remote server adjacency is an interesting design space that has not been explored. Not sure it is a good idea to explore as it'd make horizontal deck even more of an awful mess on the table. Interesting none the less.
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
The fact that heap order matters (a dumb thing anyway) because of one stupid draft ID is already bad, adjacency would be worse
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Just print better ICE and stop printing things that make it piss-easy to get through ICE. Paperclip ought to go on the MWL alongside Rumor Mill and any card that trivialises the main interaction of the game.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:The fact that heap order matters (a dumb thing anyway) because of one stupid draft ID is already bad, adjacency would be worse Heap order matters because the rulebook said so way back at Netrunner's release. It specified that Heap order matters and Archives order doesn't and I wondered what this difference might be planned for.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
The Deleter posted:Just print better ICE and stop printing things that make it piss-easy to get through ICE. Paperclip ought to go on the MWL alongside Rumor Mill and any card that trivialises the main interaction of the game. Paperclip has almost the same efficiency as corroder except on a single style of ICE- High Strength, multi-sub ICE. Unless you're going to bitch about something like Gordian Blade and other efficient icebreakers as well. berenzen fucked around with this message at 01:17 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
To be fair, Corroder and Godian Blade are probably way too efficient. It'd be interesting to play a version of the game where all the "good" breakers are banned. Maybe get rid of some of the best defensive upgrades like ash or caprice too to balance it out a little. If every breaker had some crippling drawback, it might be interesting to try and work around them / with them in mind.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
AgentF posted:Heap order matters because the rulebook said so way back at Netrunner's release. It specified that Heap order matters and Archives order doesn't and I wondered what this difference might be planned for. Heap order mattering - before the draft ID was printed - was almost certainly a holdover from Classic Netrunner. There were several runner cards that cared about heap order in that game, most common of which was Junkyard BBS, a resource that let you put the top card of your heap into your grip for a click and a credit.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
[haha, sorry. Wrong thread.  ]
EnjoiThePureTrip fucked around with this message at 05:31 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
EnjoiThePureTrip posted:Everyone talks about how bonkers Miranda is right now (and I sort of agree) but is there a better closer than Regen Poe? I played Miranda/Poe/Rex today in a tournament and went undefeated because everyone did everything they could to kill Miranda and I was able to trade successfully do Poe could close. Man, the standard Runner rig has changed pretty dramatically.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
EnjoiThePureTrip posted:Everyone talks about how bonkers Miranda is right now (and I sort of agree) but is there a better closer than Regen Poe? I played Miranda/Poe/Rex today in a tournament and went undefeated because everyone did everything they could to kill Miranda and I was able to trade successfully do Poe could close. See if you can add a Desperado somewhere. Maybe drop the autothrusters.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:To be fair, Corroder and Godian Blade are probably way too efficient. It'd be interesting to play a version of the game where all the "good" breakers are banned. Maybe get rid of some of the best defensive upgrades like ash or caprice too to balance it out a little. If every breaker had some crippling drawback, it might be interesting to try and work around them / with them in mind. You would need to have some form of upkeep on ICE in that game. In a straight game of ICE vs. Icebreakers, the corp wins. 2-3 taxing ICE on R&D, 2-3 taxing ICE on a scoring remote and the runner will be taxed out by the mid game. You'd also see a dominance of ICE destruction and DLR to the exclusion of a lot of other archetypes, which are considered by the majority to be NPE. Efficient icebreakers enables 'classic' netrunner interaction, removing them destroys that archetype. berenzen fucked around with this message at 04:30 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:To be fair, Corroder and Godian Blade are probably way too efficient. It'd be interesting to play a version of the game where all the "good" breakers are banned. Maybe get rid of some of the best defensive upgrades like ash or caprice too to balance it out a little. If every breaker had some crippling drawback, it might be interesting to try and work around them / with them in mind. Cube is the best format, correct.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
I'm getting ready to start Terminal Directive and use it as a chance to really learn how to play corp, including building my own deck instead of just always net decking. So can someone tell me if the following has some major design error I missed? I guess also if it's terrible or whatever, but we're playing with just the 1 core set. My opponent is playing the crim ID if that matters. Seidr Seidr Laboratories (Terminal Directive) Agenda (8) 3x Accelerated Beta Test (Core Set) 2x Elective Upgrade (Terminal Directive) 3x Priority Requisition (Core Set) Asset (10) 3x Adonis Campaign (Core Set) 2x Aggressive Secretary (Core Set) 2x Melange Mining Corp. (Core Set) 3x PAD Campaign (Core Set) Upgrade (7) 2x Experiential Data (Core Set) 3x Mason Bellamy (Terminal Directive) 2x Red Herrings (Core Set) •••• Operation (6) 3x Biotic Labor (Core Set) 3x Hedge Fund (Core Set) Barrier (9) 3x Eli 2.0 (Terminal Directive) 3x Ice Wall (Core Set) ••• 3x Wall of Static (Core Set) Code Gate (5) 3x Enigma (Core Set) 2x Viktor 1.0 (Core Set) Sentry (4) 2x Archer (Core Set) •••• 2x Matrix Analyzer (Core Set) •••• 49 cards (minimum 45) 15/15 influence used 21 agenda points Cards up to Terminal Directive Deck built with Net Deck
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
The Deleter posted:Just print better ICE and stop printing things that make it piss-easy to get through ICE. Paperclip ought to go on the MWL alongside Rumor Mill and any card that trivialises the main interaction of the game.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
Baron Snow posted:So can someone tell me if the following has some major design error I missed? Looks largely fine to me. The biggest question I have is what are you going to do with 2x Archer? You don't have cheap agendas you want to sacrifice, and I'd rarely forfeit a 3/2 to rez Archer. If you're banking on rezzing the Archer for free with Priority Requisition then you need to consider:
Not saying it's a bad plan, just comes with extra complications. Unless your plan is to forfeit a 3/2 or 5/3 to rez Archer the old fashioned way in which case it might be a bad plan.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
berenzen posted:Paperclip has almost the same efficiency as corroder except on a single style of ICE- High Strength, multi-sub ICE. Unless you're going to bitch about something like Gordian Blade and other efficient icebreakers as well. How many times have you read "this ICE would be good except Paperclip/Corroder/Mimic/Gordian Blade exist"? So yeah, I'll bitch about them too. Zephro posted:ICE would have to be absolutely brutally effective to make it worth spreading over 4 or 5 servers. The opportunity cost of being able to defend two remotes at the moment is not defending centrals properly plus the loss of deck slots you suffer from including loads and loads of ICE. Any ICE that was strong enough to make the tradeoff worth it would be even better if you just used it on centrals and stuck to the current style of play with one defended remote at most. Remote-only ICE is one way round that problem. As a Weyland player, I'd be pretty happy with finally getting "brutally effective" ICE worth a drat instead of figuring out what lovely flimsy ICE I'm gonna rush behind today. Also remote-only ice wouldn't be played because you could just put in a piece of ICE that wasn't a dead draw when you've already set up your One Remote. The opportunity cost of making multiple remotes outside of a prison/asset spam deck is so high that it's never going to be worth icing multiple remote unless you're playing Engineering the Future. Making ICE with weird cross-remote abilities wouldn't change that. Cards that are better on remotes, like Turing, are the way to go, so if that's what you're talking about then I agree.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
I'm saying it would be nice if there were a middle way between spamming tons on unprotected assets and having a deck designed to have one or zero remotes. One reason there isn't is that the opportunity cost of iceing remotes is enormous. "Better ICE" doesn't fix that problem, because it would still be better to just use it on centrals. "Stronger assets" doesn't fix that problem because it just encourages asset-spam (and assets are already really really good). "Remote-focused ICE" seems like a profitable avenue to explore. I don't think Turing is a good example, though. It's ICE that's stronger on a remote, sure, but that just means it makes your one-single-remote strategy better. You need ICE explicitly designed to support more than one remote. It may be you can't do it and one-remote-or-spam is just inherent in Netrunners design, but it would be a shame not to try. edit: I guess the other route is things like RecStudio or Worlds Plaza but neither of those see any play Zephro fucked around with this message at 09:45 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 09:30
|
|
|
The Deleter posted:How many times have you read "this ICE would be good except Paperclip/Corroder/Mimic/Gordian Blade exist"? So yeah, I'll bitch about them too. Neutering efficient icebreakers devalues interacting with ICE. It's always more efficient to bypass/destroy/derez ICE than it is to consistently interact with them, so the runner meta will shift even more predominantly towards that style of play or to a totally non-interactive playstyle like DLR. Generally, if a runner hits a subroutine on a piece of ICE, that's a really bad tempo swing for them, unless it's an ETR barrier as the outermost piece of ICE. I can 100% guarantee you, based on your feelings about runners interacting with ICE, that you would hate a metagame where there were no efficient breakers, because it would mean that criminals become a complete non-entity because their run-based economy can't keep up with constantly hammering 2-3 ICE remotes, Anarchs would be primarily in Eater/Keyhole/Mopus Ice destruction similar to BBMaXx, and shapers would probably be in some form of Katman/Nexus Kate build. And all that still wouldn't change the fact that Weyland would still be garbage because there would still be enough bullshit tricks for runners to get past their ICE inexpensively. If you got rid of all possible ways of runner getting by ICE cheaply, you end up with a metagame where it's probably close to 70/30 in favour of the corp and the top corp is HB, and it would become incredibly stale as the most interaction that players make is the runner guessing if that card you just slammed into that 2-3 ICE remote is an agenda or an asset. berenzen fucked around with this message at 11:30 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 11:27
|
|
|
Baron Snow posted:I'm getting ready to start Terminal Directive and use it as a chance to really learn how to play corp, including building my own deck instead of just always net decking. So can someone tell me if the following has some major design error I missed? I guess also if it's terrible or whatever, but we're playing with just the 1 core set. My opponent is playing the crim ID if that matters. I forget if it mentions this in the deck building section of the TD rulebook, but at the beginning of the campaign you will get three copies of a campaign only 3/2 agenda that must be included in your deck. You will need to have room for these.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
AgentF posted:
I figured I had 2 ways, with either PriReq or Beta Test by stacking R&D via my ID's ability, which doesn't work now that I look at it again at not 1am, because I'm corp and have to draw and the ID only works the once, so I'll probably have to swap out Archer and PriReq, Machai posted:I forget if it mentions this in the deck building section of the TD rulebook, but at the beginning of the campaign you will get three copies of a campaign only 3/2 agenda that must be included in your deck. You will need to have room for these. Especially because I need to do this, which yeah, it does mention. Thank you! Baron Snow fucked around with this message at 15:17 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
Zephro posted:I'm saying it would be nice if there were a middle way between spamming tons on unprotected assets and having a deck designed to have one or zero remotes. One reason there isn't is that the opportunity cost of iceing remotes is enormous. "Better ICE" doesn't fix that problem, because it would still be better to just use it on centrals. "Stronger assets" doesn't fix that problem because it just encourages asset-spam (and assets are already really really good). "Remote-focused ICE" seems like a profitable avenue to explore. Not to harp on Clasic Netrunner again, but maybe the solution is to import another card from there. After all, Chiyashi is a recent version of an old piece of ICE. Maybe something for Weyland: Lightning Wall ICE: Barrier 0 rez, 5 strength, 3 influence As an additional cost to rez Lightning Wall, the Corp must forfeit an agenda. 1: Move this piece of ice to the outermost position protecting any other server. Use this ability only at the start of a run. -> End the run -> End the run
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
CirclMastr posted:Not to harp on Clasic Netrunner again, but maybe the solution is to import another card from there. After all, Chiyashi is a recent version of an old piece of ICE. Maybe something for Weyland:
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Zephro posted:Yeah, that seems pretty cool. I think it would be fine with a rez cost but without the agenda forfeit, too. If you took away the forfeit, it would become godlike. Drop it turn 1, then shuttle it to whatever server they poke/drop Temujin on. It would be fuckoff annoying and crush a lot of runner plans that are built around the conceit of "the corp can't ice all three servers turn 1 and pay for it"
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:If you took away the forfeit, it would become godlike. Drop it turn 1, then shuttle it to whatever server they poke/drop Temujin on. It would be fuckoff annoying and crush a lot of runner plans that are built around the conceit of "the corp can't ice all three servers turn 1 and pay for it" I think with forfeit it works, yeah. You could technically price it to be prohibitive to rez + server swap at turn 1, but after it's rezzed it basically means you have an on-demand piece of ice to rez on any server for whatever the swap cost would be, so forfeiting feels like a solid payment.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:If you took away the forfeit, it would become godlike. Drop it turn 1, then shuttle it to whatever server they poke/drop Temujin on. It would be fuckoff annoying and crush a lot of runner plans that are built around the conceit of "the corp can't ice all three servers turn 1 and pay for it" The other alternative is clunky but works with Weyland's advanceable ICE (at least, it's no worse than other advanceable ICE): "As an additional cost to rez Lightning Wall, remove three advancement counters from it." 3 counters means it can't be rezzed turn 1, and no Dedication Ceremony/Anson Rose shenanigans either. I still think a forfeit is more balanced but it's a possibility.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
The problem with agenda-forfeiting is that now that Jemison exists it's not always a downside at all. A rez cost, or making it cost 2 to move or something, would at least be an unambiguous cost.
Zephro fucked around with this message at 01:11 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Maybe make sacrificing an advancement counter on it the cost to move it around? I feel like using advancement counters as currency isn't really something explored yet.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
Carousel ICE: Sentry 6 rez, 2 strength, 0 influence -> Some small tax When the runner passes this ice, the corp may swap the cards installed in the root of this remote with the cards installed in a remote adjacent to the left or right of this one. If the Corp does swap, the runner can continue to run on this server, or continue their run on a remote server adjacent to the right or left.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
Pack 6 announced! There are some... questionable design choices in this one.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Boy, tagging the runner with no interaction other than having more money. That won't be slightly OP
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Machai posted:Boy, tagging the runner with no interaction other than having more money. That won't be slightly OP I wonder if they realize that, by using the same formatting as Taurus/Gemini/Sagittarius/Virgo, Threat Level Alpha gives a tag if the runner has no tags regardless of the success of the trace.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
CirclMastr posted:I wonder if they realize that, by using the same formatting as Taurus/Gemini/Sagittarius/Virgo, Threat Level Alpha gives a tag if the runner has no tags regardless of the success of the trace. whoa FFG really needs an editor
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
CirclMastr posted:I wonder if they realize that, by using the same formatting as Taurus/Gemini/Sagittarius/Virgo, Threat Level Alpha gives a tag if the runner has no tags regardless of the success of the trace. lol
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Midjack posted:lol 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
Turn 1: Install 2 ICE and take a credit Turn 2: Spend all your money to deal 4 meat damage
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 00:18
|
|