Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ariston

  • Rank
  • Birthday April 1

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    King Ariston
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Willow Grove, PA
  1. That all depends on which game you enjoy more and find more interesting. There's no objective answer to this question—at least in an accessible sense—the games are very different.
  2. Catching up on all the expansions and deluxe expansions for AGoT is going to be very expensive. I had been thinking about getting back into it early this year (I gave up on finding a regular play group by the end of the first round of chapter packs), and the up–front investment—even with buying only the packs I would need for the decks I was looking at—was discouraging, to say the least. Cheaper than MtG or something, for sure, but still non–negligible. There are things I really like about AGoT: I like that it lends itself to aggressive gameplay; I like the melee variant; I like the ‘flavor’ of it. I think the core of that game is great. But, there are things I like about Netrunner better (at least in theory at this point): The asymmetric gameplay, which lends itself to two very different deck–building and strategic skillsets you have to learn; the subtleties involved in the bluffing tactics by the Corp and the Runner's need to figure them out; what the asymmetry does to player interaction, &c. It's hard to see what a few cycles worth of data packs will do to the game, however. Yet, the investment is low, the core of the game is fantastic, and I'm willing to give it a go.
  3. The above issue is exactly why I use the side–loading Ultra Pro Pro Binders. Each slot fits six cards comfortably, so I can keep up to two playsets in nice order. I use online deckbuilding tools, I just like to be able to quickly find & retrieve my cards.
  4. I actually like this deck archetype better with only 45 cards; you want to accelerate getting the tags and finding the 2x Scorched Earth; you take some risk on getting the agendas eaten, but you're helped along by being able to pile up on core servers if necessary.
  5. Fair enough, though your comparison does not have nearly the same level of competitive impact.
  6. Khudzlin said: I also don't see a problem with the floor rules not explaining how to properly randomize a deck, because it is not in the scope of the rules. Um, how so?
  7. As the size of most A:NR tournaments should be small enough to not have to take into account a cut, the prestige system makes pairings fail together relatively easily, you'd likely be fine by hand or with a simple spreadsheet. Even if you would need to track cumulative prestige of opponents for determining a top 4/8, keeping track of that would not make for a very complicated sheet. DCI Reporter would not (I think) work because the range of values it allows for each player per match is too small to track prestige. (Someone more versed in that dark art may know better.) The current tournament rules do not have a rule for dealing with byes, which is very problematic in a system where players are paired based on a fairly dynamic points system; I wonder if the current expectation is to have the main TO play or drop out based on the number of players? (This is what I would do if organizing in absence of Word of FFG.)
  8. I can imagine not using all their types (e.g., keeping track of virus counters in another fashion) in competitive play (due to space & time concerns), but for casual play (especially at a home where you're more likely to have room to spread out) I'm always going to use them because I find a lot of tactile satisfaction in having physical objects to manipulate. More importantly, though, I think having an immediately tangible way to deal with the non-card permanent elements is very helpful for new players; remembering to manipulate dice can be difficult, or just not be a helpful way to immerse a new player. Experienced CCG players will probably not be as likely to benefit from this when learning, but those who are used to board games may feel a bit disconnected, and have a harder time understanding their opponent's board state. (It's harder to immediately see, for example, credits represented on dice, whereas a pile of the things is pretty obvious.*) Additionally: I am adverse to using dice to keep track of numbers in games (in competitive play, anyhow); they are usually not very quick to manipulate, and are easy to have accidents or "accidents" with. I think paper records of player credits are fine, while recurring credits and other credits on cards perhaps should be tokens. I was actually somewhat surprised by the fact that the current floor rules do not address these issues. They do mention that players are responsible for bringing their own tokens, but that doesn't mean tokens are required or preferred or what other methods are acceptable for keeping track of various game states. ► * If I want to to be more detailed in what I'm trying to get at here, the Heideggerian concepts of readiness-to-hand & presence-at-hand are what I am using to describe this to myself. Experienced players will often take that sort of abstract representation and interact with it in a way that does not require very much conscious attention, but new players have not become immersed in the game at all yet (the chits aren't even really "ready-to-hand"), much less at the level where further abstractions are natural. Obviously, persons differ in their ability to absorb the spaces defined by games as they are learning (such as being quick studies or having a lot of other experience to make analogies with), but even experienced players sometimes overestimate their ability to deal with concepts outside of physical reality. I've played Legend of the Five Rings for a number of years, but I realized that (despite what other experienced players often do), I needed a token in a particular place to represent one binary state for my board so I could immediately visualize whether it was a 0 or 1. (I am sick and stuck in a hotel room, which is going to be my excuse for the length of this reply.)
  9. As the Corp player, I think mulligans should be looked at differently from the way they are in other CCGs because of how absurdly punishing all-agenda hands can be (you aren't just "flooded", you're in real danger of quick defeat); normally, you will shuffle back a sub-optimal hand, but as prune's (in my opinion, correct) advice shows, though misdirection and confusing play, a Corp can play through very sub-optimal hands if the runner takes the bait. So far, I have been ignoring the mulligan opportunity unless I get hit with the dreaded 4-5 agenda hand; the chances of hitting this at all with decent randomization is already tiny*, so my caution may be paranoid, but the likelihood of getting hit twice off of two draws is miniscule. Proper shuffling removes a lot of problems. Any time I've noticed a player who has issues with getting regular low probability draws, it's either due to cheating or improper randomization technique; proper randomization technique matters, I've seem it in my own development as a gamer. While many players frown upon pile-shuffling in general, it is a good way to break up clumps of cards; as long as you do not repeat numbers of piles, use primes, and avoid numbers which are factors of your population, you are accomplishing something. Unlike other CCGs, A:NR does not currently require riffling, but you should do this (four-five times even if you piled), and should riffle your opponent's deck as well in competitive play. Any form of pile-shuffling can be used to cheat if pre-seeded. The absence of stricter shuffling rules is kind of strange to me; the AGoT floor rules require that a "combination of shuffling techniques" be used (though do not require riffling), so at least some form of tighter randomization requirements should come to A:NR. Anyhow, this is my favorite short piece on proper deck randomization I've ever read. Fellow math nerds may wish to read some of Diaconis's work on the matter. tl;dr: Prevention is the best cure.
  10. pwnguin said: I'm not sure I agree with you. It's got room for about 3 rows of cards stored on a long edge. I suspect you'll be able to fit one core set and the genesis cycle on one row. The current box configuration is designed for rigidity and visual appeal but can be retooled with some xacto knife surgery. OK, yeah, you can jerry–rig up a way to do it, but as–is it isn't made for it. I haven't used the AGoT box (the same size or close to it) to store anything other than the board & figures for melee, unless I'm taking it out as a ‘stand–alone’ game with the (reconstructed) starters— so that's where my feelings on this come from. It's still a beautiful & well–made box, though! FFG packaging & components always impress me vs the rest of the industry.
  11. The core set box was made for the rulebook (and shelf–space, too, probably), not to store cards. Oh well, it's really nice & I'll end up not pitching it until the next time I move. (But the rulebook was totally worth it.)
  12. I have a number of FFG deck boxes I use for other games (I bought five at $3 a pop @GC), but the decks alone are a tight squeeze— and the tokens are nowhere close to fitting within the token box. I'm using a larger cardboard box at the moment, and it fits well; mine is finished, but you can probably find an appropriately sized box in the storage (not deck box) section of your LGS. As for the unused cards, I'm storing them by number in a Ultra Pro Pro Binder; it should probably get me at least through the first cycle of data packs, because you can stack 4-6 cards comfortably per slot, so I don't need to spread out duplicates. Also, once you go side–loading, you never go back.
  13. I do not have access to my rulebook at the moment, but doesn't the run example from it have the Jinteki player rezzing Akitaro just before rezzing a piece of ICE?
  14. I wonder when we're going to see identities that aren't 45/15? I can imagine play–testing them for balance in an environment where everyone else is at those numbers as a potential difficulty, however.
  15. jhaelen said: My memory isn't very good, unfortunately; as a Corp player I have to look at my cards every other turn, otherwise I forget what I put down and more importantly what the rez cost of the cards was. I mean, are we supposed to play Memory, or is this Netrunner? The question was not about cards you've laid face down as a Corp player, like your ICE or Agendas.
  • Create New...