The Three-Player Rule of Combat GWs: The Early-Game

After reading a post on Inferior Babble (here) I was reinspired to talk about the idea that has been around Blacktown VTES for a while...

The 3-Player Rule for Combat Decks
Where possible, the Combat Deck must, with the least use of resources possible, collapse a table to 3-players and ensure that no other player can gain any more VPs.

This was basically confirmed over on Inferior Babble (without a lot of backup theory etc) but I am happy to know that our experiences were 'right'.

So how does all of this work in practice?
There are really only three paths that the Combat Deck can take to victory:

• Abivalence
• Cut out the Deadwood
• Choose your Enemies

Abivalence

This is simple.  You do very little. Present a low-profile. Don't draw attention.  Provide enough threat to be a credible predator and prey but otherwise... let people oust their prey under their own steam.
Advantages:

• It requires no resource expenditure on your part.
• Players will tend to be less aware of you, since you are not really taking actions designed to draw attention to yourself.
• It draws out as much of the resources of the two remaining players (when you enter the 3-player End Game) as possible.

Disadvantages:

• You have no real influence over how many VPs are held by other players.  The people ousted are the people ousted.
• You have not had any influence over the opponents you will have in the End Game when you need to clean-sweep them both.

Personal Recommendation
This is the least desirable option.  You are trading a low-profile for no influence over the End Game.  Combat Decks are End Game Oriented, so taking no actions as investments to the End Game seems rather foolish.

Cut out the Deadwood

This one is less simple, but easier to do.  You basically buy some short-term influence by destroying resources of other players who are presenting little threat to their prey and are obviously going to be ousted sooner than yourself.  For instance, a player has a moderate-intercept deck as their prey and none of their actions have been successful, their minions are on low-blood and their predator is having a fairly easy run on ousting them.  At this point, your decision is to help kill the player who is getting blocked and not really providing any pressure on their prey.  This accelerates the game towards the End Game.
Advantages:

• The game will more quickly reach the 3-Player End Game you desire.
• You have a 'smokescreen' to cover up your intentions.  You can 'blame' that person on destabilising the table, on letting another player get easy VPs, on providing no pressure on another player... etc, etc, etc.
• You will be able to provide evidence of yourself as a credible threat to other players.

Disadvantages:

• You are trading a weak player for a strong player in the End Game.  This can work to your advantage, but it is increasing the risk factor to your successful 3-Player Sweep.
• You are giving other players (and probably your prey) 6 pool.
• You are NOT choosing your opponents based on their relative capability against your deck, but against their ability to affect their current prey/predator.

Choose your Enemies

This one is almost as simple as the Ambivalence strategy.  You watch, wait and then see which decks has no real defence against your combat method.  Then when you know which players cannot counter your combat, you destroy their prey/predators so that you are left being the Big Man fighting the two wimps.
Advantages:

• You are ensuring the effecitveness of your combat in the End Game.  Your strategy should be dominant and obviously so.
• You are actively bringing the game to the 3-Player End Game.
• You are providing evidence of your credible threat.

Disadvantages:

• Usually this strategy comes with a great big red and white circle pattern on your chest.  You will become a table target.
• You are not contolling the flow of VPs, so you may be closer to a 3-2 split than a 3-1-1 split.  This increases your risk of failure.
• You are making a bet about the contents of someone's deck that may not have had to deal with significant combat, so you may have just picked a perfect enemy rather than a perfect victim.