What's New Dashboard Articles Forums Chat Room Achievements Tournaments Player Map The Promenade Volunteers About Us Site Index
Article Archives
First EditionSecond EditionTribblesAll

All Categories Continuing CommitteeOrganized PlayRules CommitteeDeck DesignsVirtual Expansions
Card ExtrasSpecial EventsTournament ReportsEverything ElseSpotlight SeriesContests
Strategy Articles

The Road to Worlds: Regionals 2019 Week 5

by Lucas Thompson, Ambassador

2nd May 2019

Second Edition Minnesota Regional winner Kevin Jaeger
Title: Jaeger Bomb 3.19 Now with 98% I dont care about 2e. Just add Durg!
Deck Size: 47 Cards
Deck Archetype: Combo Speed
Dilemma Pile Size: 23 Cards
Dilemma Pile Type: Kill/Attrition Hybrid

Kevin's Commentary:
Why did you choose the deck that you used? What other decks did you consider using?

I don't care much about 2e anymore. So I just played the one I enjoy the most, added durg to replace tasha who always under performed and called it good.

This deck isn't the only powerful dual-HQ deck I've seen you win a Regional with - I'm also a fan of your [Dom]/[Kli] and [Kli]/[Rom] designs. When you're in the lab and working on a new dual-HQ design, what's your process?
Take the most powerful thing about each and just mash it together.

What sorts of decks were you hoping to face while playing your deck? What decks did you hope not to face?
Didn't think about it. Didn't care.

Prior to this tournament, did you have much experience playing this deck (or decks like it)? Did you learn anything new about it when you played it this time?
Uh yea.

Did you use any situational cards (cards that you wouldn't expect to be useful in every game)? Are there any whose usefulness exceeded your expectations? Were there any that you wouldn't include if you played the deck again?
Just durg to deal with the latest best dilemma.

What would you nominate as the MVP card from your deck?
Still Jaresh inyo.

Do you have anything else you'd like to say about your deck?
Still works.

My Commentary:
Few recent cards have generated as much discussion as Nothing to Lose, and it has been called out as the "latest best dilemma" here, so let's talk about it some more. On the face of it, it's a dual, 4-cost, all stop, with narrow, strict requirements. Now, I wasn't on the design team that came up with this card, so I can't speak to the process behind its creation, but Sean O'Reilly could and did in this thread.

I can tell you, as I did in my appearance on Naetor's QPid release video that the card that I find Nothing to Lose most similar to is Outclassed. It's another full stop dilemma with strict requirements (though it is one cost cheaper and space only). It's a dilemma that I wasn't particularly happy to see when it came out back in To Boldly Go, because the decks I tended to play at the time had a great deal of difficulty preparing for. I think, though, that the biggest parallel between the two is that the affiliations that had the easiest time with Outclassed (Klingons, Romulans, Borg, etc) are the ones that have the most difficulty preparing for Nothing to Lose. Those are also very powerful affiliations in the game today, so I'm happy to have a card available to me that helps keep them in check.

I think that the critique of the dilemma that I'm most sympathetic to is Nate's take that the dilemma would be better as a planet or space dilemma, like Outclassed: I think if it wasn't dual, I would love it. Being dual, your opponent is ~guaranteed to draw it at least once per game, so you either have in play the 1-2 cards that can beat it or not and your opponent will know even if they have been sleeping through half your turns." I'd tend to agree: if you smell Outclassed coming, you do at least have the flexibility to avoid it for a while until you draw something that can deal with it.

All of this said, we've only seen this dilemma actually show up in two winning decks from Regionals and Masters this year. And that's not to say people haven't been using it, it just hasn't been in the winning decks. Is that because too many people are preparing for it? Or because the most competitive players have a history of being the most conservative about deck changes? Maybe it's just variance? I suppose time will tell (or you could tell me what you think in the discussion thread below:

Discuss this article in this thread.

Back to Archive index