Beyond the Three Phase view of Netrunner: Sente
LiveJournal Tags: android,lcg,netrunner
If you’ve not read the first post in this (sub)series, you can find it here: Two Scales and Three Phases.
The idea of sente comes from the game of Go, and loosely interpreted it means initiative. The word originates in Japanese and according to Sensei’s Library stems from “playing first”. In Go, a player has sente, a move is sente, and a position can be sente. Having adopted a three phase view, I think that the concept of sente has further application to Netrunner to provide a more sophisticated conception of the flow of the game. Not only does the three phase view have an influence on deckbuilding and player strategy, it also impacts on the in-game tactics that can be employed, and sente refines that tactical view even more.
Sente
Although the term ‘sente’ originates in Go, there are many alternative terms from other games that describe similar concepts: advantage, edge, influence, etc. The notion of sente may in fact be applicable to any competitive game of opposing sides, perhaps more so for one-on-one than games of more than two players, where sente more likely translates into ‘lead’. Sente has three senses. Firstly as a state of play a player may have sente by it being their turn, and they do not have to answer the opponent’s last move. A player may take sente by playing a move that forces the opponent to answer it. Having sente means allows a player to freely pursue their own victory rather than being forced to defend against their opponent’s strategy.
A move that allows a player to take sente may be described as a sente move, or it can be said that a move is sente. A sente move has an analogous concept in Netrunner; obvious examples include the Corporation advancing an Agenda, or the Runner installing an Icebreaker. Each of these types of moves must be factored into the opponent’s strategy, to be answered or not, at the risk of being disadvantaged later in the game.
Lastly, a Go position (i.e. board state) may be sente (or is sente) where the gain for one player to make a subsequent play (‘move’) is greater than for the other. This has no direct analogue in Netrunner, mainly due to the asymmetric nature of the game. As such, ‘moves’ are not directly comparable (installing Ice has a different effect from installing an Icebreaker), and ‘gain’ (in the simplest consideration being the agenda points (ap) scored or stolen) is too coarse a comparison due to many other factors involved: clicks, credits, cards in hand, cards installed, etc.
Taking a broader view to account for these additional elements in the game may admit to board position (bp) being considered sente. E.g. in the instance of a Corporation with fully defended central servers and a robust remote server from which to advance and score (thus in Phase 2), or v.v. a Runner with a full Rig facing a Corporation with inadequate Ice defences, or depleted credits (thus Phase 3). This is not to say that the idea of game phases, or the transition between phases, should be conflated with sente, and I’ll discuss this in more detail further on.
While one might consider that a Runner expending significant credits to steal an Agenda from the Corporation might make for an equal gain for the Runner as loss for the Corporation, there is a question of what other resources have been lost in doing so. Likewise, the Corporation rezzing an early, expensive piece of Ice and scoring next turn might seem an equivalent gain as would have been lost had they not rezzed. If they go broke doing so, however, then the gain is potentially unequal if the Runner now has free reign on a central server from which to steal more Agenda.
Does Sente Make Sense for Netrunner?
Can the concept of sente be legitimately applied to the game of Netrunner? I think so, despite the obvious differences in the two games. To outward appearances Go is completely transparent, in that there is no information hidden from either player. As one gains more experience in playing Go however, it becomes apparent that while the bp is completely transparent, the game holistically contains a large degree of hidden strategies and plays. Netrunner is a game with a large amount of hidden information, from cards in hand, unexposed cards, and the unknown composition of the opponents’ decks. Most strikingly though, Go is a symmetric game: both players’ actions are exactly alike in that each player places a single stone on the board each turn, while Netrunner is an asymmetric game: the two sides play in distinctly different ways.
Still, each of the two games is about shifting degrees of control between the two players. In either game, the players seek to play moves to which the opponent should respond or be placed at a disadvantage. Both seek to establish a level of hidden control so that the opponent is unable to respond quickly and cut off that avenue of exploitation. Both games involve hiding the path to victory, and shaping a battlefield: in Netrunner this battlefield is the simulated arena of cyberspace. In Go, the battlefield is more abstracted.
In Go, a sente move is worth immediate point value, even though this is not counted until the end of the game. Sente in Netrunner is equally about control but it doesn’t relate directly to the agenda points (ap) scored at the end of the game. In Netrunner sente refers to an advantage in board position (bp) and how this relates to the gain or loss of agenda points, the chance of a flatline victory, the transition between phases, etc. with both sides of the game trying to control these various game aspects. As such, I think the notion of sente transcends the phases of the game. For the Corporation this means trying to accelerate the transition from Phase 1 (φ1) to Phase 2 (φ2), where in the mid-game it is strongest. For the Runner, this means seeking to exploit sente to prolong φ1 as much as possible, or accelerating through φ2 to achieve φ3 as quickly as possible. Equally the Corporation wants to perpetuate φ2 as long as it can, delaying the onset of φ3 or even potentially reverting the bp from φ3 to φ2 by successfully attacking the Runner’s board.
Control in Netrunner comes in two flavours; control of the board, and control of the game. One - board control - is a concrete form of control, literally about the cards on the table and in hand. The second, more abstract form is about control of the mental game, not the physical one. So the abstract form of control therefore depends not just on the cards, but on what they could be, how they can be exploited and what strategy they support. The abstract form of control depends also on the player(s). It hinges on who they are, what their reputation is, their play style, etc. Each of these and more comprises the mental aspect of sente which the notion of abstract control seeks to encapsulate.
Example: Early Game Sente
To give a concrete example of the notion of sente, consider the following sequence of play:
In the first turn of play, the Corporation player installs a piece of Ice in front of R&D, installs a second piece of Ice in front of HQ, and installs a card (Asset or Agenda) in a new remote server.
The Runner, playing Noise, makes a run on HQ. The Corporation chooses to rez Wall of Static (3 credits), dropping to 2 credits. Rebuffed, the Runner counters by installing a Medium (dropping to 2 credits, and mills the top card of R&D thanks to Noise’s special ability) and then makes a run at R&D. The threat of the Medium building up early virus counters encourages the Corporation to rez the Ice protecting it. The Corporation rezzes Draco at strength 1. Let’s assume that the Corporation is NBN, so they have an additional 2 credits for the trace2, enough to ensure that the trace value of 4 exceeds the Runner’s ability to beat the trace.
The Runner then installs a Parasite on Draco, milling another card into the Archives completing her turn.
Keep in mind that this is the first two turns of the game, and so we are definitely in φ1. Who has sente throughout this sequence? In the Corporation player’s turn, they are the only player who has taken any actions and so sente rests with them by definition, i.e. the Runner has made no moves to which the Corporation must respond. The Runner’s first action attempts to take sente by making the opponent spend valuable starting credits to defend HQ (possibly holding one or two Agenda though for the moment this is irrelevant). Alternatively this early run seeks to expose a weakness in the Corporation’s defences by discovering Ice that the Corporation cannot afford to rez.
As the Corporation is able to rez the Ice, he retains sente despite the early aggression; the Runner is forced to respond to the Barrier by having to install a Fracter Icebreaker if she wishes to continue to attack HQ. By installing Medium and then making a run at R&D she again attempts to take sente, and is again blocked by her opponent’s ability to rez the Ice, and successfully make the trace stick.
Finally, by installing the Parasite, the Runner succeeds in taking sente, because now the Corporation is forced to respond to the inevitable loss of a (decidedly weak) Draco in two turns, opening up R&D to attack by the Medium virus. Particularly in this early stage of the game (noting that both players are down to no credits), the loss of defences on R&D may dictate the outcome of the game. Additionally, the Corporation has to concern themselves with two cards that have been milled by Noise’s ability, either of which might be Agenda.
The entire analysis above is concerned with a concrete form of control, focussing on the cards (and credit resources) alone. Another interpretation may be made here: that the playing of Parasite does not in itself grant sente. Under this more abstract view of control the Runner does not have sente at the end of the turn, but how the Corporation responds to this play (and the milled cards) dictates who takes sente. By going on the defensive and attempting to recoup credits, repair or replace the R&D defences and block easy access to the Archives, the Corporation gives sente to the Runner. Employing a different strategy, such as aggressively setting out to advance Agenda in a remote server, or lure the Runner into an early game Ambush dictates who truly holds sente in this scenario.
Moreover, under the abstract interpretation, note that installing the Medium and running may be considered a sente move or it may not. In one sense it demands the response of rezzing the Ice or potentially be at a disadvantage due to the loss of early agenda points to the Runner. Simply installing Medium and not running does not give sente. Likewise, merely installing the Parasite does not grant sente, but considered in the context of the rest of the game state, it may grant sente. A confident Corporation player could treat this as a trivial setback and install new Ice to trash the Parasite in their next turn. Also, in the run subsequent to the Medium install, the Corp could choose to let the run ride, allowing the Runner to access a card and gain a virus counter, trusting in R&D to not give up (too much) Agenda. The Corp could seek to retain sente by keeping their credits (anticipating the use of Parasite in coming turns, and so wanting a stronger Draco).
The danger of the abstract view of sente is that it becomes a post-factum assignation of the ownership of control. The open game space afforded by Netrunner, compared to Go, means that the variables involved in assessing who holds sente might be complex enough to force us to avoiding assigning it until after a sequence of multiple turns has played out (possibly to the end of the game). This is no good, because we want sente to work as more of a predictor, indicator or guide, rather than an evaluation. So while the abstract view of sente might be open to several considerations, some of which are necessarily subjective (“what I would do in this situation”), there are clear points in a game where sente could be allocated to either side, independent of the phase of the game.
Extending the idea of the dual interpretation, there is a naïve view of sente, which keys off the cards (and other resources: actions, credits, etc.). The first interpretation above reflects the naïve view, in one sense perhaps constrained to a set of quantifiable metrics. Conversely, there is another view of the game, keying off the players’ perception of the cards, the plays made and the game state as a whole. The second interpretation above reflects this more nuanced view of sente where the initiative and control encompassed in the notion is not merely a matter of the cards and resources in play, but also the perception of the players. Contrasting the concrete, quantifiable view of sente, nuanced sente is a qualitative, abstract view. Netrunner admits this nuanced sente better than many (perhaps any) other customisable card game due to the fact that in Netrunner the player is playing their deck, rather than the other way around.
Note that the distinction between naïve and nuanced sente here is unintended to show any bias; I am using the two terms to indicate a degree of sophistication in the two views and nothing more.
Sente Within the phases
Sente is what takes the “can win” statement of the three-phase view of the Netrunner game and turns it in to a “should win”. It makes the abstract principle of the relative strength of the two sides into a concrete advantage. Shifting sente means attacking where and when the opponent thought that they were safe. Taking sente means controlling the phase, rather than playing within the whims of the board position that the phases dictate. Although the argument is that sente transcends the phases, there is a default position where sente rests with one or the other side in each of the three stages of the game, and so it is worth looking at all three phases and how sente can shift within these.
Phase One: Early Game
The Runner can control sente in φ1 and seek to prolong the phase thus maximising their advantage. In so doing they are attempting to delay the development of a ‘safe’ remote server from which the Corporation can score Agenda. This can be done in a variety of means, by attacking the limited credit resources the Corp has early, forced rezzing of Ice, or equally derezzing selfsame Ice to force spending more credits subsequently. Likewise the “run early, run often” mantra neatly encapsulates the idea of probing the thin blue line of defences for an exploitable weakness, itself a way of taking sente by costing credits, gaining knowledge and potentially getting access to a server that cannot be (or will not be) defended. Lastly, any means of accessing multiple cards (thus gaining more chance of stealing Agenda, and eliminating accessing the same card from multiple runs) early on can help pressure the Corporation and force a response, thus being sente.
The Corporation can achieve sente in this phase by forcing the Runner to be more conservative, through early damage or tagging, to slow the runs down and buy some breathing room to shore up their defences. The Corporation can control φ1 by playing Ice that it is able to rez on central servers, by amassing quick credits, or by getting some early traces to stick.
While installing early an Archer (without having scored the Agenda required to rez it) and a TMI may well look solid, and it can succeed as a bluff, it requires some careful consideration. If the Runner (by faction / identity) would prefer to attack R&D, then playing the Archer to HQ may be a better option, as it may not be tested early once the Runner hits the TMI in the first run or two.
Cheap Ice are key here - Wall of Thorns and Janus 1.0 are no defence in turns 1-2; even if Wall of Thorns can be rezzed then the Corporation is (very likely) broke and seeking to recover the credits expended for the mere 2 Net punishment meted out (and ending the run). The Runner spends only two clicks recovering from the situation, where the Corporation has to spend some eight clicks (i.e. two turns) rebuilding. Should the Runner install a Parasite on the Wall of Thorns (or targets it with Femme Fatale) then the high investment is soon wasted. Sente has really been lost here.
Phase Two: Mid-game
Deciding whether the game is in φ1 or φ2 is relatively easy. If the Runner is able to freely attack the Corporation’s central servers, though not necessarily penetrate a remote server to score an Agenda under advancement then the game remains in φ1. Once the Runner is unable to achieve free attacks on the central servers and the Corporation can advance Agenda without concern that the Runner is able to steal them (i.e. defences including at least one Ice subtype for which the Runner has no corresponding Icebreaker) then the game has transitioned to the mid-game.
In φ2 the Corporation has the best opportunity to win, being able to install and advance Agenda relatively unmolested. The Runner is attempting to set up their Rig so as to renew their assault on the Corporation servers. Here, by default, the Corporation should be able to dictate the course of play, being in the stronger position. The Runner, however, still has the opportunity to take sente, by attacking the Corporation’s resources (Ice, credits, etc.) and making surprise runs that the Corporation player did not anticipate.
Consider the situation where the Runner lacks an installed breaker keyed to Ice protecting a remote server. By holding back the breaker (or sitting on a Test Run, e.g.) until the Corp is advancing an Agenda, the Runner may take sente, installing the requisite breaker to run and steal the (supposedly safe) Agenda. Knowing this to be a good strategy is almost a truism; understanding it in terms of sente is a subtlety. Equally the Corporation can take back sente by attacking the Runner through ambushes or tagging (& reprisal cards). Any setback to the Runner’s established Rig can hand control of the game back to the Corporation.
Phase Three: End-game
The game reaching φ3 is by no means certain; one side or the other is often able to win before the game transitions into end-game. Our exploration of the game early in the Genesis Cycle seemed to suggest that in and of itself the pace of the game was such that φ3 would not be generally reached before the Corporation would win, and that any Runner focussing on being certain to achieve it would find the game over before they could fully set up their Rig. This opinion still holds to some degree, although as additional expansion packs have come online there is a larger opportunity for the Runner to get set up. Thus, while achieving φ3 is not purely theoretical, it remains ambitious.
If the Corporation is unable to exploit the advantage of φ2, or the Runner dominates by maintaining sente throughout the mid-game and preventing the Corporation from achieving victory, then φ3 should eventuate. Here the Corporation is reliant upon using deception, no matter what victory condition they resort to (Agenda or flatline), to try and wrest control back from the Runner. The transition between φ2 and φ3 is more tenuous than before, in that it is harder to determine whether the Runner has “sufficient” defences to prevent setbacks. Here, having sente is of critical importance to the ability to achieve victory in this phase, especially for the Corporation.
Only by making the Runner waste credits on failed runs (into Ambushes, or other valueless assets) can the Corporation potentially wrest sente from the default position of the opponent being in control here. Otherwise the Runner should have sufficient credit sources, all the breakers that they need, and sufficient tag avoidance and damage prevention to be able to run successfully on an advancing Agenda to be able to steal it. Otherwise they are at leisure to attack central servers regularly so as to pressure the Corporate player into getting Agenda down, or have the ability to dig deep enough into R&D so as to prevent the Corporation from ever being able to draw an Agenda before the Runner can steal it.
In this case the Corporation must deceive the Runner into wasting credits, such that they are able to use the turn or two’s grace that this nets in which to safely score an Agenda. Meanwhile the Runner needs to be able to deceive the Corporation into thinking that they are weaker than they appear, by withholding some vital piece of the armamentarium, whether that be credits or a breaker (a surprise Femme Fatale, or e3 Feedback Chip might make a run feasible where before it appeared impossible).
Perception over Actuality
In Netrunner sente is not only about actuality, it is about perception. As previously noted, in Go there is no hidden information (save what the player fails to read into a bp); all the pieces are visible and so all the bp information is available, equally, to both players. Netrunner, however, is a game of hidden information. It revolves around bluff and deception, so that what each player holds in hand and the unexposed cards on the Corporation’s board is as much a part of the game state as any card in play.
Obviously Agenda are a definite case here, but so too is a Scorched Earth in hand, in manifold ways. Equally a hidden credit source in the Runner’s hand (e.g. Stimhack, Bank Job) or Modded and a Breaker, etc. is able to turn a weak position into one of strength in the course of a turn (and so without recourse or reprisal from the opponent in that turn). Equally, hidden information in the form of unrezzed cards in or on servers can make a huge impact on the game. An Ambush being advanced that the runner has not detected (or intuited) could be the Agenda needed to win the game (or match).
When the Corporation has scored agenda points to be within striking distance (say, one more Agenda scored) of victory, the Runner is placed in a pressure scenario. Pressure is another expression of sente, and a means of employing the influence that sente gives. When the Runner is in a situation where they must run to prevent the Corporation from scoring the winning agenda points, but should they run then they expend the credits needed to be able to make the same run in the following turn, then the Corporation has the upper hand. The Corporation player here is able to throw cheap Agenda out that will not win for the Runner should they steal it, or better, an Ambush that could be the winning Agenda. The Runner is forced to run, or they are handing the game to the Corporation, but if they run and access then they also lose, presuming that the Corporation has the wherewithal to exploit the time that the runner is credit shy to advance the actual winning Agenda. This is ideal for the Corporation, unless the Runner has a hidden supply of credits that they can use to avoid the need to recoup whether using it for the initial run on the bluffed Agenda, or on the subsequent run when the Corporation thinks that they are safe.
The perception of the Agenda as being such forces the Runner to run; assuming it is not then the Corporation has taken sente by forcing the resource-draining run. This may buy 1-2 turns of safety in which to advance the actual Agenda. In the case of it being an Ambush misperceived (or correctly suspected, but the risk being too high to allow it to be ignored), then this could buy all the time required to win the game outright. On the other hand, the perception of the Ambush as such (and the bluff being called or nullified) gives the Runner the chance to take sente, by forcing the Corporation to reconsider how to take back control of the clearly finely-balanced game.
If sente is about perception, then misperception can also play a part here. Bluffing one’s opponent into making a mistake can also be an example of taking sente. No essay can truly do justice to the topic of bluffing, as this occurs at the level of player interaction, influenced by the way you play a certain card as much as by the actual play. A confident install & double advance from the Corporation can sell an Agenda as an Ambush (and v.v.) depending on the nature of the player making this move. Equally the opponent facing such a play may buy into the bluff, or see through it, depending on their ability to read the opponent and determine if they’re being sneaky or clumsy.
Considering perception over actuality means seeking to exploit the abstract element of control rather than concentrating on the concrete form tied to bp. A Corporation with a piece of Ice for which the Runner has no corresponding breaker has a concrete form of control; they can exploit the ability to prevent the Runner successfully running to advance Agenda and thus take sente by pushing the game towards conclusion. Conversely, the Corporation player has a form of abstract control when they have an unrezzed piece of Ice that the Runner thinks they have no breaker for, and which they fear the consequences of, e.g. a Rototurret that could trash a Djinn tree or Magnum Opus. The Ice may in actuality be relatively benign, e.g. an Enigma, but the perception of it being a far more consequential encounter serves just as well as if it were in actuality what is perceived. Thus, actual board position is a concrete control, which is the naïve view of sente, and influencing (mis-)perception is a form of abstract control, which is the nuanced view of sente.
Naïve Sente: Identities
One can consider the possibility that the different faction Identities can have an impact on sente. As an example, the two Anarch Identities, Noise and Whizzard, dictate to the Corporation player a different style or strategy. The former encourages the Corporation to defend their Archives more strongly than, say, Kate or Chaos Theory. The latter, because of the economic impact of losing credit gaining assets to cheap trashing, encourages those vulnerable assets be defended by Ice instead of being left unprotected. Likewise the Shaper identities suggest that the Corporation defend R&D primarily, due to the threat of The Maker’s Eye, and Gabe (due to his innate ability) promotes a healthy defence of HQ first, with Archives being another consideration due to the threat of Sneakdoor Beta.
Noise, here, makes an excellent example; by playing multiple viruses this Identity threatens the Corporation by: a) milling potential Agenda into the Archives; b) using Parasite to weaken the Ice defending, say, a central server; and, c) threatening a deep dive into R&D (Medium) or HQ (Nerve Agent). Noise thus applies pressure in multiple directions, in forcing the Corporation to defend the Archives against easy wins from milled Agenda, as well as diluting the Corporation’s resources by having to shore up (or outright replace) the defences on a central server instead of making a safer, more costly agenda fort with the selfsame Ice.
Whizzard, conversely, dilutes the Corporation resources by making them install Ice to defend the economic assets that they need to power their nefarious schemes. There is no direct pressure on any specific fort but a more abstract economic pressure to try and outdo the opponent in credits. If Whizzard can take control of the game and establish a credit superiority over the Corporation then this is where the use of Vamp can come into its own to allow the Runner to devastate the Corp’s credit resources.
From the Corporate point of view, another excellent example of sente is the original Haas-Bioroid Identity (Engineering the Future). The early economic advantage of gaining a credit for installing Ice (or installing the second layer of Ice "for free") allows rapid fortification of the central servers, gaining the Corporation breathing space to assemble one to two remote servers for credit gaining and scoring Agenda. This allows the Corporation to speed through the opening phase to the second phase, through an accelerated economy.
Contrasting this Identity with the Haas-Bioroid Stronger Together Identity; this card adds +1 to the strength of all Bioroid Ice which is a more passive effect than its sibling Corporation. The way in which HBST can take sente is by assembling servers with sufficiently strong Ice that the Runner goes broke attempting to get through the Ice. By limiting the number of effective runs that a Runner can make, the Corporation is able to progress its own agenda with less concerns about them being disrupted.
I don’t consider, however, the influence that a Runner Identity has on the Corporation’s strategy in the course of the game to be a direct exemplar of sente. While these Identities do dictate the shape of the board to a degree (and analogous, though more subtle, cases might be made in reflecting on the Corporation faction Identities) they do not necessarily dictate who has control of the game within the various phases. While the original Haas-Bioroid Identity can, due to economy, very quickly move the game from φ1 to φ2, the Identity promotes a rapid pace, but does not enforce nor guarantee it. This is the key: Identities enable sente, but only in the same way as any other card in the game; while their influence may be of a greater magnitude due to the immediate, potent global effects that their special abilities provide, the mode of their influence is the same.
Considering this aspect of the game more broadly, the Identities determine the pool of cards generally available (barring Influence spend) available to the player for deck-building. This influences the relative strengths of the various factions (and Identities) within the phases, although perhaps more so the Runner factions than the Corporation factions. While this topic is deserving of a fuller analysis and discussion (a potential future essay) the card pool available in-faction enables sente rather than guaranteeing it. Understanding where the strengths of the card pool for a specific faction lies allows the player to build decks with that strength in mind, and to use that build to achieve sente in the course of play. Furthermore, knowing where the weakness of the card pool lies allows choices for influence spending to be better guided by considering where sente may be lost if using only in-faction cards, offering the player a chance to take sente where their faction normally would be weaker or unable to.
Nuanced Sente: Players
Sente is about controlling the game. Control requires a proactive stance towards the game, and so aggressive rather than passive style is (currently) rewarded with sente more often in Netrunner. There are no instances that I know of, of “Stasis”, “lock”, or “control” type decks in the game, and the pace of the current environment does not seem to promote such builds. I think there’s an argument to be had that the Influence mechanic, more so than card limits, looks as if it will very much prevent the emergence of these deck types for a protracted period of the games’ evolution.
The current environment (circa Future Proof) does not fully support the option of control decks that attempt to establish a lock on the other player, possibly excluding some “Big Rig” decks that may take far too long to set up against a rapidly advancing Corporation. As such in considering the notion of applying sente to Android: Netrunner at this time, we really have to ignore the option of a passive form of control building up to a game-winning lock, and instead focus on the aggressive dominance of play. Being able to assess the costs and risks of such aggression and the potential rewards, and balancing them appropriately is a matter of skill and attitude both.
The style of play employed in the game is very much a characteristic of the player themself. Inherent in the person’s make up as to whether they are risk averse or not is the ability to play an aggressive vs. cautious Runner, or bold vs. conservative Corporation. Of course the player needs to know the pace of their own deck: does it support fast advancement of Agenda, or quick, early stealing of Agenda? Being aggressive tends to - for the moment - determine naïvely whether you are able to take sente.
Where the naïve view of sente is concrete and focussed upon the cards and board position, the nuanced view focues instead upon the more abstract ‘state of play’. The upper hand of nuanced sente transcends the cards, bp, agenda points scored or stolen, damage, etc. to give each player a sense of control and where it lies. Control of the game is something that can be taken, and also given. The “common wisdom” of not conceding a game until defeat is certain is one example of an unconscious intuition of the nature of control of the game. Giving up in one’s mind is as good as giving up the game in word as well. Even if the position is not hopeless, by conceding mentally, control of the game is handed implicitly to the opponent and the game is as good as finished. The champion-level trait of mental toughness is about overcoming moments of doubt that lead to self-defeating concession of sente.
Sente can be taken before the game even begins, as in when a novice player faces an confident experienced player and knows that they are in for an uphill battle. It can be taken the moment that a player declares that they will not mulligan (and the opponent is considering it), no matter what is in their hand. Decisive play, sticking to a game plan or deck strategy, but equally alternatively adapting a game strategy to accommodate an opponent’s play and so hampering their strategy, are all means of taking sente.
Note that none of these more abstract elements of play are dependent upon specific cards; instead we are considering the game at a level removed from the specifics (what Ice, which breakers, what assets or resources are being deployed, etc.). The purpose of all this abstraction, from the point of view of nuanced sente, is that the player is in control of the game, or seeks to be. Control of the game means being able to readily threaten or defend across the various elements of the game, primarily the run as the chief point of interaction (broadly Rig vs. Server, and more narrowly Program vs. Ice/Upgrades) but also trace (so trace versus link levels); damage being Meat/Net (damage vs. cards in hand) or Brain (damage vs. hand size), actions available, the pace of the game (including both turn speed as well as phase transition), etc. No one deck necessarily needs to be able to do all of these, but as a matter of deck design the player should consider what elements of the game she seeks to control with it.
The pace of the game whether through the phases or through turn duration, is something that the player seeks to influence. Controlling the pace of phase transition has been touched on earlier. Speeding up play can force an opponent into making an error - attempting to advance in an unsafe manner, running at the inappropriate time, or miscalculating the required credits to run or to rez. Moving play from the board to the mental requires skill, confidence and innate familiarity with the deck and its capabilities.
What is the Value of Understanding Sente?
If the notion of sente is a valid concept to apply to Netrunner, what does having sente mean for a player? Control of the bp means two things: maximising your opportunity to exploit the win condition of your deck, and being able to control and pace the transition of the game between phases.
As such a Runner with sente (who is able to maintain it) might well be able to keep the game in the φ1 / early-game state where the Corporation is unable to safely install and advance any Agenda. Stifling your opponent’s ability to advance their win condition increases your chances of being able to further your own victory options. A Runner with sente in φ1 is able to sustain pressure on the Corporation to the point of forcing risky plays, or simply being able to hit early Agenda to be able to steal and score it. Conversely, a Corporation with sente in φ1 is able to quickly move towards φ2, where they can safely score Agenda with little fear of the Runner stealing them. Sustaining sente here, for the Corporation, may involve creating setbacks for the Runner in the establishment of their Rig. It may also involve simply accelerating the scoring of Agenda and thus increasing the pressure on the Runner to actually run and try to steal the would-be winning Agenda.
Having sente (or playing a sente move) places the opponent on the back foot and forces them to respond to the pressure that you can apply. How can pressure be applied, apart from the above example of the Corporation threatening to win simply by scoring enough agenda points before the Runner is able to complete the set-up of their Rig? Some options include tagging as a threat to destroy resources, or employ credit denial where if you can force the Runner to drop below five credits you might well have hampered their development enough to buy several turns of free scoring. As a Runner, you can apply pressure by forcing the Corporation to defend where they do not want to. This serves to dilute the effect of the Corporation being able to stack Ice on to servers and hence make runs prohibitively expensive. There is an emergence of Runner decks that have a credit denial strategy at crucial stages of the game. Ice disruption (derezzing) - not as a credit denial strategy but instead intent on making runs cheaper - has been a successful strategy for the Criminal faction (and decks that splash in certain Criminal cards). Outright Ice destruction is an option within primarily Anarch decks, and this is another form of pressure.
Where to Employ the Notion of Control
While the notion of sente applies primarily to advantage in bp, it cannot rest solely upon the correct (most appropriate to the situation and opponent) play of the cards. An appreciation of sente means that the concept of control of the game should be considered from the outset of deck building. Where most deck designs begin with an idea of wanting to try out a specific identity, or certain cards, or to exploit a specific combination, a deck built with sente in mind has a board position that it seeks to achieve and must be designed with this in mind. The exploitation of sente begins in the deck building stage and carries through the entire approach to the game, including application.
The depth of the game of Netrunner means that you are not simply setting out with a goal to summon more creatures faster, or other easily summarised statement. Deciding what aspect of the game that you set out to control is as important as how to achieve it. Some options include:
- stealing individual agenda as quickly as possible;
- ignoring early agenda in favour of establishing a full Rig before running proper;
- assembling a single agenda server from which to score;
- ignoring the server requirement and using fast advancement to score instead;
- ensuring the Runner not dying;
- ensuring the Runner dying;
- controlling the transition of phases; and
- establishing lock / Stasis-like situations.
Once the decision is made as to what form of control the deck and player will be seeking to achieve, the task remains to devise a design that can best achieve that. Whether this is possible with the extant card pool or not, or requires control to be taken by manipulating the board position more abstractly is also something that needs to be considered. There are certainly deck concepts that cannot yet be implemented at the current stage of the game’s evolution.
One thing that the deck design alone cannot determine is whether the game outcome will be determined by the actuality of sente (concrete) or by the perception of sente (abstract control).
Is Sente Strategic or Tactical?
One point I have yet to address is the comment that I made early in this essay that sente refines a tactical view of the game. I just discussed where the notion of sente can be applied in Netrunner, and suggested that it may underpin everything from deck design through to actual play. Does the deck design stage fall under a tactical banner?
Inarguably it does not; design is much more a strategic element of the game, as much as reading the metagame environment. Players do this to determine the likely opposition they might face and consider how to counter it. Again this is undeniably strategic, and can impact not only on the choice of faction or Identity played, but the deck design revolving around that choice.
Thus sente not only refines the tactical view of Netrunner, but it can inform the strategic view. In considering the desired board state of the deck design, sente becomes a planned outcome. As an excellent example, Geoff Hollis’ Jinteki (PE) deck described on the BGG forums thread has a specific game plan in mind, and a strategy (as well as tactical advice) on how to achieve it. The way in which the deck is intended to wrest control through the notion of “work compression” is an example of attempting to take sente by controlling the game state so as to force the Runner into a situation of needing to do more than a turn’s worth of clicks in a single turn. It also sets out to put the Runner in a situation where they must run recklessly to stand a chance of winning, which is ideal for a Jinteki deck seeking to flatline the Runner.
The tactics that Hollis propounds for his deck also serve to show the way in which a particular deck is trying to achieve sente. Pressure is applied by trying to rush to an end-game state where the next agenda that the Corporation scored threatens to win the game. Control is asserted by laying down “three card monte” remote servers where the right combination of cards will result in a kill, and forcing the Runner to play a shell game to try and find a winning Agenda, while potentially losing cards that make them vulnerable to the flatline reprisal.
If the deck can achieve this, then the Corporation player has a strong chance to have sente and so thereby take the game. Strategy, deck design, tactics; all of these are about contributing or achieving sente. The article is well worth reading, including Hollis’ responses in the comments thread, even if you don’t accept the notion of sente applied to Netrunner.
Conclusion
To recap, sente is about control and influence, dictating the passage of the game through the three phases (by speeding or slowing it), and shaping the opponent's play through actual or perceived threat. There are two views of sente: the naïve view, where control and initiative rests in the cards (concrete bp); and the nuanced view, where control rests in the perception of the impact of the cards and the manner in which they are played. Sente allows a player to turn the three-phase view of Netrunner from theoretical opportunity into concrete advantage. Equally, it can be a chance to influence the opponent's mindset and reading of the game, achieving abstract advantage. To reiterate, taking sente means controlling the phase, rather than playing within the whims of the board position that the phases dictate.
Achieving sente begins at the drawing board, as it were, in the deck design stage. The notion pervades throughout the course of the game, or indeed in a competitive situation through the entirety of the match. The board position that the deck is designed to achieve is an optimal goal state, which perforce may need to be abandoned or modified in the course of play. As the adage goes, no plan survives contact with the enemy. Reading the game and responding appropriately means being cognisant of where the control lies, and planning how to exploit it (if yours) or wrest it back (if theirs).
Sente is achieved throughout the course of building your deck, testing and playing it. Understanding the faction strengths, as in what your in-faction cards can enable, is crucial. Knowing what type of sente your in-faction cards can grant allows a more refined consideration of the deck building process as well as how one can play the deck. Being aware of the holes that might need to be plugged or played around is also important; discovering mid-tournament a fundamental weakness to the deck is hardly ideal. You also need to play for sente, which can mean in some cases working quickly to establish the desired board position (a la Haas-Bioroid's Fast Advance, or Shaper's "Big Rig" full suite of breakers), or exploiting the opportunities for bluff, deception and misdirection (the Jinteki de riguer, or perhaps even raison d'etre, and one might argue that Criminal's bag of tricks - fast money and Ice attack fit here).
Is the consideration of sente in Netrunner necessary? I would accept that this is not the case. For the casual player, even the three-phase view of Netrunner may be considered overly analytic, meta-level thinking that gets in the way of their fun. For an entry-level tournament player, I would again argue that this is superfluous to their needs; attempting to consider sente in the course of the game is a distraction from understanding what they need to do to get their deck to function as planned to achieve victory. At a higher level of experience and competition, however, I think that the notion is a valuable one worth exploring.
The idea is, while couched within terms of my ongoing hypothesis regarding the three-phase view, orthogonal to it and could be successfully decoupled without too much difficulty. As such if you reject the early/mid/end game notion of Netrunner, sente can stand apart from it and still be a worthy consideration. Either way, I believe that a deeper consideration and thinking about the way that the game is played can only benefit a player's skill level and enjoyment of this deepest of customisable card games.