Serious question, why is this justification to ban a deck from tournament play?
I actually do trust that the current iteration is a balanced way to move the game forward, as others have said it looks like Boggs and co tested the changes with second order effects in mind. What I don’t trust is the apparent philosophy of removing “NPE” decks regardless of how consistent or powerful they are. I also don’t think classifying decks that play largely differently from “standard” netrunner as degenerate or uninteractive is fair. The interaction is not as explicit as a run every turn, but there are undeniably a lot of decisions on both sides which depend on how the opponent has been playing and what information has been revealed. And precisely because these decisions are of a different breed than standard netrunner it causes me great joy to play against a PU or a Skorp or a CI or a Dyper or Counter Surveillance or whatever as a healthy addition to a whole day tournament of standard play.
Having to account for these things enriches deckbuilding as well. Remember all those asset hate cards we picked up in the last couple cycles? Guess we’d rather just pretend asset spam doesn’t exist and nerf it whenever people start winning with it. You could argue that putting tech cards in a deck like Ms Bones or Feedback Filter is a decision that’s kind of like a rock paper scissors dynamic, lowering your consistency against everything else and improving the teched matchup. And in the same way you can argue that the presence of HPT creates the same relationship against tag me decks which is also unhealthy for a competitive dynamic. But even a dynamic equilibrium necessarily settles eventually and we’ve seen time and time again that the same tricks used to exploit holes in metagame knowledge don’t work twice. I’m confident that even left how it is (or ideally with the removal of the clearly centralizing CV+Zero) the metagame we enjoy today hasn’t been solved yet.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I hope NISEI designs cards with player experience in mind, but that tournament play works best when there is no presumption of a correct way to play the game. Do we want to live in a world where we all just vote on the decks that are allowed to be good and try to correct any abberations that appear?