Keywords and rules text

Trace³ : do stuff.

Is there a possibility that we get :
Psi² : Do stuff (or simply Psi : Do stuff),
Current : Do stuff,
Caïssa : Do stuff in the future, instead of the very long wordings ?


I’d argue pretty strongly against this.

Established players don’t read card text. New players do. Having less than complete information on a card in a game that involves hidden accesses with limited comprehension time (ie Central accesses) is less than ideal.

The benefit to having redundant card explanations is always having clear and complete information. The argument against is… aesthetics?


Magic uses keywords without reminder text all the time. AGOT 2.0 and L5R also utilize keywords. They are an accepted and useful part of game design, and anyone that already plays card games is familiar with them.


The strategy these days is to keep the reminder text for new keywords at common, or use reminder texts for evergreen keywords on Core sets and leave it out for expert sets. The first convention doesn’t really make sense for netrunner but the second one does. Shortening things like Trace to a TraceX:success effect does make something like an “if unsuccessful” trigger slightly more confusing though, and I don’t think it’s really necessary to do this kind of thing to save space.

Netrunner is basically a nightmare from a consistent templating perspective so any reform on that front from NISEI is welcome lol.


Ghostwheel addressed this above, but there’s a specific rationale behind when and where Magic uses reminder text - Common rarity cards and Core Set cards always do, and there isn’t an equivalent divide in ANR.

Saying something is okay because Magic does it doesn’t help when the products are so different, especially when you’re not getting into the pretty impressive amount of thought that Magic has put in to how information is presented. It’s not worth doing something because Magic does it without understanding why Magic does something.


(OT just wanted to say very interesting article and thanks for the link)

@Inactivist @dr00 I think Psi text is less clear than a Trace text, if clarity is the determinant argument.
If it’s accessibility, there is two arguments : the Psi rule is a lot less complicated than the Trace rule, and secondly, there is not 20-30-40 effects like in Magic to start having these kind of problems.

Psi is on 20-30-40 cards though. Save the octopuses.

1 Like

Trace has to be in the game as a function, psi games don’t. Link, for example, would be awkward to incorporate into rules text concisely.

Similarly, Trace is already a thing, and Psi Game isn’t. We want to keep the number of keywords low, and swapping them about wouldn’t help anyone.

1 Like

Whenever you and the Runner reveal secretly spent credits, gain 1 credit.
Whenever a psi game ends, gain 1 credit.

Notice that you can’t find an exemple of triggers before a psi game because you don’t have a keyword. Whereas you have 1c recursive for Trace. Not having a keyword actually close designs there.

1 Like

Please give me a comprehensive wording for how you would print a trace on a card.

I’m not arguing that using “Psi game” instead of the full text wouldn’t reduce the word count on those cards, I’m arguing that Psi game doesn’t need to be keyworded because the wording is already on the card, and “If you win the trace” is a lot clearer than “If you win the Psi Game”.

1 Like

There are secretly spent credits that aren’t Psi games, though.

1 Like

I would argue that keywording Psi is only unclear compared to Trace because you started the game learning Trace and Psi has always been spelled out on the card.

Trace4 would have text like The Corp spends any number of credits, and then the Runner. The Corp is successful if 4+credits they spent exceeds the Runner’s Link+credits the Runner spent.

1 Like

Trace-related cards, like Power Tap, Making News, and Aryabhata would also need a lot more words.

If I were alone, I would have done

Trace3 : (corp winning symbol) end the run.
Trace1 : (runner winning symbol) the runner access one additional card.

And things like that.

For Psi, that would be either with the Psi2 or Psi keyword like this:
Psi: ≠ the runner draw 2 cards (Aiki)
Psi: ≠ end the run / = the runner gain 1credit

It doesn’t need to be more complicated than that, and, especially on psi, the equal or different sign makes the text a lot more clear for everyone for something that need to be only explained once or twice to newbies.

Give the same cards to said newbie, they would, I guess, have a lot less trouble to understand / remember it whereas this effect is on = or ≠ than to understand / remember the basic psi rule.

Psi are like Caissa : the interesting and easy part is drown in redondancy.

I loved Caïssa. I would love these back in the game, Anarch but also Criminal and Shaper Caïssas, but without the text bullshit on the cards.

I see a “need” (not a huge one I agree) because the only time you refer to psi games on cards are “whenever you and the runner secretly spend credits”.
This is one trigger. All psi support is on this trigger : Psi get not much changes to its core mecanism.
The only changes the card pool gives are on that identified trigger. Then you don’t have many cards for support, because then by design you avoid trigger stacking problems.

There is two cards. One that nobody plays which is Push your luck, and Rigged Results. Both of which are unaffected by “whenever you and the runner spend (…)”

1 Like

@Orbital_Tangent if trace would be described like that, a card like a triple trace ice, or a quadruple trace ice is impossible to print.
ie the current psi status.

I’d give a psi a trace3 value for subs, modified by it’s effect.

Syntax, duh. I’m on your side. I advocate for Psi to be keyworded. I was answering Tamijo’s request for how to write out Trace.

1 Like

I understood this :slight_smile:
(your post made me think about the psi subs printing problem.)

I agree that Psi and Currents ought to be keywords. Specially currents.

I can’t agree that currents should be keywords because the trash requirement is different between the two sides.

Huh. That’s an interesting point.
Honestly, I’d lean more on the fact that we want to have the wording of ‘Trash this current when an agenda is stolen’ on the card so people won’t ask why the Current stays out when you Film Critic an agenda…

I do think we can keyword Double, though.