Home | About | Tournament Winning Decklists | Forums

CT String Theory/Doubles/Oracle May (It works)


#1

This is a deck I’ve been working on for the last week or so. A friend of mine was doing an oracle may CT build that really interested me, but it wasn’t moving as fast as I’d like. @TheBriarfox was on my podcast (waitwaitdrm.podomatic.com) and mentioned string theory was a thing. That led me to the deck below.

Mother May I?

Chaos Theory Wünderkind
15 influence spent (max 15) •••••••••••••••
40 cards (min 40)
Cards up to The Spaces Between
Event (35)

3x Diesel
3x Dirty Laundry
1x Escher
3x Eureka!
2x Hostage ••••
2x Indexing
2x Levy AR Lab Access
3x Lucky Find ••••• •
1x Net Celebrity
3x Power Nap
2x Quality Time
3x Sure Gamble
3x Test Run
3x The Maker’s Eye
1x Tinkering
Resource (2)

2x Oracle May ••
Icebreaker (3)

1x Battering Ram
1x Garrote •••
1x Torch

I’ve been trying to get power nap to work since it came out, and I couldn’t really get it to be consistent. I’ve had amazing success with this deck so far, and today I played in a local tournament and was undefeated against HB Glacier, RP (Untrashable), NBN NEH and GRNDL.

How to play: Draw a lot. Play econ while looking for test runs. Hopefully you follow them up with Eureka!, but if not nbd. Your first cycle through the deck should be econ for setting up and getting your rig out. This should be happening quickly. Once you hit the bottom (and play all your power naps) hit the levy and blast back on through with oracle may and card draw. Since you can dump eureka/hostage/test run the second time through you can just spend a turn farting around with diesel and QT. I think I diesel/qt/qt in a game, which is a great move if you want to get event econ and nothing else.

Once the breakers are out you are Reading Rainbow (can go anywhere). The deck is currently tooled for R&D drilling, so I’ve been trying to do single access HQ to put some pressure on it so R&D doesn’t get ICE heavy.

Mulligan for Oracle May or Hostage. Yes, once the hostage does it’s job or you draw a May it’s dead. This brings me to my next point- the doubles have great usefulness in getting set up but (other than power nap) they become dead quickly. You’ll be drawing a lot so you’ll want to pitch all your doubles quickly to set up power nap. With 4 doubles in the trash, power nap becomes a 0 cost lucky find and it only gets crazier from there. If you get power nap early pitch it because it only makes future power naps better.

This deck makes a ton of money very quickly. No plascretes may mean you’ll have to lose a game or two to scorch but I haven’t had that problem because I’ve had too much money to get a tag on me. The only way you should be getting scorched is if the corp forces you to act.

Possible Considerations:
Hostage is something I’ve been on the fence about. It feeds the power nap and means I can see oracle may pretty quickly. The down side is it’s sucking up 4 influence and becomes a throw away almost immediately. Maybe go down to 1 hostage and 1 legwork. I think if hostage goes out I would want to go to 3 May, which is bad because it will hurt your draws from May.
I haven’t played escher in 20 games. Tinkering is a nice thought but I’ve never used it. Not sure what would go in those slots aside from a 3rd quality time. I don’t know that a third quality time would be prudent.

I’m open to any ideas.


Researching Chaos Theory (In-Depth Look)
My humble thoughts on Quetzal, and why I don't think she will be very good(Please prove me wrong)
[Chaos Theory] The Forgotten Shaper Child
#2

i really think that indexing is better than makers eye, so maybe 1 more indexing instead of tinkering?
and why not to play dirty laundry?


#3

Drop Escher/Tinker/Levy and Hostage for May and Stimhack?

You can’t abuse Stimhack with SMC, but it’s still a bunch of credits to run/trash with.


#4

why eureka over scavenge? true it feeds power nap, but that can’t actually offset the $3 play cost unless you get it before all 3 naps (and even still you’re out an extra click as it’s a double).

the first time I played against this deck (I’ve been calling it “may 34” in my head) it was running 1 vamp. it seems like you want some kind of HQ threat, and I would make it legwork. in a meta full of fast advance (such as the league right now) I think you can probably get away with femme instead of garrote, although then you basically have to concede against weyland. using femme also means that extra scavenges aren’t dead draws.


#5

Here is my take on that deck

Chaos Theory: Wünderkind (Cyber Exodus)

Event (34)
1x Stimhack (Core Set) •
3x Diesel (Core Set)
3x The Maker’s Eye (Core Set)
3x Tinkering (Core Set)
3x Sure Gamble (Core Set)
2x Test Run (Cyber Exodus)
2x Quality Time (Humanity’s Shadow)
2x Indexing (Future Proof)
3x Scavenge (Creation and Control)
2x Levy AR Lab Access (Creation and Control)
3x Dirty Laundry (Creation and Control)
1x Blackmail (Fear and Loathing)
2x Lucky Find (Double Time) ••••
2x Legwork (Honor and Profit) ••••
2x Net Celebrity (The Spaces Between)

Resource (3)
3x Oracle May (Honor and Profit) •••

Icebreaker (3)
1x Battering Ram (Core Set)
1x Gordian Blade (Core Set)
1x Garrote (True Colors) •••

15 influence spent (maximum 15)
40 cards (min 40)
Cards up to The Spaces Between

Some observations:
I think that doubles take too much out of the deck, you loose too much tempo.
I think you need legwork in this meta.
I would use scavenge over Eureka. You can also use it to switch breakers


#6

@Amyr_Lozober Indexing is also more situational than Maker’s Eye.

What do you think about putting in Prepaid voicepad and altering the event comp a little around it?


#7

Dirty laundry is a 3x in here. A third indexing might be
prudent, especially

[quote=“fluffdasheep, post:3, topic:1784,
full:true”]

Drop Escher/Tinker/Levy and Hostage for May and Stimhack?

You can’t abuse Stimhack with SMC, but it’s still a bunch of
credits to run/trash with.

[/quote]

Stimhack isn’t a terrible choice, but I’ve never needed more
economy. Try the deck out and you’ll see pretty quickly that money isn’t an
issue. I can’t think of a good reason why I don’t want to take brain damage
other than “why do it when I don’t have to”.

I was thinking of going to a third Levy as a just in case.
You will go through your deck at least 1 time in a game or you’re not doing it
right. While you can see I decided against a third Levy, playing with just 1 is
inviting a random net/brain damage to stop you from recycling and close out the
economy. This actually happened with 2 of with 1 Fetal AI on a 5 card hand. I
won the game with 0 in hand and 1 in deck. I was dead in the water but I got
lucky on a psi game. This was against Eric C. who posted http://netrunnerdb.com/en/decklist/8678/striving-for-perfection-v2-jinteki-q1-2014-earnings-cast-,
which was what he was playing.

[quote=“bblum,
post:4, topic:1784, full:true”]

why eureka over scavenge? true it feeds power nap, but that
can’t actually offset the $3 play cost unless you get it before all 3 naps (and
even still you’re out an extra click as it’s a double).

the first time I played against this deck (I’ve been calling
it “may 34” in my head) it was running 1 vamp. it seems like you want
some kind of HQ threat, and I would make it legwork. in a meta full of fast
advance (such as the league right now) I think you can probably get away with
femme instead of garrote, although then you basically have to concede against
weyland. using femme also means that extra scavenges aren’t dead draws.

[/quote]

I agree that on the surface scavenge is hands down better
than eureka. It saves a click and 3 money, so not a hard choice. The main and
most important difference is that because I’m not playing Femme, Scavenge dies
and provides nothing to the deck. The reality of the situation is that you won’t
get off the scavenge/eureka! More than 1 or 2 times per game. So, because I don’t
plan on playing all of them in a game, at least eureka feeds power nap.

I don’t think you all understand how good powernap is. With
4 doubles in the trash it’s a free lucky find. You’ll be playing the lucky
finds, maybe 1 hostage, 1 eureka and discarding the rest. I regularly play
powernap for 8 or more credits. It tops out at 12 for the last powernap, but it
happens regularly because you move through the deck so quickly. Huge swing in
credits especially given how efficient the breakers are.

I have played against several NEH and won every time. I’ve
out tempo’d every deck I’ve played against hands down. The doubles gain tempo
if nothing else because the cash gain on lucky find and power nap is so
efficient. Again, I think people who see this don’t fully understand how strong
power nap is. Try the deck and tell me that the doubles are too slow.

Another point is that the breakers are so efficient that
deep digging R&D is totally possible against NEH. Other than tollbooth (and
caduceus/eli, to a lesser degree), there are no ICE that are costly in most NEH
decks. The games have mostly come down to the wire, but I am always able to
pull out enough from R&D before they can score out. NAPD contracts aren’t
as big of a hit to this deck, again, because it makes so much freaking money.

Totally agree about Legwork. I even mentioned this in my OP.

I thought about it, but the problems are 2 fold. 1- I don’t
need the econ boost and 2- it hurts oracle may to have things that aren’t
events in the deck. If I had the stones to play 1 oracle may and 2 hostage I
would because drawing a card and gaining 2 is amazingly strong and not whiffing
on May is tremendous.


#8

Posted my latest version of the deck below, though I haven’t played it in a couple months, so I can’t speak for its performance against NEH. I originally ran Morning Star as the barrier breaker and, like Argamas, the first thing I found lacking when I started playing the deck was a way to pressure HQ. So I dropped Morning Star for Battering Ram and threw in a Legwork and a Vamp. I don’t normally play this many 1-ofs, but it makes sense to me with this deck. I love Lucky Find in the deck, I haven’t tried Power Nap in it, but I think I will now.

For anyone unfamiliar with the archetype, here’s a video of my list in action. I also played it in the double-elim portion of the OCTGN 3 tourney, so there will be more videos of it coming soon.

Chaos Theory: Wünderkind (Cyber Exodus)

Event (33)

Resource (3)

Icebreaker (4)


#9

I would also suggest Planned Assault. It’s better in this kind of deck since it minimizes the impact of giving away information to the corp. If the corp sees all your draws they can be confident that you don’t have a certain card (Inside Job). Planned Assault means they have to be afraid of every run event in your deck.


#10

@CrimsonWraith
Obviously pretty similar ideas going on. Kraken is probably a solid 1 of, as is infiltration. The reason I opted for hostage over a third may was to ensure May doesn’t misfire. Plus the hostages feed power nap, which I’m having a freaking love affair with right now :smile:

What’s with the overmind? I guess I don’t get that addition. Not only is it of limited use, but it’s going to cause more oracle may misfires.

I like legwork a lot more than vamp, but I can see the usefulness of vamp. Have you had any use with Tinkering? I haven’t liked it at all, especially given that fast advance scores out of hand. Net Celebrity is new, but definitely worth consideration. It’s 1 recurring credit and it kills pesky currents.

@Zebadiah
Planned assault was a consideration, but that was before I went to doubles over 2x Account Siphon 1x Planned assault. It definitely fits in with the doubles… maybe a 1 of? I’m not sure what run event I would need so bad that I wouldn’t be drawing anyways. Besides, at 2 influence there are a lot of cards trying to take that spot. Legwork would probably go in before planned.


#11

Overmind was a brief experiment that turned out brilliant in my experience. It’s usually late game before I’m set-up with all three breakers, so the Tinkering and Overmind give me a bit of flexibility prior to getting the full breaker suite up. I can’t tell you how many Corps see my Oracle May strategy and immediately set up a 1-2 ice scoring remote and try to rush them out. Overmind’s an unexpected surprise that can usually get me through any two ice for folks that try rushing them out like that. Tinkering enables the same shenanigans with just a solo breaker out. And that goes for central servers as well, early game Overmind and/or Tinkering can enable Indexing/Maker’s Eye/Legwork/Vamp, all of which are particularly useful against fast advance decks.

In one of my favorite games with this deck, I lost my entire rig (I face-planted into Archer or Aggressive Secretary) with both the Corp and myself at match point - leading to him installing the winning agenda in what he thought was a scoring window. I was able to Test Run Overmind and get into the remote for the win.


#12

Perhaps the difference is how we play the deck. I have left over Criminal mindset, so I face-check all sorts of ICE. Including scoring remotes. Typically, I don’t get too bent out of shape when they score early because I force them to rez ICE and keep me out, which leaves them poor enough for me to dig and build my rig. Knowing what ICE is in the way can get you to the breakers you need most which are easy to find with test run and get in where you need to.


#13

Long time CT fan here, and have been very interested in this deck since this thread started. Looks as though the deck won a small tournament recently as well, which bodes very well! That being said, I can’t help but wonder if it might be more prudent to make some small changes. In my iteration, I run:
-1 Oracle, -1 Garrotte, -3 Eureka, -1 Maker’s Eye
+2 Femme, +3 Scavenge, +1 Legwork
[Considering only going +1 Femme so that I can +1 Datasucker with the last influence]

I do this for a few reasons. First of all, I feel that the play cost of Eureka (6 or 9 per game) doesn’t earn itself back via Power Nap profits until late game at least. In addition, a glance at Sneakdoor Zeta (http://sneakdoor.com/) shows that the price difference to break common breakers in today’s meta is actually rather negligible between Garrotte and Femme. There are indeed a few troublesome pieces of Ice (Archer, Susan, Grim, Flair) that are quite a bit more costly with Femme, but those will be costly to repeatedly run with Garrotte as well, whereas we can recur our Femme to bybass those (as well as Tollbooth!) to get through the second time for a fraction of what the Garrotte would cost. In addition, Femme allows for surprise early game steals or super early multi-access runs.

Does anyone have any thoughts regarding this? Any ideas on the addition of a one-of Datasucker instead of a second Femme (idea being to draw for it, not tutor)


#14

Thanks for the nod for the tournament win. That day I was
undefeated with this deck. I’ve been playing more with people who know what is
coming and it’s showing no signs of letting off the gas pedal.

The changes you propose are fitting. Instead of going -1
oracle I decided to go -1 Hostage, +1 Leg Work. It gives it some more teeth,
those since I made the changes I had my first game that I didn’t see Oracle May
which really hurts this deck. If you are going to go -3 Eureka, I would
consider taking out power nap too. I’ll touch more on this in a second.

So, let’s look at one card interaction.

I use test run to get a torch (-3). I use scavenge to keep
the torch on the table (0) = 2 Clicks and 3 credits.

I use test run to get a torch (-3). I use eureka to play the
torch from the top of my deck (-3, -1 extra click) = 3 clicks and 6 credits.

This is kind of a no brainer: Eureka is a pile of poo. My
contention is that the value of eureka is that you can use it for its effect or
not, and it adds value from your heap.

In your post, you state that you don’t think you can get the
value from the power nap interaction to cover the downside of Eureka!. My first
benchmark in any game is how quickly I can “turn on” power naps. By that I mean
a power nap “turns on” when it becomes as efficient as lucky find. 0 Credits
and 2 clicks is a pretty good deal for a 6 payout, and after you play the first
one the next power nap is at least worth 7. In the setup I posted I would
regularly play (95% of games) 5 power naps a game for 6+. The point is this happens very quickly because you’re going to overdraw a lot looking for things to get setup and after hitting the Levy to find econ.

On Femme and Datasucker: Femme is a great choice. I think it’s
a lot better than garrote especially when playing scavenge. My reasons above in
regards to power nap are why I didn’t use femme and scavenge but I could see a
deck making that switch being as successful at least. Datasucker I’m not a huge
fan only because it’s possible to hit it with oracle may and there’s no way to
get it back. Otherwise it’s probably a good choice with femme to keep your
costs down.

I would suggest trying the deck as I have it posted. I think
there is some negative stigma around doubles that can be dispelled when you
play the deck. Imagine using 6 influence to play 6 lucky finds and know that
you are going to reset the deck and possibly do it some more. Now imagine going
through your deck at least once every game. Stop imagining, the reality is
right here.


Whizzard Oracle "string theory" deck
#15

Hi guys,

I’m a long time fan of CT as well. I piloted a PPVP version of her at Regionals to a top 8 finish in London so I can attest to the value of Lucky Find and the TR/Scavenge potential with big breakers. I’m very keen to try this version!

Working from the list in the original post, I’m not seeing a lot of point in Escher - you’re running super-efficient breakers and tonnes of economy so I don’t see the value in rearranging the ICE field.
I also prefer Femme to Garrote, so I would make that switch and use the saved influence to pop in a Legwork for the Escher.

I’m not a huge fan of Net Celebrity either - it barely pulls its weight, so I’d only play it as a meta call if Corp currents are popular in your area. That makes room for one copy of Scavenge. I’d possibly also switch in a second copy for the Tinkering, but it depends on whether your experiences show the surprise value of that to be high?


#16

I haven’t really found value in escher at this point, so I can agree that it’s probably that I have high economy and efficient breakers that make escher a dead card. It may be situational useful, and in this deck having a 1-of card is valuable because you’re all but guaranteed to see it.

I’d say the reason above is the same reason why I take garrote over femme. I don’t really need the bypass option (only 5 for tollbooth, and how many are going to be rezzed on 1 server at any point during a game) and I’d rather be safe when it comes to big sentries. It’s probably a better choice, tbh, I’m just hard headed :stuck_out_tongue:

Net Celebrity is in for the same reason as escher. What makes it better is that it at least has a value of 1 recurring credit if the opponent isn’t using currents. Lag time and enhanced login protocols have been popular in my meta.

Tinkering hasn’t been played by me in a single game as of yet. I still think there’s use for a 1 of, but I have yet to find it. Decks are either ICEing up heavy or scoring out of hand so it’s not like you’ll get a telegraphed agenda all that often.


#17

wasn’t aware of this resource. thanks!


#18

But Femme bypasses Archer for $4 and Grim for $1, which is less than it costs Garrote to break them. The danger only comes when they have two (or more) big sentries and Femme can only bypass one, but let’s look at the numbers and compare the cost to get past multiple nasty ICE with each breaker. Femme can bypass the first but must break the second, whereas Garrote must break them all. The formula for how much the breakers must pay is:

Femme: nX + 2(n-1)Y
Garrote: nX + nY

Where X is the number of subroutines and Y is the strength differential (i.e. above 2) of n pieces of identical ICE. This means that Femme is always cheaper for the first ICE (by Y credits); they break even for two pieces of ICE (n=2) and Garrote takes the lead only for the third piece of ICE (by Y credits).

The pattern holds for non-identical ICE in most cases provided Femme is bypassing the one with the higher strength. So basically, against big sentries, Femme is only worse than Garrote if the Corp manages to rez three big guys.

Where Garrote does have an edge is against the mid-range sentries that come in at strength 3 or 4 but aren’t dangerous or taxing enough for Femme to want to bypass (i.e. there’s already a better target). Looking down the list though I would only put Neural Katana, Ichi 1.0 and Hunter in that category - and even then Garrote’s edge is only $1, $2, $2 respectively. When you factor in the “skeleton key” value of Femme and the fact she works on Toll Booth and massive barriers I think she’s a no-brainer for this deck.


#19

You forgot my favorite quote:

[quote=“DJhedgehog, post:16, topic:1784”]
It’s probably a better choice, tbh, I’m just hard headed :stuck_out_tongue: [/quote]

YOU WIN. I guess I’ll play a version with Femme at this weekend’s local tournament and see what happens. While the argument you have is solid, the thing that made me change my mind was the 2 influence savings. There are some Weyland players in the meta that have me a little worried. I think I’ll survive… What’s the worst that can happen?


#20

Yay, haha :smile:
Good luck with it, let us know it goes!