za nouge
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Had our first couple of games of Terminal Directive last night, but we were unsure of whether we should be using the NAPD Most Wanted List to restrict our decks.

Here's the logic we worked through:
- The Most Wanted List exists to balance out the most egregious errors in influence costing, get rid of abusive combos and shake up the meta so that there are more than one or two types of competitive decks.
- Maybe the reduced card pool meant that combo abuse wasn't as big a deal.
- The Most Wanted List is primarily designed for tournaments, to regulate competitive play.
- The special legacy format of Terminal Directive was the definition of casual play, and didn't need the close balancing of the Most Wanted List.

So we decided in the end, arbitrarily, to not use the Most Wanted List for Terminal Directive – but I'm surprised I haven't found any discussion of it online. Is anyone out there using it?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B C Z
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
nouge wrote:
Had our first couple of games of Terminal Directive last night, but we were unsure of whether we should be using the NAPD Most Wanted List to restrict our decks.

Here's the logic we worked through:
- The Most Wanted List exists to balance out the most egregious errors in influence costing, get rid of abusive combos and shake up the meta so that there are more than one or two types of competitive decks.
- Maybe the reduced card pool meant that combo abuse wasn't as big a deal.
- The Most Wanted List is primarily designed for tournaments, to regulate competitive play.
- The special legacy format of Terminal Directive was the definition of casual play, and didn't need the close balancing of the Most Wanted List.

So we decided in the end, arbitrarily, to not use the Most Wanted List for Terminal Directive – but I'm surprised I haven't found any discussion of it online. Is anyone out there using it?


How big of a card pool are you using?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
za nouge
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
byronczimmer wrote:
How big of a card pool are you using?


Just Core plus Terminal Directive – so it only really affects three cards for the Runner, and San San for the Corp.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
C&H Schmidt
Germany
Heidelberg
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
With just core and TD, I don't think the MWL should be used.
As you say, it's for tournaments, to balance powerful cards in the game's full card pool. TD isn't a tournament and doesn't use the full card pool.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
za nouge
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Yep, that's pretty much where we got to. (Although I think I might feel differently if there was an NBN corp in play that could do fast-advance right...)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Fanjoy
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
nouge wrote:
Yep, that's pretty much where we got to. (Although I think I might feel differently if there was an NBN corp in play that could do fast-advance right...)


SEIDR can fast advance pretty darn well if you set your deck up for it.

If you're playing just the "intended" card set, you can only include one copy of SanSan City Grid, and you're already paying 3 influence for it whichever identity you take, so I don't think it's a big deal whether you're taxed 1 extra influence for MWL or not.

IMO the runner is already disfavored enough by the campaign, it would be punitive to apply the MWL tax to some of their best cards. On the other hand, you might find that the same decks that were good in the Core Set meta are still good in the context of the TD campaign, so maybe you want to apply the MWL and see if that promotes some different decks from the runner.
 
 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.