the trick with BM or a rush designs is that you want something to oppose it.
Why? I mean, in general I agree that it would be nice, but half the sets here there's really nothing to oppose an engine. Which is okay, but it can be the case for engines and big money too.
yeah occasionally you get the chance for finesse/tactics in a BM/rush mirror,
Heck, even straight BM/Wharf or the straight Ironworks/Silk Roads game are
extraordinarily complex.
but at this level the mirror will likely be heavily luck based.
This is also true of engines as well, if we're truly talking mirror here. I mean, either way, it's possible to outplay the opponent and still go down in flames.
you would like to see another option: a weak engine, attack, or rush is ideal here. or of course you could play two different BM/draw strategies.
I totally agree. We didn't see this, though, except you could say for the wharf/thief/fool's gold/worker's village/chapel/throne room/margrave/I-forget-the-other-cards set
as i liked saying when discussing the sets, a diverging strategy rarely means a competitively divergent strategy.
Well, naturally. Most strategies are terrible. And on every board, there's going to be one singular best way to play. We're looking for that to not be evident too easily, though there isn't a board we can't eventually 'solve' (or get a close approximation to solving).
there were a couple sets i can remember where the rush or BM seemed clearly too strong or too weak. while you want to see more balance you don't want to see it shift that far either. long story short, i think a great BM/rush design is more difficult than an engine design because you can't simply pick different paths.
Which is all fine, except for two things. First, why do you not hold engines to the same standard? Because the engines on many of these boards are clearly 'too strong', or at least, clearly the strongest thing out there. But the second thing is my real point, which is, are you saying there weren't any of these out there that you didn't pick? Man, that's fine - I think there were some, but it's not at all easy to see that kind of stuff - like I said before, it's a very difficult and thankless job. And of course, maybe I'm wrong about these sets.
fwiw i thought there was a decent slog and rush option in the sets. i thought that shark_bait's game was a solid slog design with an engine likely only viable in the late game. the curious draw of colonies for both games made that one more engine-y than it would have been otherwise. and jonts26's game did give you some decent rush options.
jonts26's set definitely gives you a look at a rush, and it was one of the best kingdoms there, definitely. With all due respect, though, shark_bait's just looks like an engine even without colonies.