The worst part about Skull Jack isn’t even the brain damage, imo (which just makes it unplayable) – the worst part is actually the fact that somehow a crappy low-budget neural interface makes it easier to trash a corporation’s assets. Bizarre theme is bizarre 
#runningOnItalics
Skulljack was such a letdown. It’s an strong concept that is too far below curve to be playable IMO. If we get something in Anarch to mitigate brain damage it may be worth considering post-rotation, but it’s overcosted at 2c. 0c install and 1 brain would be fair, I think, if thematically more baffling. At 2c install I think it needed to reduce trash costs by 2 and inflict 2 or 3 brain damage. I would consider that version much better than the card we were given. Maybe 3 brain for 2 reduced cost is too strong, but 3 brain in one install is pretty serious.
Ramujan Reliant 550 BMI, bro.
Please - the trauma is too real.
I am a bit curious about rotation and how it will actually be implemented e.g. will Jackson Howard replacement(s) be released in cycles 6 and 7, or cycle 8? What will a meta without Imp look like? As an unrepentant Noise player, I will tell anyone that Imp is my favorite Virus.
But every time I try to estimate the rotation schedule for Netrunner, it seems to slip further and further out. Right now FFG is releasing data packs 42 days apart. If this pace is maintained, and the next cycle begins immediately 42 days after pack 6 of Mumbad and each subsequent cycle, then we won’t see rotation until ~22 February 2018.
While I dread losing my beloved Imp, I am excited to see the meta shaken up with such a massive churn of cards. However, at this point there are more cards waiting to be added in before rotation than will be taken out by rotation, so it feels very premature to make any predictions about how the meta will shift.
1 Like
I am super worried about the Jackson rotation and his (lack of) replacement. Damon seems to be convinced that there doesn’t need to be a card that serves the same function. Not sure if he’s trolling, or just doesn’t understand competitive Netrunner?
Damon seems certain that groupthink is responsible for Jackson being an automatic include. In his words Jackson is a “crutch”. For that reason I’d be very surprised to see a direct replacement. We’re more likely going to see more cards like Shannon Claire, which have more narrow applications but are very effective in their niche. If enough alternatives are printed in each faction competitive play should be unaffected.
Problem is I don’t think it’s going to work. Right now Jackson is ubiquitous because he solves more problems than Damon seems to realize. He provides draw, solves all but the worst agenda flood, gives you the ability to force a shuffle, and does it all at no credit cost. Splitting that into multiple cards is too many slots and way more influence, even if each card does their specific task better than Jackson.
I think Damon is a good designer and I like the MWL, but he’s managed to be wrong about the impact Jackson has on Netrunner every time it comes up. He has claimed on multiple occasions that he could go on for a while on why he feels Jackson isn’t necessary anymore. I would like him to do so.
11 Likes
Well, when Jackson rotates it will be interesting to see if runner win rates skyrocket.
1 Like
I share your concerns. From a simple card count perspective, a corp deck is typically 9-11 agendas and 3 copies of Jackson Howard, so 12-14 cards are set and 35-38 are left for ICE (and other agenda defense) ~18 cards, economy ~12 cards, and 5-8 flex cards.
Expanding Jackson from 1 card to 2 or 3 rapidly cuts down on the remaining slots, unless these new solutions also serve some of the other functions as well. If corps need to import 2-3 cards dedicated to replacing Jackson, then their overall power level will be decreased.
I am a little curious about Damon’s comments about group think. I think he may be right. Looking around here, we seem to run extremely similar decklists and dismiss a lot of questions out of hand without really considering alternatives. We may have some level of over-hyping our dependence on Jackson, though I can hardly imagine playing against Noise without him.
2 Likes
Fixed that for you 
5 Likes
I’ve seen a few decks here and there that work without Jackson. Atomic Empire’s store champs had a Jackson-less Argus come in first in Swiss and second after the cut. That said, Argus has some built in resiliency and he admitted that Noise was a difficult matchup. You need some kind of answer to stuff being tossed into archives.
3 Likes
the trend seems to be moving toward dual-purpose cards that serve a fraction of jackson’s capability, but are easy to fit multiples of when deck-building.
GFI and DBS are easy to understand examples.
2 Likes
Groupthink is a dumb word. Even though netrunner doesn’t have big prizes, people take it almost as seriously as Magic and use real data to determine what cards are good.
For those of us who don’t play as much, our anecdotal experience usually confirms what others have learned from more extensive experience and/or data. If it doesn’t, we might not even follow the crowd; just look at the decks on netrunnerdb that don’t use hedge fund; but once we play enough to notice the lack of the card is hurting us we “conform”.
Is Damon assuming we can’t possibly play enough netrunner to notice trends because a store competition is three games every fortnight? There is always octgn and Jinteki.
6 Likes
No, I think the idea is that we are all so focused on ‘auto-include 3x Jackson Howard’ that very few players are seriously considering cutting Jackson Howard to put serious effort into play testing without him. Looking for tournament lists without Jackson Howard suggests this idea may have merit.
I have built and played in casual tournaments decks that did not use Jackson Howard, but they all suffered against Noise. In my experiments without Jackson Howard, every deck is better with him, than without. Maybe I just play with a lot of Noise in my meta. Maybe I haven’t learned the right combos and techniques to use other cards as effectively as J-Ho, I don’t claim to have learned his full value on my own. Playing against other competitive players running decks without Mr Howard successfully would certainly help me understand how such a deck would work.
As far as the word ‘groupthink,’ I think it’s a great word that conveys ‘none of us are as dumb on our own as we all are together.’ We have some good discussion here in this forum, but we also have some really dumb notions that get reinforced by an echo chamber.
I am not prepared to rule out the possibility that we, as a community, have a ‘groupthink’ dependancy on Jackson Howard, but from my own experience I am not pushing any alternative that is equal or superior to J-Ho either. I am waiting for more cards to fill that role more fully.
5 Likes
It has always been my impression that Damon like most designers doesn’t look down on his player base in the way you described. That said I would imagine at this point the playtesters are already at or past rotation. So there would be data to be found about the impact of no Jackson.
To the topic though I feel that Jackson may do too much, solves too many issues, shifts balance of power too far to one faction, forces cards out of consideration that would otherwise be fine (like Allele Repression), and makes easy what should have been deck building choices against what meta you expect to see. That said I also will miss having the great big yellow easy button.
2 Likes
That’s kind of a double-loaded question, anyhow. I don’t think Damon has made that assumption, and if he had, it wouldn’t be for that reason. Remember how much further ahead he’s looking, and how that removes him even further from the competitive playing experience that he’s already banned from playing.
He also went on record that his favorite deck is Eater/Keyhole Reina. So he obviously hates fun.
That deck will see an increase in win rate if you cut 3 cards and influence (cortex and a snare, add 2nd swordsman) and pay 3 jackson. Hell, cut cortex and one other card for two Jackson and it will be better. Being able to win without him =/= deck is better without him.
The only deck that has ever played without Jackson and seen an increase in win rate was Scorch CI, before anarch took off. It’s influence was set in stone at 3 scorch, 1 SEA, 1 Reuse. Would it have played jackson given 3 more influence? Of course. But this deck was killed when IHW x3+1 plas became commonplace in a huge percentage of runner decks, and I strongly doubt we have any living examples.
4 Likes
Completely agreed. At the very least cutting the Cortex Lock for two Jackson and making some other cut somewhere would make sense. I was just listing it as the only example I could think of of a Jackson-less deck doing well in a competitive field in the last year or so. There’s always room for optimization.
Considering rotation doesn’t start for another three cycles… I highly doubt Damon and playtesters have any real data from such an environment.