Big Dig. You won the game about 60% of the time after a single run on R&D. Yes it was pretty **** broken.

Did you play Netrunner competitively? Seriously within a year it was ridiculous, with a handful of deck archtypes that used the biggest and best cards to accomplish the goal possible and everything else was ignored unless you didn't have enough of the rares or uncommons to field the deck you wanted. If that was the case then you used cards that were distinctly less efficient, than everyone else and generally got squashed early and often. IF bag and tag is a viable deck type in the new game what you will see is decks that are going to be 80% (or greater) the same and that variance of 20% will slowly be reduced as specific decks start racking up wins or the card pool deepens. What will prevent this from being the case? Because almost undoubtedly the most efficient cards are going to be split across 2 or more factions. This means that each player is going to have to make some serious decisions about how to build a bag and tag deck. Which corporation has the best means of Tagging the runner? Which corporation has the best means of bagging the runner? Which one has the best way of being able to afford the proper ice and winning the trace attempts? Which corporation is going to have the best protective/stall cards to slow down or punish the runner while you are setting up all the pieces? Any artist knows that restrictions demand for more creativity, not less. Finding how to say/do what you want within the restrictions is part of what makes a creative genius stand apart.

^^This^^

They had a design a card seminar at the last Arkham Nights. You got to sit with the designer and essentially create a card that would be included in a future set. I assume they will be doing another one this year. I want to try and make it if I can, sadly I travel so much for work I rarely have time to travel for pleasure.

I'm not upset, I'm bored. I see absolutely no interest in you trying to understand the ruling. We have a ruling. It is based and directly quotes the rules. If you wanted to understand the ruling rather than disagree with it, reverse engineering it is the single BEST way to achieve that… but you refuse to and when I suggest it you dimsiss it out of hand as a terrible idea. What is the point? I'm perfectly fine leaving you scratching your head, because I don't believe you want to understand the ruling, I believe you want to be right. Go debate the finer points of timing structure with Damon. I will bet you the entire Revelations cycle he says essentially the same thing. I'm also willing to bet you will continue to disagree with it and him. I'm not saying FFG is infallible, I am saying that you are far more so than they are, and particularly where this is concerned. Again, I honestly believe, in my heart of hearts, you are more invested in proving yourself right than understand why the ruling is what it is. You are going about the entire process wrong otherwise.

In AGoT in drafting you used to be able to pick your faction after you drafted cards, and you could play two factions in an "alliance" where the normal gold penalty didn't apply to things in either faction, but it required more power to win the game. Something like the first could work for Netrunner, and some sort of variation on the second could probably work. We'll have to see how factioning is done in the game and what kind of deck building restrictions go along with it.

Melee had the largest turn out for worlds last year. Don'tr listen to him. You know nothing Jon Surreal. Sorry man but you are just wrong. There is a large and vocal group that prefer joust (the 1v1 format), but melee (multiplayer) is well supported and seems to have far more people who play it that way if the lead designer is to be trusted. I also dispute that VTES was the best multiplayer game. The attack to one side and defend to the other side is clunky and artificial, and getting eliminated and having to wait until one player wins the game before we can start up another one just isn't fun.

I like the ability of clown, Hated the name and picture. Liked the name and picture of blink. Hated tha bility. Dice in a card game are stoopid (IMO of course).

The world is rich in references. I don't believe any of these are accidental. Remember their designers and writers are every bit as big fans of these hallowed items in geekdom as we are.

8 cards is how many you draw at the beginning of the game. That is the last time that the number 8 is mentioned in relation to hand size or draw.

All of that still misses the very clear points: 1) A replacement effect cannot replace an effect that has itself not been executed. 2) EM's ability resolves on the player or framework action that would wound it, not on EM itself. Hence, that effect must be executed in order for it to be replaced and turn EM into an attachment. Full stop. And that is where I'm stopping. Nothing you have argued addresses these, refutes, or calls it into question. Your entire argument hinges on ignoring these two points. Rather than taking the ruling as a fact base don the FAQ and rulebook and trying to expand your understanding you are still insisting that it is fundamentally wrong. We are just talking past each other now and as far as I can tell you aren't interested in gaining a better understanding, and I'm pretty sure no one else reading this is gaining any new insight into the rules so I see no reason to continue.

The kneel bit in CoC is years old one cycle had some problems and to my knowledge was never repeated. New rules that have to be learned versus card errata that needs to be learned is 6 of one half a dozen of another. If the rule is easy to understand (as in concise) and applies to multiple cards then I think it is the better choice. It is easier to remember one rule change than three card changes. That of course does not mean that it is always the best choice.

Douchery. U haz it.

flamejuggler said: Think of the corp as dungeon master, laying traps and hiding their intent, and the runner as the clueless adventurer out looking for booty.

I want the rules and format layed out upfront. The rules of course should have not changed since the latest FFG release and/or tournament announcement, for example: if you guys were to decide that a chapter pack that came out 20 days ago is legal even though FFG has not explicitly stated that it is, that should be said well before anyone arrives at the store with their deck. Saying that you are doing X rounds of swiss and cutting to the top Y is helpful, I may play differently than if we are just doing cyclical pairings and whomevber has the best record takes first. Also knowing how many players in the top whatever are getting prizes avoids any surprises. I don't need to know what they are just that the top two or four players are getting something, or if it is a winner take all tournament. It sucks to think you got yourself a prize to only find out later this tournament is using a different metric than the last one you played in.

Well this invites a detailed discussion on game theory, but I don't want to pull any more away from the op's questions so I will just say this and we can continue this in another thread if you would like… Knowing what cards are in my opponents deck gives me superior knowledge in how to play my own deck and what types of resourcing decisions to make. This isn't chess where you have perfect knowledge of what pieces your opponent has. The knowledge I have will allow me to more effectively bluff and read your bluffs which narrows down my decision tree making the game easier for me to play than it is for you.

There was a list published here somewhere, a search should hopefully bring it up for you.

You may have misunderstood, the players policing themselves means they simply abide by the rules because they all recognize it is the right thing to do. When someone is found to be scouting someone simply informs the TO and he comes over and makes a decision. Once everyone knows it is not accepted it is on them to ensure they are not seen doing anything that strongly appears to be scouting. You are right, the Cthulhu metagame is not that hardcore, it isn't like being on the MtG pro-tour with big bucks at stake. IT still sucks to walk into round three against a guy who has been pumping others for information about your deck and watching as much of your games as he can and you know nothing about his deck. It simply isn't fair. For that reason alone I believe there should be a rule against it. If I am playing a control deck or combo deck that takes a while to set up other faster decks may have finished their games and are able to see what secret tech or strategies I am employing and we all know that gives them an advantage over me if we face off. I see no reason to pretend otherwise or say it is just fine because others may not take the game as seriously as I do. Now that said, this is not really my competitive game. AGoT is. I play this one building fun thematic decks and hardcore decks, but I will never compete in a major event because I save my travel and PTO for AGoT or my other hobbies. My local meta is a mix of players, new guys who love the theme and it is their first card game, and old hands who have been playing seriously for years. I get all the fun I need at home. So what I am saying regarding all of this, really is just my personal opinion.

Dude seriously. Stop posting. No one wants to here your logical and measured responses. The whole "voice of reason" schtick is getting old. Don't post again until you have something inflammatory and insulting to say. If you can slag the company or paint Christian Peterson as some CEO of an evil empire out to ruin all gaming all the better. (and yes, this is sarcasm in case anyone here is doubtful). Thanks for keeping the tone of conversation positive and elevating the conversation to one of measured intellect rather than knee-jerk reaction. Not just on this thread or board, but on bgg also.

^THIS^

KEM I can't express strongly enough that your concept of the game is off. You don't choose one or the other, at least not really, you play both sides. At least in normal play each player brings a Corp deck and a Runner deck and you battle it out with the winner being whomever collected the most points between the two games. In many ways this really does sort of mimic the idea of corporations working with, hiring, or just, misleading runners to attack their business rivals as well as runners competing against each other (Hackers style) for the biggest and best hack against a corporate target assigned to them by the other runner. You are correct, the corporations do not directly square off against each other, but part of that is because in Android and Cyberpunk 2020 these corporations put our own multi-nationals to utter shame. They have profits several times the size of GDP of first world nations. They aren't too big to fail, they are the power behind the thrones of many different governments. Direct conflict between the corporations would be like open warfare between the US and China. The entire world would feel its effects in the most negative sort of way. So yes, it is limiting from a game perspective, from a thematic perspective it would not make any sense. If it doesn't work for you that is okay and understandable.

Yeah, art is extremely subjective, because I hated, not was indifferent to or disliked, but hated more than 60% of the art from the original game, and upon having started playing some games again about 2 or so years ago that number jumped up to something like 90%. It is just horrid and dated, and kitchy, and contrived. I would probably still buy this game if it was the old art, but I would make fun of FFG at every turn for it. If something like art is enough to keep an old player away then *waves* so long, farewell, alverdersane, goodbye.

Same way they enforce rules about shuffling to avoid deck stacking, they say it is illegal and anyone caught is eliminated from the tournament and then rely on the players to police themselves.

Apparently there is a new gathering of Players that get together on Tuesdays at 6pm. I'm not in the area but I've got a friend who has shown up once or twice.

Actually scouting is illegal in a number of games. And I believe that there needs to be a rule specifically against it or everyone should have perfect knowledge. That is to say either scouting is actively discouraged or all deck lists are available. I expect people would balk at the latter and rightly so, given that, I see no reason why scouting should be tolerated… but like I said, it is not expressly forbidden in the rules, despite my thinking that everyone knows on some level it is not precisely fair. As a TO I would support the decision of the players being scouted, and as a player I never allow anyone still in the tournament to watch me play. Period.