MaxX- Why 47 cards?

[Omer_Rotstain]

I've seen a lot of MaxX lists sporting 47 cards and I must ask: Why not 45?! I understand 47 makes sense if you never draw manually or with a card, but how can't you? All it takes is for some damage to snipe your IHW and/or for you to play IHW yourself and/or for you to draw manually and all your math is thrown out the window. I can only see 47 as being superior to 45 if you play 0 draw in your deck and never draw manually but honestly, who doesn't play IHW? and who doesn't draw manually against Jinteki?

Edit: Okay, now I feel like a retard. I just realized playing IHW doesn't throw any math out of any window, because it draws 3- same as your ability. NVM then move along. Math is still thrown if you draw manually I guess.

Edit 2: Actually no, I'm not a retard after all. If you play Vigil, which many MaxX decks do, then your math is indeed thrown out of the window.

[edmund_blake_nelson]

people like losing EV and "can't find room to cut" cards

[Omer_Rotstain]

Sorry, EV?

[edmund_blake_nelson]

expected value

[HalfDayDeemo]

I think that Dan summed it up pretty well in the Reg-Ass article. Their may be some merit in fielding more cards, I think mainly due to the speed in which you can get through your deck, but unless those extra cards are economy cards then you might struggle.

[Syntax]

Expected Value in a MaxX deck is 33% random at worst, say 50% at best... So why caring +4.44% length ?

[PeekaySK]

Because it's still inherently wrong to play 80 cards by filling your deck with unplayable shit.

[SimonMoon]

I play 47 in my deck because I'm too lazy to cut stuff. I'll pretend it's because I play 3 injects though.

[kiv]

In my experience MaxX will draw 6-7 cards manually per game.

If you have 45 card deck then typical is 5 opening hand, 7 manual draw, 33 cards used from ability = 45. With 47 cards you just do 6 manual draw and 36 cards used from ability.

If you keep a healthy balance of economy and recursion then in my experience it's about the same.

[Badeesh]

I don't think there's an empirical solution here. Just as well Netrunner is not pure maths. It's still a game that needs to be played. So you can choose whatever floats your boat.

I'd stick to 45. You can manual draw in multiples of two and still keep sticking the unicorn of drawing out on your last turn before you levy. I just challenge anybody to say truthfully that they do this in every MaxX game they play, or have even ever done it once. I can't buy into this logic. So removing consistency, even in fractional amounts, to achieve something so abnormal, screams OCD to me.

[steve_houston]

I think going to 47 is a mistake. The reason why MaxX is great (at least RegAss) is because you can get her money and breakers faster. Particularly breakers. Anything that isn't money or breakers will slow down her game. Sometimes it seems nice to have that Spooned or a copy of Singularity, but what will win you games is getting your breakers set up fast and the money to use them.

[kiv]

Anything that isn't money or breakers will slow down her game.

By your logic we should remove Levy, Grimoire, Imp, etc for more breakers and money. It's not that simple.

[steve_houston]

Fair point, but I would argue that Clone Chips effectively act as breakers (I include Parasites in this category as well) and the Levy acts as money and any breakers you missed. I should have added "recursion" to my initial statement.

I also think it's probably not a huge deal, the difference between 45 and 47. I'm just in the 45 camp.

[McKindling]

Let's meet in the middle with 46 cards. . . and then double it!

[x3r0h0ur]

Somewhere between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum and taking hyperbole literally.

[Danwarr]

Just make 46 and 47 Showing Off and have fun with it. That way it's easy to cut back to a "competitive" 45 cards or you can go full Anarch double freedom rockets and keep them in for the lulz. Though I play it in Doppel-RAM so it's a bit easier to pull off that crazy 10+ unique cards from R&D.

[BJester]

Because it's still inherently wrong to play 80 cards by filling your deck with unplayable shit.

It's funny how we went from ignoring not to be named person to straight up making fun of the idea, love it!

[kiv]

I don't think there's an empirical solution here. Just as well Netrunner is not pure maths. It's still a game that needs to be played. So you can choose whatever floats your boat.

Do you mean theoretical? Empirical means from experience.

[Badeesh]

What?! MATHS?! lol. I dunno dude. What I mean is that I don't think there is an experiential, provable, empirical or otherwise justifiable solution to this problem. I did mean empirical, because my experiences are not the same as others.

[Syntax]

You're the only one who talks about 80 cards there, m8.

I'm not saying a word on it here since a long time if you pay attention : I'm just playing it very very agressivly, made it evolved and explained it in french on R4G so I'm precise enough with explanations / math, talked about it irl with some very good players there and that's it. Having fun. I play in 78 and still win most of my games, so...

47's not a big deal, especially if you play agro. If you play control, I guess you'd play 45 but to me...

If there only one ID in the whole game that EV / consistency / deck length have a lot less influence on the deck's perfs, that is MaxX and nobody else.

So 45 vs 47... I'm more in the 45+47 camp, tested
Since Stimhack fears and laughes about exploring this / no larla, NP, do your stuff, I'll play mine and won't bother.

@Bjester hi