In short Measured Response = Public Trail + End of the Line

The true strength from this card is the fact it exists, at only 4 influence and a single card slot any corp player could be running it. The threat that If at any moment you slip up at threat 4 you could get flat-lined is incredibly strong. It functions a universal runner speed limit sure you could run my unguarded server but you better have 4 cards or 8.

So how do play against Measured Response?
Simple the AGGA method

• Always assume the corp is running it until you trash it
• Get card draw like Ritual, VRcation, Dr. Nuka Vrolyck, VRcation, and Verbal Plasticity all are good choices
• Get a load of and make sure you always keep at least 8 at all times
• Avoid agendas like the plague, if you have 2 point and less than 4 cards in hand just let the corp have it

Theirs also anti flat-line cards like Stoneship Chart Room and The Class Act. I guess you could also increase you hand size and stock up on cards with Marrow or T400 Memory Diamond.

4/10 not overpowered, but I now have this voice in back of my head that keeps saying 4 cards/8 credits. When you die to jinteki or End of the Line the corp earned it, you made a series of mistakes and the corp setup(False Lead, Angelique Garza Correa, Gaslight, Reaper Function) and punished you for it. When you lose a game to Measured Response it just feels likes "oh, yeah I forgot about that one gg I guess". This card is like Mr. Hendrik but with the entire game instead of 1 turn, strong if you forget about it and more annoying than effective when you know how to play against it.

Semak-samun feels like “red Turing” (a design I love). They both:

• can't be broken by AI (though Turing can be broken by Botulus, which Semak-samun is immune to).
• end the run unless the runner pays three “units-of-value” (though Turing’s clicks are generally more valuable than Semak-samun’s cards).

Notes

In particular, while protecting Fujii Asset Retrieval, its End the Run or Lose Cards-in-Grip becomes “hardened” into just an EtR; ditto Turing’s End the Run or Lose Clicks while protecting Ikawah Project. This makes it a “true Barrier” (the ice-type defined by almost always having at least one Hard-EtR subroutine). And its 1inf/5 (like Wraparound) makes it a splashable as tech/hate.

The Runner cannot break the printed subroutine on this ice except using a fracter. is invulnerable to:

• Boomerang(!)
• Botulus
• AIs: like Audrey v2 or Matryoshka.
• “Painting”: like Chromatophores (since it makes this Barrier into a Code-Gate, it won't make your Decoder into a Fracter).
• Physarum Entangler (just by being Barrier).

but is still vulnerable to:

• Tsakhia "Bankhar" Gantulga
• an Arruaceiras Crew pair
• Malandragem (having 3 strength or less).

Custom

This implicit ↳ End the run unless … is what makes Barrier Bioroids (like Brân 1.0) more interesting. (Even when the … is too steep price to pay in most games, for you *not to immediately prioritize finding/installing the Fracter.)*

Relatedly, I was playing around with “Clone ICE”: that are breakable by “spending your grip” (suffering net damage, trashing specific cards from hand, or so on); as Bioroid ICE are by “spending your turn” (a resource that's always available but never abundant). For example, Nisei II Engram :

[$6] ICE [6s]: Code Gate - Clone
[jinteki 3/5]

Suffer 2 net damage: Break 1 or
2 subroutines on this ice. Only
the Runner can use this ability.

↳ Purge virus counters. Gain 1[$]
for each counter removed and
program trashed.
↳ You may install 1 facedown
card from Archives, ignoring
all costs.
↳ End the run.

Flavor

• semak-samun, means “thicket” (and the plural “thickets” would be initially-reduplicated, “semak-semak samun”?), being pronounced like SUH-ma’ SA-mon: You need a machete (Fracter) to bushwhack through, since most tools (AI/Viruses/etc) can't deal with such a non-solid & high-area terrain-obstacle (Barrier). Even without one, you can still crawl (facecheck) through the thorns (subroutine), but if you don't turn back ("end the run unless …"), it will severely lacerate you ("… unless you suffer damage").
• [EDIT (HT @StaticSky)] Also, semak samun is a pun, “check for bandits”, where semak as a verb means “check/examine”, and samun as a (non-compound) noun means “bandit/robbery”: against the banditry of netrunning.

PS. Under the artist credit, NetrunnerDB now includes the pronunciation guide! (Both an English approximation and the International Phonetic Alphabet notation.) You can even listen to an automated text-to-speech, by copy-pasting its IPA into a website:

• ˈsə.maʔ ˈsa.mon
• ipa-reader.com

or with a direct link:

• ipa-reader.com/?text=%CB%88s%C9%99.ma%CA%94%20%CB%88sa.mon

I really like the design of this card.

Like most other 3/2s before it, Embedded Reporting can be scored in two different modes: the "blank 3/2" mode, and the "4/2 with an ability" mode (which extends to 5/2, 6/2, etc., but players rarely go that far). So when evaluating the agenda, we have to look at both modes and see how they work.

The blank-3/2 mode is easy enough to understand; there have been plenty of those in Netrunner's history, and this one's no different from, say, Project Beale. Generally speaking, fast-advance decks want as many blank 3/2s as they can get their hands on, in addition to the 3/2s with upside – every additional advancement requirement makes an agenda significantly harder to fast-advance, and fast-advancement combos are normally limited enough that you need to score more than one point at a time with them, so 3/2s are great for those decks, with 4/2s and 5/3s and 3/1s being significantly worse. Other deck types don't care nearly so much about their agendas' advancement requirements being exactly 3: never-advance decks can generally afford to play cards like Wage Workers and Seamless Launch that make unadvanced 4/2s easy to score, rush decks are generally happy to park an advancement counter on a 4/2 during the Runner's turn and finish it off next turn, glacier decks can score a 5/3 almost as easily as a 3/2 and really appreciate the extra point, and kill decks generally care more about agendas being worth 3 points than they do about the advancement requirement. So any deck that doesn't fast advance is probably going to want something with better abilities than a blank 3/2.

However, Embedded Reporting can be overadvanced, scoring it in the style of a 4/2, which gives you an ability, and this one is pretty decent without being overpowered. It's an interestingly versatile ability, and here are some of the best ways to use it:

• Three of the best four neutral 4/2s ever printed give you credits when scored: Offworld Office, Corporate Sales Team, and Cyberdex Sandbox. (In case you're wondering what the other one is, it's the self-protecting NAPD Contract.) If you need an Embedded Resources to be a 4/2 that gives credits when scored, you can do that: just score it and search up a couple of economic operations. It doesn't give quite as much economy as its competition, because the operations you are looking for cost clicks to play; the exact benefit will depend on what you search for (e.g. if you're rich you could search for Hedge Fund, but if poorer you might search for Predictive Planogram instead). Additionally, the money doesn't come quite immediately; you have to wait a couple of turns. What it does do, though, is block the top of R&D for you while you're waiting – so if the reason you needed credits after an agenda score was to rez ICE on R&D (and this is a very common reason to need credits after scoring an agenda!), perhaps it bought you a couple of turns to give you time to actually play the operations you searched for and get those credits.
• If you're playing a fast-advance deck (and thus playing this agenda, because it's your only option for 3/2s right now besides a single copy of Tomorrowʼs Headline), and get the opportunity to overscore it, it can search for a couple of fast-advancement tools for you. For example, you could grab a copy of Nanomanagement with one counter, and then later on use the other counter to find a second copy of Nanomanagement (meaning that you don't need to leave both of them clogging your hand). This turns into a sort of miniature AstroTrain – using 3/2s to fast-advance each other – but one that's sufficiently expensive in credits to probably not be broken (Nanomagement costs 5 more to place a clickless advancement counter on something than an AstroScript Pilot Program or Remastered Edition agenda counter does). As such, you have a lot of incentive to overscore this in a fast-advance deck, if you can – such decks generally want to have their fast-advancement tricks in hand already when they draw agendas, in order to avoid the agendas being stolen from HQ, and an overscored Embedded Reporting effectively guarantees that.
• NBN decks presently have some issues trying to protect their servers solely with ICE – most NBN ICE is somewhat porous, quite a lot of it isn't very good unless the Runner is tagged, and quite a lot of the rest hardly does anything if the Runner decides to go tag-me. In general, to protect its servers, NBN has to use the "threat of revenge" in addition to the few end-the-run subroutines it has access to (which are mostly pure gear-checks that won't help in the late game even against a Runner on low credits). That generally means that in order to keep your servers safe, you need either tagging operations that dissuade Runners from going down to low credits, or tag punishment operations that dissuade Runners from going tag-me. But those tools often cause severe hand-clog issues if you're running too many of them; ideally, you'd run only one or two, and search for them. When scored as a 4/2, Embedded Reporting gives you a way to do that search without taking up important deck slots (decks have to contain agendas, so if you can accomplish something with an agenda slot, that's generally great as it means you don't have to spend a more flexible deck slot on it).

So one of the reasons I think that this is such a well-designed card is that, despite being scorable as a 3/2, there's a real incentive to score it as a 4/2 instead – but you get to choose which during the game, you don't have to choose before it starts, and that means that it encourages decks (especially fast advance decks) to deviate from their core play pattern when they get a good opportunity. A fast-advance deck generally wants to hold its 3/2s in hand until it has a scoring combo for them – but if it draws Embedded Reporting in its opening hand, it may seriously consider trying to rush it out as a 4/2 behind ICE on turn 2 or 3, because the reward for that is actually good enough to probably be worth the risk. That helps to make the game more interactive, because it then isn't just about whether the opponent can stop the fast advance, it's also about whether they can stop the rush.

The other great part about this card's design is the timing. Like the other dividends cards, it triggers at the end of your turn, so the Runner will get a full turn of warning about the card you searched for, before you get to use it. Quite a few of the operations in NBN decks, especially the gray ops and (especially) imported black ops, are "unfair" in that they can come out of nowhere and ruin the game for a Runner who forgot to play around them (or were hoping that you didn't draw them). The turn of warning gives the Runner counterplay (e.g. they can choose to not run, in order to not turn on a kill card). Additionally, the card gets placed on top of R&D. For most operations, that benefits the Corp (both because it blocks R&D from single accesses, and because it is harder to get rid of untrashable cards in R&D than in HQ, due to cards like Burner and Eye for an Eye). But operations that act as "unfair" win conditions, like Measured Response, generally come with trash costs so that the Runner has counterplay – and if you put a trashable card on top of R&D, the Runner counterplay is obvious (you just have to try to get into R&D to trash it). All this means that it tends to nudge the Corp towards generally healthier play patterns and away from those that give a negative play experience.

Finally, it's also worth noting that unlike Project Beale, which would outright win you the game if overscored by 10 counters, this card has diminishing rather than accumulating returns if you somehow manage to overadvance it into the stratosphere. That means that instead of encouraging Psychographics combos and utter jank like importing Red Planet Couriers into NBN, the card instead encourages trying to go a bit further with basic actions and Netrunner fundamentals, and it's probably more beneficial to the game to have those moments of mid-game decision-making happening all the way from jinteki.net casual lobbies up to the top tables of tournaments than it is to support decks that use PAD Factory to advance the opponent's console (the latter is fun once or twice – I should know, I've done it – but doesn't have the same sort of lasting benefit).

So this is a well-designed card, but how strong is it? The flippant answer is "it doesn't matter how strong it is, it's a 3/2" – fast-advance decks would be playing it regardless, but they definitely get value from its 4/2 mode existing, so it's somewhat stronger for them than a true blank 3/2 would be. It wouldn't surprise me if it also turned up outside fast advance on occasion (although it probably isn't a staple); it has a number of decent modes when scored as a 4/2, and although none of them are extremely strong, the flexibility might well be enough for it to earn a slot (especially if the deck has some fast-advance tools available as a plan B, and thus benefits from 3/2s existing in the deck even if they aren't normally sccored like that).

First things first, this is probably worse than Market Forces. That said, this card is largely meant as its replacement, so let's talk about its unique advantages and disadvantages. Removing a tag costs approximately 3 credits to the runner (click and 2c), so Bigger Picture is a 7c swing per tag removed compared to the 6c swing of Market Forces. Economically, this means Bigger Picture's siphon effect is overall a marginally bigger swing than Market Forces. Also, Bigger Picture's tag removal triggers Synapse, if you care about that for...some reason.

If the runner is floating a single tag, the other mode on Bigger Picture can activate 2 tag punishment, notably Shipment from Vladisibirsk.

However, there are some significant problems. A tag is worth significantly more than 3 credits, so the economic calculation isn't actually favourable for Bigger Picture. If anything, the runner's clicks are very valuable for drawing and playing econ cards, so Bigger Picture is quite a bit worse. This also assumes that the runner is on a multiple of 5c. If the runner has some awkward amount like 8c, then you can either leave the runner with 3c of change or inefficiently remove 2 tags.

Yikes.

It also bears, possibly the worst issue, that removing the runner's tags typically turns off your own wincons. IP Enforcement and Shipment require a heavily tagged runner, and helping the runner remove these tags is a suspect proposition. If the runner is tag-me, then Market Forces is simply better than Bigger Picture. A big Market Forces will leave the runner on 0c and a flood of tags, while Bigger Picture frequently gives the runner a way out. All of this said, I would consider running 1x Bigger Picture in NBN Elevation tag decks, because it's still very good against a tag-me runner.

The Seventh Rotation is upon us. All the FFG cards have rotated out, apart from the few that were reprinted in Ashes or System Gateway (or reprinted with a different name in Elevation). I think this has removed more cards from the Standard metagame at once than at any previous time – and that shifts the context of the cards that are still left, because the game has changed around them.

Take Game Over, for example. Historically, it hasn't been a very good card, in most gamestates effectively reading "Pay 4 and take 1 bad publicity. The Runner pays 6 and trashes a few cards that are no longer relevant." That effect isn't completely terrible, but it was historically outclassed by, e.g., Hard-Hitting News, which was much better in a metagame where Corps were generally rich midgame and doing economic damage to the Runner wouldn't matter much in the late game.

But the rotation has made both Corps and Runners a lot poorer, especially if either of the two players is trying to force interaction (and many staple Runner economy cards, like Daily Casts and Rezeki, have been banned). That's had two main effects on the game, which are both somewhat favourable for Game Over: Runners are more likely to be using an economy which needs to flood the board with resources or non-icebreaker programs in order to function, as there aren't so many alternative options nowadays; and Runners who get hit with Game Over are less likely to be able to pay. Additionally, with many of the older cards gone, it's more likely that Runners will be making use of some of the many cybernetic cards in Borealis – so it may sometimes even be relevantly possible to hit Hardware. So the card is probably worth re-evaluating in the context of the new metagame.

The first thing that's worth noting is that Game Over is a somewhat situational card, but it's a situation that is somewhat common and that many decks benefit from having a card to cover: Game Over is at its best when it's protecting a lead that's starting to slip away. That in general is a really common scenario for Corps in Netrunner, though: in general the Runner has an advantage at the start and end of the game and the Corp in the middle, so if the Runner isn't particularly aggressive, it is common for the Corp to have a somewhat precarious lead going into the late game, and the game is often decided by whether or not the Corp is able to close it out. I've been testing it out in a fast-advance deck, which might potentially lose an agenda to random accesses early-game, is likely to fast-advance a number of agendas in the mid-game and get a lead, but then has to face a difficult late-game where the centrals are being hammered. Perhaps the Runner is trying to R&D-lock you; the Corp counterplay to that is to draw a lot of cards in order to sneak agendas past the R&D lock, and the Runner counter-counterplay to that is to steal the drawn agendas from HQ. So you effectively end up in a situation where the Corp needs to survive just one Runner turn with their agenda in hand and their fast-advance tricks available, but may not naturally be able to do so because the Runner is able to keep up constant pressure.

Game Over shines in this sort of situation. For one thing, the Runner is probably spending lots of credits in order to keep up the pressure. Game Over isn't very good if the Runner is rich, as they'll just pay to keep everything important. But (as is commonly the case for NBN) it's much better if the Runner is under economic pressure. Cards that give the opponent a choice, like this one, are usually worse than they seem, because the opponent can pick the least damaging option and thus the card is only good for you in cases where both options are good for you. But if you pick a card type that's powering the opponent's economy (either by making credits directly or by saving them credits), Game Over is effectively giving the opponent a choice between losing credits or losing credits – they can pick the option that loses them fewer credits (which in this situation is usually to trash everything), but either way they are losing credits: and as long as they needed those credits to get in and stop your plans, Game Over can be sufficient to buy the turn you need to win the game. (Compare to something like Oppo Research: Oppo is great to hit the opponent with in the midgame because it takes them a while to recover, but it doesn't do that much to close out a game where both players are close to winning, as the opponent can just ignore the tags and try to win that turn.)

Game Over's somewhat awkward timing restriction (it has to be played the turn after an agenda steal) can matter, and it restricts the deck types that you can put it in. In particular, you're generally aiming to win the turn after playing Game Over, which means that if you're planning a scoring win, you will need an agenda left to score – and the Runner just stole one, so you need to have had two of them. Likewise, if you have a kill combo that depends on things with a trash cost, you need the Runner to not trash them in the same run that's stealing the agenda, So your deck will need to be the sort that draws lots of cards, ideally ones that the Runner wasn't able to access recently. This is a problem that isn't unique to Game Over: the "R&D lock", which aims to prevent the opponent ever drawing an agenda, is a common option for Runners for their late-game strategy, so Corp decks often need a way to counter it. That means that Game Over will be better if your deck has cards that aim to win through an R&D lock (as opposed to preventing the lock being set up in the first place), e.g. bulk card draw and things that shuffle R&D. This means that I think Game Over is better in decks that are particularly vulnerable to R&D lock (such as fast-advance decks) and are therefore already playing cards to try to deal with the situation.

As a summary, to play Game Over, you need a deck which a) can get a winning combination of cards into its hand even while under pressure and b) just needs to be able to survive a turn to be able to actually use them to win. If you do have such a deck, though, a Game Over in hand is extremely good at converting a lead into a win: if the Runner starts to come back into the game via spending most of their credits stealing agendas, you Game Over them, locking them out for a turn, and win the next turn – and if the Runner doesn't manage to steal any agendas, you won't be able to play Game Over, but you win regardless. The bad publicity would have been a major downside if you played it earlier in the game – but if you're planning to win on the turn afterwards, you only compensated the Runner 1 per run they make on their net turn, which probably won't be enough for them to get in anywhere.

Game Over is kind-of terrible in the early game, or if you're behind, though. If you play it before most of the Runner's cards are on the table, the positive effects of the card won't have a significant impact and the bad publicity will really hurt – and thus if the Runner manages to score six points in the midgame, the card will be entirely useless. Likewise, if you play it when you're behind, it will probably hurt you more than it hurts the Runner. As such, you really want your deck to be one that leverages the Corp's mid-game advantage in order to be ahead going into the late-game.

You also really want the Runner's deck to be one whose economy relies on installed cards rather than events: but this condition might not be as bad as it seems. For one thing, Game Over takes up just a single card slot in your deck (because you're only planning to play it late-game anyway, and can generally leave it in your hand until then), so it's OK to use it as a tech card rather than a core part of your strategy: if you have a deck that struggles against Runners who gradually build up a resource-based economy over the course of a long game, then this can be your tool for dealing with it, and you can ignore it in the matchups that don't look like that. Additionally, there's a sort of "situation stacking": the card has two requirements to be good (you have a lead going into the late game, and the Runner has an economy based on a lot of installed cards) , but those requirements tend to be met in the same sorts of games (a Runner who is spending lots of time setting up a large board probably doesn't have enough aggression to take the lead in the midgame), and thus when one requirement is met, the other also tends to be met.

So is Game Over actually good now? I'm not sure yet, but assuming that you're playing the right sort of deck for it – a deck that tends to get the advantage mid-game, wants to use a tech card slot to help it close out the game against late-game-focused Runners, forces the Runner to spend a lot of credits on interacting with it, and is sufficiently scared of R&D locks that it's already running ways to escape them – it might well be. When the right moment to use it comes up, it's great, so the only real question is as to whether those moments come up often enough for the card to pull its weight, or whether it would be better off as some card that's more generally applicable.