Putting it down behind a spare enigma or quandary is plenty good vs the double CyCy Kate builds as well.
Jinx! 10char
Seems like the card you want to tutor when it locks them out. Probably rare but itās still an annoying thing the runner needs to get to. Almost always as good as a 4th MHC at the very least. I havenāt been locked out as Maxx yet, but itās come close. I consider myself pretty good at playing around things in Netrunner but blacklist is a lot harder than Chronos Project, which can often be anticipated.
Iām not sure actual lockout will be too common but I think it could probably be a decent tempo play. Not really sure if itās better than Crisium though, which is going to do a pretty similar thing, (fuck with the runner until they run an expensive server and trash it without you ever having to pay for it). The really appealing thing to me is the bootcamp. I imagine itās like an inverse interns; in the early-mid game you often want either Jackson or Sundew, and it gets it.
2 Likes
54 cards, numbers in parenthesis are for comparison with 49 card, 9 agenda decks. Bigger is better. Usual disclaimers.
3 TFP, 6 two-pointers, 1 one-pointer: 4.82 (4.78)
3 TFP, 7 two-pointers: 4.61 (equiv. 4.57)
2 TFP, 8 two-pointers: 4.44 (4.40)
3 TFP, 1 three-pointer, 5 two-pointers: 4.32 (4.76)
In general, a larger ratio between TFP and other agendas will always make it more likely stealing a TFP is required for the runner to win.
4 Likes
So 54 is pretty much totally out of the question
This is just an estimate with a number of imperfect assumptions to simplify simulation. With that said, 54 card proponents would need a very compelling argument to convince me to switch.
1 Like
Yup, hopefully this puts it to bed!
Thanks a lot @SyntaxLost
1 Like
So, I was giving the whole agenda package situation some thought after seeing the numbers, because some of them felt counter to my personal experience; particularly, I was put off by the idea that 2 TFP 7 2-pointers was more vulnerable than 3 TFP 6 2-pointers.
Then, I had this idea of WHY this could be counter to my experience:
Instead of asking how many accesses on average the runner needs to score 7 against RP, maybe we should be evaluating on a different criteria: Assuming RP only gives up N accesses a game, say, N=9 or N=10 or something, what is the chance the runner wins? The reason this could produce different results is that itās possible that the runner has a REALLY REALLY bad shot of accessing 4 agendas within that timeframe. TFP might give up less points on average than another 2-pointer, but if the runner has to score 7, it might be the case that they need to get lucky and win a TFP psi game to have much of a shot of winning in time, (making TFP more of a liability than it initially appears).
Can we run a sim that finds out, using each agenda suite, what is the chance the runner wins in N accesses for a given N?
How are we modelling TFP accesses? Is the psi game just random? 
@SyntaxLost covered this:
Personally, I would have made the TFP scoring percentage higher than 1/3, (maybe 40% or something), due to the possibility that the corp is poor, it gets Imped, or it can be accessed multiple times from the top of R&D or archives.
Itās never gonna be perfect, psi games are pretty far from random. Maybe have a plug in the formula for how good you are at psi games to determine each individualās best agenda spread.
1 Like
Stop. I shouldnāt have said anything. This stuff is pretty interesting and discussing how more or less random psi games are isnāt. I just couldnāt help myself.
2 Likes
You would have to account for the quality of accesses with such a simulation, and I honestly have no idea how to do that. I can model agenda distributions as a game is played by real people, but I have no clue how to generate a simulated game that would be representative of the real world.
A better perspective is to ask at what probability of losing the psi game would a different agenda composition be favoured. For 2 TFP, 7 two-pointers to be favoured over 3 TFP, 6 two-pointers, simulation suggests that the corp would have to lose around 60% of the time.
Hereās Geoff Hollisā simulation:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~hollis/files/agenda_sampling.py
I donāt know how you were running your sim, but the basic idea here is to shuffle the deck and count the number of accesses until the runner reaches 7. Once you run a bunch of sims, you just have to create a histogram/table and draw a line at some value of N and count the % of games where the runner won on N accesses or less vs the total number of games.
It gets a little more complicated with TFP, especially if youāre replacing it, but my idea was to take this sim, add a ā4ā point agenda that is TFP, add a P variable for chance of stealing TFP, and subtract 1 if they win the psi and 4 if they lose.
Basically, what Iām saying is that we need to account for the variance associated with TFP. Whenever I play RP I feel like I pretty much never lose unless I lose a TFP psi and the runner wins on 3 agendas. Losing to 4 agendas stolen is so uncommon that I feel like if we are not discounting the possibility significantly weāre going to skew our numbers strongly against the 2 TFP list.
Iām not sure how useful this is, because R&D is typically way worse than HQ in RP. Although/(maybe and) RP often tells the runner whether or not this is the case by Gifting. I think @SyntaxLostās query about the quality of accesses is reasonable.
In real life, I find I have to either get a medium going or steal an agenda from the remote in order to win vs. RP.
Is there a perception bias associated with remembering the games the runner wins ābecause they won a psi game on TFPā perhaps?
I know what you mean though. Treating it like 1 point in centrals is wrong. Itās 3 points about 1/3 of the time and 0 points otherwise. Thatās pretty different even though the expected value is the same.
I liked your list a lot. I managed to squeeze in an Ichi 1.0 and I honestly couldāve wanted a 3rd Caprice because of how MO economy decks typically pressure the remote and make you rez. I basically needed her to score.
Iām not feeling good about RP when Film Critic comes out. Itās so easy to fit (re: not that easy at all) into Shaper decks or even a 1x in Criminal w/ Hostage for that or Kati. It makes those sweeping legworks/makers events catch the TFPs.
I could run film critic is good conscience in my comp decks because of how it also does work against Midseasons and Punitive, which happen to be used in other top decks. Ex. Butcher Shop and the UK 6-agenda Blue Sun.
Thatās what I want to figure out! 
I struggle to remember more than a couple games EVER where I lost with RP giving up 4 agendas. Thatās not proof positive of jack shit, but I donāt think itās all bias and I feel like a model that doesnāt take that into account will fail to reasonably evaluate 2 TFP lists vs 3 TFP lists. I suspect the 3rd TFP creates a lot of variance compared to a fetal, which could certainly make a big difference if weāre averaging in games where the runner needs to access 17 cards to win, (because there is almost no chance they can actually get 17 accesses).
I donāt see 3 TFP 3 three-pointers, 2 two-pointers in there. That might be a reasonable way to go in a 54-card deck, tossing in 2-3 Fast Tracks for those Niseiās.
1 Like
Thatās fucking crazy
3 Likes
Throw in 3 punitive counter strikes in there, and we got a new deck type in RP. Crazy? Or innovation?
Probably the first 