Any thoughts on how to make Maxx work in this format with Levy gone? Trope I guess, but that seems really wonky.
I played a couple of games with Trope Maxx, and my thoughts are that sheās probably the closest to the classical ācan really punish bad corp starts, slows down late gameā archetype in this meta. (Keyhole into DDoS is still brutal.) Still, Iām not sure if she can punish them well enough, and when your first Maxx mill is double trope you know this gameās not gonna go well.
1 Like
Chimera is still 2 creds every time you want to rez it, which is fairly significant in a world where corp econ is not nearly as strong as it once was. Try building a chimera deck with the ban list, come back, and report on it.
1 Like
Chimera + Akitaro dream!
2 Likes
Thanks for putting this together @TheBigBoy! Looks great and looking forward to trying it with my group. Any thoughts on a name for this format? Iām thinking BigBoyBan.
Weāve been hosting games as BB45
1 Like
I vouch that this format is gr8. Iāve been itching for a community-maintained banlist constructed format for a long time (ever since clot, pretty muchā¦). The banlist isnāt perfect right now but itās really close to balanced for a first attempt, and itās already way more fun to deckbuild for this than for official constructed.
Yeah I love love love limited formats. This one looks great. I think you should just call it Top Banned List or TBL for short.
I donāt think thatās a good name, since Bigboy said his ban criteria strayed from the being just the outright most powerful cards. Donāt know what the best name should be, but BB45 is a better name than ātop banned listā as a starting point.
Itās not going to stay as 45 cards, though, right? CBL for Community Ban List seems pretty simple and clear.
A format encouraging people to use less popular cards?
How can we in good conscience call it anything other than āLeast Wanted Listā? 
20 Likes
Oh. Thatās good. Thatāsā¦ too good.
This lists reaaaaally needs Mumba Temple.
To me, this list is terrible. Really terrible.
Not sure if people want to hear this.
So Iād say I understand the goal of this. To me ātraditional colour pieā is way too easy for corps and way too difficult for runners.
But to me, the simpliest solution to go to the wanted result is āeverything banned exept the Coreset & IDsā, no ?
Youād be 100% sure to have traditional colour pie there.
1 Like
@Synatx - I didnāt get the impression that this was specifically about colour pie, just about making space for a new layer of deck archetypes.
Mixed Messages
This format seems a little jumbled in its execution at this point. The criteria for banning the cards - power level and ubiquity largely - doesnāt necessarily relate to the problem the format is trying to solve - making space for a new archetype-meta. Now both those things likely have a whole lot in common, but if new archetypes really is the aim then really you should start by looking at which archetypes are the problem, how they are constructed and then target specific cards that will achieve the desired effect with the least collateral damage.
Currently itās basically a Most Popular hit-list as the āmost powerfulā cards will unsurprisingly be the āmost popularā also (or close enough). There are a few exceptions (e.g. the economy cards you mention) and this chimes more with the aim, but the overall mismatch is highlighted by various playerās request to remove JHow from the list - he appears to be a very popular and powerful card, but is not guilty of propping up a particular archetype of deck. Now, you might come up with a ver similar list if you took this other approach, but at least we would all be on the same page as to how we got there.
Different or More?
One thought though is that will this not potentially just swap one set or archetypes for another? Perhaps not, but it does a little like throwing the baby out with the bath water. It would be fun for sure, but it would only be a temporary patch only the new archetypes get stale. It seems a little odd really, and makes me want to check what the thread at large would prefer:
- a format where none of the current archetypes exist (as described in the OP)
- a format where a whole new layer of viable archetypes exist at the same time (and power level) as the current archetypes?
Different archetypes would be great, but more archetypes would better, no? To achieve this we instead need to re-balance the meta most likely as opposed to chopping things out of the meta (even though both seem similar and involve banning cards), and with this aim up-front really weāre just creating a variation on the MWL with all the same problems and perks that have been discussed ad infinitum (except for the influence weirdness of course).
Itās not a bad idea and whatever people want from an alternative format is fine, itās just important to match your actions to your objective properly so everyone is on the same page. For example why 5 top cards from each faction? Are all factions equally problematic? Why 45 cards (just somewhere to start I guess?) Are we rebalancing here or just binning off archetypes? Are we fixing things or just changing things? Are we actually just binning off cards weāre bored of seeing? (which is sort of what the list reads like) - all fine objectives, itās just good to understand whatās being done here.
Note: As @RTsa mentions, itās a pretty subjective list at the moment. It needs some hard data.
2 Likes
Iām unsure how to gather that data. The winning decklists is a good place to start, but I feel it may be quite biased. Same goes for any online play statistics.
Iād love to play this, and a have a few thoughts on decks 
Maybe we can arrange a league?
The easier way would be for player to name their jinteki game ā45BLā.
Personally I donāt see the game in terms of archetypes, nor am I concerned about binder fodder seeing the light of day.
What matters for me is the ebb and flow and character of actual gameplay.
Is gameplay interesting and dynamic? Do you have to really stop and think about the best way to interact with your opponent? Can both mathy, efficiency-based plays and calculated bluffs succeed or can the Runner just simplify any complex situation by Siphoning you into the ground? Can remotes and all centrals matter to the game, or is gameplay reduced to R&D lock versus Astrotrain? Overall, are Runner and Corp close to 50% wins?
I have an aesthetic sense of what ārealā Netrunner is and I donāt expect everyone to agree with it, but for me this ban list is a great, very rough start towards a more beautiful game. I believe:
Netrunner is good when pilot skill largely determines the outcome of matches and when you donāt clog decks with silver bullets; itās bad when itās about whether you packed the right hard counter for the matchup (Plascrete vs Scorch, Clot vs Fast Advance).
Netrunner is good when your opening hand isnāt a huge source of variance; itās bad when your opening hand determines whether you win (early Wyldcakes, god hand Astrobiotics, early 24/7 Scorch).
Netrunner is good when some ICE can gearcheck; itās bad when Runner cannot be gearchecked because AI breakers are the best or they can always instantly tutor a solution.
Netrunner is good when some ICE can tax; itās bad when Runner cannot be taxed because they get free cards from Wyldcakes and break everything without spending money.
Netrunner is good when the onus is on Corp to make something happen before they deck out; itās bad when Corp can stall the game indefinitely with Museums.
Netrunner is good when both players are able to build board positions and the early game feels different than the late game; itās bad when Runner can literally destroy everything relevant the Corp puts down.
Netrunner is good when decks have a variety of threats happening rather than recursing the same threats; itās bad when you can just recur Parasite or Siphon or Blackmail 12 times and spam your opponent into the ground.
Netrunner is good when some subroutines fire some of the time; itās bad when Runners are 100% safe and can solve every ICE on first encounter.
Netrunner is good when agendas are scored for impact and different agendas are played per faction; itās bad when every faction jams as many of the same self-protecting neutral agendas as possible.
30 Likes
I donāt know if I agree that gearchecking is necessary for real netrunner. Gearchecking is a pretty high source of variance, it kinda sucks to lose because youāre anarch and your opponent went install Corporate Sales Team, install Quandary, advance, then win against a similar opener the next game because you started out with code gate breaker in hand.