Points of distinction between Android: Netrunner & Original Netrunner and some analysis
Here's a summary of the main points of distinction between Fantasy Flight Games' (FFG) Android: Netrunner (A:NR) and Wizards of the Coast's [Original/Old] Netrunner (O:NR), as well as a bit of off-the-cuff analysis. Keep in mind that I'm coming from an "old school" point of view and so may use "Clicks" and "actions", and "Credits" and "bits" interchangeably, or possibly even revert to type and accidentally stick with the O:NR terminology altogether. "Clicks"... ugh! I'm also more likely to use "Corp" instead of "Corporation".
Note also this is deliberately being written effectively 'cold', in that I composed most of these thoughts before even playing one game of A:NR. As such, it is a clinical assessment of the distinctions of the two rule sets rather than an evaluation of how the old game played or new game now plays. In that sense it is a somewhat unsophisticated evaluation.
Distribution Model
O:NR was a CCG, with boosters and rarity. A:NR is an LCG, which if you're unfamiliar is a card game distribution model without rarity. The starter set (Core) has everything that you need to play, although given that there is an upper limit of three of any one card in a deck, and some cards appear in the Core set only once, you may find (this is untested speculation) that you will want to invest in more than one Core.
After that, monthly boosters (equivalent in card quantity and packing style to a standard CCG starter) are released, however due to the flat rarity you get less individually distinct cards, but enough to constitute a play set of these cards. E.g. in the first expansion Genesis Cycle, each expansion subset ("data pack") contains sixty cards, which is three each of the twenty individual cards in the subset. Thus over six months, buying roughly one starter-deck equivalent a month, you acquire a full CCG expansion's worth of cards, guaranteed. There are no chase rares, no need to trade, and this you can make of what you will.
It's worth noting that Alderac Entertainment Group (AEG) attempted something akin to this with their Rolling Thunder monthly release program. While still based on the CCG model, expansions such as the Scorpion Clan Coup were subdivided into three releases of roughly sixty cards each, instead of a single block release of the full 180 cards. Coupled with a flattened rarity scheme (U1, U2, C1, C2) Rolling Thunder was a success with the players, who could readily acquire a full set, and a bomb with the distributors and retailers, who quickly found themselves drowning in undesirable overstock. FFG seems to have found a way to make something similar work in their LCG model, however and have achieved success with both of A Game of Thrones (AGoT) and Call of Cthulhu LCGs.
Of the LCG model, some will find the distribution model economically attractive. Some, conversely, will find that the lack of the social element of CCG participation gained from trading, or the status inherent in completion of a difficult-to-acquire full set of an expansion to be a detraction.
Card Pool
O:NR debuted it's core set with 374 cards, of 187 cards for either side (Corp and Runner), in a rarity scheme of Vital, Common, Uncommon and Rare. Vitals were core cards, such as Agenda, or Icebreakers that either side needed to play and were found only in starter decks. These initially traded as Common cards, but quickly became giveaways as the local environment's card pool expanded.
A:NR is starting out with 252 cards in its Core set (four of these are not playable); these are spread as 134 Corp cards (28 Identity-specific each and 22 Neutral cards), and 114 Runner cards (33 Identity-specific each and 15 Neutral cards).
This far more constrained pool of cards will limit the initial deck variety. The hoped-for longevity of this version of the game should quickly expand the pool available, starting in December 2012(?). Each monthly expansion from then on will add 60 cards, three each (i.e. playset) of twenty individual card titles. The Genesis Cycle (expansion set) has six sub-sets ("data packs") accumulating to ⅔ of a standard-sized (CCG, 180 card) expansion of approximately 120 cards. By the end of the first expansion set, then, we will have slightly less (368) cards available than the O:NR core, but significantly less than O:NR core and the Proteus expansion. The conclusion of the third expansion set should then just (608 > 578) see the available pool exceed the total cards available to O:NR (including the fifty card mini-expansion of Netrunner Classic).
I believe that, as with the AGoT LCG, there is scope for the inclusion of biannual "major expansion" sets that are roughly double the size of the standard expansion pack, and have been used to introduce entirely new factions to the game. Watch this space for the confirmation of my prediction that the first of these (should it eventuate) will add a fourth Runner faction, bringing them into symmetry with the four Corp factions.
Identities
The introduction of identities to the A:NR game removes a level of immersion that the O:NR game used to have. The lack of any identity in the original game beyond the faceless Corp or Runner deck actually invited personalisation. If a Corp player announced that they were playing "Arasaka", then that suggested a "Tag'n'bag" style of deck designed to flatline the runner as its primary win condition. In translating Netrunner into the Android universe setting, FFG decided to make distinct Identity cards for the Corp and Runner in keeping with the (Corporate at least) entities already established in the setting.
Identities add a degree of complexity to deck construction. Each identity is a faction and has faction-specific cards (primarily Agenda, which have no influence value and therefore cannot be played outside of the owning faction), as well as faction-related cards that they can play freely. The identities provide a deck limit (all 45 card minima for the Core set and thus-far previewed Genesis Cycle data pack #1 "What Lies Ahead"), as well as an Influence "cap". The cap represents the maximum points of influence (all extant are currently 15) that a deck can contain from cards outside the faction. In addition the Identity card provides a special ability - which is unavoidably called for to be a point of distinction between the Core set Identities of each faction and forthcoming ones from the expansions.
Thus identities constrain card choices, as well as provide an immediately available ability to the player of that deck, regardless of the deformation of the environment that this might provide.
The constrained card selection is interesting to consider in A:NR vs what cards were staples in O:NR. Commonly included [Runner]cards such as Jack'n'Joe (0 bits Prep; Draw three cards.), Livewire's Contacts (0 bits Prep; Gain 3 bits), and Score! (5 bits Prep; Gain 9 bits) have correspondences with Diesel (0 bits Shaper Event; Draw three cards. 2 Influence), Easy Mark (0 bits Criminal Event; Gain three credits. 1 Influence) and Sure Gamble (5 bits Neutral Event; Gain 9 bits). It's immediately obvious that if you're used to including the old staples in your Runner deck then you have some choices to make regarding how much influence you want to have available for the rest of the deck customisation.
Note: There's an analogous situation for the Corp, with Efficiency Experts (0 bits Operation; Gain 3 bits), Accounts Receivable (5 bits Operation; Gain 9 bits) and Annual Reviews (0 bits Operation; Draw three cards.); matched by Beanstalk Royalities (0 bits Weyland Operation; Gain 3 bits. 1(?) Influence), Hedge Fund (5 bits Neutral Operation; Gain 9 bits), and Anonymous Tip (0 bits NBN Operation; Draw three cards. 1 Influence).
So, looking at identities broadly, they constrain the cards available to build decks from, which is a negative, hopefully to be overcome moderately early in the games evolution. On the flip side of this they force choice and decision making into the deckbuilding phase of the game and that's a positive aspect.
Card Limits
Card limits in deck building are imposed not only by the LCG model, but also the introduction of Identities and the influence cap. The LCG model is intended to reduce the number of required purchases to achieve a playset, such that for an expansion pack, you only need to buy one copy to have all the cards from that expansion that you will need. This immediately suggests that you need to determine how many of any one card a player will require, and in the case of A:NR, that has been set to three. O:NR had no limitation when initially released; although in an interview with FFG, the original game's designer Richard Garfield stated that the game quickly moved towards an informal deck limit of three or four copies of any one card. This house rule wasn't widely accepted in the Adelaide scene, to my recollection.
The Influence mechanic also suggests the need for a card limit, as it becomes a toothless constraint if a player is able to populate a deck with multiple copies of a certain potent in-faction card, without having to consider going out-of-faction. I.e. being able to include up to five copies of card X militates against the need to include two copies of a similar card Y from another faction's pool.
The decision to set a card limit of three could be seen as arbitrary, influenced primarily by the distribution model. If expansion packs are sixty cards each, then including a playset of four of each means that the expansion subset only has fifteen different cards, and a full expansion cycle of 120 cards would then require eight subsets to complete the expansion. With a playset limit of three, instead, then each expansion pack can have twenty distinct cards and only six subsets to complete.
A three card limit could serve to limit the occurrence of some of the more "degenerate" decks from O:NR which packed up to ten of certain cards, e.g. "Big Dig" which relied upon some ten Top Runner's Conference bit-gainers to accumulate a massive pool of money before making one all-or-nothing run at the R&D to access as many cards as possible. A caveat here is that very few of the O:NR decks could truly be considered degenerate. The apparent arbitrariness of the three card limit may instead be a well-tested decision, and set to encourage a desired level of deck building diversity.
Note that the three card limit is acknowledged as a "buy more" option for those running off purely a starter set - multiple cards in the set appear only once or twice and so this encourages buying several Core sets of A:NR, which is a not insignificant buy-in. The three card limit is unlikely to moderate competitive decks away from the tuned 45 card minimum imposed by all extant Identity cards released or previewed.
Agenda Limits
There is a subtle but highly influential change here; A:NR increases the amount of agenda required in a deck. Also, the terminology changes between the two games, in that O:NR referred to a maximum deck size based upon a number of agenda points included in the deck, while A:NR refers to a specific (minimum) number of agenda points required based on the size of the Corp deck. Importantly, at the five-multiple counts of deck sizes there is a variation in the number of required agenda points. A:NR requires a minimum two additional agenda points at the 40, 45, 50, etc. deck size.
To see this more readily, consider the following table:
Agenda pointsO:NR max deckA:NR deck limitO:NR min(cards)A:NR min(cards)18-1945 (&min)40-44454020-215045-49504522-235550-54555024-256055-596055
Deceptively, this looks like on initial reading that the Corp has a better time of hiding agenda in O:NR. Consider instead this table:
Deck size (cards)O:NR min(AgPt) A:NR min(AgPt)451820 46...492020502022 51..542222552224 56..592424602426
Here it is easier to see that the new game has, at certain specific points, increased the number of agenda points available for scoring (to both sides). One consideration here is that to meet the minimum agenda requirements in A:NR then R&D is going to have effectively one more Agenda card (at the very loose approximation of one Agenda card = 2 agenda points), making it a marginally richer hunting ground for the Runner; a less heavily populated R&D will yield less "hits" when run consistently. Alternatively, it may lead to a de-tuning of Corporate decks in A:NR to try and better hide the Agenda in R&D, padding a deck out to 49 cards if it has to have 20 agenda points worth of cards.
Mulligan Rule
O:NR had an informal "house" rule used in some areas for an "Iceless Mulligan"; should the Corp's opening hand contain no Ice at all, the Corp player requested a reshuffle and redraw; the Runner either accepted and could also do likewise or - in less polite circles - could refuse and both would stick with their opening hands no matter how unfavourable. A:NR's mulligan rule is simply an instantiation in the rule book of such polite play.
While it's nice to see this formalised in the rule book, I do still believe that Iceless Mulligans are unnecessary, and would recommend to new players of the A:NR game that they do not employ the rule. It telegraphs a bad opening hand, whereas never employing it maintains the bluff and counterbluff element so vital to good Netrunner play. Learn to play around a less than optimal opening hand, and you'll improve not only your Netrunner, but also your Poker and Chess play.
Traces
A fundamental change between O:NR & A:NR is the change to the trace mechanic (cf. Tracing the Roots of Trace) Where in the original game traces were conducted as a blind bid, each side investing a certain (hidden) number of bits and revealing them simultaneously and then comparing Trace Value (number of Corp bits bid ≤ trace strength) vs Link Value (base link strength + number of Runner bits bid), in A:NR this has been modified. Trace strength in O:NR was a limit on the amount that the Corp could spend, set by the card that activated the trace attempt, indicated by a tracen where n = trace limit. The new version of the trace mechanic has the Corp determining their bid and revealing this first, with the runner then choosing whether to invest in defending against the Corp's trace attempt altogether.
In the blind bid system, the theory was that both sides in the game would be forced to invest some bits; the Runner could not defend against a trace without some installed card that supplied a Base Link value. The removal of the blind bid apparently "hurt" Lukas Litzinger (A:NR designer), in that he felt it was one of the most attractive elements of the O:NR trace mechanic. The choice to alter the mechanics was done to improve the interactivity of traces while maintaining the integrity of the game economy (bits are crucial, a bit-less Corp is a vulnerable Corp, and a bit-less Runner is little threat). In addition, it presents an opportunity to build upon that mechanic for additional game effects in future card design.
In the new system, there is no trace limit nor upper link value beyond the availability of credits to the competing sides. The trace notation remains, however tracen now represents an initial value to the trace, prior to the Corp adding to it via an open bid. The Runner is no longer reliant upon having specific cards installed to establish a Base Link, as the Identity that they choose provides a minimal link value. Additional cards can increase that link value, but the main increase to link value in a trace attempt will come from the Runner's subsequent open bid in response to the Corp establishing a trace value.
The open bid mechanic is fine. Tracing has become less of a guessing game, in that the Runner will always know the trace value prior to having to commit credits to raising their link value. The interactivity of tracing then shifts from the blind bid stage of the trace to the Corp being the primary determinant of the trace outcome. Looking at the base trace strength and the amount of credits available to the Corp, vs the base link strength that the Runner has and the credits that they have available to commit (sometimes less than the total credits that the Runner has), the Corp is able to decide what to commit. Obviously an overcommit on the part of the Corp player will discourage the Runner from bidding any credits at all, as they know that they cannot exceed the trace and so won't waste their credits.
The Genesis Cycle should - based on early previews - mix this model up a little more. Some of the designs of cards in that expansion set indicate that it is no longer a case of all or nothing in trace attempts, but that some game effects can improve depending on how much the trace strength exceeds the link value. The Runner is then in a position where they may know that they cannot fully defend against a trace attempt but still want to commit credits to avoiding the trace as a form of damage limitation.
As such there seems to be an immediate card design benefit to the altered trace mechanism, although early thinking about this might suggest that it is based upon the presumption that the Corp is going to win the trace and the runner is trying to mitigate the effects of the successful trace, whereas it may be that if this is not the case then the Corp player will find those cards relatively useless and cease to play them.
Viruses and Foregoing Clicks
O:NR had a rule which prevents the expenditure of any resource for an effect unless the full cost can be paid. There was one exception to this: spending actions. If either side needed to spend an action and had none (or insufficient) remaining in the current turn, then the cost was incurred against any remaining required actions on that player's subsequent turn. A:NR has a similar rule regarding the expenditure of a resource: "If the player cannot pay the full cost of an ability, he cannot trigger it." (p.11, Paid Abilities sidebar) and reiterated on p.21 Triggered Abilities "If the player cannot pay the full cost of an ability, he cannot trigger it." (emphasis mine).
The upshot of this is that in O:NR the Corp had the option to pre-spend actions from a forthcoming turn to purge all virus counters, which could be initiated at almost any time (when triggered abilities could be activated). This was often exploited when the Runner laid down the final virus counter required to activate the (next level of) effect of the virus card that gave the counter. By my best reading of the A:NR rulebook, the three clicks cost to perform a virus purge can only be done at the start of the Corp player's turn (after their mandatory card draw), effectively as the first action of the Corp player's turn.
This shifts the ability of the Corp to remove virus counters at a whim, to being forced to await the beginning of their turn. The change moves the efficacy of virus counters (and cards) back towards the Runner's benefit, who now has a more time(ly) guarantee of the effects being deployed against the Corp. Previously the Corp could handily negate a virus-oriented setup and immediately waste multiple turns of Runner activity, often involving costly runs.
Bad Publicity
Bad Publicity (BP) was introduced in the O:NR expansion of Proteus as a means of "flatlining" the Corp player by forcing them to take seven BP counters and immediately lose the game. A loss due to bad publicity took precedence even over scoring a seventh agenda point. Other than that BP counters were only passive bad news (pun intended) for the Corp. BP decks never really shone, in my mind, because the deck determined to win by BP was so focussed on delivering it that it failed to threaten the Corp along any of the other Runner win conditions. In fact the BP counters simply sat there, ignored, until the seventh one dropped and the Corp could totally ignore them unless they also played self-inflicted BP in which case it had to play around the "threat", potentially disrupting its own game plan.
Now, in A:NR, BP counters have a more potent role in the game and Corp players may think a little harder (Hostile Takeover notwithstanding) before choosing to self-inflict BP. In A:NR, each BP counter provides the runner with one free credit at the start of each run (for the duration of the run only), and if the Runner's deck is set up well enough that he can run for only as many bits as he gets from the negative press afflicting the Corporation, then he runs for free, every action! Free runs spell bad news for the Corp.
I like this extension to the idea of Bad Publicity, as it makes it far more relevant to the game, and as the card pool evolves and Runner decks get (more) cards that can inflict BP on the Corp, then this presents a strengthening position to the Runner over the course of the game. The more BP afflicting the Corp, the "cheaper" runs become, as the more free bits there are available to the Runner. It does, however, present one more shift in balance between the two sides towards the Runner.
Forfeiting Agenda
Certain cards in O:NR allowed the player to forfeit a number of Agenda points as a cost. A:NR, thus far, only offers effects that require the forfeiting of "an agenda", so presumably referring to the scored Agenda card itself. The effect of this is that in the old game any forfeiting of scored agenda points allowed the player to retain the scored agenda card, and any effects that it granted remained in play. In the new game, the points and the card are removed from the game.
In both games, forfeiting agenda is a gamble, here favouring the Corp who presumably as the ability to forfeit an Agenda in full knowledge of the cost/benefit, being able to sacrifice a low value scored agenda to better protect or score a high value Agenda. For the Runner, the risk/reward ratio is higher, and there may be a bad ROI when forfeiting a high value Agenda (even in the best of all cases) for no or lesser gain; the advanced card that you can access due to additional bits gained from sacrificing an Agenda may not be another Agenda. That said it is (almost) always better to score an Agenda (no matter the cost) than allowing the Corp to score it.
In this instance the jury is out, somewhat, as to whether this change better favours the Runner or the Corp. Looking at it from the Corp point of view, it seems to be a surer bet (or at least a better strategy) to forfeit Agenda than it is for the Runner. On the down side for the Corp, removing a scored agenda card from the game and so potentially losing access to an ongoing resource, such as Private Security Company's ability to inflict Meat Damage is less attractive in A:NR than merely forgoing the two agenda points that might be a cost in O:NR.
"Side" Balance
It was a common (mis)perception of O:NR, especially for new players, that the Corp side was stronger. This misconception arose because the uninitiated perceived (without necessarily being able to articulate precisely) that the Corp was the gatekeeper to the primary win condition of the game (i.e. seven agenda points). All of the Agenda lay in R&D or HQ, pace. installation, and there was no way for the runner to win non-interactively. Runs had to be made to steal the Agenda and even if the Corp did nothing to defend R&D, dumb luck meant that the (essentially random) access from the top could often net you nothing.
This misconception ignored the economies of the two sides; though again, once rezzed, Ice was there for the duration , barring certain effects. Additionally, the misconception continued, that Ice subroutines, once broken, did not remain broken post-run (technically, it did not remain broken post-encounter).
A:NR seems to have shifted several game elements to favour the Runner. There is a slight increase in the availability of agenda points in the Corp deck, Virus counters are marginally more potent, Bad Publicity now has a direct effect that benefits the Runner, and the decision to spend credits to obviate a trace attempt comes after the Corp has committed their credits. Even the new variant cost of forfeiting of Agenda (vs agenda points) does not seem to favour the Corp. Cumulatively this all seems to point towards a shift in balance towards the Runner.
With the constrained card pool of the Core set, this may all be less evident, although even here with only three Runner factions vs four Corp factions, there is a favourable influence for the Runner. There is less influence-bound decision making in constructing a Runner deck, despite a slightly lower card count in the pool available in Core. As such this all begins to feel like an attempt to counterbalance the perception of Corporate strength back towards the runner to provide a more "balanced" game between the two sides.
Conclusion
As long term aficionados of the game will attest, the Runner in O:NR had as much, if not more capability to dictate the flow of the game in its original incarnation. Providing the Runner side with more strength could indeed be a significant detraction from the game's balance. Subsequent expansions will need to manage this power balance carefully, even more so than normal. To conclude with an old saying from an old dog, then: "If the worms are out of the can, then it will take an even bigger can to put them all back in again."
Forthcoming
Assuming there's enough of a positive reaction to this article I may consider a future one. While I'm happy to consider things like "Faction" Balance (who's the stronger Corp, or better Runner faction), an early analysis of What Lies Ahead (Data pack #1 from Genesis Cycle), depending on availability of the previews, and other thoughts I am also happy to take on board questions from the readership and seek to address them. Let me know if you're interested.