[Pālanā Foods] Soylent Red (It's Made of Runners)

Decklists
348

Clones seems like a fun thing to throw out and then put a snare in the scoring remote…

2 Likes
349

jinteki is getting some very interesting agenda compositions/scoring patterns now

350

Is anyone working on a list that incorporates Political Dealings to build a FA Palana, possibly using the Agroplex to accelerate card draw and increase the chances of drawing (and installing) a clickless agenda that can be scored?

351

Yes! It’s great having a solid econ id as it allows you to devote more card slots to your concept cards over econ, which really opens up design space imo. There’s just so many directions you can go in with building in this ID.

Having watched and reviewed other Palana builds, I’ve gotten on the Rush bandwagon now and have tuned mine for the GG2222222 agenda suite and have been very happy with it. I’m still in love with agroplex, card feels so powerful in creating tempo while being efficient value when played in this ID. I generally lean towards a turtle style with my corp play, but with this new suite together with agroplex I found I wanted/could fire out agendas more often since a larger part of my agenda density is useful agendas (ie corp sales and nisei). It could be a crutch though and 8 agenda + Fast Track is better and I just don’t play it aggro enough. Those access numbers for the suite looked really nice, something like GGTT2222 would be solid here as well. My thought though is that the extra copies of corp sales team make up for the extra agenda slot the agenda suite uses up by reducing econ slots needed. The econ from CST is particularly nice since it furthers our gameplan of scoring out quickly by combining econ with getting 2 of our 7 points needed like some kind of click compression.

I’ve still been fiddling with ICE suite, and especially with a move towards faster score out I wanted to stream line the curve. Got good ideas from a bunch of difference lists and ended up at something similiar to TheBigBoy’s list above. I’ve been astounded at the value of komainu and have been overall dissapointed by assassin. Once I started dropping assassins I just dropped them all as well as crick in order to make D4vid a dead card. This list now scores really quickly and feels very efficient, it was so quick in testing that I didn’t want celeb gift because it slowed down scoring too much–hence subliminal which creates just enough clickless bonus econ to keep everything paid for. I just edited my list (so untested change) by going from 3 pup to 2 and adding 1 fast track in order to score out even faster–I think it’s correct, but I’m not sure since having 18 ICE felt really nice, and since I play agroplex I draw into agendas reasonably quickly anyways.

FarmShop

Pālanā Foods: Sustainable Growth (Business First)

Agenda (9)

Asset (6)

Upgrade (7)

Operation (10)

Barrier (5)

Code Gate (5)

Sentry (7)

  • 2x Ichi 1.0 (Core Set) ••••
  • 3x Komainu (Honor and Profit)
  • 2x Pup (Honor and Profit)

12 influence spent (max 15-3☆=12)
20 agenda points (between 20 and 21)
49 cards (min 45)
Cards up to Business First

1 Like
352

I wanted to play the 9 agenda suite, since it guarantees the runner needs to score 4 of them. The problem is universally worse than TGGG based on the analysis above (9 agendas needs 22 accesses, TGGG is 23 even in the film critic case). This is because evn if they find film critic, they still looking for the singleton TfP, akin to the needle in the haystack meaning they probably have to score 4 anyway, and in the 8 agenda composition its just that little harder than the 9 version.

353

Well but as with any analysis, it’s limited by assumptions. I view your analysis as showing that the two are close, with the 8 agenda suite needing only a small % more accesses. From there, many other factors can push it one way or the other. For example, 3 GFI means fewer Eli which means more accesses. Also, my argument is that a 9 agenda suite is functionally faster–we end up winning earlier because we can chain out our 4/2s more efficiently. This means that the game is shorter on average, so the runner gets fewer access opportunities and therefore fewer accesses. So I don’t see one option as being universally better–we need to balance “how many accesses they need” versus “how many we allow them to have” so (imo) the math can’t do much besides pick out clear cases of crap suites, or try to compare very functionally similar suites like TTTG2222 vs GGTT2222 vs GGGT2222.

Also, I think your naive analysis of TTTG vs GGGT might be off. Here’s a post from @jrp that has some of the access numbers:

There’s a python script there, I’d like to see exact access number/variance for GG222222 as I couldn’t seem to find it when searching Stimhack. Maybe later I’ll try to learn how to run the script :smiley:

354

This appears to be the best composition to me as well, especially with FC coming back into the meta a little bit. At least if they do find TFP, they are ceding tempo to score it right away.

I will say that, the more I think about Clones, the more I like it. I’m just thinking 1 of these allows you to win in two 5/3 scores, whereas 2 allows you to win with a 4/2+/5/3. If things come up right it just allows you to close the game that much quicker. Plus, you’re not upping density at all, which seems pretty good.

355

This is an excellent link, but the results are the same - his assumption is tfp is stolen 40% of the time whilst i used 33% in the base case. In the film critic case i didnt work to an expectation of 7pts, rather a little higher 7.25/7.75 because i wanted to skew the results a little to the make the runner hit 8pts, rather than 7, as he will often need to score 4, is he cant find a T. In my numbers i also got 21 accesses needed for TGGG vs film critic for a 7pt expectation, but that does miss something in that you MuST hit the singleton T to close the game kn 7, hence i used 7.75 to reflect that which pushes us up to 23 acceses. Note in the 9 agenda suite case the expectation of 8 points is always 22 (no psi)

356

Weyland have public support, nBn franchis city/news teams, jinteki have clones/shikyu.

Speculation - will weyland get one that adds -1 to the runners score area? Maybe an on access ambush, take 3 meat and a tag, or -1 point?

Speculation - is messing with agenda points outside of HBs colour pie?

1 Like
357

I think the stats would also be quite meta dependant as well. I took my palana to the last SC in my area, and faced two Hayley that locked R&D and installed film critic quite early. The TFP quickly turns into a viability. Then the game comes down to if you could find the scoring window or your caprice early.

358

Maybe. It would be pretty cool if theirs was an ICE that converted to points, although I’m not sure of how the flavor would work there. Also, might be broken.

Seriously, though, Clones is the easiest condition to meet and it is the safest of the current three to put on the table because it can’t be trashed just by running it. I think it is worth testing at the very least. The 8 agenda density mix also makes it seem like it wouldn’t be removed too often either.

359

I think jrp’s formula looks about right as a rough guide, if you expect more than 50% film critic meta than TGGG else TTTG.

At the moment im expecting about 30-40% of the cut to be hayley/kate, which to be honest is enough for me. 3 pointers are just caviar to the runner and pretty much the only way you are going to lose as stealing 4 is just such a low probability ask, minimising the risk of losing one seems most prudent to me.

360

I like the idea of clones in GG + the 7 3/2s in jinteki. This alongside the jinteki sansan with agroplex/dbs, biotics and trick of lights, seems like a decent starting point.

361

HB has domestic sleepers.

2 Likes
362

If you’re expecting a FC meta and prefer 3GFI to 3TFP, that means you expect FC >55% of time according to @jpr math, so let’s say 60% of the time. This makes the accesses needed to be a weighted sum of the two cases.
Case 1 is no FC, then accesses mean is 23.2 for TGGG2222. Case 2 is FC, then access mean is 20.8. So this means in 60% FC world, access mean of TGGG2222 is 22.24, so up to rounding error the same as GG222 2222 which you quoted as 22 accesses. So again, I just don’t buy that it’s “universally better” even using access mean math. So to me the only benefit is you free up 1 deck slot, but it costs 1 more influence and the agendas do less when you score them. I can see arguments for TTTG2222 as being a great meta call when there’s no FC with its 25.3 accesses and it’s 1 influence saved, but more and more I’m getting convinced GGGT is the wrong call since even in the best case scenario (as little FC as makes it better than TTTG, since more FC = lower access mean, but lower than a certain point and TTTG is better so GGGT is used and has best access mean right at 55% FC) it’s still somewhat lack luster given the three influence spend and half of agendas not creating tempo when scored.

I’m trying but failing to get the script to work, I’d be interested in running TTGG2222 since I couldn’t find numbers on the spread. Maybe it’s the compromise win? Would be nice to get a confirmation on 22 accesses for GG222 2222 as well.

1 Like
363

Another weird thing to think about agenda density is the rate at which you score. The faster you’re scoring (or runner is scoring), the quicker overall agenda density falls. So if you score a 4/2 quick your agenda density on GG222 2222 will suddenly look like GG22 2222 which is decently lower mean access than TGGG 2222 left. TBH I was convinced 8 agendas was way better, but playing it now with the 9 just feels so right–and the access math seems (to me) lines up with it being fine/better.

Still not sure about fast track while using the 9 agenda suite vs ice or something else. Also I’m actually curious to run numbers on TG 2…2 vs TT vs GG. Something like TG NAPD 22 2222 might be better than GG222 2222. Haven’t really found philolotic to be all that useful, NAPD would def be an upgrade…

364

Some of it also comes down trying to cut a card to go up to 9 agendas.

365

Yeah sure, but in some sense we can just cut Fast Track and think of that as the 9th agenda slot. I’m also convinced we can run a bit less econ due to Corp Sales Team so we can cut an econ slot and feel fine (my deck is on 8 op econ atm and 3 agroplex which feels tight but at that nice “just enough” level where it feels efficient and not durdly, when i ran the 8 agenda suite it felt like it needed at least 9 op econ, likely 10-12).

Honestly I think the biggest effect to me has been HQ content/agenda density. With 8 agenda suite it is significantly easier to turtle and durdle since it takes longer to get flooded and be forced into scoring out. I feel like it lends itself way better to a more traditional super remote glacier approach, like my earlier deck lists. With the 9 you need to score out earlier to avoid being stuck with too high HQ density, so it benefits (well, hurts less) a deck that wants to score early game at least once.

366

I finally got the script to work! Playing around with it, it looks like in terms of mean access value the following suite is by far the best: {3TFP, 3GFI, 2 one pointers} (yes it’s better than the 7 agenda version with a 2 pointer (even NAPD) instead of the two one pointers–though the NAPD version was very similar in performance. Without FC, and assuming 1/3 steal frequency for TFP gives a bit over 30 mean accesses needed. With FC out, and therefore assuming 95% steal frequency for TFP (still not 100 since he can hit 2, or hit on R&D/HQ glory run without enough clicks to steal allowing us to score out of remote) it still has 20.5 mean access needed.

In comparison the GGGT2222 has 20.4 needed when FC steals 95% TFP, and when TFP is at 33% steal it’s 23.3 . Given that Whizz is the deck to beat and it doesn’t play FC, should we consider running {3xTFP, 3xGFI,2xCloneRetirement}? As a bonus clot installs should be rare so the 2/1 works well, and the 2/1 lets us counter nasty currents.

On a less crazy route, I still like the idea that our agenda suite should not only have good density properties but also be useful. With that in mind I’m now on {1TFP, 1GFI, 1NAPD, 3CST, 3NMK} and playing around the script convinces me that it’s more than strong enough in terms of mean access (with TFP at 33%, NAPD 90% it’s 21.2, with FC and therefore TFP at 95% and NAPD 99% it’s 18.6, with relatively low variance compared to all the 8 agenda suites). I’d like to think it helps me win before villain enters the land of 20+ accesses in the first place, and all the agendas apart from GFI and TFP are useful–well NAPD marginally, but it can create scoring windows or take advantage of them… and it taxes so it slows down runner, lowering his rate of access/click–similarly TFP is actually marginally taxing when hit out of r&d or hq, regardless of FC since psi games tax on avg though it taxes us too). Still that 6 3 pointer suite has me tempted with 30 accesses needed vs anarch!

367

The script is a little out of date, because these days you can guarantee (barring noteriety shenanigans) that the runner has to score 8 points to win - therefore thats where you set your expectation at. As you add more TFPs you pull the likelihood that the runner will win on 7pts closer and need to set th expectation accordinly

1 Like