Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Android: Netrunner LCG
|Search for Cards|
|Recent Card Discussion|
Yesterday, 04:38 AM by Zephyr
I would try something like 3xMem chip, 3x Rabit hole, 3x Clone chip, 3x Trade in, 1x desperado. To get fast desperado in shaper without spending a ton of inf. With Datasucker/parasite Kate it might make sense. (Rabit hole is definitely less than ideal, but it does make deck smaller if you pay for it and there are some traces that are worth reducing to 0)
Probably wont work, shapers need more good cheap hardware, ideally with enters play effects or "one is enough" type. Maybe they'll get more.
Still borrowing inf expensive console with reliable way to get it into play might be worth it at some point.
Trade In is definitely not a card you just put into a random deck, but it might make something possible that would otherwise be too inconsistent. Or maybe running 2 console types and swapping them. Eureca! monolith into some other console and get 9 back? (if only there was a simple way to put monolith on top of stack)
But with tauros and shattered remains and no way of getting hw from heap i'm not convinced. Even if it works (and it probably wont) there are already strong hard counters to hw based plays... and there is simply not enough of good hw in the game to begin with.
Yesterday, 03:17 AM by Zephyr
All models of complex things like A:NR mechanics will be oversimplifications. Same with click > draw (or more extreme click = draw). I really hope no one uses click=cred as it's absurdly overvaluing creds for no good reason. But with draw, if you have no draw cards and you want an extra card you still need to spend one click.
The model should be useful for doing something. I'm not really convinced by the idea that draw costs less clicks, because I started with X cards. When I want one more card I will need to pay one click if I have no better options. I see no meaning behind 0.42 CPD metric. I cant see how I can use this number to influence my decisions or improve my analysis (i'd be more convinced by some kind of estimated/average/expected draws/clicks (to get rig set up/till end of game) metric.  I guess CPD is clicks spend on draw till game end related [/edit]
Also many decks do different things with draw, some have more situational cards that stay in hand waiting for a good moment, others have more cards that are more universally good and don't need much setup to use efficiently.
What I agree is that in any game you will draw finite amount of cards, and in many cases if you setup your rig correctly you don't need many more cards and at that point card draw loses much of its value. Mr Li makes reaching this point much faster, almost like if you drew 2 for a click. Also most dead draws go under your deck, improving draw consistency considerably and even in econ he might be beneficial as for the initial cost you can get your econ cards faster, and many of them are long time investments or require initial capital. Using Li might make plays that would otherwise result in spending clicks for 1 cash result in getting right econ at right time saving many clicks. (And literally time is money in case of desperado and security testing)
I used to underestimate this card, as it is relatively expensive and does not give simple economic gain. Bud improving draw quality and speeding up rig setup can be really important, and as runners econ gets stronger the initial cost is less of a problem.
Oct 28 2014 09:57 AM by Nyo
Can I search for another Rabbit hole card after I have installed the last one?
Oct 27 2014 11:53 PM by Nerdmeister
The point I was trying to make is that there are other ways for corp to forcibly draw cards than the mandatory at the beginning of their rounds
Oct 27 2014 03:01 PM by ashtaroth
Eden Shard also does the trick. The thing with this Agenda is the reccursion it can give you with help of search effects/shuffle effects, which is quite good!
Oct 27 2014 07:32 AM by Nerdmeister
Oct 27 2014 04:58 AM by timfast
while its true they would still lose if they can't draw, how could they ever not mandatory draw? They add the card to R and D before they're required to draw (turn begins is before draw, presumably, and even if at the same time they could choose the order) so each turn there is always at least one card in R and D by the draw phase.
Oct 27 2014 03:32 AM by Nerdmeister
No they still loose if they cannot draw a card.
But it does lessen the risk (not that it was great to begin with).
Oct 26 2014 01:06 PM by Keithustus
So does this save Corp from loss by card draw?
Oct 24 2014 02:33 PM by Meadbeard
I just added a bit, over on Early Bird, criticizing the rather bland notion of click/credit equivalencies, which made me think of Mr. Li, and how he completely breaks click/credit analyses, because the value of this card has nothing to do with that.
Well, the received wisdom would state that he costs 3 credits + 2 clicks (1 to draw and 1 to play); in other words: Mr. Li costs "5 clicks" to play.
And then what do you do with him?
You click him to take 1 card into hand.
That's it. Sure you get to look at 2 cards, but you only get to take 1 into hand, so why go "5 clicks in the hole" with this guy?
Because looking at 2 cards and drawing the one you deem more necessary to the current game state is hugely beneficial. You'll always be "5 clicks behind," but it doesn't matter, because Mr. Li gives you some serious power in how you adapt to what is going on in front of you. Anyone who has played with this card knows how useful it can be.
Mr. Li let's you adapt to the context.
And that's what click/credit analyses lack: context.
As a quick aside, I've never seen anyone properly analyze the click equivalency of card draws in Netrunner statistically (which doesn't mean it hasn't been done) but the answer is never "1 click to draw."
Your worst situation in a typical deck, at 45 cards and a 5 card draw, with no cards to help you draw more quickly, is that a draw is worth 0.888 clicks.
This bit about 1 click to draw unless you're "lucky" enough to get a certain card in the initial draw is statistical nonsense: you get 5 cards, whether you want them or not. They may not be the ones you want, but 5 cards for zero clicks is part of the calculation. Andromeda does better at 0.8 clicks per draw.
That's without any cards aiding the draw. I have useful Andromeda decks that work at fewer than 0.5 clicks per draw (something like 0.42, if I recall).
That's still a static model, and your actual click per draw rate will be better, unless you routinely empty your deck, because the 5 cards you had at the beginning will count against 15 clicks, or 20, or however many you make to draw in your game.
N.B. that this isn't a question of probability in getting any particular card, but about clicks per draw: it's never 1, unless the corp is doing some awful things to you.
EXAMPLE and back to MR. LI:
Say you have Andromeda in an actual game. You have no extra draw. You see 27 cards. She starts with 9, so you clicked 18 times to see 27 cards: that's ~0.67 clicks per card you had in your hand (per "draw"). 27 is 60% of 45, so your probability of seeing a card of which you only have 1 copy is 0.6. This is a dependent variable of not only your clicks per draw, but the actual number of clicks you took.
Mr. Li is something different: this card is more qualitative than quantitative. That's why the standard quantitative analysis doesn't show Mr. Li's value. A way to express this in the above example with Andromeda is that your clicks per draw don't get better, but your probability of seeing a single given card increases.
At that point, it's up to the player to make the best decision, so Mr. Li is something of a card that rewards quality play over sheer brute force.
Oct 24 2014 01:51 PM by Meadbeard
Expanding your turn is worth more than thinking of this as a credit + a card, especially if you have any deck synergy . . . at all: John Masanori? Doppelganger? Security Testing? Datasucker? Hemorrhage? Nerve Agent? Medium?
How many more card interactions would you need before recognizing that credit/click calculations are superficial?
Deep Thought? Chakana? Desperado? Silhouette? Lemuria? Emergency Shutdown? Gabe? Hades Shard? Eden Shard? Record Reconstructor? Quest Completed? Notoriety? Pheremones? Pawn? Leverage? Lamprey? Grifter? Savior Faire? Autoscripter?
So, that's 26 cards that cause you to gain something from your free run. Maybe, you know, try to get two of those going and really make it count, and those are just the dead obvious ones. I have a deck in which Legwork benefits from Early Bird. Legwork, and I'm not telling you how, but that free run can help you find ways around Project Vitruvius and its shenanigans, or any of a number of other situations. A card that does that much, that benefits you in many corporate and runner board-states, is a good card. It's all about how you use it.
Playing it on your first turn gets you very little.
But you don't play this card just because you can; you play it because you need a lot of running and an extra click on a given turn. That's worth a lot more than thinking about this card as a draw and a credit.
. . . and I even left Ken Tenma out.
Oct 22 2014 05:32 PM by KillerShrike
Ya, I started to piece together the Quetzal deck I broadbrushed previously, using this card as a key piece. It is coming together nicely, and I'm starting to rethink my position on Quetzal as I think thru the options. Hopefully I'll be able to get some play time in this weekend and will give the deck a spin.
Oct 22 2014 05:23 PM by KillerShrike
Just saw the spoiler for Ekomind. This card makes more sense in that context.
Oct 22 2014 02:27 PM by KillerShrike
Wow, that's a really good point. Because I totally said exactly that and you are not in any way stating things that I never actually said or completely ducking under comprehension of what ad hominem attack means, or misconstruing the situation whatsoever.
Your logic and debating skills are amazing, and I am beyond impressed...indeed, I am humbled by your incredible genius and unmatched lexical mastery. Well played, sir. Well played. Game set match Nerdmeister. Here's your trophy, bask in the glory of it.
And now that you've totally won with your unparralleled rhetoric, perhaps we can get back to the point of discussion.
I don't require you to justify your point of view. As I said...
If, for some reason, you feel like playing Q-Coherence Chip no one is stopping you. You aren't going to convince me that it is a good idea however.
However, this thread is about Trade In, not Q-Coherence Chip. My stated opinion is, that Trade In is not a good card. Details of why have been provided.
If you don't agree, that's totally fine. I'm perfectly ok with that.
If your position is "playing Q-Coherence Chip with Trade In is great!", well ok then. Go make that deck; and good luck with it.
Oct 22 2014 01:50 AM by Nerdmeister
If you are so opposed to the word "crap" then why did you introduce it to the conversation?
Q-Chip could also be a cost-effective way of having enough MU for something like cache (which can be traded in quickly) or Lamprey (which is always in danger of being trashed anyway).
Now please tell me that 2 examples are not enough to justify that point of view and that you require more.
Oct 21 2014 11:38 AM by Accelerandom
Good substitute for Diesel/Quality Time in an Anarch deck, along with Deja Vu to retrieve the lost viruses.
Oct 21 2014 10:34 AM by Him
Great with Modded too.
Oct 21 2014 08:13 AM by KillerShrike
I'm not questioning the value or power of tutor effects; obviously tutor effects are generally good, that is card game 101.
I'm questioning the value and power of this particular tutor effect, as it is more niche and less efficient than the other tutor effects available...so much so that normal levels of increased card draw already found in many decks will often prove to be a more reliable way of getting the desired card.
Is it a virtual auto-include in certain decks like SMC? No. Is it a go-to card in and out of faction like Special Order that can slide into almost any deck? No. Are there some uses for it in decks that fit a certain profile? Maybe. Is it a strong card in a very specialized niche deck? Maybe.
To me, Plascrete is probably the most compelling reason to play Trade In at all as it is a card that will save you vs tag & bag and is useless in most other match ups. In the games you need it and you need it now, it's worth it to sac something useful but not essential to it. And in the games you don't need it, it might be worth it to install Plascrete to feed it to Trade In to go get something sufficiently strong.
So, the target deck would run Plascrete, some other misc hardware, and another piece of hardware that is worth the overhead of tutoring for it. Maybe 2 copies of Plascrete, 2 copies of the other "desirable" pieces of hardware, maybe 2-6 other pieces of hardware, 2-3 Trade Ins. That's a lot of deck slots but, it is an option and it might save you from getting burned out sometimes.
Trade In probably fits well into a Replicator deck if the card slots are available as it already fits the profile of a "good fit" for the card, and there is some synergy there as having some extra hardware that could be sac'd is already a "natural" outcome of using Replicator.
But zooming back to look at decks in general, Trade In is not as useful or as splashable as many of the other tutor effects, and it does not naturally fuel certain game-winning strategies in the same way SMC does or synergize with certain powerful cards in the same way that Test Run does. Etc.
Peoples mileage will vary, obviously, but looking at the top decks today and then looking at this card I don't see it becoming a thing in the current card pool and meta. I could be wrong. As the card pool grows it might become "the answer" to getting some new uber hardware into the game. Until then, I expect to see this card sit in my card box.
Oct 21 2014 07:39 AM by KillerShrike
Maybe just an unnecessary ad hominem attack? Way to be classy.
I don't think it's news that Q-Coherence Chip is generally regarded as a bad card. It has an unfortunate ruling associated with it that renders it even more suboptimal than it's text already does (see below). It carries a 2 rating on this site, and it is generally panned in set reviews.
By all means, even bad cards can be put to good use in the right deck, but including weak / sub-par cards in your deck makes your deck worse than it otherwise would be, and if you are doing it for the express purpose of having some fodder to sacrifice to fuel some other effect...particularly if that effect can otherwise be realized more effectively without resorting to suboptimal includes...it is even worse.
So, hey; go ahead and include them in your deck and sacrifice them to trade in if it makes you happy. You're welcome to your opinion of course, and there is no "bad fun"; I just don't happen to agree with you. I await the day your Q-Coherence Chip / Public Terminal + Trade In deck lights the world on fire with its pure awesomeness.
The recently spoiled card Q-Coherence Chip reads "Trash Q-Coherence Chip when a program is trashed." Does that apply to programs trashed from the Runner's grip (due to damage and/or discarding) or only to programs trashed from in play?
Thanks for the question. Yes, that does apply to programs that are trashed while they are not installed. Hope that helps,
Oct 21 2014 05:10 AM by ashtaroth
Granting Shapers the ability to run just one copy of Desperado sounds pretty cool to me. With the new console Astrolabe you won't mind to much swapping it for an R&D Interface late game (in both the cases where you got Astrolabe late or early). You can also reduce the copies of The Toolbox, since the second one is always a brick, but you'd like to see one often enough.
|Browse Full Sets|