To take this discussion further, what should 3/2’s look like if they are reprinted?
Should a 3/2 with an ability unrelated to over-advancing always be a 1 per deck? Should FFG extend this restriction to Accelerated Beta Test, or is the risk of an incompetent beta test enough to balance this card post rotation?
Do future non neutral 3/2’s need any abilities at all? Do they need drawbacks?
They’ve already included different ways to NA or FA 4/2’s and larger that isn’t just Jeeves and Biotic. I already posted some examples five posts before your post:
No, they are not as good as SSCG, Biotic, and to a lesser extent Jeeves at scoring 3/2’s. But, that’s kind of the problem, there’s no reason to explore other scoring mechanisms, when you have a much easier way to do it with Core set and early cycle tools.
And, there is no reason to think they won’t design other complex ways to FA and NA large agendas. The main problem with 3/2’s is that they are too easy to use, and competitive Corp players will have pretty much the same agenda packages. While, I don’t like the threat of losing an archetype, making one too powerful has the similar effect: homogeneity at the top tables.
If the lack of 3/2’s does come to pass, the designer do have to consider the Corp/Runner imbalance that is likely to occur. But, they don’t necessarily need to neglect the 3/2 problem to avoid such an imbalance.
I can’t wait to rely on early premier to score a 4/2.
Corps splashing more Draw will become a thing. I’m honestly excited. I keep trying to utilize draw cards for a more rushy strategy, but end up cutting them because Jackson gets the job done.
I would go one further than Chris here, not only do you need a wide array of 3/2 but you need 3/2s with impactful scoring abilities. ABT is about right here, as is Project Atlas if you’re in Titan. Astroscript has proven itself to be above the curve here but a more limited version of this design could be cool, such as a clot-like stipulation built into the agenda counter.
What you describing is exactly what the meme “Gordian NPE” is referring to, for those who do not get it yet 
It’s important note that historically glacier has been able to beat mopus decks through two means:
You basically need something that increases the path length of servers by a factor of larger than 2x in order for glacier late game to be able to beat mopus.
You also need strong remote asset econ that can punish lack of remote pressure.
I think what Chris is talking about is one of the two major design challenges of rotation.
It’s also important to note that you cannot have ice alone beat this strategy, because in doing so you’ve power creeped the taxingness of ice tosuch an insane degree that running becomes terrible as you are paying 6+ to break every piece of ice that’s all cheapish to Rez.
The correct way to do Merger:
Fixed Merger.
3 Advance, 3 Agenda Points.
Fixed Merger is worth one less Agenda Point in the Corporation’s score area.
1 Influence.
Why is that good?
Maintains the balancing factor of the original Merger while allowing the corp to reduce agenda density. I still don’t think the 1 inf is necessary though.
Because then you at least aren’t getting shafted on having to include more agenda points as well as giving the Runner more points when they steal them.
3 Merger, 3 GFI, and an ABT is worlds better than 3 Merger, 3 GFI, 2 ABT and a 3/1. Two less agendas in the deck, 3 less points in the deck for the Runner. It would make it at least interesting to include and try and lower your Agenda count at the risk of giving the Runner more points.
(Also it would make Punitive stronger I think?)
Obviously, the solution is to ban MOpus.
Isn’t this really two separate things about the game’s design
Which suggests solutions
Remote Data Farm should have been the 3/2 and AAP the 4/2
Yeah, I think this is correct. 4/2s should largely have really strong abilities that mesh with some sort of glacier bases scoring plan (Nisei mk2). While 3/2s should have less strong but still relevant abilities to enable Na (stuff at the power level of something like director Haas, or character assassination).
Most of the time 3/2’s are treated as blank. If they create new ones, they should have some downside, not as bad as Merger, but worse than blank.
But, 4/2’s and 5/3’s should definitely get a boost. Better than CST if it’s in a faction.
Actually, by March 23 we have 5, count them, 5 Data Packs and Terminal Directive before rotation. It is closer than you think.
Blank 3/2s aren’t good enough I think. The world where a blank 3/2 is your best agenda scares me.
At time I wrote that comment it was 8 data packs. But even in the three packs we have had since, cards like Aaron Marron, Sifr and Friends In High Places have all had very big impacts on the decks in the meta.
Based on how the last cycle went, it would not surprise me that by the end of this cycle the runner and corp powerhouse decks are different to what they are now.
I’m not as sure… Though I respect your opinion very highly. 
Foodcoats decks can play as if six of their agendas are blank 3/2’s, and that’s usually Fine.
I feel that a ‘blank’ 3/2 might already have a power: It’s a 3/2.
I agree that there should be better agendas than blank 3/2’s, but they should be good abilities on 4/2’s, 3/1’s, and 5/3’s and beyond. Right now, we just have Nisei, and maybe Oaktown.
How do you avoid agenda homogeneity at the top tables with 3/2’s that are better than blank?