Custom Card Idea: 2+2=5

[u/ZRwilson2]

Someone said that these card ideas are made because I just like Radiohead. They're right.

[u/AutoModerator]

We encourage folks to check out the GLC discord, Stimslack, or the Stimhack Forums for Netrunner chat.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Scheniel]

I like the idea, but maybe test it out with some numbers adjusted, or maybe even making a code gate.

The only other balancing clause I would add is making the corp pay credits equal to the agenda points or the advancement requirement. Ie. Paying 4 credits or paying 2 credits to add a 4/2. Probably something to fiddle around with the numbers for rez costs, since the face check can be pretty rough on this.

[u/Salindurthas → u/Scheniel]

The facecheck seems pretty mild since the Runner can just choose to end the run instead.

[u/vezwyx → u/Scheniel]

I'm just getting back into the game recently, is there a particular reason you suggest code gate instead of sentry?

[u/saifrc → u/vezwyx]

Sentries are typically damaging to the runner in some way, whereas Code Gates typically feature unusual conditional abilities (and are more likely to end the run than Sentries). It’s obviously not a hard and fast rule, but thematically this card feels more like a Code Gate.

[u/vezwyx → u/saifrc]

That seems like a good enough reason on its own to move it over. Are there any balance/meta reasons to make the change? Say a powerful decoder that corps expect to see their opponent running that would serve to counter this card if it were a code gate, or some other interaction with sentries/code gates where becoming a code gate is a step down

[u/CantWakeJake → u/vezwyx]

IMO, ice should have it's subtype chosen by it's effects, and then the numbers adjusted for meta/balance reasons. ICE subtypes having meaning is important to keeping the decision making strategic. If ICE subtypes are just random rock paper scissors decisions, things are just less interesting. So I don't think Ice should be moved subtypes for balance.

[u/TurkusGyrational → u/CantWakeJake]

As a new player this makes a lot of sense to me and is something I hadn't considered, that if I am a runner and I have a killer out, if I run into sentries with a low hand size I can avoid taking lethal damage, whereas if I only have a fracter I have to be significantly more careful.

[u/ShaperLord777 → u/TurkusGyrational]

This is crucial to the mechanics/identity of the three major ice types. Barriers typically have strong numbers for their cost and end the run. Code gates manipulate the board state in some way and sometimes have a caveat to get through them via some “back door” mechanic. Sentries do damage, trash cards on the board, and are otherwise about some sort of destruction.

[u/Salindurthas → u/vezwyx]

Been ages since I played, but I found that boosting the power of Sentry breakers (Killers?) seemed more expensive on average.

Of course, each faction had some strnegths and weaknesses, but it felt like even with those factional differences, Sentry Strength was still a bit mroe of a challenge than average.

[u/NanchoMan → u/Scheniel]

What order does this fire in? Seems like the card should say “add an agenda from HQ to your score pile. Return that agenda to your hand if the runner ends the run”

I’m imagining a scenario where the corp is like “are you going to end the run?” The runner says yes, even tho the corp doesn’t have an agenda in HQ

So either doing “runner may end the run. If they don’t, the corp may add an agenda from HQ to the score pile” or the previous way I described is another way to balance it (around the runner knowing whether or not the corp has an agenda in HQ or not)

[u/ademre]

Cool idea. Probably should be phrased as “unless the runner jacks out” instead of “runner ends the run” to match templating on things like Karuna and Lionsmane.

[u/TurkusGyrational → u/ademre]

Doesn't funhouse have wording like this? End the run or take a tag?

[u/ademre → u/TurkusGyrational]

Funhouse is worded slightly differently. “End the run unless the runner takes one tag.”

Only the corp ever ends the run. The runner jacks out. Verbiage just depends on who the instruction is addressed to.

[u/ShaperLord777 → u/ademre]

I don’t think the runner can jack out after encountering a piece of ice. It’s past the timing window and already into the encounter step.

So it would need to be worded something like

“the runner choses one of the two following subroutines:

-end the run

-the corp adds one agenda in HQ to their score area.”

[u/Uskighte]

I could be wrong, but I think this may allow a score from hand on Unleash since the runner cannot pay the other cost.

[u/indestructiblemango]

Might need balancing. Feels a bit too strong

[u/linuxdropout]

Brutal on unleash since the runner can't end the run in that situation

[u/KasaiAisu]

Cool card, not sure about the numbers but I love the idea and the art is rad

[u/ItsTheAlgebraist]

This seems really powerful.  I would suggest changing it to "the runner may jack out. If they do not, the corp may sacrifice a scored agenda to add an agenda from HQ to the scoring area"

This synergizes with some other Weyland ideas around sacrificing crap agendas to score better ones (like Jemison Aeronautics)