The Mind Behind the Rig

This is a two parts article. Today, we'll be talking about strategy planning for Runners; in the second part, to be released in May, we'll be talking about strategy planning for Corps. Hope you enjoy the reading!

I think it would be fair to say that I see people posting decklists, asking for help, at least 5 days per week. Not just here - BoardgameGeek.com, Reddit.com, Facebook, etc. I think it is great that people are taking this first step to get better by accepting they don't know everything and are looking for tips from more experienced players. But the problem is how this help is given.

Most of the time people, people help saying stuff like "remove this card and include that card". If the newbie asks why, they get something like "because this card is bad and that card is good". We don't have many people explaining strategic thinking as we have people teaching new players how to "net deck" smartly. I'm not saying this sort of help is not useful, but I don't believe new players will ever get into the high level play without understanding the game more deeply. I've written an article last year about it, but maybe it wasn't clear enough, or maybe the Anarch title of my column pushed non-Anarch players from reading it, so I'll try a new one, so maybe I can redeem myself.

What can we learn from business managers?

I want to explain again (and more deeply) what "strategy" actually works. Let's start with the beggining: why are you building a deck? To win matches. That's your goal. That's what you're trying to accomplish, and everything you do should always be guided by that goal. The key question comes now: how are you going to do that? What is the key point you want to achieve that will grant you the victory? That's what made Geoff Hollis' Jinteki so succesful, and arguably the first player to actually understand the faction - he had a clear objective in his matches (to get into the match point).

An objective, applying the concept from business management to Android: Netrunner, is a particular set up or game state that will grant you the victory, or part of it. Having a clear objective is important because your strategy and your tactics will all come from it. In the Runner's case, there are only two ways to design your deck: you either lock the R&D or the HQ.

The term "locking the R&D" means that you're accessing more cards from R&D than the Corp can draw, so you'll always steal an agenda before the Corp draws it. "Locking the HQ" means that the Corp will always be forced to install an agenda as soon as they draw it, making them more vunerable, because the Corp will have to be always ready to protect them in a remote.

These servers are the key ones because they are where the agendas will be whether the Corp wants or not. The whole concept of fast advancing is based on the idea of not putting an agenda in a remote server, because it is perfectly possible to play without remotes, but the Corp cannot avoid to have agendas in HQ or R&D during the flow of the game. While the Corp can draw and install an agenda at the same turn, that will often be a non-optimal moves, and such moves are good for the Runner, because a non-optimal Corp is an easier Corp to hack.

To give you a practical example of how this logic works, let's look at the average R&D lock Criminal deck:

- With or without R&D Interface, the Runner wants to lock the R&D, forcing the Corp to ICE it up. But as the Corp starts to protect it...

- Account Siphon and Emergency Shutdown will make the Corp too poor to be able to rez the pieces of ICE in front of R&D. So Corp now has to protect HQ as well. And as HQ will be defended, Corps will be likely to keep agendas there. But as the Corp starts to protect it...

- Sneakdoor Beta (and HQ Interface) will access HQ through Archives, so agendas will no longer be safe in HQ. Time to protect the Archives too. With three servers to protect at the same time, it will be hard to keep an aggressive Runner under control.

In a first look, it seems that the Runner is simply attacking whichever server is less protected. It is exactly what the Runner is doing. The thing here is the reason. It is not the same thing using Account Siphon "because it is broken!1!!" and using Account Siphon because you want the Corp to spend its resources protecting HQ so you can run R&D easier.

The fundamental difference here is that running HQ for the sake of it can be countered by protecting HQ. If you designed your deck and your gameplan in a way that Account Siphon is good because you want the Corp to protect HQ, that cannot be countered, because it is a win/win situation - the Corp will either protect HQ, making R&D easier to run, or they'll get hit by your Account Siphon. In the second case, running HQ to remove Corp's money is not simply a good move, it is part of a bigger gameplan, it plays a role in your deck - it fits your strategy not because what it does, but because of how you're using it.

Theoretical Differences, Practical Mistakes

Once you have a full understanding of how the cards in your deck flow with each other (or why they don't), you'll no longer get lost in your gameplan and make "auto-pilot" movements because they are financially good. If you want to build a deck, great, you have my support, but you must think why you're including those cards in your deck. There's no such thing as "Sure Gamble is good, it would be stupid not to use it!". Why would it? C'mon, think. It is not "because it is obviously good", you have to do better than that. If you can't explain the 45 cards in your deck, you won't master your deck.

There's an example I want to show you. Corpdraw.com made this great analysis of the WCW 2013 finals, and I want you to pay attention to this sentence: "Veen’s turn 1 consisted of playing Professional Contacts, using it twice, then playing Kati Jones. [...] A better play might have been run R&D...". In my opinion, Josh couldn't be more right. Veen's objective was not to have "Professional Contacts installed as soon as possible to maximize his economy" as he might have thought that moment. His job was to R&D lock the Corp. The deck's economy had been built to help him to do that, so there was no reason to care about his economy before the R&D lock started to fail.

For a split second, he lost his objectivity (probably due the pressure of playing a world finals), and that might have costed him the game. That's why this understanding of strategy planning is important. Your approach to each card will be "deeper", for the lack of a better word, once you comprehend the game at its most fundamental level.

João “Hraklea” Almeida is a brazilian amateur card game player, the responsible for the Android: Netrunner league in Porto Alegre - RS -, in partnership with Lojas Jambô, and the writer of Root Cause, a bi-weekly series of articles about playing Anarch.

PS: Just to make it clear, I'm not bashing Andrew Veen. I can't possibly understand the pressure of playing a world tournament final match, and I'm sure I would have made far worse mistakes. My intention is not to offend him, and I apologize if I did. He is a great player and he has my respect.