Cybernetic Division attempt - (case study deckbuilding)

User avatar
GuyCliquil
Posts: 935
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:21 pm
Location: Oxford

Cybernetic Division attempt - (case study deckbuilding)

Postby GuyCliquil » Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:05 am

I recently was involved in an interesting discussion on

Imperfect Blue over on the Site Article discussion subforum.

One thing that came up was my interest in the way in which to create a different deck to the norm, which seemed to be part of what the article was asking for. I think one of the most difficult skills is knowing when an idea is worth pursuing or when it is dead.

To that end - cue a case study.

Try it again...

Cybernetics Division: Humanity Upgraded (Chrome City)

Agenda (11)
3x Accelerated Beta Test (Core Set)
2x Gila Hands Arcology (Creation and Control)
3x Project Vitruvius (Cyber Exodus)
3x Sentinel Defense Program (Creation and Control)

Asset (9)
3x Adonis Campaign (Core Set)
1x Edge of World (Cyber Exodus) ••
2x Jackson Howard (Opening Moves) ••
2x PAD Campaign (Core Set)
1x Snare! (Core Set) ••

Upgrade (3)
3x Marcus Batty (The Underway) ••••• ••••

Operation (12)
3x Archived Memories (Core Set)
2x Defective Brainchips (The Underway)
3x Hedge Fund (Core Set)
1x Interns (Mala Tempora)
1x Rework (Humanity's Shadow)
2x Subliminal Messaging (Fear and Loathing)

Barrier (2)
2x Wall of Static (Core Set)

Code Gate (7)
2x Quandary (Double Time)
2x Turing (Breaker Bay)
3x Viktor 1.0 (Core Set)

Sentry (5)
2x Architect (Up and Over)
3x Fenris (True Colors)
15 influence spent (max 15)
20 agenda points (between 20 and 21)
49 cards (min 40)
Cards up to The Underway

Deck built on NetrunnerDB.

This is the latest in a long line of iterations of a deck I've toyed with online. To be honest I haven't taken it down to my local meta yet because I... actually I have no idea, just didn't feel like it, partly because jinteki.net is possibly an easier training ground for decks than my local meta.

I believe that this deck is not worth pursuing, but am interested to find out if my reasoning makes sense.

My experience with this deck is that largely it suffers to central pressure and lack of economy. I am usually able to make 1 central dangerous to run on with Batty, but then the other becomes a problem, as usually you can't get 2 Battys at the same time. Equally if the runner is willing to eat 1 set of brain damage and then capatalise on the weakly protected server they can make hay whilst the sun shines.

Equally econ denial just kills this deck dead as you get into a hole you can't get out of, even with a scored Gila.

The core idea is, if of interest, that I force the runner to make risky runs because I am rushing out and I slam them with enough brain damage from Batty to bring their hand size down to 0. Effectively you need to successfully to win 3 psi games, with Defective Brainchips on the table, to win. Or they hit Edge of World for one of those. I have won 1 or 2 games with cautious runners just rushing out and scoring.

Personally I think that this concept is not worth pursuing because in order to maintain the core pieces of the "idea" it prevents you from building enough supporting structures in there to deal with what the runners are trying to do.

Are there any other points that others might be able to point out as good rules of thumb/lookout points for how to identify the dead ends?
"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
User avatar
Brendan
Posts: 1274
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:09 pm
Location: Oxford

Re: Cybernetic Division attempt - (case study deckbuilding)

Postby Brendan » Tue Sep 22, 2015 10:37 am

Well, corp decks need two plans. A plan to win and a plan to not lose before winning.

What's the plan to win here? Many HB decks with Caprice can't score out before the runner is sat on top of them, and that's all they're built to do. Scoring out isn't an option here. If scoring out isn't an option, the runner is under no pressure to run unfavorably. And that means they can do what they want. Sometimes that's okay-ish (Blue Sun 6 agenda deck!), but if there's even 1 silver bullet in the runner deck, they'll have found it before you can exact your kill plan.
User avatar
MasterAir
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:24 am
Location: Oxford

Re: Cybernetic Division attempt - (case study deckbuilding)

Postby MasterAir » Wed Sep 23, 2015 2:51 pm

I think the problem with all decks who want to win using brain damage is that brain damage is really expensive to achieve. To get to 4 or 5 brain is pretty unrealistic in the time frame of a game of netrunner. Your asset econ isn't going to do much work, because there isn't enough pressure on the runner's econ. So they can just blow it up once you've rezzed it. Sentinel Defense Program might be the worst agenda in the game (probably not, Vulcan Coverup exists). I think if you're going for brain damage, it's important to find room for at least one Neural EMP so your win condition isn't quite so distant.

No love for Cerebral Overwriter here either?

Also, Cybernetics Division is a 40/15, isn't it?
Oh that, don't worry about that, it's my negotiating tank.
User avatar
Kesterer
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:30 pm

Re: Cybernetic Division attempt - (case study deckbuilding)

Postby Kesterer » Wed Sep 23, 2015 3:20 pm

I think Snare is better than Edge of World here. As MasterAir says, pure brain damage doesn't work, but does make other kills easier to achieve; and as Brendan says, you need a plan not to lose. The runner doesn't have to play your remote, and against HB ignoring your remote is exactly what most experienced players will usually do, trying to take the points from centrals instead. Snare gives you a very nice natural defence against that, especially in Cybernetics where the 4 hand size can make playing around Snare pretty awkward for the runner, because of the need to draw up before running (and if the runner is playing Faust it's nigh impossible for them to run totally safely against Snare). And put your 3rd Jackson in so you can shuffle Snares back in as much as possible.

I also think 3 Battys is too many Battys, even though he's part of the key idea of the deck. 2 is fine to draw him when you want to, after you have a few bits of ice down, and he's making your R&D leaky by being cheap to trash.

And Rework is rubbish, sorry. :P
User avatar
Panda with issues...
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 6:36 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Cybernetic Division attempt - (case study deckbuilding)

Postby Panda with issues... » Wed Sep 23, 2015 5:11 pm

MasterAir wrote:
Also, Cybernetics Division is a 40/15, isn't it?


No reason at all to run a 44 card deck with all the Noise around at the moment. Just asking for trouble with milling.
User avatar
Brendan
Posts: 1274
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:09 pm
Location: Oxford

Re: Cybernetic Division attempt - (case study deckbuilding)

Postby Brendan » Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:15 pm

I lost at Reading (playing Nasir) to a Cybernetics. I'd taken a brain damage to a Fenris early. Then I had Chairman Hiro rezzed on me. Neural EMP finished me off.
User avatar
Johno
Posts: 686
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 7:29 pm
Location: Reading
Contact:

Re: Cybernetic Division attempt - (case study deckbuilding)

Postby Johno » Thu Sep 24, 2015 8:56 am

Brendan wrote:I lost at Reading (playing Nasir) to a Cybernetics. I'd taken a brain damage to a Fenris early. Then I had Chairman Hiro rezzed on me. Neural EMP finished me off.

There's nothing about this message that I don't love.

Return to “Deck Building Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests