Not the NBN operation, the HB asset.
2 Likes
Oh !
All right, then I’m with you there.
This one should have been like Bankers I think.
I agree MCAAP is stronger than an agenda to put in a remote, its gonna be nuts in that new jinteki id that can protect a server any time.
You’ve described what turning wheel does but I’m not convinced it’s overpowered. It still costs an influence to put in your deck and is unique, so you don’t know how many to put in (more for consistency? Or less for influence?) and it costs 2 credits to get it out before you can use it.
1 Like
Sifr was unique and costed more in everything before it got banned ?
I don’t really think that “the card is a card” is something that makes it more or less balanced.
I’m talking about what makes this card. I’d be happy to discover serious ways to pilot against it, instead of saying “this is just half a medium / nerve, cost less, no mu & can’t flush, see, not op at all since it’s unique?”
I know people loves the card. It’s not op (still, it got a fair place in T1 decks), spirit is just bad. Because you can’t do zip against it.
I prefered hundred times fighting Medium because at least the corp could manipulate the runner, since he shows his needs. There you have nothing to learn about the runner, nothing to manipulate, and can’t pretend at the end of game “oh my gosh, I did so well against that card.”.
No. The runner did well, or not. You’re not in that equation.
You’re strongly in that equation for : Temujin, Syphon (err. This is a limit there), Medium, etc etc, all cards, I’m sorry to think that, that whining noclueboutbluff banned, but that kind of lifeless-play-yourself card is perfectly ok.
No problem, I adapt or die. Still, I’m bothered.
Because people saying “but this cost 10c each run”, are all the same guys whining against Temujin, and generally the same guys whining that Crim are the worse horse now.
Looks like that guy falling from a bike blaming the bike cartoon.
Cool Magic card anyway.
But it’s not really a dual Maker’s/Legwork. We have to step back and look at the actual cost, here. The Maker’s Eye/Legwork cost 2 credits and a click to play, plus the cost of breaking into the server once. The Turning Wheel costs 2 credits and a click to play, plus 4 more clicks, plus the cost of bouncing off the servers 4 times, plus the cost of breaking into the server once (additional costs over TME/LW are bolded). Plus it costs you an influence to include in your deck regardless of faction. I think it’s clear that no one is saying The Maker’s Eye and Legwork are broken/op, so I don’t see how The Turning Wheel could possibly be when it costs 4 more clicks to have the same effect plus whatever the bounce cost is.
This is an excellent point and the main reason why The Turning Wheel is even playable at all. You can use other effects that trigger off of the two central servers to mitigate the additional costs that The Turning Wheel has over TME/LW. You still get the value from those runs if you were just running TME/LW, though. Instead of the last run being The Turning Wheel, you just play a TME/LW instead and boom, same effect. Now, here I gloss over the fact that The Turning Wheel is reusable, but in this case if you’re letting them hit your R&D/HQ with 8+ value runs in the game then you have a bigger problem. If they’re hitting R&D/HQ 8+ times by just bouncing (non-value runs) and you’re not gaining board state and putting pressure on the runner, then you have a bigger problem.
…
This last bit is the part where I can’t follow your argument. It seems, to me, that here you are saying that defending HQ, R&D, and a remote is a somehow unattainable board state and… well it’s not. You’re never going to lock out the runner of all 3 servers 100% of the time. That would make for a bad competitive game! You can, however, make it taxing for the runner.
Well… yeah. You should have taxing ice on your centrals, rezzed to tax the runner. That’s just basic defensive play. If The Turning Wheel is on the table, then maybe don’t put out an additional ice on the server yet if the one you have is taxing them well. Or maybe do because, frankly, if they’re spending 4 clicks doing absolutely nothing so they can play a Maker’s Eye next round, then I’m either coming out ahead as the Corp or the Runner is so far ahead that they’d be winning the game even without The Turning Wheel on the table.
I defend my HQ, R&D, and often a remote almost every game I’m playing. If the runner is allowed to run those servers enough times to get a huge power The Turning Wheel, then they’d be in a good spot even without it. You only need one or two reasonably taxing ice to discourage hitting those servers constantly, it’s not a huge investment. You say the when the runner plays The Turning Wheel that there’s not much you can do, but that’s not true at all. You can make sure that your deck has good ice to defend your centrals with in the first place, and establish them early. You can start playing cards into your remote to force the runner to spend their clicks/credits challenging that server vs. going after your centrals.
Why can’t you rez that ice on your centrals? What is that ice then doing in your deck, then? What are you doing with the time the runner is hitting your centrals for The Turning Wheel tokens if it’s not shoring up your economy or forcing them to spend resources challenging your remote instead of your R&D? If they spend 4 clicks to charge a Turning Wheel, then why not spend your clicks on credits so you can rez that ice?
The arguments I see here is that if you’re already losing the battle in defending your centrals then The Turning Wheel just makes it worse. And, well, yeah that’s kind of the point. It’s a bit more of a Win-More card. But the investment needed compared to just regular Maker’s Eye/Legwork runs is high. High enough that I’d generally rather just use those. Frankly, most of the issues you bring up make me more concerned for the gameplan of the prototypical Corp deck you have in your mind rather than the power of The Turning Wheel its self.
…
Ultimate Conclusion: I could not disagree with you about the state of The Turning Wheel more. I reject your argument that you can’t do anything vs. The Turning Wheel. You can do a lot, most of it having to do with good fundamental play and smart deck building.
Also, I think stating you prefer Medium (an actually broken card, imo) to The Turning Wheel is straight bonkers and so I fear that there’s no hope for you 
.
10 Likes
(Wanted to make this it’s own post)
The more I consider this the more I agree wholeheartedly with restricting Sac Con. It’s a strong card, but the strong combo with Clotlock (via Clone Chip) and Tapwrm edge it to just too good. It also restricts the kind of design space that Tapwrm and Clot live in: A strong card the leaves the Corp an inherent way to trash it as a power-release-valve. That said, I don’t think that combo is so strong that it can’t exist, as long as you have to give up some other option. This comes with a caveat, however: I think this has to come with Obokata being dealt with in some way. Film Critic is the only reasonable way to deal with that card in many decks, which puts her stock too high vs. other restricted cards. Once she’s not so critical then I think you have a lot more interesting choices about what to take from that restricted list, especially as a Shaper.
1 Like
We really need more Film Critic replacements since we’re printing lots of “on steal” agendas now. Right now we have By Any Means and Imp as our only alternatives IIRC.
Sure, any game. I guess you’ve got 100% winrates with corp, I had only 2/3 lately.
That’s a pretty reductive and, frankly, antagonistic argument, and for that reason I feel that I have to respond. I’m not claiming to have a 100% winrate as corp, but I can certainly claim that my losses aren’t to strict R&D lock/The Turning Wheel abuse. I feel like I’ve addressed your concerns adequately, with justification, in previous posts and I don’t think I can convince otherwise if those arguments aren’t compelling.
14 Likes
Just underlined that all 3 servers “imune” or something to runs happens one game on ten, maybe. More ice, more creds, more means doesn’t provide any forbidden sign of any sort, nor buys you any % of security.
Now consider you have two servers to put more of everything there + that isolation in the dance between runner & corp. This is just ridiculous.
With Medium, you have to defend one central, and the runner must go inside for your medium to grow, and you can flush which buys you security 100%, and you can manipulate runner’s goals, which is a point I’m relatively good at, or at least I pay attention. I dance, or tries to.
Anyway, I think you’re almost saying the card is bad to defend your point of vue : this is going nowhere. Card is not bad, it’s not so-so. It’s not op too. It is a good card we find in some T1 decks.
We disagree about the NPE, end of story.
Oh, no, please! It’s already hard enough to play 5/3s, we finally have some with effects strong enough to make them worth playing – we shouldn’t add more cards that undo their viability. More meat or net damage protection, more card draw, more ways to play “around” them, sure. But not ways to make them not work at all. Film Critic and Employee strike are my least favorite cards in the game right now because they both cover so many situations as a blanket response.
This is also why I would be loathe to see Sac Con restricted – there are too many ways for the corp to trash then RFG cards. Sac Con needs to be there to help keep those strategies in control.
6 Likes
I think if we got Film Critic 2.0, similiar to San San City Grid 2.0, where after FC was used it trashed itself, I think that would help with our thoughts on Film Critic hurting some of the fun/powerful agendas of Netrunner.
6 Likes
I’m not convinced saccon should be restricted.
-
I’m not really buying the argument about tapwrm. It is an unreliable economy card even with saccon. It can be played around the same way Beth can. And a single rezzed Macrophage over R&D by mid game often spells game over. Yes saccon makes tapwrm way better. But it’s not broken. It still has an install condition and a MU requirement in addition to its purgeabilty.
-
Clot-lock with Clone chip may be more difficult to deal with if Corp strategy can only FA. I’d argue to put Clot on restricted instead. That’s basicically why Clone Chip is already there. I’d also argue that decks that have only one plan should have lots of tech for it’s hard counters. I.e. may need Macrophage, CVS, Best Defense,Ark Lockdown, MCA Informant etc. Or have a backup scoring or kill plan.
C. These are times of tech…and anti-tech. I think part of the problem with Corp design is that there are so many cards that it’s possible to get sucked into doing just one thing incredibly well. But this seems like a moment where corps may need multiple win conditions and more answers to common runner tech.
4 Likes
I think these are all pretty strong counter-arguments.
3 Likes
Yeah, which is partly why CI is so good, being able to both FA multiple ways (biotics, elective upgrades, MCAAs), as well as score behind taxing FC3s. But the days when corps would go all-in on one strategy like Fastrobiotics did are gone. And that’s exactly the reason why Clot should definitely NOT go into the restricted list, especially when there are so many other deck-defining choices. You shouldn’t force every runner (especially the shapers, who have the most in-faction restricted cards, and are the most effective clot-lockers) to make it their own responsibility to keep fast advance decks down. If you ask Shapers to give up all their other great toys (Levy, Film Critic, MOPUS, Clone Chip) to counter just one deck, which they might not even get paired up against during a tournament, then they just won’t take it, and that will make FA too powerful.
The point about Sac Con being too good isn’t about Tapwrm being too good. I know you can play around it, I know you can get rid of it even with Sac Con. It’s about the fact that a deck with Tapwrm, Clot, and Sac Con can deal with both fast corps AND slow corps equally well. Deckbuilding games are all about trade-offs, and if you have a runner deck with good matchups against basically the entire field there’s no reason to take anything else. San Con is the enabler here, and while neither of the two cards it enables is overbearing in itself, it means you can deal with any matchup equally well.
1 Like
Remove Saccon and next meta will be Battyturret, or Dataraven + that NBN dude that trade a tag for trash prog.
I don’t like Tapcon much, but I’m not sure to want to trade this meta for that one 
7 Likes
Good point…but I’d argue for hitting Clot rather than saccon. (And possibly removing CC?)
But if you restrict Clot you can still have Clot, Tapwrm, and SacCon in the same deck! It wouldn’t have film critic or whatever, but you haven’t solved the problem that it can both stop fast advance and get into any remote.
But you won’t be able to have other good stuff.
Restriction works by totally preventing certain interactions, but also by forcing a choice between other good cards. I don’t think this interaction is strong enough to nerf completely. Simply adding clot to the restricted list makes it worse even if it can still be played with saccon.
I think not being able to have Clone Chip in that situation is good enough to hit it in the right ways. Your Sac Cons have to hit the table first, and you have to choose if you’re going to use them to save Clots or save Tapwrms. You also can’t just reserve your Sac Cons by allowing Clot to be trashed on a regular purge knowing that you can just Clone Chip it back in while still protecting against a Cyberdex Virus Suite. Multiple Sac Cons with Clot and no Clone Chip still feels pretty good, too, because it can defend against a Cyberdex and still force the Corp to lose turns purging.
… Maybe Clone Chip really is the bigger problem here…