The opposite where I live, a conservative area. Anyone makes a Trump joke and everyone gets horribly triggered. No one can take a joke.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2018/11/9/archon-names/
Apparently:
What are the words!?!  My mind can't handle it!  Was it Poop Dragon?!  Scuzzy the Pirate & His Incredible Booty!?  What!?
 
* * *
 
 

The World of Android book was a sourcebook looking for a RPG all along. 

Shadow of the Beanstalk

Woo-hoo!

This reminds me of the game '504'. For those who don't know it: It's named '504' because the game consists of nine rule modules that can be combined in different ways to create a new game. So, a game of '987' is slightly different from a game of '789' or '986', while a game of '123' would be very different.
It presented an interesting problem for reviewers, because how do rate such a game? You can rate a specific combination of modules you played, but the game as a whole?
You would have to play a lot of different combinations to get a good idea of how a certain combination of modules might play without actually trying it.
For 'Discover' I'd actually think, it's not as difficult to compare gameplay. At least everyone's playing with the same ruleset!
And if the designers have done a good job, I think the chance to get a 'dud' that isn't fun to play should be really low. Conversely, it should be extremely rare to get a copy that for some reason is significantly more fun than the 'average'. Personal preferences would very likely have a larger impact on a reviewers rating, as the discussion over 'desert' vs. 'arctic' in a different thread already illustrated.

This reminds me of the game '504'. For those who don't know it: It's named '504' because the game consists of nine rule modules that can be combined in different ways to create a new game. So, a game of '987' is slightly different from a game of '789' or '986', while a game of '123' would be very different.
It presented an interesting problem for reviewers, because how do rate such a game? You can rate a specific combination of modules you played, but the game as a whole?
You would have to play a lot of different combinations to get a good idea of how a certain combination of modules might play without actually trying it.
For 'Discover' I'd actually think, it's not as difficult to compare gameplay. At least everyone's playing with the same ruleset!
And if the designers have done a good job, I think the chance to get a 'dud' that isn't fun to play should be really low. Conversely, it should be extremely rare to get a copy that for some reason is significantly more fun than the 'average'. Personal preferences would very likely have a larger impact on a reviewers rating, as the discussion over 'desert' vs. 'arctic' in a different thread already illustrated.

Ah! You've beaten me to it. That's exactly the point I was going to make: A board game with a very high degree of customization will typically result in a very high effort to set up the game. It's the #1 complaint about an otherwise extremely well received board game like 'Gloomhaven': You get a ton of components, but setting up a mission takes a lot of time.
I've recently acquired a copy of 'Magic Realm' and when setting it up for the first time it took me well over an hour. Imho, this golden oldie (first released in 1979) is the ultimate board game sandbox, but there's a high price to pay: the rules are incredibly complex and setup is quite convoluted. You also have to learn how to play each of the very different characters with some success. All of this requires a lot of effort and dedication from the players.
With 'Discover' you could achieve something similar with a minimum of effort. Theoretically, FGG could even set up the decks, etc. so all you have to do would be to get everything out of the box and start playing. Of course you're paying a different price here: For a different play experience you need to buy a new copy of the game...
Otherwise, I agree, it's a lot like FFG released a new edition of 'Arkham Horror' with all expansions included right from the start, except every player just gets a random subset.
Personally, I don't mind a long setup time and if it's a game I expect to play a lot, I also don't mind buying expansions, since the total cost is spread out over a long period of time. But I can definitely see a market for games like 'Discover'.
I do wonder about the amount of playtesting that went into 'Discover': One advantage of the expansion approach is that you can react to design flaws in the base game and attempt to fix them over time. For 'Discover' this isn't possible, yet the amount of material that has been created and has to be playtested is just as large (if not larger). I consider that a bigger challenge than producing a 'unique' game.

Ah! You've beaten me to it. That's exactly the point I was going to make: A board game with a very high degree of customization will typically result in a very high effort to set up the game. It's the #1 complaint about an otherwise extremely well received board game like 'Gloomhaven': You get a ton of components, but setting up a mission takes a lot of time.
I've recently acquired a copy of 'Magic Realm' and when setting it up for the first time it took me well over an hour. Imho, this golden oldie (first released in 1979) is the ultimate board game sandbox, but there's a high price to pay: the rules are incredibly complex and setup is quite convoluted. You also have to learn how to play each of the very different characters with some success. All of this requires a lot of effort and dedication from the players.
With 'Discover' you could achieve something similar with a minimum of effort. Theoretically, FGG could even set up the decks, etc. so all you have to do would be to get everything out of the box and start playing. Of course you're paying a different price here: For a different play experience you need to buy a new copy of the game...
Otherwise, I agree, it's a lot like FFG released a new edition of 'Arkham Horror' with all expansions included right from the start, except every player just gets a random subset.
Personally, I don't mind a long setup time and if it's a game I expect to play a lot, I also don't mind buying expansions, since the total cost is spread out over a long period of time. But I can definitely see a market for games like 'Discover'.
I do wonder about the amount of playtesting that went into 'Discover': One advantage of the expansion approach is that you can react to design flaws in the base game and attempt to fix them over time. For 'Discover' this isn't possible, yet the amount of material that has been created and has to be playtested is just as large (if not larger). I consider that a bigger challenge than producing a 'unique' game.

It seems that FFG cannot help themselves just like EA when they discovered loot boxes.  FFG's 2nd game into the ALL IN gambling Loot Box mechanic.  It seems that FFG looked at EA's profits and said, lets copy EA's loot box; its working so well for them.  I guess they didn't get the notice from the governments AROUND the world.  Legalisation is being updated and these games will eventually be regulated. 
Update
I find nothing wrong with FFG selling Unique Experiences.  The concept is actually rather interesting.  The MAJOR problem with their implementation is using Blind Box / Loot Box mechanic to sell product.  The easy fix that will save them from governments around the world, is to simply print the contents of the game on the box.  This could be done via a flip out so that players that DO NOT want this information, can avoid it until after the purchase.  However, players that DO want this information, can just flip open the box and see what's inside.
The only reason NOT to include this information is for FFG to leverage the gambling mechanics of a loot box to push product. 

I love the idea of trading your copy for another.
I love the idea of doing this over and over again.
i want every copy to have a guest book. Everyone who plays signs in.

As a solipsist you just described my every waking moment. ?

Well, plenty of more casually oriented players have been asking for this kind of thing. Sounds like fun.

Well, plenty of more casually oriented players have been asking for this kind of thing. Sounds like fun.

Well, plenty of more casually oriented players have been asking for this kind of thing. Sounds like fun.

Translating into German is a lot easier than translating into Australian. 

It is a stretch. Trust me on this. They haven't even officially used the M:tG setting for D&D in all those decades. (Although they released a few 'Plane Shift' articles unofficially, which are a pretty cool starting point.)
In fact, there is no Netrunner setting. The original CCG used 'Cyberpunk 2020' from Talsorian games as a setting and FFG used their 'Android' setting.

Indeed. Damon works as a Freelancer now. And Lukas, who _did_ join WotC works on other projects.

Awesome! I've been waiting for this. I don't particularly care about the Terrinoth setting, but then again I cared even less about the Warhammer setting ?
 

The thing the original game was based off of (Warhammer Quest) was a 4 hero player game.  They designed the original game (Warhammer Quest: The Card Game) with that in mind.

As you play, you have 4 action cards you can use.  You exhaust the card when you take that action.  You have 1 action card that refreshes all of your cards.  Which one is different for each of the classes.  The whole (original) game was based on the limitations of 4 players.  It works really well, so it was probably an "if it's not broken," reasoning on leaving it at 4.

Awesome! I've been waiting for this. I don't particularly care about the Terrinoth setting, but then again I cared even less about the Warhammer setting ?
 

Awesome! I've been waiting for this. I don't particularly care about the Terrinoth setting, but then again I cared even less about the Warhammer setting ?
 

Awesome! I've been waiting for this. I don't particularly care about the Terrinoth setting, but then again I cared even less about the Warhammer setting ?
 

I always recommend “try before you buy.” Borrowed cards or paper proxies are fine for casual play. After a few weeks you’ll definitely get an idea of whether a particular set is a good bang for your buck.
I really look at TD as a Deluxe set with a $10 add on campaign. For the equivalent of a DLC side-story in a video game, it’s not great, but not bad. It has some balance issues but it’s a fun deckbuilding exercise, and I have yet to try it with the Revised Core Set.
Best cards for constructed play: 
Abagnale/Demara as in-faction breakers for Criminal that suck less, Maxwell James, Deep Data Mining, Ubax, Laguna Velasco District, Dean Lister, Biometric Spoofing, the Shadow Net
 
Elective Upgrade, Estelle Moon, Marilyn Campaign!, Ultraviolet Clearance, Skorpios, Illegal Arm’s Factory, Colossus, Hortum, Hunter Seeker, IPO!!!

Rotation applies to Data Packs, full stop. The rotation schedule is explicitly a mechanism by which Data Packs leave the card pool based on the release of subsequent packs. Anything else that gets retired is done as an ad hoc decision, and thus far the only instance of that is the old Core Set. Everything the developers said indicated such decisions would be strictly case-by-case if at all.
As to whether her or not TD will ever leave the card pool? No one knows. There’s nothing inherently wrong with not having cards for *all* the factions, after all, especially since at the time Anarch and NBN were king of the hill.
If they ever did decide to retire it, I would expect it to cycle out in concert with either the Mumbad/Flashpoint block or the Red Sun/Kitara block. I.E. not for an awfully long time.

Yes, I meant, I'd like to see the card texts.
However, in the meantime I've already made up my mind and decided I'm going to get the set. For some reason I'm currently rather hyped about Netrunner again