Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3  All

Author Topic: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms  (Read 3868 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SettingFraming

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 124
  • Shuffle iT Username: breppert
  • Respect: +255
    • View Profile
Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
« on: April 03, 2017, 04:36:21 pm »
+23

Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms

Dominion has changed a lot. The cards have changed, the players have changed, and, well, perhaps what Iím getting at, is that the strategies have changed. Not completely or totally, of course. Many of us remember the terminology established by Wandering Winder on deck types: Engines, Big Money, Slogs, Rushes, and Combos. I would argue, however, that thinking about decks in these terms has become increasingly irrelevant, and therefore that re-thinking and generalizing our lexicon will help players adapt to the game more quickly.

There are a couple of reasons for this. The first, most glaring note is probably on the victory of the engine deck in Dominion. It has become excessively common for Engine to be the best strategy in Dominion, although of course a player like myself would argue that they are played too often, but nonetheless Engine tends to be obviously correct on a good number of boards, so much so that calling a board an ďEngineĒ board is almost meaningless. We should establish more meaningful distinctions around different types of engines, since currently our only real distinctions in the lexicon refer to how the engines are drawn, i.e. draw-to-x, village/smithy, and non-terminal.

Other reasons, which I will not dive into with as much detail in order to hopefully retain some readers for pieces of this article in which I actually say something, include the growing confusion about the difference between Big Money and ďGood StuffĒ decks (a proliferation added later by Wandering Winder), the awkward melding of Rushes and Slogs, what even constitutes the difference between a Slog deck and a Big Money deck with junk (I actually think WW answers this question well. More on that later), and the overwhelming rarity of the relevance of rush and combo decks.

Defining the Engine Deck

An engine deck, in the general sense, is quite simply a deck that seeks to reliably play a bunch of action cards each turn. While thatís a useful distinction from other types of strategies, it doesnít really give much insight into how to build the darn things. I am going to attempt to classify these decks into meaningful patterns, and then later (in different articles) circle back to distinctions to be made within even different subgenres of these classes of decks.

The Control Engine
Some engines donít care so much about what you do with them so much as they care that you can do stuff with them. Notably, these decks refer to the importance of being able to reliably draw your deck every turn, for the whole game, and to get there as fast as possible. And, generally, this is important because if you are able to do so and your opponent isnít, there is some way to just completely bury your opponent. These tend to be games where Silver and Gold become very bad cards quite quickly.

Some examples of these games include:
  • The very obvious Ambassador war, in which you can junk your opponent to Oblivion by playing multiple Ambassadors of various junk ever turn.
  • Games featuring cards that can slow your opponent like Ghost Ship, where if you slow down your opponentís pace, it can be very difficult or impossible for them to recover. Militia-based games can be this way too, though control is slightly less fiercely important in those games.
  • Games where there are other ways to junk your opponent into oblivion while maintaining control of your deck. Think Kingís Court/Mountebank. Or just Familiar.

Some important features of control decks:
  • Thinning tends to be very important in these decks. The thinning, however, should have a purpose, and that purpose should be to play as many cards as possible to slow down your opponent, as often as possible. If youíre the first one to slow your opponent down, and you keep the pressure on every turn, it can often snowball and be impossible for them to recover even if they have a card like Chapel in their decks.
  • Payload and greening should be delayed as long as possible in these decks. Draw and reliability should take absolutely priority. Points tend to really not matter, unless the game is ending incredibly soon, which, in these types of games, isnít going to be for a long time.
  • On some boards, thinning can be slightly less important than splits, though be careful about making this assumption. Imagine, for example, a board where Alchemist is the only draw. If you have 6 and they have 4, you are going to be able to support 2 extra stop cards that your opponent can not, and if those 2 extra cards are something like Ambassador you may be able to recover from being slightly thicker as long as you arenít completely overwhelmed in the thinning department. So focus on thinning, but donít ignore key cards, either.

Control decks can draw from basically any engine draw paradigm. Draw-to-x, nonterminal, and village/smithy decks all apply. Note that non-terminal draw tends to be quite strong in these decks, since nonterminal draw becomes reliable much more quickly than village/smithy draw, and offers better guarantees of success. In games where you have choices, however, you should probably be using every source of draw available to you in order to maximize efficiency and reliability. Note that draw-to-x doesnít apply here, since draw-to-x doesnít mesh with other draw types, as drawing to 7 if you already have 10 cards in hand from your Lab stack is obviously quite poor.

The Mega-Turn Engine
This is an engine where there is the ability to do something really awesome, and you donít need to green over multiple turns, but only one. I donít have much thesis-level stuff to say about these decks, actually, so Iíll just hop straight into details.

Some examples of these games include:
  • Horn of Plenty megaturns, where you get a bunch of Horn in Plentyís in play along with at least 8 unique cards, and you take all the green cards.
  • Bridge(Highway/Troll) megaturns, where you get a bunch of cost reducers in play, and with +Buy, you take all the green cards.
  • Humongous Engine megaturns. Think Council Room/Wharf/Champion, where thereís not any really great cards payload out there for a megaturn, but the deck supports so much draw that itís simply not necessary to green over multiple turns unless the game state dictates that you do.

Some important features of control decks:
  • These decks are typically a race to mega-turn first, although sometimes in mirrors there can be enough denial to limit the effectiveness of a mega-turn. Nonetheless, you should be playing for the mega-turn all game, and then reacting to something else only if the game state (i.e. piles are too low) forces you to bail out early and start taking points.
  • Just because thereís amazing power on the board, you still shouldnít neglect thinning. At the same time, however, it can be important to slightly favor economy. In a control deck, for example, you might open Amulet/Amulet to get thin, but in a mega-turn deck maybe you open Amulet/Silver to add that Wharf in early to get big turns kicking off sooner rather than later.
  • These games often end in pile-outs, not mega-turns, so be careful about that. While a Throne Room/Bridge deck certainly can take 8 Provinces, and if your opponent allows you, it should, Throne/Room Bridge decks are also very capable of buying a lot of cards from the supply and a single Estate in one turn, and ending the game with 1-0 lead. You need to track your opponentís gains very carefully, and make sure that youíre never letting your opponent win on their next turn unless youíre far behind and need to take calculated risks that your opponent might dud on their turn.

The As-Good-As-it-Gets Engine
Sometimes, the engine is just not very good. Itís never going to draw deck, itís never going to be reliable, and itís certainly never going to mega-turn. But hereís the rub: Dominion is a game about turns. Namely, Dominion is a game about average turns. Sometimes the attempt to play a lot of actions cards every turn will be very finicky, but if youíre still going to have a better average turn than your opponent playing a money-centered deck (where their best case scenario is hitting $8 unreliably, for example), then you should build the engine deck.

Some examples of these games include (these are little more complicated to outline):
  • Cartographer/Wishing Well/Conspirator/Nomad Camp/Inn, with no thinning. This board features weak thinning, weak draw, and weak +Buy. Your turns are going to be very finicky, because essentially unless you have two nonterminals in hand to start your turn, you arenít going to kick off, and thatís going to happen fairly often. But still, your average turn is going to be better than your opponent who is doing, what, playing Nomad Camp big money?
  • Fishing Village/Ghost Ship, limited to no thinning. Thatís weak draw, and certainly going to be very unreliable. However, just the fact that youíre going to be playing Ghost Ships more often than your opponent puts you in a good spot. Note that this differs from a control deck, because youíre not actually going to be reliably playing Ghost Ships every turn.
  • Highway/Chapel/no Draw. Sure, youíll have one or two pretty good turns with your 5-6 highways. But as soon as you green, you arenít drawing deck any more. So temper your expectations, but of course youíre still going to be doing better than the deck that doesnít play the weak Highway thing.

Some important features about these decks:
  • Youíre going to lose with these decks, sometimes, even against a simpler strategy. Unlike a mega-turn or control deck, they arenít going to have a 100% win-rate against even poorly played or weak money strategies. You need good draws throughout the game, and Dominion makes no guarantee of that. Nonetheless, they should be played as long as youíre giving yourself a >50% chance of winning with them.
  • These are also decks where Silver and Gold can be a very bad card, because every stop card that you add to your deck decreases your chance of kicking off, which is already pretty bad to start with. Donít completely neglect payload, but add it in slowly, as you should be focusing on cards that help you kick off, even if that kicking off remains unreliable.
  • You green in these decks earlier than in Control and Mega-turn decks, since, well, you have to score points sometimes, and youíre never going to be too reliable anyways. Still, if youíre asking the question about if you should green or keep building, the answer is almost always to keep building.


The Standard Good Engine
I saved this one for last since, although it is probably most common (but not overwhelmingly so), it is also the least prescriptive. These decks tend to be decks where the payload is good but not awesome (think Wine Merchant/Courtier/Monument, heck, even Gold), but there are reliable sources of draw/actions/thinning/gains, and so the engine is the obvious choice.

Some examples of these games include:
  • Village/Smithy/Laboratory/Wine Merchant/Remake. Obviously this is a strong engine, but itís okay if you dud a turn or two as long as youíre giving yourself a good shot at having nice big turns.
  • Alchemist/Workerís Village/Amulet/Advisor. This engine is going to be a little slow to set up, but youíre going to be building for a while and then probably greening over 2/3+ turns. Your payload here is probably Silver, just because you can use your Amulets to keep gaining it while you can focus your buys on adding draw.
  • Storyteller/Treasure Trove/Chapel. Again, this is going to be a quite good deck, but youíre going to have to green before you have $30 of buying power in your deck. Itís not a mega-turn, and control is not terribly important, but itís pretty reliable and can still pull off some fairly excellent turns (which is what differentiates this from a ďAs-Good-As-it-GetsĒ engine).

Some features of these decks include:
  • You still typically want to do everything you can to make these decks reliable. Dudding remains really bad, even if itís not game over in these decks. This means you want to thin/trash persistently, add in sifting (such as Dungeon) if you can, and have some ability to overdraw your deck for (A) reliability, and (B) the ability to keep your deck running once you start greening, since youíre going to be greening usually over at least 2 turns in these decks.
  • Pay attention to the availability of +Buy. While +Buy is available on roughly 88% of boards, itís actually usable on a decent number less than that, and if thereís not usable +Buy itís usually in your best interest to build to a deck that reliably hits $8, and no more. Cards like Haggler can be really nice for helping you continue to hit $8 while staying reliable.
  • You can afford to take some chances on payload in these decks. Adding in extra payload that youíll probably but not definitely be able to play on these boards can be okay, and you can take some chances to try and get ahead since typically these games are going to be pretty close. Donít be stupid though, if youíre probably going to dud, you should be adding in reliability. But at the same time, feel free to make your deck less than 100% in the mid-game in order to get ahead.
  • Even if junk is eventually going to get cleaned up in these decks, you still want to do it. Donít ignore Witch in these decks ever, please. This is less about control than pace. If youíre adding payload while your opponent is still cleaning up, thatís another way to get ahead. And getting ahead is how you win, of course.

Okay, so thatís it for the engine types that I think deserve distinctions. Of course there are meaningful distinctions to be made even within those paradigms, and many games tend to flirt between the lines. Keeping those deck types in mind, however, can help keep your expectations and buys aligned with a focused plan that will see you winning more games than you otherwise would with less focus.

Money, Big Money, Money-ish, Whatever

When it comes to money games, I take an opposite stance to that of Engines. Notably, itís that I think distinctions tend to be harmful here rather than beneficial. Iím not going to focus on specific examples here so much as describe the kinds of things to look out for and exploit in these types of games, and also to a lesser extend when to play these sort of decks over the above ďAs-Good-As-it-GetsĒ engine choice.

Features of these decks:
  • Silver and Gold, are, of course good cards. Many kingdom cards tend to help out, however. A good rule of thumb is that two kingdom terminals is usually correct, and, if those terminals are durations, then three is usually correct. If the terminals are not draw cards (and, really, you should relatively rarely play terminal draw BM mostly because it prohibits this), you can add in other useful cantrips with impunity.
  • Kingdom Treasures are really good. Treasure Trove is tremendous for these decks (and also because it baloons your deck, allows you to play with extra terminals). But watch out for cards like Relic. If the engine is playing Relic most/every turn, youíre going to have a lot of trouble hitting $8 with 4 card hands.
  • Points are the name of the game. This generally means two things
    • Green early. You want to be ahead in these games, not have a better deck. Standard ďBig MoneyĒ means you donít Province until you have $18 in your deck total, but most Kingdom Card strategies allow you to buy Provinces earlier than that, which basically means typically you buy one Gold and then itís all Provinces on $8.
    • Cards that give points are really great. This means Monument. But it also means Witch/Swamp Hag/Ill-Gotten-Gains, and doing things that would normally be dumb like buying Temple mostly just for the VP Chips, or taking the Defiled Shrine relatively early (but please, donít over-do this. You still need to hit $8). If you need any proof that points are important, hereís some: 1. Swamp Hag BM beats Cultist BM 2. Buying a single Ill-Gotten-Gains and otherwise playing straight big money beats straight Big Money 70% of the time!
  • Any way you can add in reliability is great
    • Baker is a big help, because smoothing out your hands that are quite honestly completely random is great.
    • Cards like Gear are also really great to this, and to a lesser extent even Haven can be very useful. But be careful about opportunity cost, because Silver is great here!
  • Gaining extra cards is great, and trashing is good as long as it doesnít take you too far out of your way. Donít over-do it, as a single trasher is usually plenty.
    • An early Raze or Hermit can still be quite good to get some crap out, and, in the latter case, add some good stuff in.
    • In Colony/Platinum gains, put more emphasis on trashing since the game will go longer and itís more important to clean out Copper.

When to play these decks, non-forced:
Iíve garnered somewhat of a reputation for being a player who plays a lot of non-forced money, i.e. I play money-based strategies on boards where a ďAs-Good-As-it-GetsĒ engine is available. Although not really, after all, because the as-good-as-it-gets deck isnít always an engine, believe it or not. Here are some of the things I look for:

  • How well is the engine going to green? If the only engine draw is Menagerie and thereís no discarding, then the engine is going to start choking as soon as it gets itís second province.
  • How fast is the engine going to grow? If thereís no +Buy and the other gaining is weak or irrelevant, then the engine is going to take forever buying parts while youíre adding green consistently.
  • How is the engine going to score? If the money player has to take (at least almost) all the Provinces to win, then he/she is probably not going to have a lot of success. But if you just need 5, youíre going to have a lot better chance at success.
  • How fast is the engine going to be reliable? Maybe the engine doesnít have great payload, but if it can start having good turns relatively quickly, youíre not going to be able to out-run it with your relatively random money deck.
  • If the engine canít compete on Junk without adding in cards they donít really want into their deck, maybe the engine isnít best. Think Jack as the only trashing or Soothsayer as the only cursing.

Donít be afraid to play with a lot of kingdom cards in this deck, but be careful, and donít try to over-complicate things by adding in cards that are only marginally useful. A village that might only sometimes be useful is probably worse than just sticking extra Silver in decks like these.

The Points Slog

Okay, this is really just a slog. The problem is, lots of people call games ďsloggyĒ just because there is junk involved even if the game is more of a money game. Hereís the key thing with slogs, and this is something Wandering Winder pointed out long ago: Itís not about if thereís junk involved or not; itís about playing a long game where youíre trying to amass an insurmountable number of points in a very unreliable, thick deck.

Some examples of these games:
  • Masterpiece/Trader | Feodum. Oh, did I mention that Iím in favor of killing the ďComboĒ deck? Because I am. These are slog decks.
  • Silk Road/Herbalist/Inheritance/Treasure Trove. I mention this because it occurred in a recent game, but the point here is that youíre inheriting Herbalist and playing a thick deck very quickly, in which youíre buying a lot of Herbalist Estates and Silk Roads very early, after probably 2 Treasure Troves before any of that. Your deck is going to be ugly, but itís going to have a ton of points. And while hitting $8 remains nice, itís not the point of the deck (which is why this is a slog and not a money deck).
  • Ironworks / Garden | Silk Road. I think itís worth killing the ďrushĒ distinction too. Because the reality is that you play rush and slog decks exactly the same way, only slog decks donít attempt a pile-out while rush decks do. But every turn looks the same, as youíre doing something relatively weak but itís scoring points every turn, and itís starting early. Rushes just end faster because they have a natural third pile.
  • On the rush note, Ball/Death Cart/Gardens. This tends to end the game quickly with a decent number of points, but youíre still doing the same (relatively weak) thing every turn.
  • Horse Traders | Duchy/Duke. Yeah, I donít need to explain this one.

Some Features of these games:
  • These decks tend to be very weak. If there is a good or even decent engine on the board, youíre probably going to get out-raced. However, strong enablers of these strategies tend to be able to far outpace money-based strategies and weaker engines.
  • These strategies tend to be focused around (A) getting to the part of the game where they score points very quickly, and (B) continuing to be able to score points throughout the duration of the game. This means you typically need extra gains, and to continue to be able to stick extra treasure and action cards in your deck while greening. Even if itís just Copper.
  • Of course, some of these decks arenít weak and will dominate almost every board. The above mentioned Masterpiece/Feodum, for example is one of those.

Okay, that will wrap up at least part one of my work on trying to define and describe decks in a meaningful and helpful fashion. Iíve purposely omitted some deck paradigms or sub-paradigms, such as golden decks, etc. Iím sure I missed some things, and Iím absolutely sure I said some things that merit disagreement. Iím also completely sure that many will find the entirety of these distinctions nearly completely useless. But I also know this: thereís still a lot of room for us (and I mean all of us, all the way from poor to good players) to get a lot better at this game.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2017, 11:19:02 am by SettingFraming »
Logged
There are no masters, only those who have spent longer in the depths.

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9267
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (ī。ē ω ē。`)
  • Respect: +9022
    • View Profile
Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2017, 05:20:20 pm »
+1

Many of us remember the terminology established by Wandering Winder on deck types: Engines, Big Money, Slogs, Rushes, and Combos. I would argue, however, that thinking about decks in these terms has become increasingly irrelevant

And I would argue that it has become increasingly relevant. The fundamental deck types aren't a spectrum, they are very distinct from one another, and the existence of each type of strategy relies on particular rules and card interactions that are unique to that specific type of strategy. With new expansions, it's possible that new types of strategies pop up (such as the coin token hoarding strategy, which is technically a thing, it just sucks in practice because the coin token cards aren't strong enough for that to ever beat anything) and I wouldn't even be surprised if there turned out to be undiscovered types of strategies that are possible with the current cards, but the principles that the original 4 main strategies were built on do still exist.

Your engine classifications are, however, just arbitrary points on two spectra: how reliable the deck is and how big the payload is. For all engines, it is universally true that first you should thin as much as possible, keep a little economy around so that you can actually build the deck, start adding more engine parts, and when you're drawing reliably, you should add as much payload as you can considering that it makes your deck less reliable and that while you're spending time getting it, your opponent might be spending his time getting points and ending the game. If that means you're able to buy 8 Provinces on the turn when you finally start to green or that you're able to thin very quickly to build a very reliable deck or that you can't build a reliable deck at all or that you can build a decently reliable engine that doesn't have very amazing payload, none of it is particularly noteworthy, that's just how things sometimes work out naturally as a consequence of playing the strategy the exact same way every game.

Also, the fact that engines are able to play a bunch of Action cards every turn is neither useful nor a distinction from other types of strategies: there is no inherent strategical reason to care whether or not it says "Action" on the card, and some big money, rush and combo decks can also play a bunch of Action cards every turn.

SettingFraming

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 124
  • Shuffle iT Username: breppert
  • Respect: +255
    • View Profile
Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2017, 05:43:46 pm »
+2

Many of us remember the terminology established by Wandering Winder on deck types: Engines, Big Money, Slogs, Rushes, and Combos. I would argue, however, that thinking about decks in these terms has become increasingly irrelevant

And I would argue that it has become increasingly relevant. The fundamental deck types aren't a spectrum, they are very distinct from one another, and the existence of each type of strategy relies on particular rules and card interactions that are unique to that specific type of strategy. With new expansions, it's possible that new types of strategies pop up (such as the coin token hoarding strategy, which is technically a thing, it just sucks in practice because the coin token cards aren't strong enough for that to ever beat anything) and I wouldn't even be surprised if there turned out to be undiscovered types of strategies that are possible with the current cards, but the principles that the original 4 main strategies were built on do still exist.

They still matter, of course, but my main argument is that with the vast majority of games being engine games nowadays, knowing the distinct deck types in the same manner as before is not as helpful as it once was when you more often played those non-engine distinct deck types.

Your engine classifications are, however, just arbitrary points on two spectra: how reliable the deck is and how big the payload is. For all engines, it is universally true that first you should thin as much as possible, keep a little economy around so that you can actually build the deck, start adding more engine parts, and when you're drawing reliably, you should add as much payload as you can considering that it makes your deck less reliable and that while you're spending time getting it, your opponent might be spending his time getting points and ending the game. If that means you're able to buy 8 Provinces on the turn when you finally start to green or that you're able to thin very quickly to build a very reliable deck or that you can't build a reliable deck at all or that you can build a decently reliable engine that doesn't have very amazing payload, none of it is particularly noteworthy, that's just how things sometimes work out naturally as a consequence of playing the strategy the exact same way every game.

I'll grant that for the most part the engine classifications above are generally based upon the criteria of reliability and payload. However, I do make the (and I know it's relatively weak) claim that you should play engines differently based upon those criteria. You mention that it's just "what ends up happening", which, while true, there are definitely things you can do if you properly anticipate "what ends up happening" that can give you an edge. For example, in the above no-draw Highway stack perhaps you should buy Gold before greening, or else you're not going to be able to buy anything useful after your first Provinces. These engines build differently, even if they do share the same core principles. Whether or not they build differently enough to deserve to be treated sub-categorically as different, well, that is not for me to decide; only to suggest.

Also, the fact that engines are able to play a bunch of Action cards every turn is neither useful nor a distinction from other types of strategies: there is no inherent strategical reason to care whether or not it says "Action" on the card, and some big money, rush and combo decks can also play a bunch of Action cards every turn.

You're missing the point here. Playing three Ironworks is not "playing a bunch of actions". Playing two Poachers and a Swamp Hag is not "playing a bunch of actions" Playing 8 Merchants and Goons is playing a bunch of actions. I didn't want to put a number on it, but hey, I'll do it. If you're playing on average 4+ actions a turn, it's an engine. Otherwise it's not. So it's definitely distinct, and I very much think it's useful because, hey, you should really know what your turns are going to look like. Of course there are shortcuts in any lexicon and formalization of a definition, but I would argue that this is completely sufficient.
Logged
There are no masters, only those who have spent longer in the depths.

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9267
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (ī。ē ω ē。`)
  • Respect: +9022
    • View Profile
Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2017, 05:49:29 pm »
0

You're missing the point here. Playing three Ironworks is not "playing a bunch of actions". Playing two Poachers and a Swamp Hag is not "playing a bunch of actions" Playing 8 Merchants and Goons is playing a bunch of actions. I didn't want to put a number on it, but hey, I'll do it. If you're playing on average 4+ actions a turn, it's an engine. Otherwise it's not. So it's definitely distinct, and I very much think it's useful because, hey, you should really know what your turns are going to look like. Of course there are shortcuts in any lexicon and formalization of a definition, but I would argue that this is completely sufficient.

If the only Actions you play are 8 Merchants and Goons, sounds like you're playing big money and not an engine to me.

I'll grant that for the most part the engine classifications above are generally based upon the criteria of reliability and payload. However, I do make the (and I know it's relatively weak) claim that you should play engines differently based upon those criteria. You mention that it's just "what ends up happening", which, while true, there are definitely things you can do if you properly anticipate "what ends up happening" that can give you an edge. For example, in the above no-draw Highway stack perhaps you should buy Gold before greening, or else you're not going to be able to buy anything useful after your first Provinces. These engines build differently, even if they do share the same core principles. Whether or not they build differently enough to deserve to be treated sub-categorically as different, well, that is not for me to decide; only to suggest.

If you have to buy Gold that isn't a part of your engine payload just so your deck can still do something after you've greened it to death, you probably shouldn't have gone for that strategy in the first place. If that Gold is a part of your payload, then that's still the exact same way of building the deck.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2017, 05:52:59 pm by Awaclus »
Logged

McGarnacle

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 983
  • Shuffle iT Username: McGarnacle
  • So, ya like doughnuts, eh?
  • Respect: +437
    • View Profile
Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2017, 11:16:54 am »
0

Good article! I think this is what f.ds needs, some more in-depth articles. I totally agree about Big Money. I'm relatively new to the game (like 3-5 years) and I remember thinking: "why do we talk about BM anymore, it is so rarely a thing." Now obviously depending on your definition of BM, this can change a bit, but still, Engine boards are way more predominant. IMO if you play more than 3 actions a turn, you have an engine, otherwise it is BM or as-good-as-it-gets.

« Last Edit: April 04, 2017, 11:19:10 am by McGarnacle »
Logged
This is exactly the kind of deep analysis I come to f.ds for. 

Forum Mafia Record
Town 1/2 50%
Scum 0/0 0%

faust

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1567
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +1964
    • View Profile
Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
« Reply #5 on: April 04, 2017, 11:35:35 am »
0

I agree with Awaclus; it is not useful to classify Hunting Party/terminal Silver or mass Baker as engines, and any definition that relies on the number of action cards played does this.

On the other hand of the spectrum, a deck that just plays KC/Scheme/X each turn, with sufficiently good X, is probably an engine, even though only 3 cards are played.
Logged
Since the number of points is within a constant factor of the number of city quarters, in the long run we can get (4 - ε) ↑↑ n points in n turns for any ε > 0.

pingpongsam

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1662
  • Shuffle iT Username: pingpongsam
  • Respect: +733
    • View Profile
Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2017, 11:52:00 am »
+1

Landmarks changed everything. Game state and deck composition can be more important than reliably picking up VP through traditional means.
Logged
You are the brashest scum player on f.ds.

traces Around

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 196
  • Shuffle iT Username: tracer
  • Respect: +222
    • View Profile
Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2017, 12:07:14 pm »
+15

How deck-typing works:

1. Create a set of attributes by which to classify decks
2. Create a list of names, each of which is given to decks which share attributes

How deck-typing discussion works:

1. Come in with your own ideas about which attributes should be used and what decks should be called
2. Tell the person proposing a different system that they are wrong
3. Because there is nothing real to argue, nitpick little points in their classification
4. Devolve the conversation into categorization of a specific deck

schadd

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 822
  • Shuffle iT Username: schadd
  • lockjaw
  • Respect: +1124
    • View Profile
Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2017, 01:05:26 pm »
+3

2. Create a list of names, each of which is given to decks which share attributes
terence
good_deck1
b-engine-amin
grixis dragons
Logged
I thought you thought it was a slip because I said 'Jake's partners' instead of 'Roadrunner7671.'
4-6
i'll come runnin, if you love me today

terminalCopper

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 255
  • Respect: +515
    • View Profile
Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
« Reply #9 on: April 04, 2017, 01:06:47 pm »
+2

I'm fine with either names for engines, but I think there are two aspects in your BM section which are bad advice:

Money, Big Money, Money-ish, Whatever
[...]
  • Kingdom Treasures are really good. [....]
    • Cards that give points are really great.
Kingdom treasures are helpful for Big Money, but more often than not, they help the engine player
even more. You've named Relic, which is true, and there are so much more enginey kingdom treasures I don't want to make the list here.

However, your second advice is severely misleading: Cards, events or landmarks that give points are usually a major reason to go engine, even the as-good-as-it-gets-version! This is very important to understand, that's why I posted it. Your argument


 Buying a single Ill-Gotten-Gains and otherwise playing straight big money beats straight Big Money 70% of the time![/li][/list]

refers to straight BM, which is usually an irrelevant comparison. Nearly always, alt-VP favor the engine.




Logged

trivialknot

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 327
  • Respect: +387
    • View Profile
Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
« Reply #10 on: April 04, 2017, 01:38:44 pm »
0

There are a couple of reasons for this. The first, most glaring note is probably on the victory of the engine deck in Dominion. It has become excessively common for Engine to be the best strategy in Dominion, although of course a player like myself would argue that they are played too often, but nonetheless Engine tends to be obviously correct on a good number of boards, so much so that calling a board an ďEngineĒ board is almost meaningless. We should establish more meaningful distinctions around different types of engines, since currently our only real distinctions in the lexicon refer to how the engines are drawn, i.e. draw-to-x, village/smithy, and non-terminal.

I agree that since Engine strategies are so dominant, we should create more Engine subcategories.  But a few additional points:
  • Another way to balance the deck classification is to consolidate non-Engine categories.  For instance, SettingFraming saw fit to consolidate Rushes and Slogs.  Another possibility is to consolidate Big Money with decks that play lots of actions, but don't draw lots of cards.  For instance, Lighthouse flooding is not meaningfully different from silver flooding.
  • Big Money is much more common in several of the well-known f.ds blind-spots.  Specifically, in games with less-skilled players, games with 3+ players, and games without a VP counter.
  • In general, I think it is useful for deck type classifications to also talk about decks that are not dominant.  Part of the point is to teach strategy to people who don't start out playing the best decks ever.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9267
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (ī。ē ω ē。`)
  • Respect: +9022
    • View Profile
Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
« Reply #11 on: April 04, 2017, 01:49:27 pm »
0

There are a couple of reasons for this. The first, most glaring note is probably on the victory of the engine deck in Dominion. It has become excessively common for Engine to be the best strategy in Dominion, although of course a player like myself would argue that they are played too often, but nonetheless Engine tends to be obviously correct on a good number of boards, so much so that calling a board an ďEngineĒ board is almost meaningless. We should establish more meaningful distinctions around different types of engines, since currently our only real distinctions in the lexicon refer to how the engines are drawn, i.e. draw-to-x, village/smithy, and non-terminal.

I agree that since Engine strategies are so dominant, we should create more Engine subcategories.  But a few additional points:
  • Another way to balance the deck classification is to consolidate non-Engine categories.  For instance, SettingFraming saw fit to consolidate Rushes and Slogs.  Another possibility is to consolidate Big Money with decks that play lots of actions, but don't draw lots of cards.  For instance, Lighthouse flooding is not meaningfully different from silver flooding.
  • Big Money is much more common in several of the well-known f.ds blind-spots.  Specifically, in games with less-skilled players, games with 3+ players, and games without a VP counter.
  • In general, I think it is useful for deck type classifications to also talk about decks that are not dominant.  Part of the point is to teach strategy to people who don't start out playing the best decks ever.

You can't consolidate non-Engine strategies. Rushes and slogs aren't two slightly different versions of a similar strategy, they are two entirely separate strategies that don't have anything in common other than some superficial factors like the fact that they both can utilize Silk Road. Rush wins at rush speed (faster than any other opponent) and slog wins at slog speed (slower than any other opponent). A deck where you buy a bunch of Lighthouses is definitely big money though, it does everything that big money does and nothing else, other than some superficial factors like the fact that one buys cards that have the word Treasure written on them and the other buys cards that have Action instead.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2017, 01:51:45 pm by Awaclus »
Logged

pingpongsam

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1662
  • Shuffle iT Username: pingpongsam
  • Respect: +733
    • View Profile
Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
« Reply #12 on: April 04, 2017, 01:54:06 pm »
0

Cards, events or landmarks that give points are usually a major reason to go engine, even the as-good-as-it-gets-version!

Landmarks changed everything. Game state and deck composition can be more important than reliably picking up VP through traditional means.

I just came off a game with Keep, Relic, Royal Seal, and the only source of actions being Settlers/Bustling Village. The only source of +Buy was Goons. The game was high scoring but I nearly doubled my opponent's score by pursuing the Keep advantage and having a couple Goons lying around while he tried to do something with the split piles that I never touched.
Logged
You are the brashest scum player on f.ds.

SettingFraming

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 124
  • Shuffle iT Username: breppert
  • Respect: +255
    • View Profile
Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2017, 02:21:49 pm »
+4

    However, your second advice is severely misleading: Cards, events or landmarks that give points are usually a major reason to go engine, even the as-good-as-it-gets-version! This is very important to understand, that's why I posted it. Your argument


     Buying a single Ill-Gotten-Gains and otherwise playing straight big money beats straight Big Money 70% of the time![/li][/list]

    refers to straight BM, which is usually an irrelevant comparison. Nearly always, alt-VP favor the engine.

    Sorry if this was misleading, but that's not what I meant to imply at all. You'll notice that the quote you've pulled is from the section on how to play money decks, not in the section on when to play non-forced money. So my point still stands: points (even just one) are really good for big money once you've already decided to play big money, especially in a mirror.

    I don't disagree that the presence of Alt-VP tends to make Engines better, of course, but "Curse" is obviously not Alt-VP.

    As for your first point on kingdom treasures, I must grant you that perhaps I've over-stated their general importance.
    Logged
    There are no masters, only those who have spent longer in the depths.

    pingpongsam

    • Torturer
    • *****
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 1662
    • Shuffle iT Username: pingpongsam
    • Respect: +733
      • View Profile
    Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
    « Reply #14 on: April 04, 2017, 03:07:49 pm »
    +1

    Just came off another game where the opponent got all of the Highways and went for the Tournament Prize Pile uncontested getting at least 3 Prize cards. He and I both leveraged Lurker to get our cards. Too bad I chose to go for Bishop and Fortress and 3 Pile win with a nearly 20 point lead despite him having 7 Provinces.

    So maybe, the lesson is don't ignore VP Token strategies because your cool engine that thought it could.
    Logged
    You are the brashest scum player on f.ds.

    Beyond Awesome

    • Margrave
    • *****
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 2768
    • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
    • Respect: +2071
      • View Profile
      • Beyond Awesome's Dominion Blog
    Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
    « Reply #15 on: April 04, 2017, 10:52:23 pm »
    +3

    I think we need to seriously rethink Dominion in terms of what VP resources are present.
    Logged
    Visit my Dominion Blog http://beyondominion.blogspot.com

    JThorne

    • Conspirator
    • ****
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 200
    • Respect: +379
      • View Profile
    Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
    « Reply #16 on: April 07, 2017, 12:45:51 pm »
    +2

    A few comments.

    Do we need another Engine category of duration-draw? I mean, sure, there's Wharf, but there's also Haunted Woods and Enchantress which don't draw until next turn, but which can dramatically increase the reliability of an engine if it can always set up the draw for the next turn. They're especially good with multipliers. I recently played a KC/Haunted Woods engine that needed almost nothing else. 14-card starting hands every turn works even with only a tiny amount of trashing.

    Is it really OK to add a few non-terminal actions into a Terminal Draw/BM deck? I'm not so sure. Their play value vs. drawing them dead seems dubious.

    Just the fact that there's some argument about what constitutes a weak engine vs. a money deck is illuminating. Is cantrip money still money? If you open Forager/Forager and manage to grab 8 Peddlers and simlutaneously trash down to just 8 Peddlers (Ok, fine, you throw the last Forager on a Bonfire) so that you can reliably buy a Province a turn, is that an engine or a money deck? Sure, you're drawing deck every turn, but you're not building up to anything interesting.

    Or what if you buy a few Village/Draw pairs and some cash, but you never draw deck and you start Greening at approximately a Province a turn, or maybe you get lucky once and draw a bunch of golds and a Nomad Camp and sneak in a double-Province. Is that an engine or a money deck? I suspect there's some disagreement here.

    And even if an engine can draw deck, there's a further reliability distinction. I would submit that the "golden deck" terminology be included as an archetype of engine-building where the construction and point-gathering mechanism is sufficiently robust that it is fundamentally impossible for it to stall. Not just unlikely; impossible. There are a number of mechanisms for this and it may be worth another forum thread. I'll start one just for fun.

    I suspect there may also be some disagreement about what exactly constitutes a rush or slog. That said, I wouldn't call them obsolete. However you do it, you may build up your deck to a particular point, then spend a few turns grabbing a particular set of VP cards with the intention of emptying piles before your opponent can finish building up to the bigger point cards. At what point does the distinction between the game being a "rush" and simply winning by intentionally piling out apply? Just because you were planning on winning on piles at the beginning? Or that you recognized that both players were likely to be grabbing alt+VP so fast that Provinces were going to be irrelevant? Perhaps one of the most important pieces of advice might be: Watch for piles...starting with turn 1.

    And does a slog always involve curses or attacks? Could it just come from a really weak kingdom that happens to lack trashing and +buy, and particularly if it has cards that encourage junking your own deck for short-term gain like Banquet/Treasure Trove/Death Cart? It feels like there might be a bit of a continuum between slog and money, as well, if an engine is simply impossible, depending on the relative strength of attacks you can't reliably play every turn vs. money enablers.

    I know I've been asking a lot of questions, but I'll register an opinion:

    I think that the classic archetypes all still have meaning, but that the strategies are no longer as simple or as prescriptive as they once were.

    Instead, I would suggest that players look at a kingdom and ask "what does this kingdom want to do?"

    Are there junking or discard attacks that are going to slow the game down? Any trashing/engine pieces that can neutralize them? If not, it might be a slog, virtually guaranteed to end on piles before anyone gets to $8, so forget high-VP and plan accordingly.

    Are there strong cheap gainers, twofers like Haggler and Border Village, Remodelers, or other cards that are going to drain piles quickly? You might be able to plan a VP-rush. If you start gaining points a turn or two before your opponent and they keep building to a bigger payoff, if you can end the game on piles before they do so, that's pretty much what constitutes a rush in my book: A points sprint that can't be overtaken before a three-pile. I mention Remodelers because I would categorize many milling strategies as rushes, even if they rush the Province pile. Also, Salt. Just sayin'. Rush isn't irrelevant.

    Are the action/draw pieces good enough to draw deck? Is there +buy? Is there any payload? If an Engine isn't viable or interesting, it might be a money game. But don't just play money because there's no other option. Some cards like money a lot. Embassy not only hits $8 with startling reliability, it also junks engines with Silver in the mid-game.

    Finally, there's one more engine distinction worth mention that I've seen in other articles: Good ones can build exponentially. Gainers, +buy and multipliers can all make an engine "explode" once it gets going. Drawing deck isn't the end goal, it's sort of the minimum starting point. It's worth noting that some kingdoms have enough action/draw/sift power to draw deck, but without +buy/gains, the build may be linear instead of exponential. The difference is enormous; arguably bigger than the difference between some of the other classic archetypes.

    So if anything, we need more archetypes and distinctions, not fewer. And I agree that it would be pretty great if the wiki could get updated with concise articles on these subjects. The forums are a great place for learning and information gathering, but at some point it's worth boiling it all down to good advice for new players.
    Logged

    Awaclus

    • Adventurer
    • ******
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 9267
    • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
    • (ī。ē ω ē。`)
    • Respect: +9022
      • View Profile
    Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
    « Reply #17 on: April 07, 2017, 01:56:02 pm »
    +1

    Or what if you buy a few Village/Draw pairs and some cash, but you never draw deck and you start Greening at approximately a Province a turn, or maybe you get lucky once and draw a bunch of golds and a Nomad Camp and sneak in a double-Province. Is that an engine or a money deck? I suspect there's some disagreement here.

    That isn't an engine deck or a money deck, it's just a bad deck.

    And even if an engine can draw deck, there's a further reliability distinction. I would submit that the "golden deck" terminology be included as an archetype of engine-building where the construction and point-gathering mechanism is sufficiently robust that it is fundamentally impossible for it to stall. Not just unlikely; impossible. There are a number of mechanisms for this and it may be worth another forum thread. I'll start one just for fun.

    Golden decks have very little in common with engine decks. Because they are such a rare subcategory with only a couple of different ways in which they can manifest, they are usually lumped together with all the other rare subcategories with only a couple of different ways in which they can manifest, i.e. combo decks. There's an argument to be made that perhaps there are enough different golden decks that it deserves its own categorization ó in other words, you could say that it's more of a general principle that sometimes happens when certain cards are present rather than a specific interaction of specific cards.

    I suspect there may also be some disagreement about what exactly constitutes a rush or slog. That said, I wouldn't call them obsolete. However you do it, you may build up your deck to a particular point, then spend a few turns grabbing a particular set of VP cards with the intention of emptying piles before your opponent can finish building up to the bigger point cards. At what point does the distinction between the game being a "rush" and simply winning by intentionally piling out apply? Just because you were planning on winning on piles at the beginning? Or that you recognized that both players were likely to be grabbing alt+VP so fast that Provinces were going to be irrelevant? Perhaps one of the most important pieces of advice might be: Watch for piles...starting with turn 1.

    It stops being a rush at the point where you build up your deck. One key thing about rush strategies is that they utilize cards such as Rebuild, Ironworks and Beggar to guarantee having a good enough turn even when your hand is shit, and they buy those cards as soon as they can and then they green, because they can green super early since they're already prepared for their hands being shit. If your hands are generally going to be good, there is no reason to use Rebuild, and that's one of the reasons why it is a clear distinction and not a spectrum.

    And does a slog always involve curses or attacks? Could it just come from a really weak kingdom that happens to lack trashing and +buy, and particularly if it has cards that encourage junking your own deck for short-term gain like Banquet/Treasure Trove/Death Cart? It feels like there might be a bit of a continuum between slog and money, as well, if an engine is simply impossible, depending on the relative strength of attacks you can't reliably play every turn vs. money enablers.

    No, it usually involves Duke, Feodum, Vineyard or other VP cards that are easy to acquire but still have the potential to outscore Provinces. There is no continuum between slog and money, they are two entirely different strategies, the key difference being that money tries to end the game while it's still ahead, whereas slog tries to stay ahead for the entire duration of the game so that the opponent can never end it.

    And I agree that it would be pretty great if the wiki could get updated with concise articles on these subjects.

    I actually don't think the wiki is a great place to learn strategy. It's good for looking stuff up.
    « Last Edit: April 07, 2017, 01:58:50 pm by Awaclus »
    Logged

    weety4

    • Young Witch
    • ****
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 139
    • Respect: +48
      • View Profile
    Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
    « Reply #18 on: April 21, 2017, 08:28:41 pm »
    0

    Or what if you buy a few Village/Draw pairs and some cash, but you never draw deck and you start Greening at approximately a Province a turn, or maybe you get lucky once and draw a bunch of golds and a Nomad Camp and sneak in a double-Province. Is that an engine or a money deck? I suspect there's some disagreement here.
    That isn't an engine deck or a money deck, it's just a bad deck.
    Nope.
    Always entertaining to see how the dream of a smoothly running engine influences the opinion of so many Dominion players. Many games are precisely as messy as JThorne described.
    Logged

    Awaclus

    • Adventurer
    • ******
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 9267
    • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
    • (ī。ē ω ē。`)
    • Respect: +9022
      • View Profile
    Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
    « Reply #19 on: April 22, 2017, 05:17:27 am »
    0

    Nope.
    Always entertaining to see how the dream of a smoothly running engine influences the opinion of so many Dominion players. Many games are precisely as messy as JThorne described.

    What's influencing my opinion is the experience I've accumulated in the thousands of games that I've played against other players in the top 50 range. If your game is as messy as JThorne described, you are misplaying it.

    weety4

    • Young Witch
    • ****
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 139
    • Respect: +48
      • View Profile
    Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
    « Reply #20 on: April 22, 2017, 10:38:00 am »
    0

    Nope.
    Always entertaining to see how the dream of a smoothly running engine influences the opinion of so many Dominion players. Many games are precisely as messy as JThorne described.

    What's influencing my opinion is the experience I've accumulated in the thousands of games that I've played against other players in the top 50 range. If your game is as messy as JThorne described, you are misplaying it.
    Arguments from authority are not arguments. Unless your ideological space is pre-enlightenment.
    Logged

    ThetaSigma12

    • Saboteur
    • *****
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 1172
    • Respect: +854
      • View Profile
    Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
    « Reply #21 on: April 22, 2017, 11:41:47 am »
    +2

    Nope.
    Always entertaining to see how the dream of a smoothly running engine influences the opinion of so many Dominion players. Many games are precisely as messy as JThorne described.

    What's influencing my opinion is the experience I've accumulated in the thousands of games that I've played against other players in the top 50 range. If your game is as messy as JThorne described, you are misplaying it.
    Arguments from authority are not arguments. Unless your ideological space is pre-enlightenment.
    These snarky mumbojumbo arguments are my favorite part of FDS. Ideological space is pre-enlightenment? Yeah, well your non-confuscian triats are frankly plebian when contrasted with such apochryphal fruedisims of the mind.
    Logged
    If you have a fan card you want to be created, just post about it here! I'd love to take a look at it.

    Awaclus

    • Adventurer
    • ******
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 9267
    • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
    • (ī。ē ω ē。`)
    • Respect: +9022
      • View Profile
    Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
    « Reply #22 on: April 22, 2017, 11:57:35 am »
    0

    Arguments from authority are not arguments.

    Yes they are. Moreover, they are perfectly valid arguments as long as the expert quoted is an actual expert on the issue, such as in this case.

    trivialknot

    • Explorer
    • *****
    • Online Online
    • Posts: 327
    • Respect: +387
      • View Profile
    Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
    « Reply #23 on: April 22, 2017, 01:18:49 pm »
    +1

    Nope.
    Always entertaining to see how the dream of a smoothly running engine influences the opinion of so many Dominion players. Many games are precisely as messy as JThorne described.

    What's influencing my opinion is the experience I've accumulated in the thousands of games that I've played against other players in the top 50 range. If your game is as messy as JThorne described, you are misplaying it.
    The main problem with this argument, is that I'd prefer our Dominion paradigms to describe games that aren't just between players in the top 50 range.
    Logged

    Awaclus

    • Adventurer
    • ******
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 9267
    • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
    • (ī。ē ω ē。`)
    • Respect: +9022
      • View Profile
    Re: Refreshing the Dominion Paradigms
    « Reply #24 on: April 22, 2017, 01:58:08 pm »
    +3

    Nope.
    Always entertaining to see how the dream of a smoothly running engine influences the opinion of so many Dominion players. Many games are precisely as messy as JThorne described.

    What's influencing my opinion is the experience I've accumulated in the thousands of games that I've played against other players in the top 50 range. If your game is as messy as JThorne described, you are misplaying it.
    The main problem with this argument, is that I'd prefer our Dominion paradigms to describe games that aren't just between players in the top 50 range.

    I don't really see why the paradigms should reflect what people actually do rather than what people should do. For instance, there was a game in which I accidentally bought a Borrow before playing my Treasures, effectively skipping a turn and giving myself the -1 card token. This doesn't mean that we should talk about the "buy Borrow before you play Treasures" strategy as if it was a thing. Similarly, just because people play "hybrid strategies" doesn't mean they are a thing.
    Pages: [1] 2 3  All
     

    Page created in 0.126 seconds with 21 queries.