[quote=“Arkhon, post:74, topic:1632”]
Yes it is two cards, but the chances of you having both an FA trick and a 3/2 agenda (any agenda, not a specific one) I would argue is greater than the chances of having drawn a specific agenda (Sleepers) in order to serve as your seventh agenda point - which can be your only reason for including it.[/quote]
This is a non-point. So what if it’s greater? Unless if you are arguing exclusivity, saying one is “better” than the other is irrelevant. If you are agreeing that you run both, then determining relative impact is unimportant. What is important is what impact it adds on. Does adding Domestic Sleepers add a non-zero percentage to the odds of being able to score? I can’t imaging anyone saying, “no.”
Regarding “win-more”, admittedly I’m being a bit tongue and cheek by calling it “classic,” but nonetheless the point remains. Yes, the tournament structure has changed, but the mechanics of the game have not. A discussion for another time perhaps, but I don’t believe that the game mechanics have changed from the past.
the only thing that you really need to change imo is figure out what to do with the extra influence and swap out Draco (or TMI) if you were running it.
Yes, of course it increases your chances of scoring, but other cards increase your chances of winning - those two things are not quite the same and the latter is more important. The game is about getting to 7 before the Runner; scoring agendas is only a part of that. If a card prevents the runner stealing or enables a bigger play then you might just get to 7 quicker than by slipping in an extra 1-point agenda.
Regarding “win-more” - you did read that article, right? You’re right that the game, in isolation, is unchanged but the new tournament structure makes a huge amount of difference. It’s the reason Weyland Supermodernism became viable; it brought Jinteki back into the game and it’s the reason Midseason Replacements is playable. In an environment in which winning as quickly as possible by the largest margin possible is rewarded, strategies that necessarily concede agendas are weak. If the only thing you need to do is get to 7 first then the game is wide open.
I generally consider Domestic Sleepers bad except in 5/3 decks. The “standard” HB:EtF agenda package is:
3x ABT
3x Vitruvius
3x NAPD Contract or Efficiency Committee
2x Gila Hands Arcology (sometimes Profiteering, sometimes one Director Haas’s Pet Project)
If you add Domestic Sleepers to that, you’re running out of card slots pretty fast. Cutting Gila Hands to run Domestic Sleepers and another 4/2 is IMO a clear mistake. There just isn’t really space for it in the standard deck-- in many respects having it be a 2/0 is worse than having it be a blank 2/1. Also, Gila Hands is really good.
People say “if the Runner steals Domestic Sleepers, they don’t get points!” That’s true and all, but it takes up the slot of a non-agenda, which the Runner also can’t steal. So in practice it almost always makes your R&D more vulnerable. I think Sleepers has a place in 5/3 decks but is weak in standard FA.
100% agreed @Kingsley
I’m not saying there isn’t scope for it in the future with new forefeit or “when you score…” effects but right now it doesn’t improve the winning decks. So the next option is to see if it enables an entirely new archetype that wasn’t viable before - in this case the 5/3 deck. Jury’s still out - it could be ok, but I think what you gain by saving deckspace with 5/3s you give up by adding in the Sleepers. You might as well just play fast advance.
One thought has occurred to me - it is a way to turn off the runner’s current on demand. Perhaps it has value in that role so you don’t have to spend deck space on your own? Having said that though, the corp’s currents are mostly excellent, so why wouldn’t you want to include them?
There’s surprise value (at least for some time, before people adapt). Everyone expects FA out of HB. Very many people, even some good players, don’t expect Supermodernism out of HB. Typical reaction to sudden flatline or rig destruction is like this:
That’s fair, but I’ll disagree. HBFA can get to six points, and then slam the door the next turn. OR, put early pressure by scoring one, turning on Archers.
I don’t think Sleepers is so bad that it makes the deck unplayable, I just think that a version of that deck with Grim or Ichi instead of Archer and Gila Hands + the third SanSan back would be better.
It depends how many more it’s won than it’s lost - and against who / what?
In an environment in which the Corp has a significant edge (as it does currently) a win record of just over 50% isn’t really cutting it - you should be more like 75% vs. the field. So more facts please
The thing is though, at this level we’re talking small edges. You physically can’t test enough to be able to meaningfully measure the difference in performance of single cards. The core of the deck is a solid, classic FA build and would do reasonably well whatever is in those Domestic Sleeper slots.
What is interesting is how light on ICE decks are getting. 21 used to be the norm, then 18-19 and now even fewer. Is this because there are so many other must-have cards, or do we really only need that many? Is a lack of ICE something the runner can exploit? (Thinking Reina denial / ICE kill)
I think this is a result of A: runner’s not being that punishing for missing 1 piece of ICE earlygame, and B: lots of draw for Corp make’s it such that ICE is less important overall. For instance leaving R&D open turn 1 vs andromeda isn’t a death sentance and with andromeda being the most popular runner makes it reasonable to run a slightly lower ICE count than 18. Also the other primary runner of Kate isn’t likely to run extremely agressively early (unless they are good) so having an open HQ isn’t bad either Note that I find that corp deck’s especially fast advance tend to be more limited by the # of credits they have rather than the amount of things they spend credits on. so having additional ICE is pretty dead, but if the ICE was instead Subliminal messaging they would be very happy
Love that list. Archer in HB ETF wins games because no one expects it. You put down an Adonis and runners feel the need to go after it. Pre-HP I was playing ETF with Power Shutdown and 2x Archer and winning a lot with it. Beta Test obviously works well with Archer but an over advanced Project Vitruvius makes Power Shutdown pretty insane.
The biggest issue I had was that sacrificing a 3/2 into an Archer is pretty bad. Domestic Sleepers fixes that problem and speeds up the game. Can’t wait to try it out.
From my reading, he was sort of throwing Kate with Andromeda into the same bag, labeled “an open RnD isn’t terribly vulnerable on round 1” - which strongly jarred in contrast with my play experience vs. Kate.
But I’d agree that, while seeing Planned Assault on turn 1 from Andy isn’t terribly standard (ditching 2 cards is noone’s favorite), Indexing isn’t an unheard-of splash either.
