My Thoughts on the NAPD Most Wanted List Update July 2016

[@divadus3924]

Fantastically insightful stuff as always. Honestly, I'm actually really glad to hear someone else seriously discussing the problems of Levy AR Lab Access. MCH is a recognized evil across many Netrunner spheres, but comparatively few people decry the absurd level of recursion provided by Levy. While I believe that recursion is already something that the game has too much of, Levy is easily the greatest offender. The Hayley Spycam deck, which has recently emerged as something of a terror, is only possible because of Levy (and the fact that it can be played in triplicate!). The mere existence of Levy makes me unexcited to play the upcoming mill-oriented Jinteki ID from Flashpoint - which is a terrible shame! Personally, at least at this stage, I think limiting Levy to 1 per deck would certainly keep Spycam decks at bay and would limit future recursion problems.

[@Willingdone]

I agree that Hayley Spycam relies heavily on Levy, especially in multiples. I disagree that limiting Levy to 1/deck would help more broadly. Like you mentioned with the upcoming Jinteki ID, entire categories of decks are invalidated by the threat of Levy AR. Why play Argus, PE, or any other deck that relies on the Runner running out of cards when there's a one-card solution? For this reason, decks of that sort are vastly underrepresented in tournament play. As a result, decks like Faust/Wyldside are much stronger because their natural counter is too weak. I don't see any solution to Levy other than a ban or serious nerf. The mere existence of the card discourages a decking strategy. In my opinion, there should be two archetypes of flatline decks: 1) the type we've already seen plenty of i.e. Scorched or Ronin based alpha strikes to win; 2) a type that does small amounts of damage distributed throughout the game with the goal of running the Runner out of cards and making runs dangerous. The latter of these has popped up occasionally, but it's never been all the way to tier 1. I'd argue that Levy AR is single-handedly the cause of this.

[@codychilton13]

@Willingdone I appreciate the clarification you bring to this game, even for the veterans of the game! From the beginning of the MWL I felt like this game would get worse, but from playing with new cards and watching your videos the list has helped so much! Thanks man!

[@Willingdone]

Thanks for watching! I appreciate that!

[@CrankiestWolf]

The fact that FFG is now willing to errata cards makes me want to come back to Netrunner. I dunno if I feel the MWL is the most elegant of a solution over bannings/restriction, but at least something is happening to offset unfun strats. That said, I think some form of format system might be seriously beneficial. I could see the game seriously benefiting from standard and expanded formats. Perhaps I have played too much MTG in my hiatus.

[@eRaRazR]

Damn right it's exiting I was into it in the 90s came back to.it last year 37 Years old now still love it the changes have made it a blessing catching up on packs is exhausting but I'm having fun so it's worth the cash. Plus your channel fuels the fire . :)

[@Willingdone]

Welcome back! Did you see my video in which I suggest cards to reprint from the original game? Might be a fun watch. I chose cards based on how I thought they'd fit into the modern game. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hmrbYYF6drVrgNk

[@john58717]

Agreed with just about everything. I would like to also point out that over the course of 4 years with no banning this is the extent of the problems that the game faces. While it isn't perfect, it also isn't the nightmare it could be. I think the coolest solution (but most unlikely it seems) would be to reprint/revise some cards. Maybe do it as part of a deluxe expansion or something. Revisions of the top 20 "problem" cards would allow some balance adjustments and also some great thematic changes.--- Faust causing brain damage or maybe causing you to lose credits when drawing cards makes it that much more reckless and that much more anarch. Levy AR could be changed to "X number of credits spent = X number of cards shuffled back in". Any game like this will have stuff that is just too good. This stuff needs a limit or ban, or IMO to be changed so the price and/or disadvantage for using these cards is attached to the card itself, not just its opportunity cost (influence/MWL). To do that I think revisions/reprints are the only way to go to make the perfect game. Also note that these are opinions, and If I were the one in charge of making cards the game would certainly be an ass disaster.

[@Willingdone]

I definitely agree with your main point that the game is in really good shape without being actively managed outside of new cards being printed. The card pool of Netrunner has issues, but it's never had totally broken/degenerate decks that ruin the game for everyone. For the most part, every faction has had at least 1-2 competitive decks throughout the game's history, and that's quite an accomplishment given the scope of the card pool. I also agree that that reprinting stuff would be ideal. Like I said in the video, that's probably not an option and it's definitely not something that Damon can do in the short term. These changes are a good way to address the problems within the purview of things he can control. That isn't going to stop me from supporting a Core Set 2.0, though. The game is still very popular so if we can keep it up for the next few years, maybe we'll get our chance at a second Core Set. Tools like the MWL and errata will help bridge that gap.

[@Ruskettle]

How does the "accessing multiple cards in a server" change affect Toshiyuki Sakai? It seems now, if Toshi is the only card in the server, the runner only accesses 1 card, and cannot access the swapped card. If the runner runs last click, or can't get in again, just swap an agenda in. This is clearly not how the card is supposed to work.

[@Willingdone]

Hmm. Good question! That does seem odd. This is a good one for the unofficial FAQ.

[@chairmanhiro7401]

As far as mumbad city hall vs Mumba temple, decks that play temple always use 3 of them, but usually only play 2 city halls (at least from what I've seen). So putting temple on the list is actually taxing more influence and thus weakening the strategy more. There is also the fact that City Hall only tutors alliance cards, which is a card type that only exists in the mumbad cycle, aka there will be no new alliance cards, so they don't have to worry about city hall becoming a problem with other cards in the future. Temple was becoming a problem in prettymuch every deck that used it because it was too much free econ too easily, but City Hall is only a problem when used with museum/temple. Someone using City Hall to summon Jeeves is annoying, but not ban-list worthy shenanigans. The Winning Agenda podcast also recently had an interview with Damon Stone again and he also discussed his decision on putting city hall vs temple on the list.

[@Willingdone]

Putting MCH on the MWL isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about banning MCH. I agree that Mumba on the MWL is a better choice for the reason you describe. When you say "City Hall is only a problem when used with Museum/Temple," I think you have it exactly backwards. Museum of History would be much, much worse if we didn't have an effective way to find and install multiple copies. Same goes for Mumba Temple to a much larger degree. Mumba is really strong when we can get it out early/mid game in multiples and use it rez all of our other asset stuff and ice. That's much harder to do without MCH. Mumba Temple might justify its place on the MWL without MCH, but I think MCH is the core enabler of the problems with the IG/Gargarin deck. MCH allows us to find multiple copies of our key cards, and the Heritage Committee thing was a huge draw/tutor tool to find the non-alliance stuff.

[@holliseacho9678]

Great vid! Enjoyed hearing what you had to say about the changes. WIllingdone, will you be at GenCon this year?

[@Willingdone]

Thanks! Unfortunately, not. IIRC I've been to Gencon 13 out of the last 15 years, so it's pretty disappointing for me to miss it. Hopefully the new vendor location will deal a bit with the crowds. Man, that convention is getting huge!

[@stephenlyon1358]

Thanks man, you make everything less surprising and hurty for a newbie :D

[@Willingdone]

Glad to help! It's an exciting time for Netrunner!

[@jackmadeANR]

I would have liked it much more, if they made AstroScript "Limit 2 per Deck". Even though that might be not enough to keep NBN FA down, it would leave the NBN Core Set Deck legal while still limitating the number of Fast Advance Tools of NBN. And if that still turns out not to be enough, they can adjust accordingly. AstroScript was one of my favourite cards - playing with and against it - and seeing much less of it makes me a little sad. I can agree with everything else you said. Well done.

[@Willingdone]

I recorded a section for this video about the NBN Core Set illegality but cut it because the video was already longer than I intended. It's obvious to me that if the Core Set is reprinted, we'd like to see updates reflecting these changes, but that's not going to happen any time soon. My main point was that for players with a very limited card pool, these tournament rules updates are essentially optional. There's really no reason that players should follow them if they do not intend on playing in tournaments. But when these players become interested in the tournament scene, they'll find lots of inadequacies of the Core Set card pool i.e. they'll have to buy lots of newer cards to make most of the factions competitive. So I don't see the Core Set NBN's illegality as anything but an interesting factoid. Just as I wouldn't recommend trying to build a tournament Shaper deck without Creation and Control, so too would I not recommend an NBN deck without Data and Destiny. Essentially no one is entering a tournament using only a single Core Set. If you're playing against other players who only have a Core Set, ignore the Astro errata.

[@jackmadeANR]

The NBN Core Set illegality is not that important, i agree with that. My point was that the restriction to "Limit 1 per deck." will lead to way less AstroScripts being played (obviously) and i don't think this is necessary when there is an option that still restrict the power of NBN FA. I think AstroScript is an iconic card for Netrunner and it is a shame that it is handled this way. But perhaps that is just me liking yellow cards and Fast Advance in general.

[@Saracenar]

I'm pretty happy that Astro has been limited. For so long, there has been a clearly optimal way to play NBN and it just makes all the other things that they can potentially do not worth doing. I am really interested in a lot of the mechanics of NBN, but it's clear that many of those mechanics are sidelined by cards like Astro. So, I'm looking forward to playing more NBN without it. Also, I am totally for a Core Set 2.0 as well! It just makes total sense to apply the lessons learned to old cards. It would help the game immensely I think.

[@Willingdone]

NBN Glacier might be the big winner with the removal of Astro. There are a lot of opportunities for some of the less played IDs to come out of the box and see play. SYNC has been pretty hot lately but I expect a big open field for NBN at least for a few months.

[@Saracenar]

+Willingdone I've been messing around with Controlling the Message and it's pretty sweet so far. Makes the Political assets somewhat viable. Clone Suffrage Movement is so good.

[@KarlRosner]

While mumbad city hall is indeed a powerful card I don't feel that banning it is the right action for FFG to take. In Weyland the card is fine, it's powerful for sure but not broken by any means. I'd hate to see a cool style of Weyland deck get hamstrung because Jinteki has so many shenanigans. If they want to tone down that IG alliance asset spam deck they should errata Bio-Ethics Association to be unique and then errata Mumbad city hall to 4 or 5 influence. As a final note, mostly an aside, putting Mumbad City Hall on the most wanted list is probably the last thing I'd choose to do to address the problem. Weyland should not be punished because another faction is using one of their cards. That would be like putting scorched earth on the most wanted list to stop butcher shop from running traffic accident. It would only sever to deny Weyland kill decks 3 influence... :(

[@Willingdone]

I disagree that MCH is fine in Weyland. If IG is a problem, then Gargarin is a problem as well. The core engine is exactly the same. Pretty much everything negative I said about IG applies to Gargarin. That said, I totally agree with your point about Weyland getting hosed with these mass asset releases. It's obvious to me that Weyland was supposed to benefit most from these horizontal new releases but because MCH was one influence and the best alliance cards had easy-to-meet conditions, it was just as easy to play the mass asset style in Jinteki or even NBN. Weyland's political asset, Commercial Banker's Group, felt particularly like a slap in the face to Weyland players. Oh another Weyland card that makes credits! Never seen that before! /s I mean, the card isn't bad; it's just that Jinteki got a great kill mechanism, HB got a neat recursion tool, and NBN got a fantastic draw/filtering effect, and poor old Weyland got another boring source of conditional credits. I wouldn't advocate MCH on the MWL for the reasons you stated. I wasn't supporting that in my video. My choices were ban MCH or do stuff similar to what actually happened.

[@high_vis_ninja]

I agree with the banning of levy, or to bring out a new card which makes it less powerful. Maybe something like the "if you have made a successful run on all central servers then levy can be triggered". Or something like that.

[@Willingdone]

I'd like to see Levy return far fewer cards to the stack. Something like "chose a card type and shuffle your grip and any number of cards of that type to your stack. Draw 5 cards."

[@psiAlan]

I would just increase MCH influence... and set levy to Limit one per Deck

[@planyrescape]

most decks only play one levy anyway. and I have serious doubts that MCH at 2 inf will discourage players from playing asset spam.

[@psiAlan]

I dont really see a problem from using 1 levy.. 3 influence is heavy to include.. some anarchs... like MaxX really need it.. or else crops can you stall out till she mills her self.. but when you have shappers with 3 levys burning thorugh their decks over and over.. now thats disguisting.. MCH yeah.. 2inf is still not enough... 3 would be nice...its not that adding it to mwl would help.. i mean the printed 1 inf on an allience card was a bit crazy, speacially one that tutors all alliance cards.

[@Willingdone]

MaxX could use Trope + Deja Vu if Levy was banned. I'll admit that Trope is a lot worse than Levy but that's the point. MCH at 2 influence wouldn't do much of anything. A lot of decks only play two copies anyway. Gargarin might take over for IG but that's about it.

[@leburgan]

Asset spam should be an avenue of playstyle and I think a nerfed MCH is fine.

[@natalies3005]

Guys. Don't ban Levy and kill MaxX. Limit FAUST to 1.

[@Willingdone]

But I don't like MaxX. Just kidding. I'm willing to lose MaxX to regain PE, Argus, and other incremental damage decks. The idea isn't to get rid of recursion; it's to reduce the power level of recursion. Get rid of Levy and print something that doesn't reshuffle your whole deck for 5 credits, 3 influence, and a deck slot.

[@natalies3005]

Maybe if Anarch got something better than Trope in faction that was a 4 influence hardware.

[@AladarCZ42]

AFAIK, intentional draw is not worth a win in Magic

[@Willingdone]

No, but it's essentially a split of the match points. In Netrunner, a win per player is functionally the same as splitting the match points. My point wasn't to compare Magic and Netrunner; it was to demonstrate that a much larger and battle-tested card game has been using IDs for a long time.

[@AladarCZ42]

+Willingdone I get that, but it's a huge difference between getting a tie-tie and win-win, since you're battling for every point. Getting a straight up win for split is pretty iffy and will bite them in the ass eventually, IMO.

[@EadricRicmund]

Constantly shuffling decks... hummmm sounds like old school magic with fetchlands and tutors. hahahaha Now fast advance will turn to... Kind of Fast Advance.. hahaha... which is fine. Killing one over dominating strategy allows creativity to bloom and create a more diverse meta. Magic have done it so many times over the years and the game still have a decent meta.

[@Willingdone]

Haha yeah. It was worst in the era of 4x Brainstorm + Fetches. I don't know how they thought that was fair. Fast advance might have to use cards other than the agendas to enable fast advancing. It seems reasonable to me that if you're playing fast advance, you should at least have to include 4-6 non-agenda cards in your deck to enable the fast scoring.

[@Icagel0]

I strongly disagree on the win trading not considered "match fixing". There is no serious competitve sport that allows such a rule, and if you win 4/5 games in a swiss and then have to agree to draw the last one to qualify onto a next stage beause the rest of the competition did better than you, then you probably don't deserve the top standings anyways. It's part of the swiss system, it requires consistency, and rewards adaptation for players that maybe lost game 1, sidedecked and did better the rest of the tourney. And if you still argue it's too hard to monitor, just make it count 2 points as a draw, as it should be.

[@Icagel0]

Also I'm sorry but "players have to play against each other and try to beat their opponent" - you mean to compete? In a competition? what an outlandish idea. I don't mean to say it's mandatory to play optimally, but if you're going into a tournament of just about anything there's a minimum level of sportmanship expected. You can play for absolute fun [I did so in plenty of YGO tourneys playing suboptimal decks, out of meta] and still try your best.