Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
19 Posts

Android: Netrunner» Forums » Variants

Subject: Android:Netrunner 2v2 rules corps v runners rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Ruben Byman
Norway
flag msg tools
Me and a couple of friends in Norway have recently been discussing the possibilities of playing netrunner with more than 2 players.

We are currently working on the details of how it would work, but the main idea is that two corp players are facing two runners.

The corp players both use the same faction, but must use different identities, so as to resemble two divisions of a megacorp. Thus, the corp may spend a click to pass a card from HQ to the other divisions HQ.

The runners can be any identity and faction, but not the same identity. This is resembling two hackers teaming up to get down a megacorp. They have their own connections and hardware, but share programs and things they don't need for themselves. Thus, the runners share the programs, but keep their own hardware and resources. The heap is also shared, so abilities that recurr cards may be used to get a hold of the other runner's discarded cards if needed.

The current version of the rules for this variant can be found here: (updated to version 2) https://www.dropbox.com/s/rm99281a1j6tu2b/ANR2v2rules_v2.doc...

Or here: (updated to version 2)
http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/112156/androidnetrunner-ru...

A few rules updates has been made, and the layout is greatly improved.

We would really appriciate thoughts and ideas that can make this variant as good as possible.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Wood
United States
Grapevine
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Why can the runners share programs but not resources? I like the concept of a shared heap, or maybe even a potential system where runners could "sell" stuff to each other but i don't see why they would share their programs (thematically)

I picture hackers being reluctant to share their secrets and not wanting even their allies knowing all their tricks. (this is all from thematic perspective not neccessarily gameplay)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ruben Byman
Norway
flag msg tools
They only share the programs they feel they need to, in order to bring down the corp. The idea being that they are willing to share some of their secrets in order to accomplish their goal.

They don't share resources because in the game many resources are connections or jobs, and it didn't feel natural for that to be shared.

The idea of the runners buying stuff is interesting. I might include that in some form.

Thank you for the feedback! Did you read the document? Do you have any thoughts regarding flatling rules or anything else?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
★★★★☆
Canada
New Brunswick
flag msg tools
You don't study scaring, you just do it.
badge
I'm not even breaking a sweat.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Have you tried The Big Sellout?

It is multi-player rules for Netrunner that were written for Netrunner classic and updated for A:NR. Even if you want to design your own variant you can probably get some inspiration from this one.

The main difference from yours is that the teams are corp and runner not 2corp vs 2 runner.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ruben Byman
Norway
flag msg tools
No, i haven't tried it. Is it good? I did skim through the rules though, but felt it wasn't quite what I wanted
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mathew rynich
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Argama Flight Crew
badge
INFERNO BLADE!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thematically this sounds awesome. How long does a game last for you guys on average?

Just reading the rules my initial reaction is it seems very hard for the corp to get a flatline victory. Has that been your experience?

How would things like Personal Touch, and Dinosaurus work in this variation? Would both runners receive those strength boosts or just the person who played the hardware. How do you handle a program that is installed on hardware or vice versa? Is that still considered part of the shared MU/program pool (like an Omni-Drive for example)?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ruben Byman
Norway
flag msg tools
Omni-Drive and Dinosaurus are Hardware (not shared), that can host programs, so those programs would not be shared. Personal Touch is installed upon an already shared program, and is therefore also shared.

I hadn't thought of these interactions, exactly why it is so good to get this kind of feedback now. Thanks.

To be honest, we are still waiting to get some playtesting done. We have no experiences yet, so it will obviously need some testing to find the right balance.

It is somewhat intentional that a flatline win for the corps should be a little more difficult, and also that it is slightly more viable than in the 1v1 game to get a flatline the other way. That being said, it is entirely possible it has been too much, but we did not want a situation where one runner is eliminated from the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mychal
United States
Tempe
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If the runners share programs, how many MU do they have between them?

How many agenda points need to be scored/stolen to win?

What is the turn order; CCRR or CRCR?

I have loads more questions on mechanical interactions, but those are the ones that immediately jumped out at me...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ruben Byman
Norway
flag msg tools
They share 6 MU (it's in the updated rules doc on my computer, will try to get it up soon)

The game is played to 12 points.

First turn C1, C2, R1, R2, and from turn 2: C1, R1, C2, R2
To ensure no corp can be run at undefended.

Keep the questions coming!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mychal
United States
Tempe
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I feel like sharing programs may open up way too many deck slots for the runners.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean Trundle
msg tools
mb
Skylar114 wrote:
I feel like sharing programs may open up way too many deck slots for the runners.


And also brutally accelerate the transition from mid- to late-game, since each runner can spend their clicks fetching different kinds of breakers, but the corp is still (mostly) limited to the 3 basic kinds of ice.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Wood
United States
Grapevine
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Maybe this could be an interesting mechanic for Cloud Breakers or Daemons. Runners can't share programs, except a cloud breaker that has had it's memory reduced to 0 or are hosted on a Daemon (ie Djinn or Leprachaun) Schezerade is the one I don't like here, as I'd want it to be Daemons with a limit.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mathew rynich
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Argama Flight Crew
badge
INFERNO BLADE!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
strundle wrote:
Skylar114 wrote:
I feel like sharing programs may open up way too many deck slots for the runners.


And also brutally accelerate the transition from mid- to late-game, since each runner can spend their clicks fetching different kinds of breakers, but the corp is still (mostly) limited to the 3 basic kinds of ice.


Though by the same token corps share remotes so they both benefit from the ice and assets on the board which helps them greatly. Both players having access to San San or Jackson for example frees up influence/deck slots in one of the corp decks. It sounds like both corp receives the benefits of drip econ assets. That's pretty interesting. Is that intentional? That makes Pads, Sundews and mental health clinics very good if they kick in for both players. The Adonis, Eve and Marked Accounts extinguish at the same rate so they seem at about the same power level.

Allowing both corp to pass a card for a click means a corp could play a combo that might otherwise be too expensive influence wise for them to pull off practically in a regular deck, which is also interesting for the corp.

I think this makes for a much more powerful game of netrunner on both sides if the teams build their decks with a combine strategy in mind.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ruben Byman
Norway
flag msg tools
Like the way you think, Taloncarde, but I am really trying to make it as streamlined as possible, so I am not sure.

Obviously all of this will need some testing to find out wether it is balanced or not. The concerns about a too easy step to the late game is valid, but I have done some thinking, and think that the mechanics of the variant might make up for it.

Thing is, as both corp players have a turn before any runs are made, and the corps can give cards to their teammate, chances are midgame might also come faster than usual. The odds of at least one corp drawing sufficient ICE to protect at least both R&D's, are quite high.

All in all the biggest part of the game might be lategame, where economy is of a huge importance for the runners. Considering they only may use the allowed number of copies of any given card in their decks combined, economy might just be a little harder to handle over a longer game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ruben Byman
Norway
flag msg tools
Exactly, phillosmaster. Yes the drip econ being doubly efficient is intentional.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ruben Byman
Norway
flag msg tools
I have been considering a change to the flatlining rules to make damage decks more viable for corps, without changing the rule of needing to flatline both runners for a win.

The idea is that if a runner would be flatlined (i.e. he suffers more damage than he can take, and his teammate takes the exceeding damage), he flips his identity face down to show that he is flatlined. He then loses the rest of his turn (if appliccable) and his following turn before he flips it back up and may proceed as normal.

This would make flatlining one runner a much greater boon for the corp, and means runners must be more careful.

Any thoughts?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ruben Byman
Norway
flag msg tools
Updated first post with version 2 of the rules. Quite a few changes and clarifications has been made. Feel free to share your thoughts on everything.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brodie
United States
KC
Missouri
flag msg tools
mb
NorthMaester wrote:
I have been considering a change to the flatlining rules to make damage decks more viable for corps, without changing the rule of needing to flatline both runners for a win.

The idea is that if a runner would be flatlined (i.e. he suffers more damage than he can take, and his teammate takes the exceeding damage), he flips his identity face down to show that he is flatlined. He then loses the rest of his turn (if appliccable) and his following turn before he flips it back up and may proceed as normal.

This would make flatlining one runner a much greater boon for the corp, and means runners must be more careful.

Any thoughts?


The whole point of a flatline strategy in regular Netrunner is that it wins you the game. You can drop 6 points and still win, as long as you can land that flatline. This removes that aspect of it entirely, greatly weakening flatline strategies overall to the point where I wouldn't bother with them as Weyland, and would consider a Jinteki net damage flatline incidental to my strategy. Edit: This makes damage decks less viable, not more.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ruben Byman
Norway
flag msg tools
Correct, Agent Archer. That sentence was referring to the previous version of the 2v2 rules, not the original netrunner rules. My original version for 2v2 had a flatline rule that said you basically had to flatline both runners at the same time to get a win.

That would still technically be the case with version 2, but in this version flatlining gives the corp a good advantage, as it should.

I am still not settled on this one though, and any suggestions are welcome. I do, however, feel that flatlining only one runner should not win the corps their game. Too many combos can make this too easy for two corps combined.

Interesting that you mention Weyland in this setting. I have been thinking that they might be the best corp for 2v2, due to several of their Identities being similar in many aspects. That could also be said for NBN, but only having 3 Astroscripts between the two decks seem a bit short. Although Fast Track could fix that probably.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.