

Hi I'll be posting here when I find interesting/strong decks that I encounter in my games on OCTGN and IRL. Sometimes I might have full lists, but sometimes I'll just list down what I saw.
1. HB Mighty Money seen as piloted by dukem(OCTGN) Haas Bioroid: Stronger Together 3x Beta Test 3x Priority Requisition 3x Project Wotan Variety of bioroids including wotan, janus, 2.0s Paper Wall Rototurret Bioroid Efficiency Research Oversight AI Precognition Melange Mining Corp Adonis Campaign Eve Campaign Awakening Center and other cards Note: No operation economy was seen(though hedge fund might be in there) Total: 59 cards
Ran into this deck while testing the programheavy reina(Caissadilla thread) modified with extra focus on account siphon and lost two out of two games.
This is a glacier deck, playing minimal agendas, forcing the runner to overscore to win, making R&D accesses worth fewer points on average. Mathematically, scoring 3/9 agendas from a 59 card deck takes a lot more random accesses than 4/12 agendas from a 49 card deck, but I won't go into the math here. The idea is to play the fastrez cards on wotan and the 2.0 ice or layer on some bioroids as a protection/tax on the many economy assets and get lots of cash, then throw on more bioroids until you establish enough control to slow advance the agendas. An interesting effect of playing asset economy is that you have a mitigating effect on account siphon as you can rez assets to prevent profitable siphons, as compared to an operation economy glacier deck.
Like all glacier decks, this deck is best against runbased economies, or lowcredit economies(caissa/spinal modem have a trouble finding money to trash things like eve campaign). The deck is weak against opus economy, traditional bigrig kates, katman and RNG(due to the R&D accesses you will probably have to allow). If you are a player who hates giving away R&D accesses, don't play the deck. I think the deck is fairly strong, much stronger when not scouted(especially the agenda distribution) but the games will also take fairly long, so it's probably a bad idea to bring it to a tournament.
2. To be continued

R N
United States California

I'm not sure that needing to access 23 more cards on average to win is really "a lot" more than normal. IMO the fact that he is running so many assets probably negates any benefit from running that agenda composition.
http://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/16294/agendacompositions



I forgot to mention that the deck doesn't draw, to reduce the rate of exposure of cards for access, which works in combination with the agenda composition to produce the "glacier effect".
You do have a good point though. Lowcredit reina does particularly poorly against this specific setup because it doesn't have the cash to trash those assets in exchange for more accesses.



You've reduced your average agenda points per card from 0.4082 to 0.4068. That's not that big a change.



salty53 wrote: You've reduced your average agenda points per card from 0.4082 to 0.4068. That's not that big a change.
The concept is not average AP per card.
The concept is on average, more AP needed to win, increased likelihood to overscore, thus reducing the 'effective AP' of the agendas if you want to think about it like that. The effect is most pronounced for 6 3pointers in a 44 card NBN TWIY deck, but that deck is dumb.

Panagiotis Zinoviadis
Greece Thessaloniki
Among the Stars:The Ambassadors

If you have only two pointers in your deck, then you and the runner need four cards to win (8 agenda points. If you have only 3 pointers then you need only 3 cards.
4 cards is over scoring, not three cards.



9 AP needed to win(6x 3pointers) vs 8 AP needed to win(4x 2 pointers)
Should I detail out the math?

Peter Hall
United States Marion SC  South Carolina

I briefly considered this type of deck for Worlds. I was looking at the nonScorch Weyland build and thinking, "hey, you could just add one more 3fer and add nine nonagenda cards" (since the deck was already at 21 points due to wanting three Hostile Takeover).
Going to 59 drops the runner from an 18.4% chance of an agenda on random access to a 16.9%. Certainly not a huge difference, but not nuthin'.
I tried an HB version as well, but there you can already hit twenty on the nose pretty easily. And, however you go, you end up with a somewhat awkward agenda assortment.

Panagiotis Zinoviadis
Greece Thessaloniki
Among the Stars:The Ambassadors

siowy wrote: 9 AP needed to win(6x 3pointers) vs 8 AP needed to win(4x 2 pointers)
Should I detail out the math?
When you score an agenda, you do not spend anything more according to how big the agenda was.
When you score 4 cards instead of 3 cards, then you have spent more, at least one more run to score the actual agenda.
Why is overscoring in agenda points affects your overall performance?
Why scoring 9 points with 3 agendas is worst than scoring 8 points with 4 agendas?



ZiNOS wrote: siowy wrote: 9 AP needed to win(6x 3pointers) vs 8 AP needed to win(4x 2 pointers)
Should I detail out the math? When you score an agenda, you do not spend anything more according to how big the agenda was. When you score 4 cards instead of 3 cards, then you have spent more, at least one more run to score the actual agenda. Why is overscoring in agenda points affects your overall performance? Why scoring 9 points with 3 agendas is worst than scoring 8 points with 4 agendas?
I assume the notion here is that by reducing Agenda density you're forcing more runs to actually SCORE those 3 cards.
Now, a 2% difference per run isn't a huge difference, but if you can make those runs as taxing as possible, there's possibly some merit here.
I'd be interested to see some collated data as to how effective this is.

Panagiotis Zinoviadis
Greece Thessaloniki
Among the Stars:The Ambassadors

CommissarFeesh wrote: ZiNOS wrote: siowy wrote: 9 AP needed to win(6x 3pointers) vs 8 AP needed to win(4x 2 pointers)
Should I detail out the math? When you score an agenda, you do not spend anything more according to how big the agenda was. When you score 4 cards instead of 3 cards, then you have spent more, at least one more run to score the actual agenda. Why is overscoring in agenda points affects your overall performance? Why scoring 9 points with 3 agendas is worst than scoring 8 points with 4 agendas? I assume the notion here is that by reducing Agenda density you're forcing more runs to actually SCORE those 3 cards. Now, a 2% difference per run isn't a huge difference, but if you can make those runs as taxing as possible, there's possibly some merit here. I'd be interested to see some collated data as to how effective this is.
Still the difference is 1,5% whereas 3 runs compared to 4 runs is a 25% difference!
I think that the OP is trying to say something different but i am not getting his point.

Dave Sutcliffe
United Kingdom Manchester

With a deck playing few Agenda cards your games become increasingly unpredictable  each random access that hits an Agenda swings the game by an increasingly large amount because each Agenda is worth more points. Over time that is balanced out by games where the Runner accesses fewer Agendas, but it makes your deck more prone to suffering extremes of good/bad luck.



ZiNOS wrote: CommissarFeesh wrote: ZiNOS wrote: siowy wrote: 9 AP needed to win(6x 3pointers) vs 8 AP needed to win(4x 2 pointers)
Should I detail out the math? When you score an agenda, you do not spend anything more according to how big the agenda was. When you score 4 cards instead of 3 cards, then you have spent more, at least one more run to score the actual agenda. Why is overscoring in agenda points affects your overall performance? Why scoring 9 points with 3 agendas is worst than scoring 8 points with 4 agendas? I assume the notion here is that by reducing Agenda density you're forcing more runs to actually SCORE those 3 cards. Now, a 2% difference per run isn't a huge difference, but if you can make those runs as taxing as possible, there's possibly some merit here. I'd be interested to see some collated data as to how effective this is. Still the difference is 1,5% whereas 3 runs compared to 4 runs is a 25% difference! I think that the OP is trying to say something different but i am not getting his point.
But are those runs free? Can you AFFORD to make the runs as frequently if the Corp is running deep servers in his glacial decks?

Panagiotis Zinoviadis
Greece Thessaloniki
Among the Stars:The Ambassadors

The difference is 1,5% when you access a card.
The original posted stated that it is better to have fewer larger agendas than more small ones.
HOWEVER, you need minimum 4 runs to score 4 3/2 agendas and only 3 minimum runs to score 3 5/3 agendas to win. The fact that you "overscore" is totally irrelevant since overscoring is not penalised or rewarded in any way.
Gotta go, I just do not understand the maths and the logic of the original poster.
With 5/3 agendas you need 7 agendas in your deck. With 3/2 agendas, you need 10 agendas in your deck.
7/49=14.3% of your deck 10/49=20.4% of your deck.
6.1%
Still, in the first deck you need only 3 successful runs whereas in the second you need 4 runs.
Unless if we are talking of strange mixes with more than 49 cards to maximize the large agendas. But then we are talking about not so effective decks.



ZiNOS wrote: The difference is 1,5% when you access a card.
The original posted stated that it is better to have fewer larger agendas than more small ones.
HOWEVER, you need minimum 4 runs to score 4 3/2 agendas and only 3 minimum runs to score 3 5/3 agendas to win. The fact that you "overscore" is totally irrelevant since overscoring is not penalised or rewarded in any way.
Gotta go, I just do not understand the maths and the logic of the original poster.
With 5/3 agendas you need 7 agendas in your deck. With 3/2 agendas, you need 10 agendas in your deck.
7/49=14.3% of your deck 10/49=20.4% of your deck.
6.1%
Still, in the first deck you need only 3 successful runs whereas in the second you need 4 runs.
Unless if we are talking of strange mixes with more than 49 cards to maximize the large agendas. But then we are talking about not so effective decks.
Well, the OP does state the deck is 59 cards, not 49. Obviously that changes the numbers somewhat. Based on recent OCTGN data, 54 and 59 card corp decks aren't much less effective than 49 card decks either.
As I've stated previously, the idea (from what I can understand) is about minimising those accesses. As MagicDave points out, this does open the deck to more extreme swings of luck, but I can see where he's coming from. I doubt I'd run a deck this way myself, but it's probably viable.



If you run an 89 card Weyland deck with 3x of all the 5/3 agendas, then only 13.5% of your deck is agendas. This comes out to 20 random accesses winning you 50% of your games as a runner. A 49 card deck with 10 agendas will win after 20 random accesses 65% of the time. The chances of pulling agendas off with 8 accesses and just winning is 7% for the 89 card deck.
There's basically a 15% decrease in the effectiveness of accessing cards at random.
Your games will take longer. It will take the corp just as long to find an agenda. If the runner can establish an R&D lock they'll win eventually, or if they use expose effects and just hoard cash to only make good effective runs, they'll win.
When you combine the effectiveness of ice at slowing down accesses, it is easy to see how that 15% decrease in effectiveness of access might lead to less runs rather than more.
(It should be said that a 59 card deck doesn't see these averages affect it)

Brodie
United States KC Missouri

My friend plays a deck almost exactly like this. Its glaring weakness is its inability to bluff an agenda. When I realized the deck's strategy, I just started to pile money up and wait for a card to land in a remote and get advanced. By that point, I had plenty of cash, so one big taxing run wasn't a problem. Because agenda density is so low, I just waited for the Corp to drop and advance before running, and collected funds while I waited. It was boring, but super effective.

Gregory Pettigrew
United States Massachusetts

Agent Archer wrote: My friend plays a deck almost exactly like this. Its glaring weakness is its inability to bluff an agenda. When I realized the deck's strategy, I just started to pile money up and wait for a card to land in a remote and get advanced. By that point, I had plenty of cash, so one big taxing run wasn't a problem. Because agenda density is so low, I just waited for the Corp to drop and advance before running, and collected funds while I waited. It was boring, but super effective.
Yup. It needs Thomas Haas and/or Cerebral Overwriter.



ZiNOS wrote: CommissarFeesh wrote: ZiNOS wrote: siowy wrote: 9 AP needed to win(6x 3pointers) vs 8 AP needed to win(4x 2 pointers)
Should I detail out the math? When you score an agenda, you do not spend anything more according to how big the agenda was. When you score 4 cards instead of 3 cards, then you have spent more, at least one more run to score the actual agenda. Why is overscoring in agenda points affects your overall performance? Why scoring 9 points with 3 agendas is worst than scoring 8 points with 4 agendas? I assume the notion here is that by reducing Agenda density you're forcing more runs to actually SCORE those 3 cards. Now, a 2% difference per run isn't a huge difference, but if you can make those runs as taxing as possible, there's possibly some merit here. I'd be interested to see some collated data as to how effective this is. Still the difference is 1,5% whereas 3 runs compared to 4 runs is a 25% difference! I think that the OP is trying to say something different but i am not getting his point.
I appreciate your faith in my thinking.
I'll try to illustrate my point. I have talked about this in another glacier deck thread on stimhack.com's forum http://forum.stimhack.com/t/hbglacier/388
(1) Take a 7 agenda deck with 49 cards. A good starting point is to assume that the runner accesses ALL of the cards seen by the corp(ignore things like jackson cycling agendas into R&D). On average, the corp must expose(and by expose i mean 'make available for access') 3/7 of his deck before enough AP appears and the runner is even ABLE to win. That's 21 cards. For a typical NBN deck with 12 agendas, you would need to score 4 agendas, so on average, 4/12 of the deck must be exposed for enough AP to appear, which is 16.25 cards.
(2) For purposes of counting cards that have been exposed, we take original deck size minus cards left in R&D. We will definitely add in the top card of R&D, since access to R&D sees one card. Runners will often have multiple access cards for R&D, so we can assume that the top 2 cards of R&D are exposed. Using this measurement, on turn 1, the corp has exposed 8 cards (6 in HQ, 2 on top of R&D). Every draw exposes one card, every trash from R&D exposes one card. If no assets are played and no imps/demo runs are played, a glacier deck without assets will on average, have 13 turns(218=13) of play where it can expect NOT to lose, even if every card he exposed was accessed.
(3) In contrast, as NBN with a typical agenda mix, you sometimes click to draw, or even draw with jackson. Let's average 0.75 draws a turn with NBN, which means 1 in 4 actions is a draw. Thus, you now expose 1.75 cards a turn, in addition to the initial 8 exposures. Since you would on average expose 4 agendas at 16.25 exposures, you will on average expose enough agendas for the runner to win by turn 56(turn 5 15.75 exposures, turn 6 17.5 exposures), meaning NBN has about 78 turns less than 7 agenda glacier before on average, the runner can win.
(4) If you followed the argument so far, you should be able to recognise the assumptions made and how the real number is different. For one, assets can be trashed from R&D for 1 exposure each(the likelihood of this is related to the trash cost of the asset, when we don't factor in the runner). If you score agendas, the runner cannot score the agenda, so it increases the additional exposures needed for runner to win, when you score agendas. Jacksoning agendas back into R&D again increases exposures needed but concentrates R&D slightly. Glacier decks EXPECT to leak 6 points in the first 1015 turns, but then they blank out desperadoes, datasuckers, run events and try to win from there. I believe HB glacier(using ETF), described in the link I posted earlier, is a better glacier deck, because it has tollbooths and interns(to clear femme counters from the booth) which can lock out some runners completely(running yogsuckers), and also more doesn't depend on fast rez, because fast rez ends up costing more in the end. This deck is surely faster than HB glacier, but it is easier to just stockpile creds and breakers to make 'the glory run' against this deck because the protection is not as strong.
(5) Glacier decks are always vulnerable to accesses early on, because no matter what you do, an aggressive runner will get many accesses against you because you don't have enough money to rez all ice to protect R&D and HQ at the same time, let alone a remote(this deck tries to speed that along with the fast rez cards). Throw into siphon, shutdown, maker's eye, RDI and glacier decks leak even more accesses.



etherial wrote: Agent Archer wrote: My friend plays a deck almost exactly like this. Its glaring weakness is its inability to bluff an agenda. When I realized the deck's strategy, I just started to pile money up and wait for a card to land in a remote and get advanced. By that point, I had plenty of cash, so one big taxing run wasn't a problem. Because agenda density is so low, I just waited for the Corp to drop and advance before running, and collected funds while I waited. It was boring, but super effective. Yup. It needs Thomas Haas and/or Cerebral Overwriter.
It's a catch 22. Including those assets means weakening R&D(low trash cost), which you don't want to do, save for the economy assets which are the core of this deck. Also, if you want to get them reliably you need multiple copies of advanceable assets, worsening the situation. And then you might not draw them. And then the runner might have infiltration. And then the runner might be able to make 2 glory runs. In short, it's not the right way.
Ash(with archived/interns recursion), Tollbooth, Off the Grid are probably the best ways. Caprice Nisei might be good too, though unreliable without partnering with Ash.

R N
United States California

Aparently people don't like clicking links. In the second post I've linked to Hollis' article on agenda composition where he has run scripts to figure out the impact of different agenda compositions. You don't need to run the math, it is already done and presented in the article:
http://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/16294/agendacompositions
If you still don't want to click the link and read the article, which is a good one, then here is the summary table'
The agenda composition does very little for you, requiring perhaps 23 more accesses in a game. The only composition that I think is at all worthwhile is the all 2's since it is less susceptible to lucky early draws.



slacks wrote: Aparently people don't like clicking links. In the second post I've linked to Hollis' article on agenda composition where he has run scripts to figure out the impact of different agenda compositions. You don't need to run the math, it is already done and presented in the article: http://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/16294/agendacompositionsIf you still don't want to click the link and read the article, which is a good one, then here is the summary table' The agenda composition does very little for you, requiring perhaps 23 more accesses in a game. The only composition that I think is at all worthwhile is the all 2's since it is less susceptible to lucky early draws.
I believe that either the math is faulty in the article, or blind accesses and exposures are different.
For 3 of 7 agendas to be exposed, on average 3/7 of your deck must be exposed(3/7 * 49 = 21). The article/table claims that for 7 agendas, 17 blind accesses wins 50% of the time, which either doesn't address the idea of exposures or miscalculates the numbers.



siowy wrote: I believe that either the math is faulty in the article, or blind accesses and exposures are different.
For 3 of 7 agendas to be exposed, on average 3/7 of your deck must be exposed(3/7 * 49 = 21). The article/table claims that for 7 agendas, 17 blind accesses wins 50% of the time, which either doesn't address the idea of exposures or miscalculates the numbers.
It's probably a good idea to check the program rather than simply critique the summary if you think something is wrong with the math.
As I'm very bored I whipped up a simpler program (only checks the 3x7 configuration) and had it run 100,000 iterations just for fun. Turns out the average amount of cards you need to access is 18.41458 which, if you check that lovely chart, is pretty in line with the 2x1, 3x6 configuration. I don't care enough to actually check the other odds, but checking the average does hit the 50% spot you're questioning.
EDIT: If anyone is interested I can post the code if you'd like to double check my stuff.



Dovian wrote: siowy wrote: I believe that either the math is faulty in the article, or blind accesses and exposures are different.
For 3 of 7 agendas to be exposed, on average 3/7 of your deck must be exposed(3/7 * 49 = 21). The article/table claims that for 7 agendas, 17 blind accesses wins 50% of the time, which either doesn't address the idea of exposures or miscalculates the numbers. It's probably a good idea to check the program rather than simply critique the summary if you think something is wrong with the math. As I'm very bored I whipped up a simpler program (only checks the 3x7 configuration) and had it run 100,000 iterations just for fun. Turns out the average amount of cards you need to access is 18.41458 which, if you check that lovely chart, is pretty in line with the 2x1, 3x6 configuration. I don't care enough to actually check the other odds, but checking the average does hit the 50% spot you're questioning. EDIT: If anyone is interested I can post the code if you'd like to double check my stuff.
I gave two possible explanations for why that number is different from mine.

Aaron Schneider
United States California

siowy wrote: Dovian wrote: siowy wrote: I believe that either the math is faulty in the article, or blind accesses and exposures are different.
For 3 of 7 agendas to be exposed, on average 3/7 of your deck must be exposed(3/7 * 49 = 21). The article/table claims that for 7 agendas, 17 blind accesses wins 50% of the time, which either doesn't address the idea of exposures or miscalculates the numbers. It's probably a good idea to check the program rather than simply critique the summary if you think something is wrong with the math. As I'm very bored I whipped up a simpler program (only checks the 3x7 configuration) and had it run 100,000 iterations just for fun. Turns out the average amount of cards you need to access is 18.41458 which, if you check that lovely chart, is pretty in line with the 2x1, 3x6 configuration. I don't care enough to actually check the other odds, but checking the average does hit the 50% spot you're questioning. EDIT: If anyone is interested I can post the code if you'd like to double check my stuff. I gave two possible explanations for why that number is different from mine.
3/7 * 49 is oversimplifying the average number of accesses needed, because the accesses are not independent events. The actual probability calculation is rather complicated (which is why it's easier to write a program to calculate the value empirically), but here's an idea of why your intuition is wrong:
Imagine you needed all 20 agenda points to win (7 out of 7 agendas). According to your logic above, on average 7/7 of your deck must be exposed (7/7 * 49 = 49). So you would conclude that you need to see 49 cards to have a 50% chance of winning. Yet clearly this is false, because seeing 49 cards gives you a 100% chance of winning, and you will have a 50% chance of winning after some fewer number of accesses (in fact it happens after seeing 45 cards).
Another way to think about it is that each nonagenda you look at actually increases the odds of the next card being an agenda, which is why you can't just multiply 3/7 * 49 to get the number of expected accesses.


