Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ragingduckd]

A late addition. I had an empty slot, and noticed that all of the large expansions gave you answers to the question, how do I deal with these dead victory cards? Intrigue has victory cards that aren't dead; Seaside lets you set them aside with Island, and, if you're crafty, Native Village; Prosperity has VP tokens; Hinterlands pushes card filtering. So I tried this out. Originally it didn't give +1 Action, but that version could not compete.
—Donald X. Vaccarino, The Secret History of the Dark Ages Cards

This is a very interesting quote. It suggests that Rebuild didn't reveal its true strength in either design or playtesting. Donald seems to have intended it as a VP-synergy card, rather than a game-winning action in its own right. And while a terminal Rebuild would certainly be a lot weaker, I don't think it would really be out of line with the other $5 actions in DA.

That makes a lot of sense to me. I didn't immediately recognize Rebuild's strength either, and I lost a lot of early games trying to "refute" my opponent's strategy of blindly spamming it. I expect that most of those opponents had themselves learned Rebuild's strength through similar experiences.

To me, Rebuild and Jack are the least "Dominion-like" cards in the game. They make for monolithic strategies where you ignore most of the board and do pretty much the same thing every turn. This is something that Dominion mostly avoids. I think the only other really monolithic cards are IGG, Governor, and maybe Minion and Cultist.

To me, the best thing about Dominion is the fact that it's always "broken," but it's broken in a different way every time. Broken games aren't fun once you figure out their tricks, but figuring out those tricks can be a lot of fun. Dominion lets you do that with every board... except when one of these monolithic strategy cards is around and you both already know the answer.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy playing Governor and Minion games, and Rebuild mirrors gain a lot of sophistication from the fact that Duchies run out. But Jack, IGG, and Rebuild-vs-X races are mostly a baseball-like combination of tension and tedium. I don't mind playing these games from time to time, but I'm glad that most of my Dominion experiences are a lot more dynamic.

[LastFootnote]

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing the reason Rebuild didn't show its true colors during playtesting is that it didn't get tested much with starting Estates. That combined with the fact that it probably got tested a lot alongside Knights and Rogue means it probably seemed less strong than it is in full random games.

[SCSN]

Shelters aren't that much of an issue; Rogue makes Rebuild stronger, not weaker; and Knights are only problematic if there's an engine that can quickly play multiple Knights/turn, which is going to be hard as Knights themselves are expensive and slow your deck down.

My guess is that the playtesters didn't stumble upon the "monolithic strategy" and only used Rebuild as a supplement to whatever deck they were building, which is akin to buying just one IGG somewhere in the mid game.

[LastFootnote]

Shelters aren't that much of an issue;

Care to elaborate? I would think that having to buy those first 3 Victory cards is a pretty significant factor. You have an Overgrown Estate, of course, but that takes 2 steps to get to Duchy.

Rogue makes Rebuild stronger, not weaker;

So a $5 card makes Rebuild stronger? I thought your $5 purchases all needed to go toward Rebuilds and Duchies. Could you please explain?

[Mic Qsenoch]

Jack gets a bad rap as a one-note strategy card, but in fact it's a very flexible opener. Removing estates and adding Silver, plus some extra cycling, is good for almost any deck you might like to build. The Silver flooding is more constraining whenever you add in the second Jack. People are less willing to try building into engines because they are comfortable with DoubleJack or Jack + X BM. These strategies are usually competitive, but in a lot of cases they aren't the fastest thing on the board.

I didn't really believe what I just wrote though, until Stef taught me the hard way.

[serakfalcon]

So a $5 card makes Rebuild stronger? I thought your $5 purchases all needed to go toward Rebuilds and Duchies. Could you please explain?

It should be obvious that the ability to recycle duchies from the trash back into your deck without losing buying power is definitely a plus for a rebuild deck.

[LastFootnote]

So a $5 card makes Rebuild stronger? I thought your $5 purchases all needed to go toward Rebuilds and Duchies. Could you please explain?

It should be obvious that the ability to recycle duchies from the trash back into your deck without losing buying power is definitely a plus for a rebuild deck.

Sure. It should also be obvious that Count, a card that straight-up gains Duchies, would also be a plus for a Rebuild deck. Yet there are definitely those who claim that it's not worth buying over Rebuild or Duchy.

So tell me, exactly when do I pick up a Rogue in my Rebuild game?

[dondon151]

Jack-BM boards definitely suck, but it's an engine card somewhat often, and I've appreciated it a lot more since we first decried it as being a little too good.

Rebuild, on the other hand, I just can't see as fitting into any other strategy.

Sure. It should also be obvious that Count, a card that straight-up gains Duchies, would also be a plus for a Rebuild deck. Yet there are definitely those who claim that it's not worth buying over Rebuild or Duchy.

So tell me, exactly when do I pick up a Rogue in my Rebuild game?

Count is a different story altogether. Rogue picks up Duchies from the trash; Count doesn't. Count on average doesn't help you get more Duchies.

[SCSN]

Shelters aren't that much of an issue;

Care to elaborate? I would think that having to buy those first 3 Victory cards is a pretty significant factor. You have an Overgrown Estate, of course, but that takes 2 steps to get to Duchy.

You don't have to buy 3 Estates because as you mentioned you already have the OE which takes 2 Rebuild plays to make it into a Duchy, so I usually just buy one Estate in Rebuild-Shelters game (ideally while trashing Hovel), or zero and focus more on getting Duchies directly (either by having a better economy than usual or by getting a Count with my first $5, which is probably decent in Shelter games but bad in games with Estates). Overall this makes a Rebuild strategy slightly slower in games with Shelters, but this isn't much of an issue because 1) the slowdown is symmetric, it holds for both you and your opponent; 2) the slowdown is marginal, you still need an elite engine to outrun Rebuild, and while they probably exist, I can't think of a single board where the presence of Shelters will make me skip Rebuild where Estates wouldn't.

Rogue makes Rebuild stronger, not weaker;

So a $5 card makes Rebuild stronger? I thought your $5 purchases all needed to go toward Rebuilds and Duchies.

In the absence of Rogue and Graverobber, yes. What makes Rogue and Graverobber strong is that they can regain your (opponent's) trashed Duchies, which is a big deal because every single VP matters in Rebuild mirrors, and they make winning the Duchy split less relevant. In fact, in mirrors with Rogue or Graverobber it's probably good to get R/G or Rebuilds with all your 5s and don't buy any Duchy directly.

[SCSN]

So a $5 card makes Rebuild stronger? I thought your $5 purchases all needed to go toward Rebuilds and Duchies. Could you please explain?

It should be obvious that the ability to recycle duchies from the trash back into your deck without losing buying power is definitely a plus for a rebuild deck.

Sure. It should also be obvious that Count, a card that straight-up gains Duchies, would also be a plus for a Rebuild deck. Yet there are definitely those who claim that it's not worth buying over Rebuild or Duchy.

So tell me, exactly when do I pick up a Rogue in my Rebuild game?

Get a Rogue with your first $5 and a second Rogue probably after your 2nd Rebuild. A Count with your first $5 is decent with Shelters and bad with Estates.

[Witherweaver]

I'm still not sure how to best use Rebuild.  How many are you supposed to get?  When do you buy Duchies, or Estates, if ever?  Do you need to buy more Rebuilds if you're getting junked to make sure you draw them often enough?  It seems to me like a fairly delicate thing, where if you don't balance it correctly you'll fizz. 

[shMerker]

In case you don't know Werothegreat wrote an article about Rebuild and Ragingduckd has one about playing Rebuild against Rebuild.

[Witherweaver]

Aha, I think I saw that and forgot about it. Thank you.

[Stealth Tomato]

I'm still not sure how to best use Rebuild.  How many are you supposed to get? 

In a mirror (both players playing Rebuild), usually 2 Rebuilds, then buy Duchies. I used to buy three Rebuilds a lot, I'm pretty sure that was a mistake.

When do you buy Duchies, or Estates, if ever?

Duchies as soon as you get two Rebuilds (again assuming a mirror). The only card that you would usually take before buying Duchies is Rogue, although Graverobber and Knights are arguable.

Only buy a fourth Estate if it looks like you have a chance to turn it into a 5th Duchy. Even then, Rebuilding Duchy into Duchy to win the Duchy split 4-3 may be just as good, since it avoids the chance of being stuck with that Estate. Being stuck with an Estate sucks.

Do you need to buy more Rebuilds if you're getting junked to make sure you draw them often enough?  It seems to me like a fairly delicate thing, where if you don't balance it correctly you'll fizz.

If you're getting junked, that probably means your opponent isn't playing Rebuild (or isn't playing it very well). In that case, you'll want a third Rebuild (and maybe a fourth) since you're not fighting to win the Duchy split and can take your time a bit more.

[WanderingWinder]

I'm guessing the reason that rebuild without the action looked weak in playtesting is that rebuild without the action is weak. I also don't think this monolithic strategy is really a problem on *any* of the cards you mentioned.

[Beyond Awesome]

The problem is as Donald stated is that Rebuild was the last card ever made for Dominion. Chances are it just didn't get as playtested as much as the other cards.

[Awaclus]

The problem is as Donald stated is that Rebuild was the last card ever made for Dominion. Chances are it just didn't get as playtested as much as the other cards.

That's not a problem. The problem is that Rebuild is overpowered.

[HiveMindEmulator]

I think this is related to a common phenomenon in strategy games: superior execution beating superior strategy. It is often possible to win a strategy game while employing an inferior strategy if your execution of your inferior strategy is significantly better than your opponent's execution of his superior strategy.

The thing with these monolithic strategies is they lend themselves better to near-perfect execution. Since they only involve 1 card, there are less decisions to be made, leaving less opportunities to make a wrong decision. And additionally, since they only need one card to be in the kingdom, they are repeatable more often so you can get more practice making the few tough decisions.

If your opponent is employing a more complex strategy, even if it is theoretically better when executed at the same level, he will often struggle based on working out the details of his strategy. If you were to play the board a couple more times, he might be able to figure out how to come out on top, but on the first go-round, he is less likely to find the actual right play.

These results make it seem like the simple strategy is good. You can win with it a lot. But in reality, it's rarely ever the best strategy on any board. You're just winning based on good execution and your opponents' less-than-good execution.

[blueblimp]

To me, the best thing about Dominion is the fact that it's always "broken," but it's broken in a different way every time.

Well put.

[popsofctown]

I think this is related to a common phenomenon in strategy games: superior execution beating superior strategy. It is often possible to win a strategy game while employing an inferior strategy if your execution of your inferior strategy is significantly better than your opponent's execution of his superior strategy.

The thing with these monolithic strategies is they lend themselves better to near-perfect execution. Since they only involve 1 card, there are less decisions to be made, leaving less opportunities to make a wrong decision. And additionally, since they only need one card to be in the kingdom, they are repeatable more often so you can get more practice making the few tough decisions.

If your opponent is employing a more complex strategy, even if it is theoretically better when executed at the same level, he will often struggle based on working out the details of his strategy. If you were to play the board a couple more times, he might be able to figure out how to come out on top, but on the first go-round, he is less likely to find the actual right play.

These results make it seem like the simple strategy is good. You can win with it a lot. But in reality, it's rarely ever the best strategy on any board. You're just winning based on good execution and your opponents' less-than-good execution.

I think this is true to an extent, but not to the extent you believe it to be.  I think an equally important factor is that 1 card rush strategies have really good minimum winrates.  Even on the "First Game" board, Smithy big money wins 10% of the time against a perfect player, and Smithy big money is one of the worst monolithic strategies around, competing on a board with trashing, villages, draw power, +buy, and an attack.  Other monolithic strategies are going to have minimum winrates in the 30s and 40s even when it turns out that executing a different strategy really really well is superior.  On the other hand, if you select a strategy using several different cards, even if you are able to execute that strategy perfectly, your assessment of how powerful that strategy is itself could be off, and it could easily have an actual 0-20% winrate because it actually doesn't get going in time.  If you did assess things correctly, you probably just get a modestly better winrate than 50/50.  If double Jack hits 6's instead of 5's, it often doesn't matter how clever your strategy is.  The flipside is, if you line up a village with a smithy turn 5, yes it still might matter how clever your strategy is, because if the part where you play Banks on Markets doesn't come as soon as you think it comes, your winrate might still be abysmal.

That got kinda muddled, i hope my opinion came across clearly.

[AdamH]

In some cases, I agree. Certain cards lead to strategies that can be very difficult to overcome. It seems like any simple attempt to add something to improve this monolithic strategy isn't as good as just executing the easy thing very well. For me, this is IGG.

...but then there are those cards like Minion, Governor, or Jack, where the monolithic strategy is fine, but can be used in ways that feel totally different; and it feels SO good to do it. Jack-in-an-engine boards are some of my mostest favoritest of all.

The fact that you can do that with those cards only increases how much I like the fact that the base strategy is considered "strong." Not only does it force you to consider that card so much more carefully than before every time you see it (You can't just see Jack and stop thinking because you're playing DoubleJack), but it's a creative outlet the game offers that can give you some super-satisfying games.

I can't comment too much on Rebuild since I decided to stop reading the Articles forum a couple of months ago. Yeah I know I'm not as good because of it but I'm having more fun figuring things from DA and Guilds out for myself. As far as Cultist goes, it is my opinion that even though it's true that a Cultist stack doesn't like it when you add other cards to it, it's not "just so strong" that nothing can beat it.

[Robz888]

I don't think the monolithic strategies are nearly as constraining as you make them out be, mostly because they do require a lot of little decisions along the way. Even in a Rebuild game, okay, yes you are getting a couple Rebuilds, but what else are you doing? Would I rather have Baron or Chancellor? Is Count worth it? Do I want a Fourth Estate? Duchy or Rebuild number three? What should I name? You can't just be on auto-play, even if you have to do some kind of Rebuild thing.

This goes like Double for Jack games--Jack isn't even nearly as dominating as Rebuild. IGG races have some subtle technical points, the biggest being, do I want Copper, or do I want to reconstruct my deck?

(I guess Cultist is the one you mention where I am most sympathetic to your argument, since in my experience it is a high luck card and you end up winning a massive split just by drawing Cultists sooner. But there are a lot of tactical things you can do there, too, particularly given the presence of trashers or Cursing cards.)

[mameluke]

Depending on what else is on the board, Minion is definitely that way (and as an attack, extremely frustrating to play against).

[Warfreak2]

(I guess Cultist is the one you mention where I am most sympathetic to your argument, since in my experience it is a high luck card and you end up winning a massive split just by drawing Cultists sooner. But there are a lot of tactical things you can do there, too, particularly given the presence of trashers or Cursing cards.)

I lost a game because of an 8-2 Ruins split after we both opened Silver/Silver, but he got two Cultists while I didn't see my Silvers until turn 5.

[DG]

I think a potential problem of three of these mentioned cards, jack, rebuild, and masquerade, is a combination of three factors:

- a strong baseline deck with just treasure
- adaptable with many simple variations to make stronger decks
- resistant to many attacks without losing any speed in deck development

Without any one of those three factors the cards would be a lot weaker. It is worth considering the difference in 3 and 4 player games where the severity of attacks can get past the resistance of these cards and they can situationally be weaker.