Last week I wrote about decks that paired a flatline method with a strong scoring strategy in order to utilize the flatline for the lowest possible investiture of resources. The value of these kill decks was the way the flatline created a two-prong attack for the deck’s overall strategy such that a runner was forced into straining their resources to deal with both vectors of the corp’s deck simultaneously. They also have the advantage of mitigating a major weakness playing for the flatline: killshots are highly situational. Being able to score agendas effectively while also threatening the flatline gives the corp a meaningful route to victory in any situation. Even as disparate as the scoring strategies or flatline methods may be, this broad category of kill deck is potent because of the combination of scoring and killing.



There’s another broad category of kill deck which can garner some of these advantages but does so in a profoundly different way. Rather than using scoring strategies to overcome the situational nature of the flatline, these decks produce a large volume of damage through a variety of different methods. The wide variety of damage production creates an overlapping set of conditions for the runner to avoid. While the conditions to create a flatline from any individual method may not be met in every game, the proliferation of methods can give an opening for a killshot with one method while the runner attempts to avoid a different set of flatline conditions. Scoring agendas is a relatively low priority in these decks compared to doing damage to and eventually killing the runner, but it’s the increased number of dangers and the limits of the runner’s knowledge that opens up an avenue for scoring agenda among the fatal traps. If the first broad category of kill deck was a two-pronged attack, this category resembles a minefield primed to explode at the first misstep.

We’ve already seen some aspect of this broad category at work in the decks we looked at in the previous article. Many Weyland decks include both Scorched Earth and Punitive Counterstrike together with a glacier or rush strategy for scoring. These two cards serve the same purpose (producing a large volume of damage in a single click) but have two different sets of conditions that need to be met in order to serve that purpose (Scorched needs the runner to be tagged and Punitive needs the runner to have stolen an agenda and be at lower credits than the corp). A runner who is able to avoid one of the conditions (for instance if they’re playing tag prevention cards like Forger or New Angeles City Hall) may not be able to avoid the other, which gives the corporation an opportunity to flatline one way while the other way is unavailable. In another example, NBN kill decks usually only have one way to flatline (because they have to spend influence for any damage dealing cards) but if their flatline method is through tag punishment they may include a wide range of ways to tag the runner. Tags from Data Raven means the runner either can’t run on a server or has to be ready to clear tags immediately after. Tags from SEA Source or Midseason Replacements means they have to keep up in their credits during the corp’s turn. Tags from Breaking News means the runner has to keep on top of easily scored agendas. Multiple means of tagging forces the runner to navigate a web of choices or die.



Kill decks that focus on multiple flatline methods extend this idea to a more extreme conclusion. If adding an extra means of flatlining makes it more difficult for the runner to avoid dying, then a third or fourth method will make it even more difficult. At a certain point, there are so many means by which the corp can kill the runner it completely warps the flow of the game. With fewer resources spent on defending servers, the time and credits invested by the runner on breaking into servers becomes, in some respects, besides the point. Stealing agendas is still the most viable way for the runner to win, but the path to stealing those points are laden with dangers. Runners must approach these decks more gingerly than because cards are more easily accessed but come with a wider array of risks. In some cases the runner is stuck with making a decision that is little more than a guess with the result deciding the outcome of the game. In other cases the runner is left with little decision at all: anything they decide to do will inevitably lead to flatline.

Understanding how to best utilize the new game environment these kill decks create requires an understanding of the lines of play each of the overlapping flatline methods requires and how they are mutually supportive. To provide some concrete example of this, I want to spend some time focusing on Cambridge PE, a deck popularized in the US by Chris Hinkes and brought to the World stage by Mihn Tran. The Cambridge deck begins its damage focus with the ID: Personal Evolution essentially turns every agenda into a source of net damage. This has several effects on the runner. For one thing, it adds an extra layer of cost to stealing an agenda since every agenda stolen is going to tax the runner one card from damage. The risk of flatlining due to agenda steal is a flatline method that’s unique to PE, and Cambridge decks try to make the most of this with Fetal AI. The risk of running into Fetal AI and a Snare! on a single run can spell certain doom and limits the use and effectiveness of multiaccess cards. Even when stolen agendas don’t result in flatline, unless the runner recovers from the net damage by drawing cards they make themselves more vulnerable to flatlining later. This can force the runner to slow down their aggression or take increased risks of dying. On the other hand, letting the corp score an agenda becomes more dangerous against PE because they get points and deal damage at the same time: this pushes and pulls at the runner, incentivizing runs while also punishing them.



This interaction between PE’s ability and scoring/stealing agendas opens up lines of plays in many different directions. Installing and advancing an agenda can be a means towards victory by points if the corp is able to do so multiple times over the course of the game. But an installed agenda can also be a way to deal damage to the runner without spending extra credits, and if there’s an opportunity from another card like an advanced Ronin or Neural EMPs, feeding the runner an agenda can promote those lines of play by dealing damage at the cost of 1 agenda point. Philotic Entanglement is potent for promoting this line of play because it becomes stronger the more the runner steals from the corp, so now not only are you promoting the flatline by dealing damage but you’re also promoting the Philotic flatline by giving them more agendas. With the correct set-up, the corp can create no-win scenarios for the runner by being able to capitalize on any decision the runner makes.

Alongside the risks of agenda play Cambridge uses a combination of Ronin and advancable traps to promote multiple lines of play. A card that can be advanced is likely either an agenda, a trap, or a Ronin. When there’s an agenda installed and advanced, the runner generally want to run on it to prevent the corp from scoring. When there’s a trap installed, the runner doesn’t want to run because they’ll suffer the effects of the trap (which can be incredibly punishing in the case of Project Junebug or Cerebral Overwriter). When the card is a Ronin, the runner wants to run and trash it or else the corp can threaten to deal a large amount of damage in a single click. These three possibilities are at odds with each other because you want to run right away on an agenda, you never want to run on a trap, and you eventually want to run on a Ronin but you don’t necessarily want to right now. As more cards are left installed and advanced, it becomes even more difficult to clarify for the runner which cards are which and the stakes become higher for the runner if they leave those cards unmolested.



Once two Ronins are installed and advanced, the corp can threaten an instant flatline. The threat of a double Ronin flatline can open up many lines of play. Even with one Ronin out, a pair of Neural EMPs in HQ can kill off a runner with less than five cards in hand and no prevention. If one of the cards installed and advanced is a Cerebral Overwriter, the risk of double Ronin may seem so great to the runner that they can be forced to run headfirst into a trap in order to deny a double Ronin flatline. Players may be approaching these lines of play with straightfoward and well reasoned maxims. For instance, they may rightly assume that if an advanced card was an agenda you would have scored it at the first opportunity. The threat of double Ronin may reactivate a trap that’s been set but not sprung: now that one of the two cards may be a Ronin setting up for a flatline, the runner may feel forced to run on a card they previously thought was a trap. There’s also an opportunity to keep advanced agendas ready to be scored to deal a piece of net damage without spending a click. And as soon as the corp reaches match point all advanced traps suddenly become active as the runner cannot allow the corp to score the winning points uncontested. As long as the lines of play are available to the corp, the runner is left with a set of uncertain and risky choices, and as more lines of play are developed the choices for the runner become more serious and more difficult.

Even if the runner is able to avoid a total blowout from the corp, as the game goes longer they can start to run up against a completely different line of play : death by a thousand cuts. Because Cambridge has many different sources for damage, it’s possible to deal a large volume of damage spread out over the course of the game. Once the runner draws through their deck they’ll have no new cards to lose to damage, which can put serious constraints on their actions. Unless they’ve been able to get enough points so the next agenda access will win the game, they need to have enough cards left over to steal the winning points or lose from PE’s ability. If on the way to finding those agendas they should run into traps, they may be locked out of winning by points altogether or flatline from small pieces of damage. It’s always a possible avenue for the Cambridge player to bleed the runner dry of all their card. This line of play is developed slowly every time the runner trashes a card from overdrawing or taking a piece of damage and its subtle effect on the game may only be perceived when it’s too late to mount a meaningful defense.



The corporation’s job in this game is to keep as many lines of play open for exploitation at the same time they promote those lines of play. For instance, a corp player getting ready to flatline the runner with a double Ronin play may install a Ronin with Mushin no Shin and advance it once, leaving themselves with 4 credits. Three of those credits need to be available if the corp wants to threaten the runner with a Cerebral Overwriter. Going below 3 credits closes off that line of play until the corp can get more credits. With the threat of Cerebral closed, there are fewer reasons for the runner not to run on the advanced cards: if it’s an agenda they can take some damage and get points, if it’s a Ronin they can defuse a future threat, and if it’s a Cerebral Overwriter they’ll avoid taking any brain damage. If the runner should run first click into a Snare! in R&D, the corp is left with a difficult decision of their own: trigger the Snare! and close off the Cerebral play, or lose the Snare! and keep the Cerebral play alive. It’s difficult to know in this circumstance the absolute correct play (for instance, the runner may be willing to run on the advanced remotes even if the threat of Cerebral was alive, or they may be unwilling to run during the same turn they ran on a Snare! for fear of Fetal AI or Scorched Earth), but the decision has to be made and the way to discern the best play has to come from an understanding of what lines of play are available and how the choices made by either player changes the possibilities of those plays.

A term that’s been used to describe the kind of intensive decision-making decks like Cambridge PE require is “skill-check.” At each step in the development of lines of play, each player has opportunities to shape that development based on their skill and knowledge of the game of Netrunner, and as long as players are able to use that skill and knowledge there is a possibility for them to successfully navigate the deck’s challenges. Players who don’t make the proper use of their skills can find themselves promoting lines of play for the corp instead of closing or removing them. If, for instance, the runner feels safe running on advanced remotes because the corporation has 1 credit (so Cerebral isn’t an active threat), they may be forgetting that Project Junebug only needs 1 credit to trigger its payload of damage. If the runner is being too conscientious about advanced remotes for fear of traps, they may be facing a rude awakening when the corp suddenly scores a Philotic for massive damage. A deck like this is challenging the skills of the runner because they’re being forced to use their resources and card knowledge in a way that is almost alien to other decks, and unless the runner has the necessary experience and skill they may not be able to make the changes to their play in time to deal with the deck’s challenges.

Unfortunately the reverse is also true: if the runner is familiar with the kill deck’s tricks and are able to play the odds well, the challenge the deck poses to the runner is significantly diminished. Even with the advantage of multiple means of flatlining the runner, flatlines are also situational, and if the runner can skillfully navigate those situations the opportunity to flatline the runner may never arise. In that case, the corp is now forced to win the game on points for which a kill deck of this type is not well suited. Sometimes this comes down to luck (for instance, if the corp never draws a trap against a runner who wants to aggressively run remotes) and other times it comes from the runner’s deck choices (for instance, if they include a lot of damage prevention cards in their deck build), but regardless of why the skill-check fails to adequately catch the runner, the corp is left with a bad mess to try to clean up.

This is a major part of why these types of decks only appear occasionally in high levels of competitive play and why once they make their way to top tables they’re likely to fall out of favor more quickly than other deck types. Once strong players start winning consistently with these decks, players become more familiar with the various tricks in their arsenal, giving them an ever-growing advantage over the corp. Even in match ups where the corp has the advantage, the fact that skill is a major determining factor limits the effect the mismatch has over the general outcome of the game. Even if players aren’t able to learn how to navigate the overlapping flatline conditions, damage prevention cards go a long way in countering these decks because they rely so much on producing damage in volume. These decks can periodically reappear in the meta once people stop anticipating them or as new cards are introduced to reanimate lines of play, but once they come back people are able to tech against or play around them more quickly the second time.

The fleeting nature of the deck’s competitive life shouldn’t discourage players from picking up these decks or building new versions of them. For one thing, playing these decks is the fastest and most effective way of learning how to counterplay against them: by learning the lines of play from the corporation side, you can learn as a runner how plays develop and what signals to look for when a line of play is coming together. For another, building a new deck might be able to catch unsuspecting opponents off-guard, since they may be unfamiliar with the general tenor of this type of deck or respond to lines of play as if they were developing out of a similar but distinct kind of kill deck. As new cards come out new lines of play are made available which can take advantage of other player’s unfamiliarity with how those new cards are used in the field. And ultimately, playing a game of netrunner which challenges the skills of each player is a benefit all to itself, and these decks challenge player skill in unique and surprising ways.