I’ve always felt that expose is often bad for the game in terms of the Netrunner I like to pay, a game of out guessing and reading your opponent. Incomplete information and all that.
But that poker-type element of the game isn’t necessarily that well designed into Netrunner, especially online, where maybe most Netrunner gets played. Mushin is the best example of a card that is unfun online and maybe brilliantly fun live, if you are they type of player who enjoys making live reads.
If I were a designer, I think it might be interesting to explore adding subtlety the design space of the guessing game. Less expose and more elements that offer subtle information to make the guessing feel less random.
My point is that the single case of Falsified might not be clearly good or bad for the game, but speak to a larger weak-point in the current design style of the game. The game has so many other strengths though and the clumsy space of expose/mushin is ultimately part of the reality that no meta could ever be expected to not only be balanced but also perfectly explore every sub-element of the design place.
Hi all
There is a pattern here that seem to appear over and over again: someone is using a mechanic (tag and bag, attrition, bad pub, remote tax, fast advance, whatever, in this instance bluff) and there is a card that counters this mechanic (tag or meat protection, net damage protection, infinite money, etc.) that is powerful against this particular mechanic. Fortunately, there are usually counter to counters.
Falsified Credentials can be a powerful card. It is good against trap deck (except if that deck includes Psychic Field). I would be tempted to say that if your entire strategy is mostly nullified by a single card, then your deck is not robust enough. And I would say that it’s a good thing: a good deck should be able to handle a vast variety of match-ups.
@ban
That’s a good point about robustness but I, personally, think that the common argument that counters can be balanced by having their own counters isn’t always the strongest argument to make.
I think the original poster was more speaking to the larger idea that cheap expose undercuts a simple, basic part of the fun. Having a counter to a counter might sort of offer strategic counter-options, but it’s no longer as simple or basic. It also adds another layer of unwanted variance to the game.
“Counters to counters” is the designers argument for currents, i.e.: they are powerful but balanced in that they can be countered by other currents. I think what the original poster was trying to say is that “better for the game” means simpler.
This argument is essentially the same argument people are perpetually having about Scarcity of Resources and other powerful currents. Although counters exist to them and it might even be balanced in terms of overall corp/runner win rates, it certainly doesn’t feel like it is making the game more fun or strategic to a lot of people in a lot of situations.
Anyone who has run 4 currents because they were afraid of Scarcity and basically lost on turn one because they couldn’t draw one of them knows how annoying the variance inherent in “counter to a counter” design philosophy can feel.
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.
The very existence of the Field should make a Runner think about exposing everything they can. It doesn’t even have to be in your deck.
It doesn’t work, either, because Psychic Field cannot be advanced, it’s unreliable and has questionable use without additional net damage sources.
It doesn’t work? Only if you are using it as a kill card, then sure it doesn’t kill. But that’s not the point. The threat of losing the entire grip should is the point.
Several bluffs in the game don’t pay off. This is why Jinteki struggled for the first year of the game; Investing resources in a Junebug that they simply Don’t Run is Step 1 of “How to Lose Every Game”…
Until we’re including Zaibatsu Loyalty, I don’t think we’re including dedicated anti-expose cards.
Yeah! Down with Infiltration!
(Wait, that’s not the card we’re talking about? Oh. Nevermind.)
If we’re on the subject of Falsified Credentials vs NGO Front, NGO Front wins, on any metric you want to use. FC vs Rashida is a more interesting conversation, as you can ‘miss’ by naming Asset but might still need to go in and trash it.
The basic game plan of corps is to throw Runners through a taxing server as many times as possible. Thus, the basic game plan of Runners is to run through taxing servers as few times as possible, either with multi-access cards, or with cards that get around the tax somehow. FC is just another one in a long line of the second type of card. The most common type of card to do that, by the way, is the other card you complained about, an Icebreaker.
(Though Aumakua is an extremely efficient one, yes. I wonder about the Expose clause on it, but think that without the expose clause on it, it would be noticeably worse. Remember that one of the reasons for Kitara was that Expose was an under-utilized mechanic.)
First, Infiltration is not an economy card. Second we actually talked about Infiltration and I discussed the card on the third post. Next time, instead of making snarky comments, why not read the thread?
Anyways, I’m out. It’s clear most people are arguing in bad faith as this point.
I think as a faction card, Falsified Credentials is allowed to be a bit more useful than the neutral Infilitration (it’s not strictly better than it, just tends to be a bit more useful). And the Expose effect is a cool addition to the game. It’s nice that the criminal faction has it as a “thing,” a way to avoid spending resources either hitting ICE or checking bluffs, but at the expense of clicks, credits and card slots which could have helped you deal with those Corp cards more efficiently instead (more money, better breakers/trap protection). It’s a different way of solving the same problem, and that’s nice. If there is an issue, it lies with Aumakua. Building around what is already one of the best faction breakers means that when you expose cards, doing this cool option of playing around the problem, then instead of this being at the expense of your “standard” breaking and entering method (and therefore an interesting choice), it actually boosts the strength of your “standard” play at the same time!
I’m one of those Mushin players mentioned earlier. My deck is all about face down cards with lots of counters. There are any number of cards that have released over the years that “wreck” my kill plan. Feedback Filter, I’ve Had Worse, Drive By, etc.
I stopped being concerned about a deck “auto-winning” against mine because I simply haven’t seen it happen. In general, these tools are not common enough to appear in a critical mass that I cannot overcome with proper play.
Do they make it harder? Sure. Do I lose sometimes because they stop a kill shot? Absolutely. Am I ever locked out of a game due to the simple presence of such cards? Never.
That’s the beauty of this game, and that dynamic has made me love it and my deck even more for the skill it demands of me.
Yeah, FC is a pain in my butt. The sky isn’t falling though and I would claim the game is better for its presence, not worse.