Android: Netrunner-A Review (by Dave Morgans)
Here’s a review that Dave posted to a local gaming Facebook group, after learning to play Android: Netrunner and had a chance to try a few games at our place one weekend. Further comments are from Emma, lifted from the same group, which Dave thought deserved to be included after I asked him if I could replicate the review here for posterity. Note that there are a few terminology issues in the review, which I’ve chosen to leave uncorrected.
Android: Netrunner
I've played a few CCG's in my time. Magic, Star Wars, Star Trek, Warlord, L5R, Babylon 5 and Raw Deal...there are probably more in the cupboard that I've forgotten, but that is also probably for the best.
This...is not like them. It is most like a game called Netrunner. Probably because its mostly the same game, updated, 'ported into a new world, cleaned and standardized to make it work with the new distribution.
A:N is a Asymmetrical LCG, where skill and tactics (and some luck) will beat the most masterful deckbuilder most of the time. So... why is that, and what the hell do those terms mean?
LCG or Living Card Game, is the distribution model. You start with the Core set, which gives you all the factions with enough non-faction specific cards to get away with making 1 constructed deck for each side. Then they monthly release 'boosters' of 60 cards. Well 3 copies of 20 different cards. Meaning if you buy the Core and 1 copy of each Booster, you'll have 3 copies of every card...except for the ones in the Core that didn't come with 3 (grr, argh). Basically it means no squabbling for trades, and if you keep up with buying the expansions, you'll keep up with the power curve, no problem, for a small fee each month. That would be my personal whinge about CCG's, in that you could buy your way to the powerful cards, which had a big impact on your ability to win (mainly because at the time, I didn't have the cash to do it).
Asymmetrical means...well, you can look that it up, you're smart people. In terms of this game though, it means that there is an 'attacker' and a 'defender' in each match, which don't adhere to the same rules of construction*, mechanics or victory conditions. For A:N, that means you have a Corporation (defender) trying to prevent the Runner (attacker) from kicking down his defences and stealing the research secrets (Agenda points) before they themselves can complete the research and score the Agendas.
So on my first night of playing A:N I was introduced to the Corporation. Personally I would say that the Corporation is the easier of the two sides to play. This mainly stems from the fact that the Runner actually has to do something to win, whereas you simply go about your business - every turn they spend deciding if Running is worth it, is a turn you get closer to winning.
It isn't quite that simple, obviously. You have multiple data forts to protect (or decide which to protect, and how), you need to generate money to pay for your actions, juggle your spending so as to keep the ICE you have unrevealed threatening for the Runner, keep your handing ticking over to find new and more entertaining cards to play. And you only have a handful of actions available per turn before the Runner gets his go again.
The next time around, I'd whipped up some decks and tried out the Runner.
The Runner's job is to nip into the Corporations dataforts and try and find Agenda's. Whereas the Corporation completes Agenda's by advancing a facedown card within a data fort until the right moment, then flipping it and scoring it, the Runner can score an Agenda from anywhere - Archives (discard), R&D (deck), HQ (hand) or an Auxillary Data Fort (perhaps the one with the facedown advanced card in?). He does this by making a Run at the location, first cutting through, suffering or merely evading the ICE laid out in front of it, and then at the resolution of the run, potentially revealing an Agenda (or walking into a trap, messing with files or growling unhappily at nothing).
Unlike the Corp, the Runner builds up Software (generally integral to bring down the ICE), Hardware and Resources. He has a limit on Software (there’s only so much RAM, homes!) though, and he can't churn through his hand - his hand represents his life (if you have to discard a card, and can't... you die).
In short, its a very tactical game, but you can't sit around waiting (if your the runner) as the Corp simply gets stronger when you do. There’s a strange mix of impulse, intuition and bluffing involved in getting this one right, and when it does, tis awesome.
...yes, I'm aware this probably told you very little about the game. But then that’s kinda hard to do. Its... different.
Construction* - by which I mean they use different types of cards, not that they can ignore the 3 card max or 1 of a unique card in play.
Emma says: I think I agree that early on, and with a good teacher, Corp is the easier of the two decks to play. Later, against better deck builds and more experienced players I think the ease of play evens out between Corp and Runner... personally I learnt to play old net runner as the Corp for my first rest dozen games, or so. After that I lashed out with a runner deck.
Also I've got to admit that I like this model LCG over CCG after my latest experience with L5R and the appalling sorting of the cards in each expansion. LCG seems much more affordable because I get all the cards every 'booster'. Thus takes away the 'who rares wins' scenario so prevalent in other games and brings it back to deck building skill, play style and just how good you are at lying to your opponent.
Dave responded: Indeed. The different sides of the table favour different personality types.
Emma then responded: To a degree... Tho I'd suggest balls are required for both Runner and Corp. Knowing when to install and advance that agenda can sometimes be as tricky as working out your optimal run strategy.
I think that the review, while not delving into the specifics of game play at all, serves as a good intro to the game, should you be contemplating buying in. Does the idea of the cut and thrust of cybernetic crime and data theft prevention appeal to you? Dave makes a good case for why A:NR is different to almost any other card game that you might have encountered before.
I might contend that I disagree with the assessment of the ease of play of the Corporation, although I can see the sense in the review/comment. There is a subtlety to playing the Corporation side that early in a player’s experience with the game can be missed. If the game is played in a “brute force” style, then yes, the Corporation holds all the cards (i.e. the winning cards, namely Agenda), quite literally.
It is up to the Runner to be proactive in attempting to steal them, and that may take finesse or luck (or making your own luck). As a starting Runner player, judging when to make the attack is difficult. That said, against an aggressive Runner, the Corporation player can find themselves under significant pressure and hence feel locked down against attempting to install Agenda and win the game. Knowing where to defend and when to spend the precious credits to activate their Ice defences is not as simple as it might first appear, as Emma alludes to in her final comment.
And this argument probably deserves an essay in its own right…