MarthWMaster said:

Sounds like a Criminal Runner to me

• Anarchs like Noise Reilly work from their hatred for corporate corruption. Some might say they champion the oppressed and the downtrodden, but it’s more likely that they’re interested purely in the act of ripping apart corporate lies and spreading their viruses to hinder the corporate machine.
• Criminals like Gabriel Santiago are in it for the credits. They get paid for the secrets they uncover. Consummate professionals, these runners believe in taking as few risks as possible, and never the ones they consider unnecessary.
• Shapers like Kate McCaffrey are considered idealistic naifs by many. They’re not in the business to tear down corporations nor for personal gain. They run because they can. They take joy runs to see what they can make out of new combinations of hardware and software. Accordingly, their tech is usually among the most modded and sophisticated of any runner’s.

flamejuggler said:

How does the fact that it's the design of the game not make it a limitation? I understand that by focusing on that one small aspect of the genre it allows them to get pretty in depth on that aspect. But in the process they cut off a lot of potential aspects that could also be a part of the game. Corp vs. Corp wouldn't have to be a "solitaire race" if the game was designed from the get-go to take that into consideration.

My main issue here really is that in a constructed deck game I expect to be able to make and play the deck I want to play. So if I build a Runner deck I want to be able to play a Runner. Now if my opponent wants to play his Runner, the game says we cannot play. One of us has to put away their Runner deck and play a deck they don't necessarily want to play. I don't care how you cut it, that is a limitation. Yes it is a fundamental aspect of the game, that limits it to one particular type of play.

I should probably point out though that this really isn't the main problem with this game for me. The real problem with this game for me is the lack of multiplayer. I didn't really bring it up before because that is more an issue with my personal play-group than anything else. In fact my core play-group kind of boils down to 3 players, so any game that cuts off one of those players is not going to get a lot of play time. Heck, I think having some form of multi-player would actually help mitigate the Corp vs. Runner requirement. At the very least I suspect it would make that requirement a little onerous by spreading it over multiple players.

Anyway, thank you all for your replies. I'll keep poking my head in every now and again since I do like some aspects of the game (the artwork, the universe, etc.). We'll see how things go.

KEM said:

The thing is, you don't make a Runner deck.  Similar to Decipher's Star Wars CCG, with it's Light/Dark side cards, in Netrunner every player is expected to have both a Runner and a Corp deck.  Most games are actually a pair of games, each player playing each side.

You may not be comfortable with that, maybe because you don't want to have to collect both sides, or don't like the idea of ever playing the Corp, whatever.  That's fine.  But I think most people are taking exception to your describing it as a limitation - if you only want to play half the game, that's fine, but that doesn't really fit the definition of a limitation.

 yeah, the game wouldn't be the same at all. "Limitation" sounds like you are implying it would be better if it was as flexible as you describe. It would be a VERY different game if what you describe was possible.  The magic of the asymetrical matchup would be totally different, and not the same game at all.  The thing you are complaining about is what makes netrunner great.  It really isnt a limitation, its a choice.  Don't play if you only play multiplayer and things that can be totally symetrical.  This isnt that game.  Everything you are complaining about is WHY the game is awesome. try it, or don't, but don't diss it for not being a game its not trying to be…

 All game design is about limitation. There is no game that is not without its limitations on you the player. This one is not more limiting than any other, it just has one you dislike, which is certainly your right. Thanks for sharing with us. Now that you know it is not the game for you, you won't mind of course if we politely move on to other topics that don't include why you don't like the game but feel the need to publicly post such dissatisfaction instead of just going to a forum for a game you do like.

Carrying on, we know that there are factions, we can extrapolate that the economy of the game was adjusted a little bit, the art and graphic design has eben completely redone, it is not compatible with the old cards, walls have become barriers…

What else?

Penfold said:

Well, we know that there is a new type of card called an Identity card, and that they belong to factions too.  It seems likely that your identity card functions as a leader for your deck in some way and additional Identity cards will come out for each faction as time goes on.  It is unknown whether your Identity is public from the start or revealed during play.

We know that there is a card limit now, almost certainly 3x.

The type "Fracter" seems to be a new keyword to refer to Barrier icebreakers.  In other FFG LCG's, they seem to like releasing cards later on that use these keywords.

The "Noisy" keyword appears to no longer exist, this is suspected to be one reason why the Barrier ice we've seen has been amped up considerably - because it no longer requires the use of a type of icebreaker with a built-in drawback.  It might also be that Stealth cards will refer to the "Fracter" keyword directly to accomplish a similar effect to the old Noisy.

Tags are certainly in the game still, we've seen them mentioned on many  cards.  But, we have not seen anything about Trace or Link.  This mechanic may have been simplified or removed.  That is, we may just see "give a tag" subroutines instead of trace subroutines.  Also, cards that in the old game gave a base link value may be replaced with ones that have you pay a set amount to avoid a trace, or pay a value related to the strength of the ice, etc…  This is just conjecture though.

I don't really get the logical leaps people are taking, that because a feature has not been seen in a handful of examples, it therefore risks being cut from the new release. In addition to the trace/link mechanic we haven't seen any fort upgrades and Sysops yet- are we to assume they have been cut as well? 

 I agree with you there. The entire talk about Trace/Link being removed was from Wormhole Surfer and we all know that he was a reactionary poster. Not to say he always has been just the guy was caught off guard (thought he had the inside track on info and turns out he was wrong) and responded poorly to it.

There has been nothing to indiate that Trace/Link has been altered in anyway… though I kind of hope it has been. Same reasons why I hope all references to dice have been removed. A streamlined game that is, IMO, easier to understand, has less fiddly bits, is easy to play and to teach, and puts the emphasis on the primary strategies involved in game play rather than side interactions.

I hope FFG simplifies some aspects of Netrunner and makes the core rules more solid but doesn't limit the tactical choices of the old games. More complicated rules doesn't mean better strategy for me. It means poorly written rules more. I would like to see dice gone also. I am ok with some minor random effects but I would not want to lose the game because of the die roll. Also card game shouldn't need dice. You can create some random effects with cards also.

Surreal said:

If "Crypsis" is any indication, it looks like they are moving away from dice rolls.

 I am reminded of a card game, cyberpunk, that came out… a WHILE a go. That game was clunky. Likely a result of its 'corp vs. corp' and 'anything vs. anything' style of play. Made it untenable, uncollectable and unmanagable. IMO

vermillian said:

I think you might be remembering the attempt at a Shadowrun CCG. I remember it being pretty clunky.

 Nope. Cyberpunk the ccg 

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/11826/cyberpunk-the-collectible-card-game

And yes, also Shadowrun, but that was in 97 when CCGs really still didn't know what they're doing (not that half of them now know…). 

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2123/shadowrun-the-trading-card-game

Penfold said:

HI, didn't find the tiem to reply yet here … couldl you explain me in details what you mean about me please ? my non native english maybe make me understand the thing in a wrong way

thx so much

Surreal said:

did you really lost some games with dice roll ?