This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By Orbin (James Monsebroten)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#554609
Hey, everyone! It's Friday, so it's time for a Friday Question!

One thing that the playtest team attempts to do when testing a new set is to run the proposed cards through many different scenarios with different deck styles. I am curious about how the community sees the different deck styles and what they mean to everyone, so our Friday Question this week is:

What's your preferred play style?

We generally talk about play styles/deck types in these categories:
  • Speed Solver
  • Mid-Range Solver
  • Interference Deck
When you build your deck where do you usually fit and what does that mean to you? Do you call your play style something different than above?

I'll start us off with talking about my preferred style.

My preferred style falls into the Mid-Range Solver. For me, this means that I'm primarily focused on solving my missions but I do devote some part of my deck to redundancy/recovery and/or the ability to interact with my opponent if the situation arises (often through being battle capable, but not battle focused). More often than not, I'm going for a 3 missions as I don't like devoting a lot of resources to doing two missions. When I seed my missions I tend to interweave my missions with my opponents to try and cause a Speed Solver some issues.

-James Monsebroten, 1st Edition Playtest Manager
 
By sevencrdspud (Jason Beyer)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
Contender
#554611
Speed solver.

I shoot for a deck as close to 30 cards as I can. I need VERY good reasons to go above 45.
User avatar
 
By sexecutioner (Niall Matthew)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Counterpart
1E European Continental Semi-Finalist 2019
1E Austrian National Runner-Up 2020
1E British National Second Runner-Up 2020
#554617
Interference via capture, moderate battle or obscure interrupts, because I'm terrible at assembling away teams for mission attempts.

Plus, it's the only way I can beat MVB :wink:
User avatar
 
By Iron Prime (Dan Van Kampen)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Moderator
#554620
Interference or mid-range solver. Speed solvers feel too much like dueling solitaire....
User avatar
Executive Officer
By jadziadax8 (Maggie Geppert)
 - Executive Officer
 -  
Grand Nagus
2E American National Second Runner-Up 2020
#554629
I tend to build mid-range solvers in both 1E and 2E. I have been trying to beef up my deckbuilding chops over the last couple of years by dabbling in interference builds. I find that my brain doesn't WANT to go battle. It just wants to do missions in peace. :o
User avatar
 
By Smiley (Cristoffer Wiker)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#554766
I build my decks around a card, combo, or fun idea. I do not care for your definitions really to build like that.
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#554861
AllenGould wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 9:00 am I see we're missing the fourth option - jank. ;)

(Defined as "I reject your victory conditions and substitute my own")
I feel that this is one person in my group.

Our games are usually me looking like a confused dog, asking him why is he doing those things, me being surprised at what he is pulling off, then him winning (or losing absolutely spectacularly).
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#554862
I choose to add a category "CHAOS SOLVER"

My primary is to be a speed-ish solver. But, I don't plan carefully or precisely enough to know how many of what skill I need or have at any given moment. I go to solve, and both parties are mutually surprised if I get through it. I'm never quite sure how any game will go past the first few turns, and I just really hope I find what a I need when I need it.
User avatar
 
By Mr.Sloan
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
1E Austrian National Second Runner-Up 2020
#554869
Depends on the concrete defintion.

Deckbuilding wise:
I like to solve as fast as possible "Speed solver?" that has the ability to defend its home ("Interference"?). Meaning: dominate the place where i am, without moving too far to the opponent if he is not with me, as this costs to much time. (No "all out battle decks").

Design wise i am for more turns, because this expanse the realm of both player making interaction more likely, while its still the main goal of the game to solve as fast as possible, idealy with bonus points gathered by moving to the opponent for some interaction. I am also for quadrant connection for all decks, as battle decks do it anyway and if non-battledecks are by random chance (different quadrant choice) unable to interact at all, its boring solitar. Some interaction options due to more quadrant connection cards OR rules, spices things up IMO.
User avatar
 
By SudenKapala (Suden Käpälä)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
1E The Neutral Zone Regional Participant 2021
#554999
Smiley wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 8:09 pm I build my decks around a card, combo, or fun idea. I do not care for your definitions really to build like that.
Well, put like that -- yes, this mostly. (But then I end up building a mid-range solver around it.)

What does the word "jank" mean, here? (I think I get the general -- "Niall deck"? -- meaning. But more specifically?) @stressedoutatumc, @AllenGould.
User avatar
 
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#555036
SudenKapala wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 5:31 am What does the word "jank" mean, here?
The dictionary definition is "of extremely poor or unreliable quality", which for CCGs tends more to the latter half.

So, we're talking decks that can be called "interesting" and "fun", but not "good" or "reliable". Upgunning DS9 so you can shoot stuff for points, for example. :)

The draft begins in seven days! Still plenty of ti[…]

I am so pleased to finally announce this. After a[…]

Bombing the whales is always the correct decision.

Temporal Micro-Wormhole

So it wouldn't get me another report; just allo[…]