Contender or a Pretender? World Championship Deck-Building Strategies

by Nathan W, Staff Writer

29th March 2011

In a recent forum thread, I read a post by Star Trek 2E legend Kris Sonsteby (LORE) as he shared some advice on championship-level deck building theory when he wrote, "I want a set of four [missions] that can be done with one attribute and require no more than seven, preferably six, different skills." While I had always considered "easy" missions as a nice goal to aim for, I had never expressly quantified how well a set of missions fit with one another. So I examined this statement further. Were all the game's top players using this hidden formula, and had I just missed it during my playing career?

I examined Tobias' Rausmann's (garetjax) recent Starfleet - Delphic Expanse Worlds championship deck; and realized he didn't follow Kris' instruction. But had he used Spatial Reconfiguration, he could have. To me, this meant Tobias put significantly less stock in honing a fine set of mission requirements, instead passing on the potential unreliability of using this event. One explanation is that these championship-level deck building practices completely rely on the type of deck being constructed. Another is, simply, that Kris and Tobias play in entirely different parts of the world and "think Trek" differently.

With these questions in mind I set out to reveal the secrets of championship deck building. That is, what separates a deck from being a 'contender' for a World championship from a 'pretender'? To ensure an accurate representation of the global community, I asked a few select players from around the world to participate in a survey designed to gain some insight into the thought process top players go through when designing and testing a new deck. These players are:

• CC: Chris Clarke (ZodoJats).
• KJ: Kevin Jaeger (Hoss-Drone).
• KS: Kris Sonsteby (LORE).
• MH: Mike Harrington (Ajnaran).
• MO: Mike O'Shogay (shagg08).
• NT: Thee Neil Timmons (ntimmons).
• TF: Tyler Fultz (DJstormtrooper).
• TR: Tobias Rausmann (garetjax).

I selected participants who had recently won a World Championship or Continental Championship and were active community members, or a previous champion with a long-standing track record of solid deck design and gameplay in the CC-era. Without further ado, the results of my survey:

1. What differentiates a deck from being a 'contender' from a 'pretender'?

CC: A 'contender' has answers to any possible matchup. It has versatility, but also a strong plan. A 'pretender' is a gimmick deck focused purely on one thing, or a deck that has a definite weakness that is not easily solved.
KJ: A 'contender' is any deck that can 1) do exactly what it wants to do more than 75% of the time; 2) adjust to the three prevalent strategies in the meta game at will; and 3) have the ability to play a B-game if it needs to.
MO: A 'contender' has no glaring weaknesses, it's not reliant on any one thing, and has the ability to make up ground if it gets behind in a game.
TF: A 'contender' has three things: 1) survivability – being the ability to deal with my opponent's tactics; 2) offense – being the ability to stop my opponent; and 3) solving power – the ability to consistently get through missions.

2. You have a new idea for a deck. How do you quickly determine if it can reach 'contender' status?

CC: I determine whether it has a good chance of winning versus weenies, micro-solving, Starfleet, Borg, and general disruption. If none of those seem like an auto-loss, then it might be a 'contender'.
KS: I check my 'cheat sheet' of things to look for, which are in no particular order: unstopping ability, death prevention, skill dialing, attribute boosting, mission range, average ship cost, event destruction, card drawing, and bonus points. If an affiliation does not excel in most of these areas, it simply cannot be considered a 'contender'.
MH: That's a great question and is exactly the kind of question you need to be asking yourself constantly when making a new deck if you really want to succeed in a competitive environment. There are two ways to go about it in my mind. You can consider all the likely strategies and players you'll be up against, and then create a deck that has answers to most all of them. Or you can build a deck with enough innate power that it will overwhelm an opponent simply by doing its own thing. So I ask myself when I'm building a deck whether it can do either of those things.
TF: There are several easy eliminations right off the bat. Any deck that needs Ohhh! Nothing Happened! or If Wishes Were Horses to function can be forgotten about; or any deck that relies on having high cost events in play. From there you have to determine if the deck is able to compete with Borg or TNG and all their tricks.

3. What is the first thing that goes into your deck?

KS: Missions. Everything and I mean everything starts with missions as far as I'm concerned.
TF: The gimmick. I think it is a mistake to start off saying "I am going to build a [that affiliation] deck". That's how you end up with a hodgepodge deck that will not win games. Instead, I always start with a specific card or combo and build around it. Whatever HQ or dual-HQ it ends up being is really up to the cards.
NT: The card or cards I am building around. Be it personnel, ship, or an event.
TR: Personnel the majority of the time. Sometimes other cards, if the deck idea is based around them.

4. At what point do you consider missions? How do you choose missions?

CC: Missions will either be the crux of my deck and determined at the beginning, or determined almost at the end. The most important thing about missions is the lower the attribute requirement the better. With the exception of certain gametext, I pick whatever missions have the lowest attribute of my best attribute, and my personnel have at least five of every listed skill.
MH: Missions come into play pretty quickly along, if not right away. They are important to figure out first before going forward because you do not want to waste your effort on a deck that can't effectively solve missions well enough to win.
MO: I choose missions based off what attribute the personnel I want to use excel at. I like to be able to complete all 4 missions, and I choose missions where you can find non-unique personnel that have all the required skills.
NT: I usually build the deck first and pick missions later. For most of my decks, two missions are often chosen: an affiliation-specific mission and either Historical Research or Transport Crash Survivor. From there I am trying to fit two missions that do not force me to alter personnel too much.

5. At what point do you consider your dilemma pile?

KJ: Last. It always plays off the deck for me and never needs to be the starting point. The idea may actually start with the dilemma pile, but if the draw deck cannot support the idea then there is no point.
MH: It depends. Sometimes I'll think of a deck having a very important rapport with its dilemma pile, in which case I need to work on it a bit. Other times, the draw deck has very little relationship with the pile and therefore I'll just use the most solid, meta-savvy standalone pile I have built at the moment.
NT: At the very beginning of deck building. I have a difficult time building a deck without building the dilemma pile at the same time. Usually when I start, I have a mix of dilemmas and non-dilemmas.
TR: Normally it is the last thing I add.

6. What is your ideal skill matrix?

KJ: At least six or seven personnel with mission skills, then at least four of each other common skill. Then I try to pare down the Honor and Treachery personnel to less than six in total.
KS: No less than six of every mission skill and hopefully no less than three of any non-mission skill. If you can back that up with some skill-cheating cards, then all the better.
MH: Generally a minimum of six of each mission skill I'll be using. I bump that up for primary mission skills, and also for the mission I may be going to first. Of course downloading and deck size also plays into this, but that's my general cut-off. For dilemma skills, it is a bit more complicated and based on my cheating capacities, meta tendencies, and what I can afford as far as the skills fitting into the amount of personnel I want in the deck. Certainly the more skills the better; with the exception of Treachery and Honor – which I try to limit. TR: Each skill that is needed for the missions should be on at least 20% of the personnel. More if the skill needed in multiple for a mission. In case of the dilemmas it depends on the numbers of cheater cards and the type of deck.

7. What is your ideal attribute matrix?

CC: Obviously it is best to focus on one attribute. I want to be able to solve missions with as few personnel as possible. A general guideline might be to divide the attribute requirement by six, then round down. So for a mission with Integrity > 25, I want to solve with four personnel.
KS: Nobody with a mission attribute less than six and as many sevens and eights as I can justifiably include.
MO: Try not to have too many fives or fours in the attribute you are trying to solve with. However, sometimes ability trumps attributes. NT: If I can, I like to get all my missions with the same attribute. If not, then at the very least I limit myself to two different attributes, and preferably ones that match. For example, Federation does Integrity and Cunning well; but not Strength.

8. Do you have any types of cards you always include?

CC: I always want something that can prevent kills, something which can destroy events, something which can cancel interrupts, and something which can get back cards from discard pile.
KJ: I do not let anything handicap my deck idea. Convention is that you need ships and personnel. Beyond that basic convention, staying beholden to anything only limits your creativity in finding that 'next thing' that could win big games.
MH: Counter-cards are very important currently because they're so versatile. So I always try and have them.
TR: In nearly all of my decks I have some event destruction and often also some kill prevention.

9. How important is the 'surprise factor' when designing a 'contender'?

CC: The surprise factor can be crucial or it can be a non-issue. 'Contenders' usually are the top meta decks, or decks that can specifically counter the top meta decks. So to a degree the surprise factor involves going 'paper' because you expect 'rock'. But if you can find 'gun' that somehow that beats all the top meta decks, then the surprise factor is key.
KJ: I am not sure. You need to have some surprises or your opponent will be able to anticipate your next three moves, and be able to plan his next five. The dilemma pile is always a last resort where you can bring that surprise.
KS: I think it has become much more important lately as players appear to be more informed. Several decks have stayed near the top for a while; so an opponent's familiarity with them can usually lead them to adjust their in-game style while playing against you. Because of that, being able to show up with something nobody's seen before could easily win you an extra game or two – perhaps even the tournament.
NT: It is huge. I feel that I can change the outcome of a game with a well-placed interrupt or a damaging event. It is always better if my opponent does not see it coming.

10. In how many turns should a speed solver expect to win the game against another solver?

KJ: Seven. But I can live with eight. After that you have probably lost unless you are really bringing it good with your dilemma pile.
KS: In this day and age, anywhere from eight to twelve turns is respectable. Anything less than that is probably a fluke and anything over means you probably already lost.
NT: I am a firm believer that no solver can be 'the fastest ever'. You will always lose to someone who gets a better draw. I like to think in terms of 'speed with wrenches'. I go fast, but I also throw wrenches at an opponent. If they trip on my wrenches, I can slow down and still win. If they do not, I need to throw more wrenches.
TR: I never count how many turns a game takes. But I want to start attempting missions by turn three or four.

11. How soon should an interactive deck's strategy be in place?

CC: It depends. Some interactive decks have a 'big turn'. That should be able to happen on turn four reliably – turn five at the latest. Other interaction decks have more a constant pressure which does not have a specific timeline.
MH: Some interactive decks need to get rolling by an opponent's first mission attempt; but some do not need to be set up until later. You need to juggle the effect of your interactivity and your winning capacity.
NT: I like to have things set up and working by turn four. But it depends. Passive interaction can be set up later.
TF: By turn three or four – this will be when a fast opponent starts attempting missions.

12. Your favorite person in the world wants to start playing Star Trek, knows all the rules and general strategies, and asks you for one piece of advice on building a deck. What do you tell them?

KS: The difference between a good player and a great player is the ability to avoid 'over-throwing' dilemmas. Stopping your opponent with the bare minimum is crucial to long-term success.
MO: Put enough ships in your deck: at least one for every eight cards.
NT: Build your deck and dilemma pile to work together. Things work much better when they work in tandem. If they are both random, you may run into problems.
TF: Copy your dilemma pile. Building a good pile is the biggest problem for a lot of players. If they copy a successful player's pile first, it will let them see how to build a good pile before they strike out on their own.

13. Your mortal enemy wants to start playing Star Trek, knows all the rules and general strategies, and asks you for advice on building a deck. What do you 'forget' to tell them?

KJ: That the drink contains poison.
KS: I would not divulge my mission skill matrix and let them figure that out on their own, via trial and error.
NT: That doing all of your missions is potentially important.
TR: That your deck should have a focus.

14. You just won Worlds. Describe your next 24 hours.

KJ: Drinking, food, telling stories, telling people who helped me how much I appreciated that help.
MH: I had a walk-on-clouds feeling there for a while back in 1999. My next 24 hours were a lot of that kind of feeling you cannot really describe: a sense of satisfaction and a bit of celebrity. I imagine now because I'm quite a bit older, and the game has changed, things would be different. But I think a lot of that feeling would remain. To be sure, I'll let you know sometime in late summer – say mid-August?
TF: I would probably drink too much beer with the Germans, Dutch, and Danes and tell them they should pony up more troops for Afghanistan and devalue their currencies. Then I'd obsessively check my wife's iPhone to see how many ratings points I gained.
TR: First the prize ceremony. Then say goodbye to my friends and the other players. Travel home and go back to work on the next day.

15. You just lost the championship game at Worlds. Describe your next 24 hours.

CC: Star Trek? Never heard of it.
KS: Consolation dinner & drinks, a good night's sleep, and a flight back home.
MO: It wouldn't be any different than it is now. I would just be happy to make it as far as I did.
TF: This year I played in the Tribbles World Championships and failed to score even a single Tribble. Not one Tribble! Then I drove home from Frankfurt to Kaiserslautern to relax for the first time in a week.

A special thank you to all eight participants! To see the un-edited responses from all participants, as well as nine questions and answers that didn't make the final cut – check out my blog here.