Hah! a friend of mine was trying to get me into this yesterday! anyone here play? what starter should I pick up? I think he runs a Quantum deck.

I play a Biology deck.

Good day gents, HAVE A SWARM.

>>9331453
what victory card do you use? I have seen some bio decks running The World of Tomorrow (although the requirements are too broad IMHO for anything but casual play) and a couple with Downfall of Civilization (still faces the classic Bio problems and the various stalls, Hellooooo Madagascar).

I have been considering running a Bio deck built around a a rare VC I pulled recently, "Methusalarity" I have heard its good but haven't tried it out yet, any opinions?

You're all fags. Psych is where it's at. "What's that, you've assembled a Quantum Universe Disruptor? Too bad the head researcher has been mind controlled into setting off the failsafe nukes and undoing all your hard work, physicsfag!"

It's the cover of the newest World of Darkness book.

Science: The Hypothesizing.

It's actually kind of interesting, but most people skipped out after Burger Joint: The Burger Flipping.

I don't know why people keep saying this game series has gotten too mundane. I, for one, can't wait for Accountant: The Mathematizing.

>>9331543
Not that guy, but I just kill off their scientists. Biology advances retardedly fast, once you get your Vector discovery you can Black Plague the shit out of everyone before physics decks even discover fundamental forces.

If you get stalled out you just have to take Stable Transfection and Bioterrorism, improve your pathogens and do the same thing all over again.

>>9331643
Oh p'shaw, didn't you see the age-tag on Burger Joint?
From ages 5 and up? Kids game.

>>9331609
>I can beat a Bio deck without a counter to the Evolution card.

Enjoy losing when I just keep developing new traits!

>>9331677

Just splash some CompSci and upload your dudes into an orbital mainframe. WHERE IS YOUR DARWIN-WALLACE GOD NOW?

>>9331709
By the timed you have done that your opponent uses 'Extinction Event' and your orbital station is destroyed by an asteroid or an emp burst from the sun.

I run a macroeconomic theory deck. Shit is so cash. Good luck building your laboratories when you can't even afford to eat.

Please god, buddha and steve, let this be a real game

>>9331742

My researchers may die, but my memes are eternal. Enjoy spreading my ideas despite your best intentions.

>>9331846

Two words: Austrian Economics. God I love hoser cards.

just wondering if anyone knows what my mate might throw at me with his Computer Science/Astrophysics deck?

I'm playing a Bio Mechanics/Cybernetics deck.

>>9332854

Astrophysics is cheese. "LOL supernova", "LOL black hole", shit's retardedly overpowered.

>>9332919
>"LOL supernova", "LOL black hole"
You complain about THAT? Just wait until they hit you with Heat Death.

Not a real game?

I guess /tg/ needs to Get Shit Done

>>9332943
>>9332919

I have some counters for that with Advanced Mutagenics and Deepspace Exoskeleton combined with an Enhancer Symbiotic. I also have an Emergency Adaptation (level 5) and Paradox card.

bump for information on HOW THE FUCK HAVE WE NOT MADE THIS GAME

>>9333181

because trying to make it would create a giant trollfest, much like the /sci/ board is most of the time.

dear /tg/
please have this game ready t play by the time it is morning here in australia.

love,
me

We really should get shit done.

I would begin work by setting up a decent card generator on some free server and a database.

Relativity is where it's at.

Enjoy having one turn to my five, Time Dilation is just made of win.

>>9334715
use magic workstation for the database and magic set editor for card creation

also enjoy my turn four Bose Einstein Condensate, you can't be COOLER than that

main this motherfucker, win the game

also create an universe

rolled 2, 5, 4 = 11

WHAT DO THE NUMBERS MEAN

Does anyone have a Sicence: the Hypothesis blank card template?

*sighs* Casuals.

Listen, you primitive screwheads. All the big shit is wonderful in casual games, or big multiplayer games where you can force/co-op Shared Research or enough Co-Opted Technology cards through to boost yourself up to a tier 5-6 and toss around the big shit, like Transhumanism for Bio or Bio/Comp decks, or global board-clearers like Predicted Collision Event with the Astrophysics keyword.

Standard-level tournament play is either 1v1 or 2v2, which makes those kinds of plays difficult. At best, most times you're going to only hit Tier 3 cards unless you over-Resource the deck and pray your opponent(s) fail to fag things up with an Event. And Biology has so many fucking low-Tier Event busters, though it also gives you the Event counters. So does Engineering. At Tier 1-2. As Resource cards, no less.

>>9334801

Well, yeah. If you're going Astrophysics, he's pretty good.

I will always regard this man as the Scientist to play if you have the balls to with Engineering or Physics keywords. Unstable, capable of letting you ignore an entire Tier worth of requirements, but eats Resources at 4 times the rate.

Much as they hated each others guts, Tesla/Edison as Tier 2 plays are actually fucking effective. Tesla lets you gamble to get Tier 3 on the table early, Edison lets you salvage something from whatever Tesla fucks up.

>>9334801

Need sauce.

rolled 1, 2, 2 = 5

>>9335200
Atomic Robo.

Sooooom its just called SCIENCE The Hypothesis?

Where can I find more information?

>Inb4 Google

real? or a tg game?

rolled 6, 5, 5 = 16

Behold the product of unskilled labor.

>>9335483

If it's on here it's real.

http://metascience.bpramana.org/start03.htm
website UP

Astrophysics ramp deck here. They're more tourney viable than you think. What you have to do is pack the deck with a lot of smaller scale effects you can spam while ramping up towards Supernova (I'd use Heat Death, but it's takes waaaaay too long). A single supernova is enough to grant you the win against most decks that haven't gone for space colonization, which simply isn't strong in the meta right now.

>>9331425

Holy shit, someone actually made a card for this.

>>9335527
you still need to pull the field type bubbles off on the 'ol beak and flask in the upper left, but that's a great start.

>>9335728
And to remove the flask and beaker themselves I'd think

>>9335743
This. I'm pretty sure that pic is supposed to represent the Research Lab card.

SCIENCE
needs an exclamation point!
SCIENCE! The Hypothesis

rolled 1, 6, 2 = 9

>>9335728
>>9335743
I thought those were part of the general card design.

this game will be soooooo damn hot, we should create a website or forum or shit like this, at least irc chanell

So, we're back to this NOT being real again?

>>9335776
No it doesn't. This is a game of Science, not SCIENCE!.

>>9336188
It never was and never will be, nor should it ever be. The interactions would be too complicated to track.

>>9336188
see this
>>9334801
pic strangely related

Quantum wuz here, Bio iz a luzer.

>>9336237

Clearly, you never played the original Star Wars TCG.

>>9335647

AP keyworded cards tend to have no finesse, though. Lots of "hit everything" effects, not much precision and you usually end up nailing your own deck as much as the other guys. And you have to build up with something else to really get significant effects, since the cheap stuff is LOLRANDOM like Excess Radiation vs. nearly anything.

>>9338862
Oh god wat
I never played past the original saga.

Any major differences between this and other ccg's?

I wish this was a real card game.

>>9342922
It's awesome

Does it beat Jund?
Does it die to removal?
...Is it worth the risk?

>>9342922
more cards on the table, standard draw is 3 a round,
tourney decks are 360 min

>>9342988

Also, you have to be able to read the cards without looking at them.

Why the fuck did nobody bring up how FUCKING RETARDED CHEM/BIO DECKS ARE

>>9343110
Fucking honestly! 4th turn they're already tier 3 and are getting stoopid amounts of research grants! And then it turns out they mixed some engineering in thar, next thing you fucking know... BIOMECHANOIDS NIGGA WTF!

>>9343110

Chem/bio decks are fine. Granted, they don't have a lot of impressive late-game moves like Physics with its Grand Unification, or pure Bio with Clinical Immoratlity, but it's a good combination of chem's early-game strength with Alchemy and Metallurgy and Bio's midgame.

Now, if you want retarded, there's the whole Soft Sciences expansion. Fucking bullshit, all of it.

>>9343276
Any deck can scarily abuse the Research Grant engine, really.

Bio has it slightly easier since they can use one of the medical research goals to get the first couple grants out, but Astrophysics can do the same thing with Space Race. And Engineering has a similar strategy with Defense Grants.

>>9335126

Hey, Transhumanism is tournament-viable. It just takes a combination of lots of different stuff to get it on the table, instead of relying on the special abilities and synergy bonuses of a single field. A little bio, some computer science, and a surprisingly large amount of engineering and applied physics, mostly for the nanotech.

>>9343422
It's not really scary until you start comboing it with the Comp. Sci cards. Oh, you put 'Computational' in front of your field, here's a fuckton of extra money.

I mean really, Computaional Biology, Computational Physics, even fucking Computational Psychology. There's no good reason to not to splash Comp. Sci. for the extra Academic grants and research points. Especially since it opens up the various Turing/Sloan/Cray/Knuth Award events and all the bonus cash they give, too.

>>9343472
Which is precisely why it's not viable. A couple Shared Researches in the opponent's sideboard, and you're forced to give a huge boost to your opponent for minimal gains on your side of the board.

And since most people have at least one SR for the mirror match, it's pretty much guaranteed that you'll be fucked over in games 2 and 3.

>No one has mentioned Sociology yet

Christ, /tg/ is terrible at Science. Midgame lockdown using Revolutions and the groupthink effect is one of the most powerful control strategies available.

>>9343562

Come on. Experimental Falsifiability or Reproducible Results fucks over pretty much anything from the Soft Sciences expansion. Honestly, I think it was the game designers' way of apologizing for that set.

BALLISTIC PHYSICS UP IN THIS BITCH.

>>9343562
Sociology wrecked back when it was SotA legal, but it just doesn't cut it in the eternal formats. Like a lot of the single block only fields there isn't any really broken acceleration for it the way there is for Chem/Bio/Physics.

Personally, I hope they revisit the field like they did with Econ, but precisely because it was so dominant when it was legal I'm not really expecting it.

>>9343606
required cards for any set, they are also good at slowing down people trying to push up the tech tree without establishing a firm base.

So I'm thinking of getting into Philosophy, I heard they were good in first edition, but had become weaker since.

I mean, I'm getting tempted at Zeno's Paradox which seems to be able to counter pretty much any Physics card in play.

>>9343749
Sociology shines because it's faster than any hard science deck and pays off well. If you push a good amount resources into it you can outspeed even biology in your development speed. It doesn't compare to high-tier hard science cards like Cosmic String/Heat Death/Mass Extinction/Bioengineered Pandemic etc. but you reap the benefits before everyone else and can divert your resources to somewhere else afterwards.

>>9343749

That's why I like splashing Engineering. Co-Opt Technology gets you less than Shared Research and you need at least three Military Keyworded Resources to play it (which in turn means Sociology can literally mindfuck it with Peaceful Conversion)...but it outright destroys two of the Resources you take with it, and you take full control (at half strength) of the third. Shared Research has to stay in play and splits the Resource pool evenly between all the players with an SR targeting the Resources in question, and if they remove it from play, they're back in action with the full Resource pool they had before. SR has no keyword, and the devs put it in to make Bio or Bio/Comp decks lose some of that quick ramp-up.

You want pissed, watch a Bio player drop a tier from COT and you go up one using his flippin Agricultural University to make Nerve Gas. Plowshares to swords, baby.

>>9343928
The various paradoxes only work if your opponent is trying to tech up purely on theory. If they have Experimental Verification or one of its variants, all your philosophy suddenly doesn't actually do anything.

Although, I've always wanted to try an Econ/Philosophy deck. Cut off their funding for experiments and hit them with paradoxes to stop their theory. It wouldn't work outside casual, but it'd be pretty fun to play.

>>9343562
>>9343606

It's not too hard. Sociology fucks everyone up, but since most of it's stuff either goes for the lowest cost cards first (Grassroots Movement, Religious Methodology, Irrational Conversion, Irrational Conclusions) or takes a specific keyword (Peaceful Conversion being the biggest "I TROLL YOU MIL-ENG LOL" one) to target, it means Bio can usually throw more stuff out than Sociology can fuck over- or Adaptation/Social Adaptation around it globally.

>>9344140
Tell that to all the Bio. Deck Wins players that got crushed by Sociology at Worlds two years ago.

>>9343943

That's an under-appreciated ability of Sociology- dangerous because it's fragile, but Revolutionary Thought can swap all your Resources to two Keywords of your choice at the cost of destroying one in three (your choice, so naturally you trash the junky Tier 1 stuff). It's more flexible than To Mars!, Global Warming, or World War! , and Sociology can even deal with those.

Of course, if your opponent can deal with it, you're SOL or stuck trying to win with only half your deck useful.

>>9344217

Strong metagaming there. Regionals had so much Bio going on it was a no-brainer to sideboard for- and an Eng/Psy deck made top 4 anyway out of nowhere and only lost because the poor bastard drew into nothing but Tier 3+ stuff three opening hands in a row.

It sucks trying to play against Bio after a triple mulligan. He'd have stomped that Soc/Psy deck a new one, since he had six counters to Peaceful Conversion in the sideboard and three in his maindeck alone.

>>9344070

Hmm... I guess that's true... At least they are cheap cards and can force the opponent to spend a lot of resources to verify.

>>9344070

Go the other way. Philo can't outright twist the keywords on cards like Soc, but if you pump it with enough resources, you can basically starve the opponent anyway. Economics lets you feed Philo very efficiently, and Charitable Institution means if you have enough Resources, he's forced to feed your resource pool with part of his own each time they use a Resource card themselves.

Then you play Dogmatic Thought, pay it with what you've got + what he's "donating", and proceed to lock the board and crawl to the win an hour later. If tournament play didn't have a time limit, it'd have placed repeatedly by now.

Casuals will strangle you though.

>>9344483
Well, if the new expansion actually succeeds in making Math and Logic competitive Philosophy might see some play as a counter. Math decks have only a handful of cards that allow experimental research.

>>9344541

I'm actually thinking about a Soc deck with some Philo support, should be able to twist or even remove key-words more than the opponent can keep up.

>>9344574

On the other hand a Math/Philo deck could also work, using the the Philo cards as experimentals and then verify with Maths.

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/9331425/

archived for future generations

>>9344696
Physics/Math (Or maybe CS/Math) is probably going to be the big winner. As cool as some of the Math cards are, they just don't interact with the board enough on their own to win the game (No, Non-Existence Proof doesn't count. It's a goddamned Mad Science! card, you nit-picking fucks).

>>9344696

That's viable in 2v2 play, but remember you've gotta pay to keep all those in play. It's not too tough for Philo, it's tougher for Soc, and it's near impossible to keep all of them going at once. If you can leech off your partner with a half-dozen SR's between you? Maybe.

And actually, that's not a bad idea. Eng/ Math-Philo, maybe? Or Econ/ Math-Philo. It's legal, even if most tournament decks usually try to go with as few keywords as possible.

upper-crus/tg/irls and elegan/tg/entlemen, shit must get done!

>>9344869
I am taking copious notes, from here and the other StH thread on sup/tg/. I am also pathologically lazy and probably won't actually Get Shit Done (Or will Get Shit Done months from now), but right now I'm thinking about it *very hard*

I'm confused as to why nobody's mentioned Technological Singularity yet... Granted, it's a late-game card that takes at least 2 fields at tier-3, but once it's out it's almost impossible to stop. Heck, I once played a deck that did CompSci/Physics to get the Singularity out, and splashed several other fields for fun stuff to bring out with it.

>>9345051

That's why. Usually, most tournament decks peak at Tier 3 for a single field. Again, it's like using too many keywords- it tends to disrupt deck focus, and you have to be much more (ahem) single-minded to push a Singularity out. That means even minor disruptions can take you getting to Singularity past the time limit.

That being said, CompSci-Physics/Math would work, since Math is one of those keywords that's friendly to both. It's just got a smaller pool to work with, and having both a field and a keyword with Experimental so common between them can lead to a lot of Proof of Theory/Experimental Failures dinging up your Tier progress.

Give it another expansion with a decent set of Math keyworded cards and I'd say it's a more stable deck. Math is a relatively new keyword with a small card pool to work with, which right now relegates it to splash status only.

>>9345036
>>9344869

>>9345291
True... as it stands, Technological Singularity isn't a tournament-quality card... but it's fun to use in Casual play, especially if you can use Tesla to get to tier 3 fast.

As I remember, the Framework is like this:

All cards have keywords, which declare their cost or the keywords provided (for resources)

4 card types - Resources (labs, centers, etc used to play shit), Assets (normally with abilities or stepping stones to heavier stuff), Plays (instants such as lawsuits) and the ever important Agendas (which hold the requirements to gain victory points)

So you play your agendas, try to gain victory points by them, and try to fuck over your opponent enough that he can't reach his objectives before you.

Can't remember cards right, probably something like

Supermaterial - Agenda
Chemistry, Engineering, Research
1 victory point: Remove Chemistry, Research from game
"Resilient, flexible and everything in between"

>>9346730
a number of people have talked about a Victory Agenda or Victory Condition card which you have to aim for, meaning you start play with say a Tech Deck, and you put down a VA of the World of Tomorrow, and then you have to meet the stated requirements to achieve victory, such as Personal Jetpacks, Flying Cars, Moon Colony, etc (about a half dozen requirements per VA) each requirement is an Endeavor which must be completed.

>>9346897
Yeah, it seems you may have multiple agendas. The thing is, your opponents knows them and it becomes a dirty race.

I also remember main/bold keywords, which MUST be paid. And probably costs (or a fixed cost) representing the number of keywords that need to be paid.

>>9345036
makes sure you check out the original one:
http://4chanarchive.org/brchive/dspl_thread.php5?thread_id=2513823&x=Science3A+The+Hypothesis

That said, it'll never be a real game, and I'm okay with that.

>>9346730
>>9346192
Oooh... neat!

From this thread I had guessed that there were Resources with sub-types (Location/Installation, Scientist, Equipment...), Events, Theories/Endeavors, and Agendas.

Each card would have keywords, with Fields being a special class of keyword that would determine what sort of Research Points a card generated and/or required for play (You could add +5 RP to physics and chemistry, for example, and then play a card that required 3 RP of Physics or Math)

In addition to (or instead of, for non-scientific resources and events) Research Points cards would also require money (Development Cost? Needs a fancier word), and may have additional requirements such as a theory or scientist of a certain tier/epoch/tech level or with a certain keyword in play.

Theories/Endeavors would probably have either the Experimental or Theoretical keywords (and maybe Practical?), and could be contested until they were either verified or proved, respectively, at which point they become a permanent part of your board.

Basically, it seems that the model the image is based on could be pretty heavily simplified by using fewer card types but more keywords and/or sub-types (Agenda - Policy/Victory/Government. Resource - Installation/Equipment/Material)

The issue you run in to is uniqueness. It's a reasonable rule that you can only have one card of the Government type out, but if Government becomes a keyword its uniqueness is now a less intuitive special rule (Like the legend and wall subtypes). Making these sorts of things a card type is one solution, or their uniqueness could be because of rules text, or you could borrow from MtG some more and have super/subtypes, or you could do it with the actual layout of the card, with some sort of division between unique and non-unique (and possibly Field) keywords.

>>9347072
>>That said, it'll never be a real game, and I'm okay with that.

Really? What counts as REAL GAMES in your mind? D&D and 40k? There are games out there that people other than you might enjoy.

While we're making up WoD games...

>>9347621
Is this supposed to be a WoD Sentai game.? Oh god, stop taunting me /tg/. Why must you imagine all these wonderful things that I cannot have..

>>9347518
Most things except resources could be conflated into Assets, as cards that affect the game a la MtG enchantments.

I believe paying was made by tapping resources until you met the keyword quota

>>9347931
Assets is certainly a better word for this card type. Resources should be the things you generate to pay for cards, and only that to prevent confusion.

lol revivan

>>9347621

WTF is that picture from!?

I love you /tg/.

rolled 29 = 29

We need to make sure the archive is up to date, to ensure the preservation of this awesomeness.

Somebody do it.

Just picked up a couple of boosters today on a whim: fucking win!

Got a Temporal Vortex (Trans-disciplinary) AND Anti-Mater Theory. The best part? Mathematician Savant and DNA Splice...........

HATERS GUNNA HATE

>>9344850

Well I was thinking about "government investigation" and "grass-root support" as early resource generators, those two combo pretty well for a large early pool of resources that should be able to get out some permanent Soc cards and some cheap Philo cards so that you can screw up the enemy's playstyle really early.

>>9353786

Well, both Temporal Vortex and Anti-Matter Theory are nice cards, but I don't see them being used in the same deck as their both high-tier. Also, Anti-Matter Theory looks evil, but as it is a theory card it is easy to deflect and hard to keep in play, especially if your opponent has even the slightest amount of Probability cards in his decks (granted, not common outside Maths, but still)

>>9353786
>>9353962

You know, now that I think about it AMT might work good in a Soc/Phys deck, play "Popular Culture Spinoff" and "Media Craze" on it and you can fuck up the opponent pretty good.

>>9346730

>>4 card types - Resources (labs, centers, etc used to play shit), Assets (normally with abilities or stepping stones to heavier stuff), Plays (instants such as lawsuits) and the ever important Agendas (which hold the requirements to gain victory points)

Scientists are an Asset. Plays are "Events".

Agendas are played at no cost, but only one per Field per Tier at a time. Finishing an Agenda is done by playing a single card of the appropriate higher Tier on it, including paying it's cost.

Destroy that card (not lose control, not render it inactive by being unable to pay it's Resource Cost) and you either replace it with another card of the same Tier or you drop back down a Tier.

Say I'm using my Eng deck (Field) with Military and Math (keywords). I play World War!, which is a Tier 3 Agenda. I can play a single T3 card to complete that Agenda- in this case, I attach Nerve Gas to World War! and complete it.

I can now continue to play T3 cards of other kinds. Unfortunately, my opponent is a bitch and plays Arms Reduction, which removes one of the highest Tier Military keyword cards in play. Nerve Gas is discarded as it's the only T3, and I'll have to find another T3 card to attach to it before I can play Tier 3's again.