this is actually a great point, and I definitely stand corrected (I made the same mistake I accused others of, which is mistaking current meta for fundamental mechanics). It’s true that FA is really more of a tactic to exploit the inherent strength of defending centrals instead of a remote, and that this tactic can fit just as easily into a quick rush strategy (NBN, usually) as into a more drawn out glacier strategy (HB, usually). I think the main reason I wanted to conflate them is that thanks (in part) to clot and the time constraints of tournaments, out-of-hand scoring appears almost exclusively in faster, rush-style tournament decks.
Never advance is also more of a tactic than a strategy; similar to FA it can fit into a quick, rush-style deck or played behind a deep remote in a glacier-type.
So, a quick recap so far: Corp decks in netrunner are limited to just a couple of overall strategies, that are generally incompatible with each other, though hybrids of the two obviously do exist;
Rush (could be described as being similar to “aggro”) seeks to move very quickly early on and stress the opponent’s game by forcing the game to be decided before the opponent can bring all of their resources to bear.
Glacier (could be described as being similar to “tempo”) seeks to build up a mounting board state that requires more and more resources to answer, and force the game to be decided only after the opponent has fallen behind in this race for resources (typically later in the game, though not always)
FA, never advance, damage combos, IAAing big agendas… these are all just tactics that these types of decks can use. obviously certain tactics work better with certain strategies (most rush decks don’t do well with the highly-telegraphed style of IAAing 3 pointers, for example) but none of them are a wholly exclusive game-plan.
this thread posits a third overall strategy:
- “Control” corp would seek to win by directly attacking a specific resource (in MtG it is usually simply “cards in hand,” ANR players will likely need to get more creative than this) to prevent the opponent from winning until some kind of inevitable game-state is developed, such as a game winning combo, or an impenetrable server.
right now this type of strategy basically doesn’t exist at the competetive level; 1000 cuts jinteki or uncorrodable Weyland could be said to be prototyples of this playstyle, but both currently suffer from some very difficult counter-cards being very prevalent (levy and clone chip being the most prominent two) and end up tacking on aspects of the other strategies in order to win