So magic fwiw no longer has a ‘core’ set, but they do reprint certain cards when they release new sets. I think you can’t look at their model an apply it to an lcg. Since another part of their card design is designing for limited. So essentially each set has a few playable cards, mostly in the rare and mythic slots and a lot of draft chaff.
I don’t follow it that much either, I just happened to be lurking at the right time.
I really don’t put much stock in this, though. It’s essentially a poorly-remembered game of telephone.
I have also seen people on Reddit say basically that they heard from their friend who heard from a playtester that Core 2.0 would [insert rumour].
Basically, there’s just enough claims of actual sources that I wouldn’t be super surprised if Core 2.0 exists, but there’s nothing concrete and I also wouldn’t be surprised if Core 2.0 never appears, or if it’s years off.
3 Likes
Admittedly, I’m definitely out of touch with magic. Maybe they don’t do it like they used to anymore. My point is more so they Netrunner could do it like they used to, and I think would be in a better spot for it than their existing plan will put them in.
The point about “designing for limited” is just a matter of shifting perspective of the design team.
With respect to draft chaff, Netrunner already releases its fair share of lemons for constructed, so I don’t think the two games are too different here.
It goes back way farther than that: here’s some speculation from back when rotation was first announced. It’s nothing special…expansion rumors start almost as soon as FFG announces a game, and reboot rumors soon thereafter. They’ve brought it on themselves, to an extent.
2 Likes
It’s completely different because the “draft chaff” is still stuff that works on its own in MtG. Most of netrunner’s shit cards are still going to be terrible in draft, and that’s the whole problem. The ratios are way off for Netrunner.
I mean it’s fair that Netrunner is played mostly as a constructed game, but making the block is also something FFG would have complete control over. The meta has already decided what cards are good, bad, fun, boring, etc. If you form a new block from a subset of the existing cards, you have complete control over if you introduce the known lemons or not; that’s the advantage of using existing cards as a foundation. For Netrunner, you’d just use what’s fun and playable, and leave out the “chaff”.
When they build off of it, they’ll undoubtedly introduce new lemons and power cards, but they can then cut it down again next block. Constantly iterate and cut, keeping the game fresh.
2 Likes
FFG seems very rigid in how they handle things. They seem to have a certain way to do things, regardless of products. If they release a second edition of anything, they throw away everything before it. So don’t expect a new core with cards from the first 2 cycles.
Core 2.0 seems mostly like a knee-jerk reaction. People have their pet cards they don’t want to lose and hope they will be eternal. If anything, I think they should shorten the rotation, have powerful cards in the cycles and sell more deluxe boxes with staple cards. This way the meta could shift faster while still having a stable ground to stand on. In this way, problem cards/combos would disappear faster so we don’t have to patch the game to much.
2 Likes
AGoT 2nd edition is not really the same thing as making a revised Core. trying to extrapolate one to the other is a bit invalid
i don’t think a core 2.0 is in any way a kneejerk reaction considering the game’s been out for several years. they’ve had plenty of time to consider the implications of a revised core. i do agree that a more aggressive rotation would be ideal though. as much as i loved SanSan, i would be fine with losing the first 4 cycles when rotation happens and only play with 4-6 cycles at a time instead of 6-8
2 Likes
I am not talking about single products, I am talking about their entire company structure. All their board game lines seem to be very static until they no longer works and then they wipe the entire slate with a new revision. And even if they did indeed make a Core 2.0, there is no guarantee they will use only cards that people have.
In fact, there is business sense to have a couple of new cards in there, to entice old customers to buy more. Which feels totally in line how they are handling their LCG lines.
1 Like
I think the issue (if we really want to call it an “issue”) is that competitive players will always try to determine the most effective, consistent, and powerful combination of cards to optimize their decks and maximize their chance of winning. Sometimes this results in a significant shift in the meta that can’t be easily predicted. “Stronger” cards (e.g., Aaron Marron, HHN) are just easier for the average person to identify and incorporate into their strategies.
But no card exists in a vacuum; we often think that cards “need” to be reprinted or retained because we know that it fits well with an existing strategy or covers a niche that other cards don’t. But once that card is no long a valid option for a tournament-legal deck, the next most effective or powerful strategies will be identified and the meta will shift again.
Core 2.0 seems unnecessary to me. New cards will come out, strategies will change, and we’ll eventually stop thinking about the ones we wish would’ve stayed around from rotated cycles.
I think rotation is going to cause a massive change in the meta, and that’s a good thing, both for players and the long-term health of the game.
3 Likes
For the record, I was saying “FFG should do X”, not " I predict X will happen".
It just makes me sad that a game I really like is dwindling, despite receiving overwhelmingly positive feedback initially, because of, what I feel, is mismanagement of the product. At least in part.
Halifax used to fill 3-4 tables full of people just showing up for casual nights to Netrunner. Nothing compared to metas like the UK I’m sure, but a healthy meta nonetheless. Now sometimes people show up and have no one to play. And that’s a little on me; our previous organizer put much more energy into the game than I do (to the point where I’m not even sure if I qualify as the organizer… I do at least rummage up prize support and post events though, which probably defaults me into the role).
But I feel like it’s also on FFG for letting Netrunner become this massive, expensive, complex ball of cards. New players who aren’t phased by the complexity of playing Netrunner against people who know how to play Netrunner are later phased by the cost. Restricting the card pool heavier helps on both the fronts. Less cards means less interactions for fresh meat. Less cards means less money for fresh meat.
Anyway I’ve, in part, derailed this heavily from Terminal Directive. I do find the discussion pretty interesting, but I’m gonna bow out on that note.
3 Likes
I would cut 3 cycles this time, 3 cycles next time, and keep it to 2 thereafter.
Sansan is a bit too recent to see it dissappear for me.
You and I might have a different meaning for the word “impressive”. At least the full-bleed art is cool - though what I really want are the full-bleed IDs.
Eli 2.0, so underwhelming…
4 Likes
yeah Eli 2.0 is kinda bad with Paperclip since it’s the same to break as Eli 1.0
for the event, i imagine it’s p good because it’s 5c for Corroder and Battering Ram (and we’ll have to see what fracters are in TD)
2 Likes
Did people think Eli 2 was going to be bonkers? It’s a barrier with a facecheck penalty, and it only costs 4 to rez, that’s already better than 95% of the existing barriers. They were almost certainly going to be conservative with it considering how powerful v1.0 was.
2 Likes
Five to rez, but I agree with you. I don’t think the additional routine and 2.0 ability is worth paying two extra credits, but Eli 1.0 is powerful enough that a less powerful version is still probably pretty good.
2 Likes
Would be pretty fucking good at 4. I think it’s rightly costed at 5. It’s worse than Eli 1, and that’s a good thing, but not to the point where I’d never consider slotting it.
1 Like
Ask, and you shall receive:
9 Likes