Frisky AI said:

What?  This claim is ridiculous, nor do you have any evidence to support it.  Yes, I'm sure FFG went to great pains to make sure nobody on the project had ever played the original game at all or talked to anyone who did.  Yeah, that makes sense.

Toqtamish said:

A wild Toq appears.   

I never played Netrunner. I wasn't all that into cyberpunk back then. Just wasn't my thing. Plus some of the people I knew who played the game really lacked for social graces. So, it's new to me. I'm looking forward to it. I'm not looking forward to reading more posts of people griping about how this version doesn't live up to the dead version.  As long as FFG can keep from breaking  the game like they did with Warhammer: Invasion, and if the game is even half as engaging to me as MECCG was, I think I'm in for some fun. 

Best gaming news I've heard in years.  Couldn't have dreamed of a better setup to re-imagine my favorite game.  Glad it's in FFG's hands, had Wizards ever revived it on there own, it might not have lasted long but FFG has a good track record with this stuff.  I'm excited to learn more and teach others the game !

I'm so happy I peed my pants a little when I read the news announcement.

I still own a set of the original Netrunner, but I gladly welcome the FFG update. I (and many others) were clamoring for a Netrunner or Cyberpunk LCG in the forums and we got  the motherload.

dboeren said:

In fact Richard Garfield said on his blog and at BGG that he was approached by FGFG ad they went to great efforts to get him to join the project but he decided not to due to conflicts with his own stuff. FFG had a time line for the production and Richard was just unable to fit into it. He also went on to say that form his initial meetings he is very confident that Netrunner is in "good hands"

You might wana check your fact before just making stuff up and looking like a complete fool.

booored said:

This is good to know. Still wondering about factions though.

 Just beucase Richard Garfield wasn't on staff doesn't mean he wasn't ocassionaly consulted or that the didn't get veteran players, experienced store owners and event organisers or simply fans from within the company to help.

~ Maybe don't call people idiots because they don't have the same level of Garfield-love as you.

More to the point, I have yet to play an FFG game I didn't think was incredibly well designed. I LOVE AGoT, I'm very fond of CoC and W:I (but sadly can't afford either in a big way) I think their Penny Arcade game, their Battles of Westeros game, the Thrones Board game and the BSG game are all fantastic and unique in their own way, even while maintaining coherency within the same brand (especially in the case of the multiple Song of Ice and Fire games) I didn't like LotR but a few of my friends became Obsessed with it after we got the core set, its a great game but the co-op wasn't my thing. So even the game I dont like I think is lovingly and inteligently designed (which I can't say for every game I dont like *coughmagiccough*)

Will FFG make Netrunner 2: The Nettening? Probably not. Will they make a good game with mechanics that are in spirit with the old game while creating a new and interesting playstyle and setting? I have no doubt. I can guarantee that if you don't like it, there will be people who will, FFG don't make half-arsed products.

qwertyuiop said:

To be fair, I think this is the source of a lot of the angst.  FFG's track record with LCGs is far from perfect.  It's one thing for something like Warhammer: Invasion to turn out to be a disappointment.  It's something else entirely to see a game you know and love demolished beyond recognition.

As an example, I was a HUUGE fan of Decipher's Star Wars: CCG back in the day.  A few years after they drove it into the ground and lost the license, they created a new game called simply Wars that took the core mechanics of the SWCCG and put them in a new universe setting, with new cards, adding a factional system that hadn't existed in SWCCG.  Sound familiar?  Without diving into details, Wars was basically a disaster.  People are worried about a similar occurrence with Netrunner.

Don't misunderstand - I think a great many of the old school diehards need to (1) Calm down, and most especially (2) Get over themselves and their egos at not being personally consulted on the revival.  Right now, we know pretty much nothing about the changes, and a number of people are letting their fears of change and their bruised egos drive their comments.  I'm willing to wait and see how the game plays in its new form, but my last major excursion with FFG was with Warhammer, so you can imagine that I at least understand their nervousness ;)

Toqtamish said:

Sure he does.  Not him.  He is the expert on all things that are good and true.

Fanboys eh?

Buhallin said:

I agree with this. The old school diehards will be upset no matter what. 

But still I have some worries of the game. Like factions not fitting for Runners (Corp factions feel more suitable). Gimme more information.

 I could totally see runners with factions, I mean what would you call Anonymous, Legion of Doom, and Masters of Deception?

I just see those runner factions in Android: Netrunner a bit weird. In Netrunner you are just a individual runner. I find it weird some runner couldn't use some great program or hardware another runner could use. Those runner factions (Anarchs, Criminals, Shapers) doesn't really feel a faction for me so much. It feels more like a runner personality. Runner group factions would have worked better and made more sense (like in your example Penfold).

Factions are in here if somebody missed this page: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite_sec.asp?eidm=207&esem=1

You know, as I re-read it, technically that doesn't actually say that cards have factions.  They may not.  IDENTITY cards seem to have factions, but nothing in there implies that non-identity cards do.

It's quite possible that there is just a single pool of Corp cards, a single pool of Runner cards, and only the identity cards have factions.  Some cards may relate to a faction, but most of them might not.

I don't know if this is how it works or not, but I think we've been making an assumption that hasn't actually been confirmed yet.

dboeren said:

If you look at the preview cards, most if not all of them seem to be marked for a specific faction.  Adonis Campaign, for instance, has the HB logo in the lower left corner - presumably for Haas-Bioroid.  Others show a large stylized W which I assume is Weyland.  Others are a bit harder to pin down exactly which is which, but nearly all the cards seem to be factioned.  The only one that stands out as rather obviously not is Private Security Force, which can be seen on the "fan" of cards on the Description page.

So I think it is pretty solidly confirmed that cards are factioned.  Also, with 17 cards previewed so far, only one seems to be neutral.  I suppose it's possible that the selection of cards for the preview is dramatically unusual in its faction:neutral ratio, but that seems unlikely.

Now what all that means remains to be seen.  If it's something like "All cards which don't match your corp identity cost 18 more bits to rez" which would obviously be pretty huge - it might not be an outright restriction, but it could be big enough that it might as well be.  On the other end of the scale, it could be dependent for certain effects - rather than "Search your deck for one ICE" it may be "Search your deck for one Jinteki ICE".

Still waiting to see, but the more I consider it the more I'm worried about it.  I'd love for FFG to respond to some of the concerns or show us some more info quickly, but that's just not the way they do things.  I expect we'll be swinging in the wind until at least GenCon, if we're lucky.

One other thing: The cards seem to be colored by faction, not by type.  Compare Hadrians Wall and the Neural Katana.  Which seems to me that it indicates a pretty important role for faction.  From a design standpoint, big obvious things like color should go to important design elements.  If they chose color to be determined by card faction rather than card type…  <shrug>

Oh…  Hm.  I was about to ask what the little blue dots next to the faction symbol were, since I didn't remember anything like that from the original, but I think I just figured it out.  I'll bet a starter box to the first taker that it's some form of faction depth requirement, same as Warhammer: Invasion uses, where you can't use that card unless you already have a certain number of cards from that faction.

If that's the case…  Wow.  I really hope that's not the case.