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.
1 Like
@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 
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.
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.
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.
1 Like
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)
1 Like
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.
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?
1 Like
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 
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.
wasn’t aware of this resource. thanks!
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
You forgot my favorite quote:
[quote=“DJhedgehog, post:16, topic:1784”]
It’s probably a better choice, tbh, I’m just hard headed [/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?
2 Likes
Yay, haha 
Good luck with it, let us know it goes!
1 Like
Please do share results after the tournament, DJ! I’m really curious as to what you will do with Eureka/Power Nap with the Femme there instead of the Garrotte. I think Power Nap is worth keeping, even without Eureka. I say this because even after just a single Lucky Find and a Hostage, the first Power Nap is already giving Opus efficiency. This already justifies it’s inclusion in the deck, forgetting the fact that it still has the potential to give Lucky Find efficiency (for zero influence cost? Yes please!) a little later into the deck’s cycle.
Also, DJ, I’d be really interested to hear if you decide to drop an Oracle for a second Femme + Legwork! That second bypass can be so effective, compounded by the fact that you have multi-access coming out your ears in this build, you can really lay on the early/mid-game pressure until your full rig is up. In addition, adding to Arkhon’s math, having the second Femme out would only lose out to Garrotte in efficiency if there were 4 sizeable sentries all on the same server. Comes out cheaper for everything else. I’m firmly of the opinion that this, combined with all the added flexibility/trickiness that Femme provides, makes it a better choice!
I played the original deck with minor modifications (-1 Escher, -1 Tinkering, +1 Indexing, +1 Infiltration) at a tournament yesterday. I went undefeated as runner over four rounds; the deck is really cool and surprisingly effective. Thanks very much for sharing.
I’ll weigh in on Femme vs. Garotte. Femme does have a couple of disadvantages: she costs 2 more to play and, more importantly, you have to see a good Femme target before playing her. You can be much more proactive with playing Garotte, which is great because this deck wants to be firing off R&D multi-access cards as early as possible.
Scavenge also has a hidden drawback compared to Eureka: you have to play Scavenge on the same turn as Test Run, which gives you fewer clicks to work with on the busy Test Run turn. For example, a common line of play might be Test Run -> Indexing -> run R&D; if you’re not constrained to play Scavenge afterward, you have another free click to use Oracle May, run R&D for another agenda, or hit another server. Of course Eureka will then take up half of your next turn, but in my experience that turn tends to be much less critical.
My point is that there’s scope for both - you don’t always have to TR-Scav, sometimes you TR, get value and then Eureka. The thing with Eureka in the build as-is is that you’re paying almost full value for Battering Ram and Garrote. You’ve spent 2 cards, 3 clicks and $6 getting a $5 and $7 breaker into play - I’d almost prefer to be playing Femme to justify that kind of outlay.
Point taken about not knowing the correct time to play Femme, but playing Scavenge with her means you can play her more cheaply more often and re-target her as necessary. The fact she’s more expensive to play from hand than Garrote is neither here nor there - you save that money the first time you use her for a bypass that Garrote would have to pay through.
There’s less value for sure, but the deck can pretty easily handle playing breakers for full price. Test Run is primarily a tutor and recursion tool and Eureka just helps recoup the extra cost. Playing Femme as the killer and Scavenge in addition to Eureka isn’t a terrible idea; you’d have to cut other cards and you’ll draw more useless Eurekas/Scavenges, but it’s certainly worth trying. Having the influence for Legwork would be nice.
Timing question, does the Power Nap you just played count as trashed already? So it adds value to itself the moment it’s played?
1 Like
http://netrunner.meteor.com/decks/MpquryhmRjTyQtJ3w/
This deck went undefeated during swiss round in Polish Nationals.
Breaking Elis 1.0 for 1 credit is too strong…
Yeah I’m surprised you dont see Morningstar in Shaper more often.
But why no Femme (could use the influence that was spent on Easy Mark)?
It’s not my deck, so I can’t comment directly but personally I would go for Femme. So you can bypass Ice Wall advanced 15 Times against Tennin Institute.