I remember days when Syphon spam was a fact.
There was no MWL and competitive players said then that it was perfectly, 100% ok, noobs couldn’t understand and that the corp have dozens of way to counter this.
I wonder what happened here.
1 Like
‘There is an answer available in the card pool but the players (aren’t smart enough/are too tuned in to the hive mind/aren’t creative enough) to find it’ is a commonly wheeled out but utterly farcical argument whenever anyone has the temerity to comment on game balance.
This obviously doesn’t mean that all calls to ban, errata, MWL or incinerate cards are correct, but when someone has obviously put a huge amount of thought, time and effort in to demonstrating a finely nuanced understanding of the game and made a proposal on the back of it, please can we do them the courtesy of not rolling out this lazy trope in response?
27 Likes
The main issue is this:
Netrunner is a game where hackers use programs to break ice and defenses and steal agendas while corporations try to score those agendas.
Alt-win conditions are fine, but if the core of Netrunner is not running, breaking ice stealing agendas, then what is Netrunner?
Faust – invalidates money for breaking ice
Rumor Mill – invalidates entire corp defensive strategies: invalidates Jinteki glacier and HB glacier, both of which do fair things
Sifr + Parasite – invalidates ice
These three things in particular force the corp to move away from using ice, away from fair strategies, and away from playing core Netrunner. They’re toxic. The fact that ice is 1/3rd or so of the game is why Sifr is so bad for the game. Because sifr invalidate ice, a core aspect of Netrunner, it also weakens hidden information (as face-down ice doesn’t really matter), and it makes the game more focused on degenerate strategies or asset spam. Netrunner shouldn’t be a game about trying to “out-degenerate” your opponent. That’s not why I signed up.
Siphon doesn’t do any of those things. Assets are some counter-play to Siphon, sure, but Siphon fundamentally interacts with the corp, forces ice rezzing, and forces ice breaking. This “oh, I remember when siphon was rampant” is a false equivalency.
5 Likes
Here here! Obviously SimonMoon cares greatly for the game and has written a few thousand words of explanation. Defo deserves reasoned responses from dissenters.
I’m not saying that I disagree with that course of action. I was just explaining what I thought a primary concern would be. Just a little bit of Devil’s advocate. Yeah, turning stuff into binder fodder is a’ok with me too if that’s going invigorate the game.
Hard disagree here. IMHO, Null likes Parasite more than Sifr due to how well it works with his ability, and Atman 0 likes Sifr so much because it gets to run/recur a singleton Parasite along side that setup (IE, I’m not sure it remains a competitive deck without both Parasite and Sifr).
See, again, I don’t necessarily think that Blackmail + Val is the issue, rather the amount of times you can recur it. If she could only do it 3x a game, it would be only slightly better than Inside Job. That said, limiting her access to the card is probably better than restricting/banning all the recursion. So…I guess I agree in spirit?
2 Likes
I think it’s interesting how people’s definitions of the core of Netrunner vary. Mine would probably be broader. Something like, Netrunner is a game where hackers try to steal critical data from large corporations while those corporations try to foil them so they can advance their corporate plans.
So things that invalidate ice aren’t non-core-Netrunner to me, so long as the Corp has ways to fight them, because that’s still essentially the same fight. Kill decks aren’t non-core-Netrunner to me, though it sounds like they would be under your definition, because that’s a sensible (if cold-blooded) way for the Corp to try to stop the Runner; one can assume they’d go back to advancing their plans once that pesky Runner is dead, so it doesn’t bother me that they don’t do so during the game.
That’s not to say that there aren’t problems with some strategies and decks, only that I think “core Netrunner” is not an especially useful way to look at the problem. It’s not something that we’re all going to agree on the definition of, and having too few viable strategies is a problem regardless of whether they’re “core Netrunner” strategies or not.
1 Like
I recommend people also read Big Boy’s article, which tackles similar themes: Defining Fairness: My Vision for a Healthy Metagame | Run the Net
I like most of SimonMoon’s suggestions and would be fine if they were implemented as is. The most important thing FFG needs to do is not to get rid of any particular combo deck that people don’t like, but to provide valid corp strategies that aren’t an offbeat combo deck. I don’t see any need to wreck CI 7, for instance, because with Rumor Mill, SIFR, Faust, and Aaron banned, CI7 will go back to being a niche deck that you rarely see at tournaments.
5 Likes
Not true. I love kill decks. I just don’t like shutdown combo/Diagnostics. One of the first corp decks I ever played was shutdown Diagnostics kill.
But yes, I like your definition fine. The main thing is that FFG needs to figure out what “Core Netrunner” is to them, because it’s scaring players away and damaging the game’s reputation to keep introducing cards that invalidate whole strategies or whole aspects of the game.
1 Like
I’ve played with and against Sifr. I’m not convinced it’s broken. It does, however, have an effect on the meta. It pushes corps to use multi-sub, low strength ICE, similar to D4v1d and Faust. It is interesting that a bunch of Anarch cards are specifically countered by using the same strategies, which don’t work very well against Shaper or Criminal cards… (Well, multisub works against most Crim, too, I suppose.)
The Corp hasn’t had control over the size of ice that Anarch can destroy since they printed the Cutlery suite, so I don’t feel that’s a valid argument. There exist cards that the Corp can use to destroy Sifr, or otherwise lock out Parasite recursion. (Blacklist is potentially my favorite way, honestly, but Ark Lockdown also works, and Navi Mumbai City Grid is a niche option. And Hellion Beta Test out of HB is a particularly amusing option.)
The most broken interaction that exists is Sifr + Parasite + Clone Chip (or Street Peddler). By itself, that costs 4 (or 3) influence out of Anarch, and 5 out of Shaper (Making zero assumptions about numbers of those cards in your deck). If I see you use this interaction, I assume you’re all in on this interaction, and don’t have any other weird tricks up your sleeve; you’re all in on destroying my ICE while not taking the effects of them.
The best interaction that Sifr enables is being able to safely facecheck with Atman 0 + Sifr. (Barring hitting a Chiyashi or Swordsman; hey look, counterplay!) This takes almost no influence and doesn’t inform me of the contents of your deck, though it’s safe to assume Parasite is in there somewhere simply because the best play is to facecheck with Atman, break easily with Sifr, and then next turn install the Parasite and Sifr it to death. (Which, again, you can play around by installing more ICE on the outside of the revealed one, forcing them to wait another turn.)
Finally, Sifr prevents you from using other consoles. Right now, that means you can’t use Obelus + Hades along with Sifr + Parasite, and I’ll take that trade. (Honestly, Obelus is one of about four cards that convinced me that trying to play any sort of kill deck is not feasible in current meta.)
If anything is to be done with Sifr, put it on MWL. It makes the most egregious usecase (Parasite+Clone Chip) an insane tax on influence if you’re all in on it, without removing the ‘safe facechecking’ option that, really, it was probably intended for.
This is the most contentious thing that I’m almost in agreement with. SAU out of CtM is just so very oppressive. If it weren’t for the fact that I feel bans are a bad idea, I would be all for banning SAU in CtM, or just straight banning SAU. Interestingly, I feel you get a better result from banning HHN out of CtM instead. If the Runner can’t be threatened with 5 tags just for destroying one asset, I feel the pressure of SAU lessens greatly. Because remember, the degenerate case isn’t ‘Corp installs asset turn 1, Runner trashes it, clears the tag’… This is fine and, while in the Corp’s favor, is not backbreaking for the Runner. The degenerate case adds ‘Corp gives Runner 4 more tags turn 2.’ Which is backbreaking for the Runner. (Unless they somehow don’t care about tags, which, honestly, isn’t a strategy you can employ against any Corp running HHN.)
1 Like
Oh, and why isn’t this article on the main page? Like, seriously. 
Just because I disagree that banning cards is the right move doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the article. And it sparked lots of conversation. 
And there’s huge swaths of the article(s) that I do agree with, which I just don’t really mention here because saying ‘Yep’ doesn’t really add to discussion. 
4 Likes
Front page isn’t currently working for unknown reasons.
1 Like
Yeah this is basically my opinion. I think ci7 is seeing large amounts of play because all the other decks are so bad that it’s relatively stronger because it subverts so many of the parts of the game that are the reason corps are weak.
I think 24/7 should be banned in general because it isn’t niche, is too strong, and has almost counterplay outside of hate cards. Ci7 in comparison is much weaker and is good right now because corps are terrible. If my bans happened and it was still going 2-3 in regional top 8s or close to that then action should be taken against it. But at a power level of 0-1 a tournament it’s pretty okay IMO even if lots of people don’t like playing against it, just because so many people really like playing with it.
1 Like
I feel that CI7 sees lots of play right now for a combination of reasons.
First, the deck is never bad. Its matchups are sometimes <50%, but never <25%, except against really rare decks that have terrible non-CI7 matchups anyway. (A theoretical Ed Kim deck with Archives Interface is CI7’s worst nightmare. It’s also trash against literally anything else. xD)
Second, playing with CI7 is always solving a puzzle. You’re trying to fit the pieces together until they just ‘click’ and, bang, the game’s over. That sort of gameplay appeals to people. (These same people tend to play Dyper, or the really old Josh B. + Personal Workshop + Medium dig deck that existed way back when.) They’re looking for a way to 100->0 the opponent and aren’t interested in playing a back and forth game all the time. Not that they can’t, or won’t, just that some players prefer to solve puzzles while some players prefer to interact. CI7 is the most dependable of the Puzzle Corp decks.
Finally, because of the first reason, CI7 isn’t bad, while in the current meta, lots of other corps are. And, every Netrunner player has a least a little bit of love of Puzzles, so if their current favorite deck isn’t working out, then playing a Puzzle is at least palatable to them, especially if that’s the on-average best way to win… And so, more CI7 shows up right now.
I think that having combo decks that are not interactive is fine, to be honest. The Other Game has survived 20 years without banning those decks every time they pop up. I know we’re not The Other Game, but paying attention to what is done there is valuable, me thinks.
IMHO, the problem with combo decks is when they become THE Best Deck. They can be good, even great, as long as we can chose to play something else that’s closer to core mechanics and still compete.
The post Worlds 2015 meta was that, I think, and most of the blame does fit squarely on the Runner side. If that gets fixed, and the Corp side opens up a little wider, then CI7 or other flavors of Diagnostics decks aren’t as egregious.
That said, CI7/NEHBOOM are still for scumlords. 
(Not saying I’m not a scumlord – I’m learning NEH)
2 Likes
The main thing is that you can board into hate cards against combo in The Other Game. Can’t here.
5 Likes
There’s also ‘hate’ cards that have blanket applications, like Force of Will for Legacy combo decks.
One interesting comparison between this and The Other Game is that there are vastly more effects that search your deck in Netrunner, partially because we can’t have a Sideboard. If Sideboards existed, much of the deck-searching effects wouldn’t.
1 Like
I haven’t posted here or played netrunner for the last few months because of the state of the meta. This ban list isn’t exactly what I would have chosen but it’s better than our current situtation.
I’m going to hibernate for a while. Let me know when Netrunner is about Ice and Breakers again.
6 Likes
There are several blanket application cards, but FoW doesn’t stop Tendrils and Scapeshift also plays a counter war, etc. What I mean is that many fair-deck-playing competitive The Other Game players have a very low % combo matchup pre-board, but dedicate 5 to (sometimes) 10 cards to win the combo matchup post-board. Most (=all) fair decks simply don’t have ways to deal with that matchup pre-board. While we’re making this comparison, if we stripped away the sideboard from The Other Game, then played in a meta with combo, we’d definitely have a bad time. You would have to always have cards dedicated to your deck to beat combo, or you simply lose and it’s matchup dependent.
In Netrunner, there’s no counterplay to CI7 except 1) being Leela (provided there’s no cerebral static in the opp’s deck), 2) having Eden Shard on the board or maybe Hades, sometimes, and 3) getting enough accesses before you lose. Now, with Violet Level, you lose much faster. Good CI7 players know that you can combo through clot and even through sac-con clot. The decks now run Mother Goddess to shut off HQ (or a remote in that rare case they need to make one) from Criminals and non-ai Shapers forever. Having a deck that is “this deck wins tournaments in most metas” is not good for the game, or for encouraging new players to participate in tournaments.
Anyway, this is just my opinion on CI7. I’d be very very happy if FFG did something about those other problem cards first. Baby steps
3 Likes
Some Criminal decks started running Vamadeva as it can break all the ice found in typical CI builds now.
7 Likes
What about I talk a little about MaxX for a few thousand words, putting a lot of lateral thought in it and nobody cares because either crappy english or some variance stuff put on a piedestal or both…
Anytime anyone is like “yeah, get rid of Rumor Mill” out of a concern for BALANCE, of all things, it totally weirds me out.
Like, Rumor Mill is here for balance. It is literally a band aid card. It fixes the problem that Batty and Caprice are broke as a joke. If you take it away, you just get to play “psi game or lose, lolz!” again.
Aaron, same. He wouldn’t be necessary if Breaking news wasn’t an abomination of a card.
So entitled. Like you should have a click “make a server untouchable” action, but the runner can’t have a “click, no batty/caprice” action. And it is dressed up in all this smoke screen about 'interaction", about “negative play experience”. As if there is interaction in “click: put Batty behind grail, laugh wildly”.
1 Like