Have they confirmed they’re going to reprint the cards? If they do then they’ll need to make additional changes to compensate, but that’s not the case yet.
They always have before, which is why I’m worried/confused.
I don’t think any of the changes have been this drastic before, so there might be something done to accomodate it!
In any case I think that it was a smart move for the sake of the broader game. The game won’t feel stale for people just starting out, but if a few cards are causing a large chunk of the rest to be ignored then that’s a bigger issue and could harm the game long-term. I’d say fix that issue now and tweak the Core Set issue later.
1 Like
tl;dr : bye @5-3 is the best solution for me, the following is explanations.
If you want to nerf “bye win id id”, you need to nerf either bye or id, or change the tournament format like you recommend.
Today, by scoring 18pts out of a maximum of 24, “bye win id id” is like a 75% point score. Therefore, it accesses most if not all of 1 top for 4 players tournament (which is more or less today’s format).
A - Nerfing or changing ID
You can’t touch id’s 3-3, because people would agree to make regular 3-3 instead so this is out of the solution.
This leaves us with changing the tournament format, or changing byes.
B - If you change the format like you recommand (giving more rounds and/or cutting with less players) :
5 rounds of “bye win id id id” is 70% of points. If you ask a 80% score, all you’ll get is “bye win win id id” vs a regular “win win win win loose”.
It’s still half the effort of winning vs a legitimate player.
You won’t do a top 6 for 40 players, asking a best 85% score, that is stupid.
At least when your name is FFG selling tournament kits. This is cutting kit’s value more or less by half (rewarding 15% of players instead of 25%, removing half of the cheapest/best margin products in it + costs to change an industrial process).
There’s also no garanty a “bye win then ids” player does not make better than 80-85% of players due to the higher spread with more rounds.
To me, more rounds does not help a lot too. And there you would have more dramatic equalities to tie break at top entrance anyway (aka “but I won 80% of my matches, why must I have SoS problems with that bye win win id id guy ?”).
So this is not “the” solution. “Nerfing” byes is not “the” solution aswell, but to me it have only benefits.
C - “Nerfing” bye (notice the double quotes) :
Reducing the points given by the bye break that logic. I think some rare “bye win id id” dies off top with a single point nerf. The others at least are not anymore with the best/middle scores accessing top.
Therefore, a “bye win id id” player with 17 pts fights the best regular players with 18-24pts round #1 of tops, and not the others 17pts “bye win did id” guys anymore (today would be 24s vs 15s, and 18s including all “bye win id id” among themselves)
If “bye win id id” = 17pts is less a garanty for tops (in the rare case of cutting @18pts), then players can’t rely with confidence on it like today.
And if it’s not a joker like today for tops (ranking among first, figthing “small” top players), then “bye win id id” can’t have a value within tops like today.
“Bye win win id” → rank #1 is ok-ish for me. Unless someone made win win win 3-3. It is likely that a “bye win win” and a “win win win” would meet round#4 to make the last id. There, it is triple win player who have to best position to bargain. He’s leading at score.
“Bye win id id” is, there, a 70.8% score (17/24).
This can access tops with some regularity, or not (smaller round # = small spread = more chunky stats = unstability). It still accesses most tops (instead of all top) then here top round 1 is vs the best players. But it is no more automatic like today’s 75%.
I’d also recommend byes giving 5-3.
3 for the unlucky player targeted by a bye because:
- if you give less points to the bye guy, you can make his SoS +3 with less worries.
- 3 is a neutral score, a lot less punitive than 0. This does not anymore asks you 100% win to have 18pts (old system 12pts) to access tops with 95% trust (today, those guys got a SoS round 2 nerf, because they are fighing losers from round#1 : they have an absolute need of triple win, and they will have a shit SoS there).
5-3 is in all cases better than 0-6 or 3-3. In some cases, by giving you SoS+3, it’s better than 6-0, and in some cases it is not. So it’s still a great asset to start a tournament.
“Bye win id id” is made unstable so you can’t rely anymore on that (you should “bye win win id”, which I think is ok), and that “id or not, here I come” decision is made round #3.
So this spices it with a little risk that I like 
FFG don’t have to change tournament format & tournament kits on top of this.
This all makes sense, to me.
Hopefully this results in a Core 2.0 (in which I am a true believer) sooner rather than later. I also do believe it’s a case of when not if: the core set has problems; they’re in on the IP for the long run, and the base mechanics aren’t in need of the Thrones style overhaul that would come from a reboot.
2 Likes
I like these changes to cards on the list. NBN really needed to be brought down to the level of the other corps out there after data and destiny dropped. The initial MWL tried to address them back then too, but after D&D they suddenly no longer needed to spend that much influence for ice. The same goes for anarch, which received too big a shot in the arm with faust and adjusted chronotype giving them an AI breaker that did not have the inbuilt issues that others had.
This will be good for the diversity of the game. I had the feeling it was too hard for the corp to get a scoring window, as runners could easily break into servers. This meant that fast advance, an already powerful strategy, was the clear way to go. And astroscript made this too easy. The changes deal with both of these issues, as well as making asset spam less recursive and reliable. All in all, I like these changes.
And no, no new core set is really needed. If you play pure core set, you are not at a point where you should follow this list that you probably don’t know exists.
Again, the change to Astroscript isn’t MWL, it Errata. One is an aspect of tourniment only play and the other impacts all versions of the game.
2 Likes
Not sure why you have this impression, I have the opposite impression. He seems to like to push the envelope with meta-warping cards. We’ve already seen pretty powerful cards coming to Netrunner in this Flashpoint cycle with HHN, Sandburg, and DNA Tracker.
That also seemed to be the case with the last few cycles of AGoT 1.0 under his watch, where cards like the last version of Daenerys was clearly the most powerful version. That has also what I’ve heard about Call of Cthulhu LCG.
3 Likes
Agreed. Because he’s been at the helm for a while now, it’s easy to forget that Flashpoint is Damon’s first cycle as lead designer.
2 Likes
I think that this update proves that this is just Damon’s Hate List. FA was not the problem that needed adressing, but he still went ahead and nuked more NBN while leaving Jinteki/IG essentially unscathed. I mean, I’m happy with it, because I hate FA NBN too (love me some tagstorm), but still.
Damon’s “hate list” sure does conveniently coincide with some of the most powerful cards and highly overrepresented archetypes in the game. Weird.
28 Likes
If I follow correctly your recommending that byes dont give full points???
No… that sounds terrible.
5 Likes
FA is always the problem. If you can win faster than the runner can react, and from turn one you’re always on the back foot, then it is most definitely a problem. It’s a solvable problem, but that’s the point, we shouldn’t have to solve it. Now it seems balanced, at last. I’ve been practicing scoring Astros without using them to chain into each other, and now I have a much clearer picture of what never advance can be, what tag storm can be, how NBN plays when it has to try harder. Now that NBN FA isn’t as oppressive, runner decks can skew towards being able to oppose IG/Gagarin without ruining their chances of winning a tournament/losing outright to FA. I see where you’re coming from, but from what I’ve seen of Damon, he’s not an unintelligent guy, there’s definitely a plan. I was fortunate to be able to pick his brain at US Nationals, there’s definitely a plan involved, and I think it’s starting to see light. It might not be perfect now, but the new cycle looks more than promising.
Also, to people concerned over the Astro errata, it should never be relevant in a core only game, when you start buying multiple copies and start adding data packs, then you can play it as a 1 of. You still have Beale and SanSan. It’s important to remember how the core set was balanced to be an all encompassing standalone experience.
No more tomfoolery guys haha
11 Likes
Again, they typically print new additions of the cards with the errata on them correct? If so doesn’t that mean that the cards don’t play out of the box correctly anymore? And if they’re not printing Errata on the cards anymore, then what exactly is errata in terms of Netrunner?
You are missing the point. IG is the biggest problem. Not was. Is. He did diddly squat to change it, because he is so in love with Jinteki.
Fast advance is a big problem, but is a secondary concern due to the existence of IG.
I was specifically talking about ID design but failed to mention it. So far only the two Anarchs are utility ID, the others dictate deckbuilding to a certain extent
I have taken a breath. I am less salty now. I still don’t like the Astro nerf, but I understand it and have accepted it. Same with the rest of the changes.
Seriously, though, if he adds any clauses to Biotic or Jeeves that prevent scoring on the same turn, I’m out.
2 Likes
For real. I really don’t understand the concern over the Core set. Nobody knows what they are going to do yet, but there are two most likely scenarios. They will either reprint the Core set with the new errata and add a third BN to make the starter deck legal, or they will not print the errata at all. Either way, it’s nothing to worry about. And for the people who currently have only a single Core, they can simply ignore the errata unless they plan on playing in a tournament. In which case, yes, they will be forced to buy another core or a data pack with agendas to compete. I hardly think this should be controversial at all.
2 Likes
I don’t know about anyone else, but my concern stems from the fact that one of those is a good option and one of those is a terrible option and I’d prefer that they do a good idea and not a bad idea.