Flip identities, mini-factions, 6-per-deck, alliances; (at what point) has A:NR "jumped the shark"?

What do you think? Is it a good thing that this game is getting more and more new mechanics, or should they just stop after X cycles and call it a day? Remember what an endless stream of new mechanics did to a game like Carcassonne :anguished: Counterpoint: M:tG is 20+ years old and still going strong (… I guess, do not play it myself).

I was listening to the last episode of Terminal 7 this morning, and they brought up how this summer, for about two weeks, people were seriously considering quitting the game because Marcus Batty had broken everything. Obviously, the game’s fine and Batty is a powerful but niche card that doesn’t see much play.

I guess what I’m saying is, the designers of Netrunner have shown us time and again that (a few core set balancing issues aside) they know what they’re doing and have a firm hand on the rudder. Until they show me otherwise, I’m going to trust them to do what’s best for the game.

After all, if they don’t print new mechanics, the only thing they can do is print more cards that do what’s been done already. The only possible outcome there is making cards that are better or worse than what we already have, and both binder fodder and power creep kill games.


I think Alliances are edging the line, because they make deck checks a bit weird. Apart from that, I think Netrunner is fine. The base mechanics (run, ICE, agendas) are strong, and I don’t think there are too many new mechanics that are completely out there. A new win condition for either player would be something that I would not like to see, for instance (at least for tournament play).


The Alliances thing is really only the actual new mechanic being introduced with Mumbad and it’s strictly related to deck building, and even then it’s really only an out growing of the current influence system.

I personally really like what LLDS is doing with Mumbad. It seems like it’s going to take the game in an interesting direction. Hopefully we’ll see a few new deck archetypes come around that really stretch the game in different ways.


With the ever growing list of mechanics, before it could be a problem, cards will start to cycle out. Like when the Lunar cycle cycles out, I’m sure they will print more currents or maybe they will be a thing of past and will be replaced with a new mechanic. It also helps to keep the game from getting into a rut and being boring

Currents are here to stay - they’ve been in big boxes, and Sol isn’t rotating out.


You are correct, I forgot about that completely

Flip IDs were the first actual “new mechanic”, shortly before face-down Runner cards, shortly before alliances. It took 2.5 years before making new mechanics, so I think the sharks are unjumped.


6-per-deck and Alliance are quite simple for players to grasp imo.

I do agree that they add some obtuse checks for judges though, and I’m sure some fatigued people may get DQ’d or play with illegal decks due to the mechanic. But judging is an opt-in job, and people who judge will typically be on their toes and aware of such things. Especially if a big deck comes out of using the Alliance mechanic (Jeeves maybe Saleem’s Hospitality)

Flip IDs are activated ability on Corps. I’m sure its been dreamt since the very beginning.

1 Like

Hmmm, I don’t know about facedown runner cards, I don’t agree that it should be a new mechanism. I mean, there are circumstances that could leave cards face down and Apex simply installs them face down without ever allowing anything to flip them back up. Now if the rules introduced something like “click: turn the card face up paying all costs”, it would be a new mechanism imo.

But that was not the point of the thread either :wink: :stuck_out_tongue:

what are these circumstances outside of apex-faction cards? I’m pretty sure there aren’t any, as the insert for D&D had to include a “what are the rules for installed-face-down runner cards” section.

Back on topic: I agree with other posters, most of the mechanics listed either a) are purely deckbuilding related and thus add no complexity to actual gameplay, or b) are pretty simple to understand, such as flip IDs and facedown cards.

I feel they have a long way to go before complexity creep becomes a problem (though to be fair this is largely because the base game itself is quite complex, so it would take a lot of creep to really ruin what’s good about the game) and I have a feeling that rotation will deal with that pretty well.

All that said, I wouldn’t be opposed to a “netrunner 2” a few years down the road. buy-in cost for potential new serious players is getting pretty daunting, and rotation will only slow this problem, not reverse it. Plus it would give them a chance to revisit some of the biggest design missteps that happened in core and elsewhere.

If, and this is a big if, this were to happen, what are the biggest potential rule and card changes?

1 Like

Astro as a 3/1 or 4/2, nerfed Account Siphon, maybe buff tracers a bit in the core set, nerfed ETF and Kate

[quote=“Polynomial_C, post:13, topic:6344, full:true”]
Astro as a 3/1 or 4/2,[/quote]


[quote=“Polynomial_C, post:13, topic:6344, full:true”]
nerfed Account Siphon, [/quote]
Specifically how?

[quote=“Polynomial_C, post:13, topic:6344, full:true”]
maybe buff tracers a bit in the core set,[/quote]

Specifically how?

My personal suggestion would be to make Bad Pub just a general recurring credit for the runner as opposed to a recurring credit for every run.

1 Like

Not a rule/card change but pick a paradigm for tags and stick with it! Either they have moderate effects that scale with tag quantity or powerful effects that rely on the digital state of “tagged”. No blending of Psychographics and Scorched Earth. The latter makes tags so dangerous that the former is rarely useful.


Kate: at least, remove the 1 link, and a) limit discount to either programs or hardware only or b) lower influence to 12 or so
ETF: get a credit on install in either remote servers or central servers only, maybe limit to corp’s turn only

What does this line of discussion have to do with the thread?


It follows the idea of Netrunner “jumping the shark” and needing a 2.0 reboot to sort some things out.

I personally don’t feel like there is anything in the game that needs a complete overhaul, which means the game is probably in a pretty good spot and hasn’t “jumped the shark”.

I think that so long as any “new features” are things that add interest and variation to the core of: the Runner runs, using programs to get through the Corp defences and tries to find agendas, then we’re fine. If things veer decidedly away from this, I think we’d be starting to lose Netrunner a little bit.

In that sense an extreme deckbuilding archetype of the “DLR and friends” variety that in extremis could only attempt to make one run per game and not actually steal any agendas, is edging that way in my view.

I’m not sure the potential is there quite so much for the Corp to veer into “unNetrunner”, since ultimately they’re the one with the clock on their head and always need a plan to score agendas and protect them from theft.

The closest they came were the power shutdown/accelerated diagnostics CI decks that moneyed for 10-15 turns and then played solitaire for 5 minutes as they calculated a win. Luckily, that phase of the meta didn’t last long.