Looks interesting. Where could I find this? And is it a Collectible game or does it have a preset list of cards with it?

what kind of game mode is more fun? 1 x 1 or multiplplayer (3+) ?

i) poker chips are too big and hide the card so the best markers are dice. also a lot of effects in CCGs are "for x turns" (I think this is a design fault and effects should be permanent until dispelled or for this round only but I digress ...) and so dice are the best way to track in general.

ii) The 'tapping' mechanic which was patented by Wizards for Magic and so is called turn /unturn flip/unflip etc in other CCG, is just a way to show that somethign has done its thing this round. Generally stuff can act once (one attack, one spell, one chance to pick the magic lock) each round and the tapping effect is just a convenient way to show that. The specific CCG will have its own rules in this area and no doubt ways to 'unturn' a card so you can use its power more than once in a round.

iii) duel (1v1 ) or multiplayer depends on the game and the group. So Magic is probably best in duel mode (the multiplayer variants are largely tacked on as an afterthought) whereas VTES (the WW vampire game) is built for multiplayer and the mechanics don't cope well in duel mode. From reading these cards the mechanics here seem to indicate a multiplayer game is the default mode.
In addtion duel games are by their nature more competative and tend to be faster whereas multiplayer games tend to be more social and relaxed. (compare playing chess against your mate to playing poker with your mates). A magic games 1v1 takes about 15 minutes. A typical Multiplayer game, and this looks pretty typical, will run from 1 - 2 hours with 4 or 5 players (obviously the first few games are slower as you get used to the rules)

iv) Deck building again depends on the game. Some games are pretty relaxed and just spliting a bunch of cards into even piles kind of works, other games (and Magic is in this category) have critical deck building strategies and you need cards in play to play other cards and so just splitting cards randomly is not going to work. From Lawbag's comments this game looks like it's more in the first category. In either case I recommend building balanced decks the first few times then letting players draft out of the pool if you keep playing it long enough and you find it fun.

A lot of CCGs suffer from poor playtesting and a particular strategy, play style or even a card can totally dominate so keep mixing stuff up and if a particular card dominates then pull it to level the game a bit.

That said, one decision springs to mind: Riggers+Drones, Deckers+Programs, Mages+Spells/Spirits (IIRC the requirements are actually slightly different, but there's a lot of overlap). In general, you're probably going to want to pick one or zero of these. You might be able to get away with two, and in many cases you can include a Rigger/Decker/Mage in a deck that lacks, respectively, Drones/Programs/(Spells/Spirits), but considering how many challenges you need in a deck you can't afford to have too many categories of stuff that requires you to have other stuff in play.

I never saw it for sale anywhere and it didn't get much of a player base.

I really liked it when i saw it like 10 years ago.
I never saw it for sale anywhere and it didn't get much of a player base.

It's possible I just thought it was cool because the flavor text for Dante the Wage Mage was, "I'm not even supposed to be here today."

Clerks was big at the time and they wanted to give it a little nod. It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to be funny.

I really liked it when i saw it like 10 years ago.
I never saw it for sale anywhere and it didn't get much of a player base.

1. Interception rule. It makes sense from a 2-players standpoint, but doesnt make sense at all in a 3-4 players game, because if one player realizes a interception on another, the 3rd or 4th player will simply go and get the objective unstopped.

My group is considering eliminate this rule outside of 2-player games, and ruling that in this case, its only possible to go for the objective if it have at least a challenge on it. So, any objectives with no challenges cant be targetted for runs.

2. rep points of certain objectives. We feel the rep points are really unbalanced in relation to the difficult some objectives present. Eg: 35 pts for Fort Knocks (0/+2 for personal challenges) doesnt make sense for us. It doesnt impose a so hard modifier on the challenges, and should reward around 25-30 pts only. This is valid for a lot of other objectives. We think that to fix itm we should re-write the rep pts all over the board.

Then no one plays any challenges on any objectives, preventing the opposition from even trying. You can't even effectively rule that people must load up challenges if they can, since thy aren't guaranteed to have one at any given time and their hands are hidden.

Unless you rule that the players cannot discard challenges from their hands except when there is no more challenge slots to deploy on objectives. ( this forces the players to deploy their challenges, or get theirs hands unplayable/full of challenges only).

But after all this time, just now I realizes I can be playing the game wrongly. Please Kage, say whats the correct way to play..

1) all players play each turn, sucessively, phase after phase ? (Eg: Turn1: all players play credstick phase, then all players play refresh phase, etc)

or

2) each turn only 1 player plays, one at a time ? (eg: Turn 1: player 1 alone plays credstick phase, players 1 alone plays refresh phase, etc)


(Ive been playing option 1) all this time, and I think it can be wrong )

It also removes the ability for players to discard challenges that aren't appropriate for the current set of objectives unless they fill them up first. I'm not sure I see a good way to resolve this dilemma.

I'll have to dig up a rulebook to be sure, but I'm pretty sure it's option 2.