Legality (show more) |
---|
Standard Ban List 23.09 (latest) |
Standard Ban List 23.08 (active) |
Rotation |
---|
Pre-rotation decklist |
Packs |
---|
Core Set |
A Study in Static |
Humanity's Shadow |
Future Proof |
Creation and Control |
True Colors |
Honor and Profit |
Up and Over |
Old Hollywood |
Data and Destiny |
Card draw simulator |
---|
Odds: 0% – 0% – 0% more
|
Repartition by Cost |
---|
Repartition by Strength |
---|
Derived from |
---|
None. Self-made deck here. |
Inspiration for | |||
---|---|---|---|
Hayley Beyond Thunderdome | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Feng Shui (Falling Cleaning 2.0) | 29 | 25 | 8 |
Include in your page (help) |
---|
You pop a Clone Chip. It nets you 15 credits. What happened?
.
.
.
.
.
You trash it on your opponent's turn, triggering 3x Wasteland. You get back Harbinger and sell it to Aesop for 6 credits. Next turn, you sell it again.
The best thing I can say about this deck is that there are no dead cards, in any matching. All of your silver bullets: Net Shield, Paricia, and the like, pay out somewhere between Easy Mark and Lucky Find. Harbinger is worth 6-12 depending on Wastelands, and you can also take the Wasteland payout and the Late discount at the same time when you pop an SMC on the corp's turn.
The best form of this deck will run a variety of answers to the different decks in your meta, she in the knowledge that the ones you don't use will get you paid.
I had a ton of fun with this on octgn last night, and found myself changing it after every game. The Aesop-Wasteland economy can justifylot of fun cards that don't normally make the cut.
16 comments |
---|
23 Sep 2015
PaxCecilia
|
23 Sep 2015
daytodave
Wait till you figure out that you can take off Kati, sell her for $6 at start of turn, then install your second one for $2 |
23 Sep 2015
sruman
Cache seems like a natural in this deck. Perhaps, -1 gingerbread, -1 net shield, -1 stimhack for 3 cache? Given they could net 9 credits each, that's a pretty appealing prospect. |
23 Sep 2015
daytodave
You could cut corroder for shaper fracters and Cache, but the real question is, do we want to spend 12 influence on this economy package instead of 9, and is Cache more worth it than adding HQ pressure? Maybe the answer is yes. |
23 Sep 2015
ミドリン
What about it in a Exile: Streethawk, by swapping 1 Stimhack for Scheherazade ? Since your not using "that much" kate ability, it would even out by Scheherazade, with the ability to draw one card in addition. I would in that case swap Quality Time for Test Run/Scavenge (cause exile). I need to try that out. In any case, thanks for that list, seems pretty fun to play. |
23 Sep 2015
daytodave
Look up Dumpster Gamble, which did basically what you're describing. The only issue with Exile is that you need tons of draw early to get Aesop's and Wasteland out. Cutting Diesel/Quality Time for cards that enable Exile so you can draw more seems like you're working against yourself. |
23 Sep 2015
sruman
Exile is an interesting thought, I was thinking about Hayley given many pretty cheap installs. |
23 Sep 2015
StashAugustine
For a minute there I thought this could be a Professor deck. Then I remembered Wasteland cost influence. |
23 Sep 2015
Wolf88
Well duh nice idea! You didn't go the full mile though. Lady instead of corroder means even more credits when you sell off the exhausted one! |
23 Sep 2015
Abstract
|
23 Sep 2015
daytodave
I really like Technical Writer as well, but after playing a bit it has been moved from the initial deck to the list of cards to test later. Tech Writer makes the endgame explode (and could potentially replace Kati for that reason), but it's a card you have to draw early and that doesn't give money right away. To make it work, we need to mitigate the fact that it only pays out big once you're already set up, and thus don't need the money. One way to do it is Levy, in a set up similar to (Big Girls Play with Monoliths](http://netrunnerdb.com/en/decklist/808/big-girls-play-with-monoliths), where you draw through the deck once setting up, Levy, and get those Writers back to do it again. Sometimes I wish Netrunner was played to 10 points instead of 7, so these time-investment strategies could have more time to breathe. |
23 Sep 2015
daytodave
@Abstract I really like Technical Writer as well, but after playing a bit it has been moved from the initial deck to the list of cards to test later. Tech Writer makes the endgame explode (and could potentially replace Kati for that reason), but it's a card you have to draw early and that doesn't give money right away. To make it work, we need to mitigate the fact that it only pays out big once you're already set up, and thus don't need the money. One way to do it is Levy, in a set up similar to Big Girls Play with Monoliths, where you draw through the deck once setting up, Levy, and get those Writers back to do it again. Sometimes I wish Netrunner was played to 10 points instead of 7, so these time-investment strategies could have more time to breathe. |
23 Sep 2015
moistloaf
wacky stuff, Wasteland is a lot ofinfluence though. i like the gingerbread, tracers may become a thing after D&D |
25 Sep 2015
falseidol
with Kati Jones and all your install shenanigans, might you want Daily Casts over Codebusting. I still like Armitage Codebusting, I think its a really undervalued card, but in this instance you might be a little click-intensive for it to do as much work. Gingerbread is an interesting pick that could carry its weight in D&D (haven't been playing it at all online, so IDK) , but I still don't like its ratios enough to pull for it with SMC, I feel like you have a better breaker for almost every ICE (don't quote me on that, haven't crunched any numbers). All-told, 2 influence is a steep cost if gingerbread is just a cute silver bullet, but I hope it gets a chance to drop some jaws. Cool list Dave, thanks for sharing! |
17 Oct 2015
ToastedMarshmellow08
Thank you for making a gingerbread deck that looks like it could kind of work. |
When I was looking at the version @Grimwalker posted, I hadn't realized that clearing an Armitage Codebusting would count towards Wasteland. Good lord.