by FileAccess
argus88 wrote:
Haha, you commented in the thread, so you're just forgetting ;)
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/881737/washington-d-c-to...
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/881737/washington-d-c-to...
Oops! :blush: Please forgive me; it's been a bit of a week...
argus88 wrote:
So I'm down a Rototurret, Heimdal, Ichi, Aggressive Secretary, and Corporate Troubleshooter
Aye.
argus88 wrote:
I wanted to try sticking right at 45 to maximize my draws of the precogs and out of faction ICE, but if I rebuilt, I'd probably add in at-least another Ichi or Rototurret + possibly another Biotic Labor and end up in the 47-48 range
Understood. For me, I like having the two Troubleshooters because I want to hit one pretty early in the game. I guess with Precognition that becomes easier to do without one.
Also, I can understand wanting to have one Troubleshooter in there as a threat without relying on it to save the day. After all, there are no Archers to pair them with to complete wreck a runner's day. That said, Troubleshooters can still pair nicely with Ichi and Rototurret.
argus88 wrote:
Why? I know it's fun to stick more stuff in your deck, but if you're not going to draw it it's only making your deck weaker. Until I have a Corp that actually draws 40+ cards regularly in a game I would never build over 49.
I both agree and disagree with this. Which means you must be on to something interesting! :D
Whether or not a deck is "strong" or "weak" depends on how you're defining strength. If your definition is "strength is the likelihood of getting a specific card at a specific time," then more cards decreases your strength. An example of this would be "I want to have a Hedge Fund in my starting hand as often as possible."
However, if your definition of strength is more along the lines of "strength is the likelihood that I'll have at least one of any given card in my hand at some point during the game," then more cards may increase strength. For example, right now you're only playing with 1x Troubleshooter. There's a decent chance that you'll never see your Troubleshooter in your entire game. If you add another Troubleshooter to your deck then the chance of getting a Troubleshooter at some point during the game goes up significantly and the chance of getting your other cards goes down slightly. This would mean an overall increase in the strength of your deck as overall you're more likely to see at least one of each card in your deck during the game. This is exactly why I have 2x Melange: I don't want to see both of them, but I do want to see one of them.
Also, we could define strength in terms of liability, such as the likelihood of drawing a starting hand with 3+ agendas in it (for one example of liability). The agenda-to-other ratio decreases as you increase the number of cards in your deck, meaning larger decks get stronger in this regard.
For me, I see going from 49 cards to 54 cards as lowering my ratio of agenda-to-other cards ratio, which I'm in favor of. It also means being able to add two more 2x Something to my deck, which overall increases my ability to pick something different over the course of the game.
I completely agree that I'll have more cards not being picked in a game, and that the reliability of any one card goes down, but I feel that the overall reliability could go up.
If nothing else, I feel it's worth empirical testing. :)
argus88 wrote:
Your reasons for Melange seem reasonable. In a way HB is least suited to Melange, since Melange works well using it several turns while increasing your hand size, then taking a turn to install / play a bunch of cards. Which is counter to HB's identity.
I agree with you. I'm actually tempted to go the route of PAD Campaigns, but overall I feel that Melange is more worthwhile. HB's identity may not be the best to pair with Melange, but HB's playstyle actually seems like the best to protect it as getting towers of ICE going is what HB does well.