Home | About | Tournament Winning Decklists | Forums

Daily Business Show: An Argument For BIGGER Decks [Falacious?]

If you can get DBS to stick (and you use something to tutor for it), then you are looking at 1+N cards, where N is the number of DBS’s installed. The runner similarly has an access rate of base 1 on R&D which they will try to increase and might increase up to or past the number of DBS’s you get to stick, but if they don’t have R&D interface or if you can get enough DBS to stick that your “access” rate is higher, you are more likely to access a card than your opponent. If your deck is bigger, your opponent’s chances to access that card become even lower than your chance to access the card. If the card is astroscript pilot program, then this might be worth it.

Really, I think all this means is that a runner should be trashing DBS on sight, but that if they weren’t doing that for some reason then a larger deck may lead to a longer game, but that DBS might actually increase your chances for success by reducing your chance for failure.


Big deck + DBS may be better than small deck, but it’s still going to be worse than small deck + DBS.


I would say the biggest argument against big decks is a lack of quality agendas. But, European players have been championing the 54 card deck for a while, I hardly think 49 needs to be the hard and fast law. That being said, as powerful as the corporation is right now, I still feel like all the top archetypes are single-handedly made that way through shrewd influence investments, which is diluted in larger decks. If an ID crops up with a relevant ability (I’m looking at you Custom Biotics), +deck size, and +influence, but other than that, I’m not convinced going above 54 is a smart choice.

And really, I think the general strategy with 54, from the decks I’ve seen with most 1x and 2x ICE, is for much better ICE variety, not to play hide-the-astroscript.

1 Like

I feel like that depends on how much the small deck can really benefit from extra filtering and whether the larger deck is creating great enough returns on creating a better odds.

For instance, redcoats + DBS could avoid agenda flood in the beginning of the game while finding agendas later. Hitting R&D is already hard, but if you made the deck bigger (and were able to consistently get DBS) hitting R&D would be almost pointless (and HQ by proxy) because agenda density would be lower for the bigger deck and greater number of 3 pointers while also maintaining a low level of agenda points in HQ.

I don’t know. My long time in card games is telling me this idea is bad because you have to find DBS. But then I look at an ability like NEH’s which effectively decreases deck size anyway and I’m feeling less bad about making the deck bigger, and then I’m left wondering if even though it might mean a slower game win percentages might go up in other decks with such a strategy. Basically, you only get agendas when you need to and the runner has a hard time finding the ones that are valuable to you which makes it less likely they’ll interrupt your plans.

(And then anecdotal experience playing with DBS is reinforcing this hypothesis that I feel like I should know is bad; but the scientist is saying that the experiments are opening up a hole in my world view).

hadn’t heard this before! would be interested to read any debates or discussions from European players’ experiences with the larger decks, if you have any links you could share.


If your 45-card deck is slow enough that multiple DBS cause it to cycle all the way to the agenda-rich bottom, maybe you want a bigger one.

From me personally:

  • Runner meta tends to be more varied than “omg andromeda so good why do they even print anything else”, so being able to fit in more (varied) stuff is better
  • Noise in particular has been reasonably popular for 2 years straight, making a larger deck an attractive proposition - sometimes those 5 cards are all that matters in a Noise game gone long
  • Adding 2 pieces of ICE and 2 pieces of econ at the cost of running one more NAPD seems decent. Sometimes, the price is just a third 3-pointer, opening up 5 complete slots.

Given the amount of quality cards out for pretty much everyone these days, the “quality” argument seems to start losing validity. The variance is still higher, but the benefits sometimes balance it out.

(and then DBS came along)


I think it’s more a mainland Europe than a UK thing, because I haven’t seen many 54 card decks around.


Typical continental types, with their strange customs.

I’m pretty sure it’s mainly a french thing.

That would explain the strange customs.


I think it can present a case for more varied decks. I tried it out in a midseasons deck running a lot of 1-off ice to give myself more options depending on the runner’s breaker suite and I liked it.

Most strong corp decks have clear best cards so it’s hard to justify going over 49 and reducing the likelihood of seeing those cards, even with Daily Business Show, which you are then less likely to draw.

Really, I think all this means is that a runner should be trashing DBS on sight

I think this is really it, and if they are trashing on sight then you just have a slightly more clumsy deck.


It really depends what you’re trying to improve. If you try to improve passive R&D defense, a 54 cards deck will always be better than a 49 card one.

If you’re trying to improve rates of cards, sure, a 49 cards one would be better.

I’m NOT talking about fantasy 64 cards deck or something.

1 Like