Dominion > Dominion Articles

The Clashes, a bit more in depth, with 6 extra months of play

(1/1)

Will(ow|iam):
When the clash pile is on the board, you have 2 options:

The first option is to build a deck that functions under the Warlord attack. Even if the pile's not on Warlord yet, putting a 3rd peddler or a 3rd vanillage into your deck is a liability because in the endgame, when your opponent finally picks up a warlord, you'll have unfortunate stop cards. However, if there's strong TFB on the board (Salvager, Apprentice, Expand, Graverobber), then maybe the extra copies of the card aren't so bad. This option, building a deck that functions under the Warlord attack, is really the default, as the other option is convoluted to make happen. However, a deck that functions under the warlord attack does have less potential than one that doesn't need to worry about it.

The second option is to prevent your opponent from getting Warlord. This can be done by gaining all 4 Warlords, by gaining 2 Warlords and rotating the pile off of Warlords before your opponent can gain any, or by trashing the opponent's warlords. This option has higher potential than the other option, but it's much harder to pull off. Having the higher-potential long-term deck is especially good because Territory provides a bit of alt-VP, but you have to judge on each board whether it's worth bothering. Obviously if the stuff for a sneaky rotate or 4-card-gain is the stuff you had in your deck anyway, then yeah go for it, but that's not always the case.

Getting into each card:

Battle Plan has 2 pieces: Sometimes Lab, and rotate a pile. If you're on this forum, you probably know when you want Sometimes Lab. Rotate a pile is a way to control who has Warlords. If you can rotate to warlords, then gain 2 warlords with remodel or altar or something, then rotate to Territories, that can be game-winning. Also look out for tricks with rotating other split piles, like denying your opponent Catapults or Encampments.

Archer is a rather strong attack, a bit stronger than Militia.

Warlord is extra draw in a deck that it's hard to add draw to under the warlord attack. Adding each successive warlord to your deck is kinda different. The first warlord means you're hitting your opponent on half of their turns. Not being able to play a bunch of your action cards on half of your turns is brutal, so the first Warlord is pretty good. The second warlord balances the duration draw and means the opponent is getting hit every turn. Some decks are better at living when hit on half of the turns than others, and if your opponent is playing such a deck, then the second Warlord is important. The third warlord prevents the opponent from getting a second warlord, but doesn't do much else. If you can fruitfully TFB it or you're building a deck that can get hit by Warlord attack half the time, then it can be worth picking up. The fourth warlord prevents the opponent from playing the warlord attack, so you can build freely.


Territory is usually Duchy. You'll know when it's not.

faust:
I don't think you can reliably prevent the opponent from getting Warlords, so the second option is not really an option. Until it is clear which way the Warlords split, you should always* build a deck that can handle a Warlord attack. In that sense, I find the article misleading.

Other comments:
- the strong synergistic relationship between Battle Plan and Warlord really wants to be emphasized. Warlord triggers Battle Plan and gives you a larger hand size so next turn it's easier to connect Battle Plans. This often means that even on boards where Warlord's attack isn't relevant, you want both cards.
- Archer's attack gets a lot less impressive once your opponent plays Warlords.

*unless you have access to the real second option: being unaffected by Attacks.

Navigation

[0] Message Index