Home | About | Tournament Winning Decklists | Forums

Modified Asset Rules for Unofficial Tournament


#1

I’ve been batting around some ideas for an unofficial tournament aimed at using the whole card pool but putting some limits on asset spam through rules changes.

My current leading idea is a rule that says something like this: Each turn the Corp may create one new server at no cost. Each turn, each additional server the Corp creates after the first costs 1 credit to create.

  1. Does this sound like a reasonable rule?

  2. Would anyone be willing to play in a short online league or tournament to test out whether this change has a good impact on the game?

  3. Anyone have a catchy name for this rule change so I could use it in promoting events proposed in No. 2 above?


#2

I think this is a really interesting idea, especially for someone new to the game who’s trying to get into competitive play but who is struggling with some of the more spammy archetypes - both playing as (difficult to learn) and against (can be oppressive, bordering on NPE).

It would be nice if there was a way to also limit the CI/combo archetype as well for the same reasons, but I realise that could be harder to achieve and also people might feel that it starts to become too restrictive and they wouldn’t want to play such a format.

  1. Yes, I think an increasing cost for each new server you create (either overall or per turn - I’m not 100% sure which you’re proposing) would be a reasonable rule to start to try to limit asset spam archetypes.
  2. I’d definitely be willing to play in a league to test this out.
  3. Anti-spam/Low-spam (or just AS/LS)?

Interested to hear others thoughts on this, especially from players more experienced than me (pretty much everyone!). :slight_smile:


#3

I tried to edit my OP to make the intent of the rule more clear.


#4

I think it’s a great idea, this way you can still spam assets for econ if you want, but it taxes the corp slightly so their tempo don’t go out of control.


#5

Another asset “solution” I’ve heard before is to set a hard cap of 5 remote servers. This lets asset-based decks exist, without letting them get completely out of control. Honestly, if you look at decks like Hot Tubs or even Biolock back in its heyday, they usually had more than enough money to spam out assets, even at the cost of 1-per remote. It hurts their first few turns, but a single Turtlebacks pays for the new remotes under your proposed system, and in Hot Tubs, most of those new assets will also be money. A hard cap might be a better solution.


#6

Even better, this means Asset Spam players only need to bring 1 playmat to tournaments since their infinite servers don’t sprawl a table wide!


#7

Maybe so. I’m not saying my totally untested idea is the best. I’ve not really tracked how many servers your typical Hot Tubs deck makes in a game. I’m open to multiple ideas.


#8

Are you going to implement a ban list for problematic cards that invalidate ice and protective upgrades? The reason asset spam and combo are so popular is because creating a standard server to score out isn’t feasible with the current Runner icebreakers and programs/resources, even with the MWL.


#9

Shouldn’t this post be moved to alternate formats?

What about each additional server or turn +1?
1st 0
2nd 1
3rd 2


#10

[quote=“FightingWalloon, post:1, topic:9047”]Each turn the Corp may create one new server at no cost. Each turn, each additional server the Corp creates after the first costs 1 credit to create.

  1. Does this sound like a reasonable rule?

  2. Would anyone be willing to play in a short online league or tournament to test out whether this change has a good impact on the game?

  3. Anyone have a catchy name for this rule change so I could use it in promoting events proposed in No. 2 above?
    [/quote]

  4. This is reasonable enough, I like that. Rule is simple, I also like it.

  5. no idea, don’t play much these days, and don’t play much asset spam.

  6. 2D. One dimension is the vanilla ice tax, or a vertical tax, and the other dimension would be your remote tax, a horizontal tax. Vertical & horizontal taxes = 2D tax, or simplier, 2D.
    You could go 3D with a run spaming tax, which would solve other problems (but would make RP a little too strong I think).


#11

Your rule sounds like a fun idea for an alternative tournament. Another option might be too just have scaling costs for remotes for the whole game (each remote costs n-1) with servers that aren’t destroyed just because they’re empty. This might necessitate some minor tweaks on how to handle cases where a remote is destroyed mid-run, and may boost the power level of cards that target a single server like CyCy, but I don’t think it would be unmanageable. For lore purposes, you can frame it as buying rack space and then dealing with added overhead for infrastructure.