Oppo Research is a “pseudo-reprisalterminal multi-tagger.

It has two modes:

  • a cheaper/earlier-game, but weaker, mode: 2 tags for $2; and
  • a stronger, but pricier/later-game, mode: 4 tags for $7 (and threat level 3).

For example, if they steal a single 5/3 on even their first turn, then you can quadruple-tag them on your second turn, because both the play-requirement and the threat-gate get satisfied (unless they forfeited it, or bankrupted you, or so on).

The play-requirement is looser than “they stole” (eg. Distributed Tracing) or “they trashed” (eg. Threat Assessment), but tighter than “they succeeded” (eg. Public Trail) or “they ran” (ie. HNN).

Compare:


Flavor: Opposition research is an organization (the Corp) collecting "biographical, legal, criminal, medical, educational, or financial" information on an individual (the Runner) to discredit them.

en.wikipedia.org

Fujii Asset Retrieval is both protective and proactive: it does 2 net damage whether either player steals/scores it (just as it raises the threat level by 3 in either score area).

Design: I really like such agendas (ie. with When this agenda is scored or stolen, … triggers or … This ability is active even while this agenda is in the Runner's score area. statics).


Compare:

Note that, because it has a conditional ability and not an additional cost (as @Diogene says), FAR:

  • can poison Archives if trashed (like two Shock!’s); but
  • cannot defend itself if the Runner already has 4–6 agenda points, even if they only have 0–1 cards gripped (eince the game ended as soon as it was stolen, before the stolen-trigger could resolves).

Synergies:


Flavor: The "assets" are clones and the "retrieval" is re-enslavement.

Oracle Thinktank both punishes stealing (by tagging) and can negate stealing (by shuffling itself back).

Compare: TGTBT, crossed with 15 Minutes or Quantum Predictive Model.

Note that the Corp can only steal it right back on their next turn if: the Runner doesn't untag (unlike 15 Minutes), didn't already have 6 agenda points (unlike Quantum Predictive Model), et cetera.

Note also that you don't have to cash the tag in for the -1 agenda point (you can just keep it around for some tag-gates, or spend it on another tag-cost).

PS. A “purple Oracle Thinktank” (Haas Thinktank?) could do a core damage to be stolen and heal a core damage to unsteal itself:

As an additional cost to steal this agenda, the Runner must suffer 1 core damage.

[click], remove 1 core damage token: Shuffle this agenda into R&D. The Corp can use this ability only if this agenda is in the Runner's score area.

The Haas Thinktank is an interesting concept, but would already be better than this by virtue of the fact that core damage (whether removed or not) would still have lost the Runner one card. To my knowledge, there has also never in the entire history of the game been an effect that removed core damage. To add one in would feel odd, at least to me, as it would remove the sense of permanency that receiving it instills. Lastly, it thematically doesn't quite add up. A corp could bury their own lead (remove a tag) or sharpen their public image (bad pub) but... how do they forcibly repair the anatomy of the runner?

Also, I think it should be kept in mind while Runners are perfectly capable of removing tags, thus allowing them to defend against Oracle Thinktank retrieval, the lack of core damage removal means that this hypothetical Haas Thinktank agenda is effectively always retrievable for the corp except as the seventh point for the Runner.

core damage is partially removable by permanent maximum hand size increases (which prevents automatic flatlining, though wouldn't prevent Ontological Dependence from being fast advanceable).

but, I agree with your criticism, that core damage as a Corp-resource is different from tags as a Corp-resource, because it can't be automatically removed like tags can (without any cards just the builtin game rules, and obviously four tags can be removed in the same turn if it's necessary and affordable).

Ablative Barrier is an early-game gearcheck and late-game non-agenda installer/unarchiver.

Design:

  • Threat-gated “when rezzed” effects, like Threat-gated operations, play differently than Threat-gated repeatable/continuous abilities (Jaguarundi’s “when encountered”, Vovô Ozetti’s static abilities, and so on). This means that by the mid-game, when choosing whether to rez or even install Ablative, you'll be weighing “now” against “more”.

  • Install 1 card from HQ or Archives is narrowed with non-agenda and in the root of or protecting another server. This keeps the rez cost (and threat level) low, and lets you play more with (still broad) subsets of a (super broad) effect, to weave a distinct texture.

For example, you can bring back the (self-trashing and easily-trashable) Rashida Jaheem (which, against a run-last-click, reads When you rez this ice, draw 3 cards and gain $3.!); but you cannot sneak in a Project Vitruvius, nor can you ice up the current server with a Magnet.

Compare:

(Tatu-Bola being Jinteki's 1↳-and-1s-for-$2 ETR ice with some “post-ETR” value.)

By the way, any gearcheck can (implicitly) act like a Pulse trigger, since they waste the click spent on that run (by ending it), which synergizes with click-taxing (in HB esp.).

When you rez this ice during a run 
against this server, the Runner loses [click].

Flavor: In Pathfinder, an "ablative barrier" is a spell that blocks things and pushes them away.

Invisible layers of solid force surround and protect the target, granting that target a +2 armor bonus to AC. Additionally, the first 5 points of lethal damage the target takes from each attack are converted into nonlethal damage.

Regarding the flavour: Ablation, in the context of armour, which is most applicable here, is where it is expected to be destroyed in the process.

Adrian Seis keywords the Psi Game!

Templatings:

  1. You and the Runner secretly spend 0[$], 1[$], or 2[$]. Reveal spent credits. If you and the Runner spent a different number of credits, …; otherwise, …. (cf. Mganga)

  2. Play a Psi Game. (Players secretly bid 0–2[$]. Then each player reveals and spends their bid.) If the bids differ, …. If the bids match, ….

The new templating is more readable, much more skimmable, and even has the same length as the old templating (similar word/character counts), counting the reminder text (as @Saracenar said on Stimhack).

forum.stimhack.com


Design: I like that, for the Runner, a psigame “loss” (ie. differing bids) is mostly-but-not-strictly worse than a psigame “win” (ie. matching bids), since that's when--and only when--they can trash him. Psi-Sysops (aka. PsyOps?) add a different, bidding-based variance to the intrinsic, shuffle-based variance of HQ/R&D breaches (and for the Runner, to the ignorance-based variance in remote/archival breaches).

I also like Jinteki mobility (on self-move-ing defensive upgrades like this, self-swap-ping gearcheck ice like Tatu-Bola, and so on), which is like Jinteki trickery that's “softened” (with some “encounter opt-out” or “access opt-out”). For example:

  • Midori: You may swap that ice with 1 piece of ice from HQ. (the legerdemain) + The Runner may jack out. (the softener).

  • Toshiyuki Sakai: You may swap this asset with an agenda or asset from HQ. (the prestidigitation) + The Runner can choose not to access the new card. (the loosener).

Compare:

  • Caprice Nisei, the archetypal (and archetyping) defensive psi clone upgrade; although Adrian, unlike Caprice, is still trashable on failure (cf. the defensive bioroid upgrade Ash 2X3ZB9CY).
  • Georgia Emelyov, the original “mobile sysop”: although Adrian is turn-based while Georgia credit-based.

In fact, the Liberation Cycle may have a whole cycle of “nomadic sysop’s” (ie. with When your turn ends, you may move this upgrade to the root of another server.):