Dave Hoyland on deck building

User avatar
FightingWalloon
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:13 am

Dave Hoyland on deck building

Postby FightingWalloon » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:21 am

I thought this was an excellent article, but my opinion on such matters is not to be trusted as I am a really new player.

http://netrunners.co.uk/art-deck-building/

I do find that the "core concepts" seem more helpful when thinking about Corp than Runner at this point in my development. When I notice that a deck is a Glacier deck, for instance, that gives me some ideas about how to play against it as a Runner. As a Corp player, though, I am not yet skilled or knowledgeable enough to radically change my play if I spot that I'm against an Ice Destruction Runner rather than a "Good Stuff" Runner. I know this comment is not about deck building, but it is a thought I had while reading it.
User avatar
GuyCliquil
Posts: 935
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:21 pm
Location: Oxford

Re: Dave Hoyland on deck building

Postby GuyCliquil » Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:11 pm

Hello Fighting Walloon

FightingWalloon wrote:I thought this was an excellent article, but my opinion on such matters is not to be trusted as I am a really new player.


Opinions can be just as valid as a new player - sometimes it is not just the content but how much it avoids the kind of short hand that only makes sense to people who know a lot about the game. I am glad you liked Dave's article - I always think he is a good Netrunner writer.


I do find that the "core concepts" seem more helpful when thinking about Corp than Runner at this point in my development. When I notice that a deck is a Glacier deck, for instance, that gives me some ideas about how to play against it as a Runner. As a Corp player, though, I am not yet skilled or knowledgeable enough to radically change my play if I spot that I'm against an Ice Destruction Runner rather than a "Good Stuff" Runner. I know this comment is not about deck building, but it is a thought I had while reading it.


I think that is an interesting question.

I think that the level of adaptation to the runner that is done by the corp is possibly less than the vice versa. Part of the reason for this is because the Corp.,(this is a slight simplification) has control of the availability of points within the game. To put it another way - a runner cannot plan to, in every game, score 5/3 agendas and a 2/1 agenda because the corp might not run any. They can't plan to try and steal a lot of 3/1 or 3/2 agendas because the corp might, again, not run any. The Corp, however, always gets to decide on the agenda density, the type of agendas they try and score and, therefore, to some extent, the pace of the game (or at least the pace they want to play at!)

So as a runner this is something that, as you have been doing, you have to adapt to. As a corp however if you want to go faster than the runner, you are limited by your choice of agendas.

I think there are some adaptations you can do during play; the best thing you can do is anticipate the potential runner moves during your turn. Part of that has been to consider how to actually protect Ice. It sounds counterintuitive but protecting the thing that does the protecting is a thing. Cutlery certainly can be slowed down by having a cheap piece of Ice of the same time ahead of your more expensive one. With Sifr coming along this may be less relevant - time will tell

That said I think there are definitely deck archetypes that stuggle against ice destruction; one of the only decks I was good at was an old Replication Perfection deck that was one of the quintessential glacier decks. This deck sees little play now, largely because it can't build that better boardstate that glacier decks seek to find by the late game.

Hope this helps and/or is useful.
"Guy, you are often right for all the wrong reasons. And if you are wrong, it is always for right reasons." - Brendan .
The Praetor of Jank

Return to “Site Article Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest