One of the things that makes Netrunner such a good game is the way it handles hidden information. The Corporation’s cards are played facedown, forcing the Runner to think about what potential cards the Corporation can play and the effect they’ll have in the game.
At least before Falsified Credentials came around.
Here’s the issue, Falsified Credentials is, de facto, 3 extra copies of Sure Gamble with a expose effect attached. They go into any deck, because there’s no reason not to include three additional Sure Gambles and they have the extremely powerful side-effects of disabling bluffs made by your opponent.
The way the card is designed, the monetary gain is supposed to act as a reward: Guess what the Corporation played and you get the money. But since it works on everything, it’s impossible to miss. Just say that unprotected thing in the remote is an asset and get your 1c Sure Gamble. I mean, when is it not going to be an asset? When it’s an agenda (Which means exposing is great) or when it’s an upgrade (Which are uncommon and often easy to tell apart).
In other words, now Criminals can run both 3 Extra Sure Gambles that just so happen to disable traps and ambushes. Is this good for the game? I would say no.
This is particularly grating because, like all other events, they can be recurred by Same Old Thing, giving Criminal decks often 5 or 6 expose effects at no deckbuilding cost. Is this good for the game? I would also say no. But, of course, it might be more appropiate to put the blame of that in SoT. Which I think it deserves it, mind you.
It should be noted here that “bad for the game” doesn’t mean overpowered. Falsified Credentials is not overpowered, it just makes the game less interesting, less fun and reduces the bluffing aspect that makes the game great. It is simply a badly designed card that ought not to exist.
One wonders if you would make the same claim about Deuces Wild or, to a lesser extent, Infiltration. Do you think Falsified would be OK if the monetary gain was toned down?
Of course. That’s the issue with the card, that it’s a Sure Gamble and an Expose effect in one. An effect like exposing should not be paired with efficient credit gain, because if there’s too much exposing effects in the game, the quality of the hidden information suffers.
Deuces Wild is fine because it only exposes ICE (Which is less serious) and, if you use it to expose, it doesn’t double as an economy card. It also costs influence, instead of being free to a whole faction, and forces a run when you expose, which makes it far less general purporse.
Infiltration is the opposite of FC in that it’s very narrow. It’s a silver bullet and has no use beyond that. It’s also pretty weak and hence, even if it tried to, it wouldn’t harm the game.
Worth mentioning this came along at a time when expose became more meaningful again even in the absence of traps.
NGO Front (and to a lesser extent Rashida) provides a case where trap-free tempo or glacier decks can swing the game a lot on “did you guess correctly what I put in that server?”
And Aumakua makes the expose trigger even more beneficial.
I’m not sure I’d go so far as to label it “bad for the game” (it really only sees much play in faction, and Crim isn’t the strongest faction right now) but I agree with you it’s a bit too good. If Infiltration said expose AND gain 2c, it still might see a little play as a one or two of tech card. Expose and gain 4c and an Aumakua counter is great.
I get what you’re saying. But expose effects have proven to be woefully underpowered in the past. And while Sure Gamble is a nice card, it’s not amazing. If you could consistently click for 2 credits forever throughout the game, from turn 1, you’d remove Sure Gamble from your deck.
How is the expose affecting what you’ve been trying to do though? If you’re playing never advance, or if you’re using ambushes, then the point is that the player doesn’t know what card type is in the server. Missing out on getting $5 from FC might not be as harsh as your intended penalty, but it’s still pretty damaging
[quote=“Lttlefoot, post:8, topic:10238”]How is the expose affecting what you’ve been trying to do though?
[/quote]
Because if they can expose your bluff, there’s no bluff.
Given that the card is in literally 100% of all Runner decks ever made, yeah, I think it’s pretty good. Why add an expose effect to it? Is it really necessary? Does it make the game more interesting or fun when one out of three Runner factions has a lot of expose effects?
Sure, and if I could access 20 cards with each run, I wouldn’t play Indexing
Aumakua should never have. As in, should never have been made. I mean, it’s an IA that breaks for 1 and that gets charged for free just by running. It’s just 2 credits more than Datasucker and the same influence! For all the talk about how AIs should be support, FFG really dropped the ball there.
Aumakua is a bit of an above the curve card but its run-based triggers are one of the few things rewarding run-based gameplay and holding the tight balance of runner vs corp in a healthy swing. Right now the game would be a lot worse without aumakua in the game (despite the fact that it is probably too good) but would be better if aumakua didn’t have the expose clause.
No way. Geist, Noise, Hayley and CT all dropped Sure Gamble for plenty of builds. CT in fact for the exact reason that she could get Magnum Opus out consistently on Turn 1.
Erm, dude. I’m not sure you understand that “literally 100% of all Runner decks ever made” is a slighty hyperbole
But yeah, you are right. It’s not played in 100% of all decks ever created. It’s only used in 93% of all current decks, making it, by far, the most played Runner card in the game. So perhaps I’m wrong, who knows.
I meant “how” as in I wanted to know what specific corp cards you’re using. Like what kind of bluff are you making where the runner knows the card is an asset but needs to know which asset it is?
yeah I think the original wording that its a guaranteed sure gamble + an expose is wrong. It very clearly fails a lot, but I think as a runner you can create strategies that make it always work for you.
Corp goes IAA in a remote. If its an agenda you really want the money to go in and get it. You say agenda and get it right you get the pay-off of the money to help you get it, you say agenda and its NGO front then your pay off is that you playing 1 card and 1c instead of running through the remote and paying whatever the tax for that was.
Also in reality, there are definitely times where you have a strong read on what the corp is doing, and you can 80% guess what it is and then the correct play is to do so. There’s also the crazy aumakua synergy that lets you free sure gamble off of upgrades.
This could have been an interesting discussion - there is actual data on card usage! - but given I’m struggling to discern your hyperbole from literal statements, and your sarcasm is coming across as unwelcoming, I’m going to bow out.
No, I’m not aware. I don’t know how to play this game, I’m sorry.
The entire point is that it makes bluffs don’t pay off and that makes the game worse.
I think it’s clear, but if not, it’s like you say. You can always make it work for you, either as a Sure Gamble or as an expose effect. This is too much versatility for a expose effect or any other “silver bullet”.
My argument is that being able to run expose effects that double as basic economy cards when needed (and viceversa) is not good for the game. “Silver bullets” (Expose effects, net damage prevention, tag removal, etc.) should not be that versatile. For me thiis is not dissimilar to making a Daily Casts clone with “Trash, prevent 1 net damage” clause.
That it can have both effects at the same time if you guess the bluff correctly is just a plus. The card could say “Gain 5c or expose a card in a remote server” and my issue would be the same.
If you have to include dedicated anti-expose cards just to deal with Falsified Credentials, then the game is worse off with FC in the game.
It doesn’t work, either, because Psychic Field cannot be advanced, it’s unreliable and has questionable use without additional net damage sources.
