Dominion > Dominion Articles
Obstacles: Beyond the Five Deck Types
Cuzz:
--- Quote from: Įguia Branca on September 14, 2017, 01:25:12 pm ---The stockpile as a deck type is a great observation. In fact, I would argue that Hermit/Market Square is a typical stockpile where the things you're piling up on are Madmen and Market Squares. However, I do agree that there are hybrides and continua between the deck types. A Hunting Party stack is an engine/money hybrid to me. I have a hard time imagining, for example, a slog/golden deck hybrid though.
--- End quote ---
I think a hunting party stack is just a straight engine. You're not just adding as much good stuff as possible to your deck to maintain average quality. Your goal is to draw your deck each turn and play your payload, usually consisting of differently named treasures and a single non-drawing terminal action.
tripwire:
I think this is a useful article, but I think the title puts the focus in the wrong place. In my opinion, the valuable insight here is thinking about the "obstacles" and the need to determine a strategy that can address each one. I worry that your current title just encourages the latest argument about deck types and how we define them, rather than the value of your perspective
trivialknot:
Where do attacks fit in? The attack part doesn't seem to address any particular obstacle, but it seems odd to say that attacks are never a fundamental part of one's strategy.
As far as writing a blog-worthy article, I would say there are a few tweaks that could be made. The goal of the article should be more clear at the beginning (IMO the goal is to better describe deck types instead than throwing all the unusual decks into a "combo" category). There are a bunch of ideas mentioned that you don't really explain, which you could probably find links for (especially the hermit/market square deck, the golden deck, native village/bridge, and WW's strategy classification). Also, I don't exactly follow the argument against a BM/engine hybrid, and that's when I have already heard you say the same stuff before. Most readers wouldn't have any idea what you're talking about.
Anyway, good article.
sudgy:
--- Quote from: infangthief on September 14, 2017, 11:50:27 am ---I like this. As well as being relevant to deck-type classification, it also provides a practically useful way to assess a board.
Normally when I look at a board, the first question I ask myself is "Can I build an engine here?"
I think I could translate that question into trying to solve your obstacles, but limiting myself to a subset of solutions, the 'engine' solutions. Eg:
- For solving obstacle 1 I'm looking for (i) trashing (ii) sifting or (iii) excellent draw.
- For solving obstacle 2 I'm looking for (i) alt-VP that do useful things (ii) good economy and +buy to delay the time until I need to add VP or (iii) a way to slow down my opponent's deck, again to delay the time until I need to add VP.
So I suppose that makes 3*3=9 potential deck types already, and I've only looked at the first two obstacles, and only with 'engine' solutions. But at this stage we're not really interested in the number of deck types, and you certainly don't want to try to name them if they get generated this way.
Now your suggestion is to come at the obstacles with a more open mind. There might be new solutions to some of the obstacles, and there will almost certainly be new ways of combining existing solutions if the right cards are present on the board. That would be the interesting bit.
I'd like to spend some time considering things in this framework. But before going too far, I think the value of this framework would be affected by how well-classified the starting obstacles are.
So can I ask how much thought did you put in to your seven obstacles? Eg do you have a reason for lumping "5 cards and 1 buy" together?
--- End quote ---
I second thinking about this. It would be interesting to try to think of all the ways to solve all of the obstacles, and that could help when playing as well.
Also, Awaclus, you either missed or purposefully omitted obstacle 4 when discussing Hermit/Market Square, and it confused me a lot when reading. If you meant to omit it, maybe you could say so? Or number your obstacles?
aku_chi:
--- Quote from: trivialknot on September 14, 2017, 02:01:06 pm ---Where do attacks fit in? The attack part doesn't seem to address any particular obstacle, but it seems odd to say that attacks are never a fundamental part of one's strategy.
--- End quote ---
Thinking about deck building under the framework of obstacles is interesting. Awaclus presents obstacles that are in every game of Dominion. I think attacks can be framed as potential obstacles in the kingdoms they appear in. For example, when Militia is in the kingdom, there's an additional obstacle that, on any given turn, you may need to discard down to 3 cards. When Witch is in the kingdom, there's an additional obstacle that you might get as many as 10 Curses added you your deck. Etc... And playing attacks of your own imposes obstacles on your opponent.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version