-
(Discussion split from Preview #1 thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17757.msg731300#msg731300).)
Saying Ghost Town and Guide are synergistic is like saying Village and Smithy are synergistic.
Both cards do good things for you but the benefits are merely additive, not synergistic.
-
Village and Smithy are synergistic! You can build an engine out of the combo, but can't build an engine out of either on its own.
-
You do need some way of getting multiple +draw plays for an engine, yes; that is simply what an engine is by definition. But I reserve the word 'synergy' for two things that interact in a way that is greater than the sum of their parts. Village and Smithy (or Ghost Town and Guide) are not that. They simply do what their respective parts do in an additive way.
Some might claim an engine's components, working together, give a net effect that is bigger than the sum of its parts. That's actually false I would say: for an engine to matter you also need a payload; a dominion engine without a payload accomplishes little of value on its own, and can be seen as purely additive, the way a deck full of Labs is additive (and not self-synergizing somehow. Oh look, my lab lets me play more labs!)
To make this even clearer just set the whole engine thing aside, and replace Smithy with generic terminal actions. Do village-type cards synergize with terminal actions? Obviously you want both, a village idiot deck and a deck of colliding terminals are not grand things. But is this a synergy? As I understand the word, no.
-
Even by the Village/Smithy yardstick, I'm not sure Guide and Ghost Town synergize. They're both cards that improve the hand quality of future hands, but by themselves add little to nothing, and used together, one actually slightly diminishes the other (Guide either fails to account for the Ghost Town extra card, or throws it away.)
So I would actually call them more redundant than synergistic; I would rarely buy them in the same kingdom unless I had so many extra gains/buys I didn't know what to do with them. A deck-drawing engine that starts every turn with six cards and two actions is very unlikely to need to call Guide, ever, and it would likely end up sitting on the mat the whole game, having wasted the opportunity cost of gaining it.
I might even go as far as to say that they anti-synergize, much like Awaclus' assertion that Village and Silver are an anti-synergy. You probably don't want to buy them both in the same kingdom unless you really have to. (I know Awaclus' analyses generate a lot of consternation, but they often resonate with me. His analogy that trashing a single dead card is basically equivalent to gaining a free Laboratory is one that I repeat when teaching strategy IRL, and that helps hammer home the point. It's like watching someone play a Steward for coin and four Coppers and buying a Gold. I point out that they just bought a Cache for $6.)
-
You do need some way of getting multiple +draw plays for an engine, yes; that is simply what an engine is by definition. But I reserve the word 'synergy' for two things that interact in a way that is greater than the sum of their parts. Village and Smithy (or Ghost Town and Guide) are not that. They simply do what their respective parts do in an additive way.
Some might claim an engine's components, working together, give a net effect that is bigger than the sum of its parts. That's actually false I would say: for an engine to matter you also need a payload; a dominion engine without a payload accomplishes little of value on its own, and can be seen as purely additive, the way a deck full of Labs is additive (and not self-synergizing somehow. Oh look, my lab lets me play more labs!)
To make this even clearer just set the whole engine thing aside, and replace Smithy with generic terminal actions. Do village-type cards synergize with terminal actions? Obviously you want both, a village idiot deck and a deck of colliding terminals are not grand things. But is this a synergy? As I understand the word, no.
Village specifically requires you to play two more terminal Actions or otherwise it doesn't do anything. Therefore terminals synergize with it, and drawing terminals more so than others because they increase the likelihood of having a second terminal in your hand afterwards. You could say that this is just Village doing what it does, but the fact is that what is does is synergizing with terminals.
Village and Smithy also have negative synergy because you can play Smithy and draw a Village you can't play.
Ghost Town and Guide also have synergy for the exact same reason: Ghost Town's +action has to connect with two terminals for its effect to do everything it does, and Guide lets you have some control over what cards are in your hand by the time you get that +action, increasing the likelihood that you have two terminals. They also have antisynergy because they both help achieve a similar goal (more reliability in an engine) so they're somewhat redundant.
-
It's like watching someone play a Steward for coin and four Coppers and buying a Gold. I point out that they just bought a Cache for $6.)
Actually that would mean they bought a Cache for $2, since if they had used Steward for trashing they would only have had $2 available.
-
Isn't the term "synergy" used for any card that, even heavy-handedly, makes another card better, like Coppersmith synergizes with Copper. Tribe bonuses in card games (like Magic: the Gathering and Hearthstone) are considered "synergy" effects.
So yeah village synergizes with Smithy.
-
Is "synergy" ambiguous?
-
Tribe bonuses in card games (like Magic: the Gathering and Hearthstone) are considered "synergy" effects.
The difference being that those are actual synergy effects that give you a bonus, and not an ordinary additive operation of each card that works just as well with other cards.
If people want to debase the term synergy into just meaning, "these cards do useful things that you want to have more of at the same time", well then by golly Smithy "synergizes" with treasures because they give you a payload to draw.
Markusin's example of Coppersmith "synergizing" with copper is even more ridiculous. No it doesn't, it just works with copper in an ordinary, banal fashion that does not rise to the level of any synergy.
For an actual example of bona-fide synergy: Coppersmith synergizes with Apothecary.
-
Tribe bonuses in card games (like Magic: the Gathering and Hearthstone) are considered "synergy" effects.
The difference being that those are actual synergy effects that give you a bonus, and not an ordinary additive operation of each card that works just as well with other cards.
If people want to debase the term synergy into just meaning, "these cards do useful things that you want to have more of at the same time", well then by golly Smithy "synergizes" with treasures because they give you a payload to draw.
Markusin's example of Coppersmith "synergizing" with copper is even more ridiculous. No it doesn't, it just works with copper in an ordinary, banal fashion that does not rise to the level of any synergy.
For an actual example of bona-fide synergy: Coppersmith synergizes with Apothecary.
So, please explain your exact definition of synergy, such that for any two cards, a person who has read your explanation can identify whether those cards have synergy with 100% accuracy.
-
Tribe bonuses in card games (like Magic: the Gathering and Hearthstone) are considered "synergy" effects.
The difference being that those are actual synergy effects that give you a bonus, and not an ordinary additive operation of each card that works just as well with other cards.
Huh, but that describes Coppersmith. Coppersmith does not work just as well with any other card. It only works with Copper. It's not really different from tribe bonuses because Coppersmith can be reworded as "do nothing. Bonus: Copper produces one more this turn."
You can say tribe interactions like that are "interactions" and not "synergies", but people call them "synergies" from what I have seen. It kinda kills the term of its value if you ask me, but that's how it is.
-
Well, I guess I should give my definition for "synergy" between cards.
Synergy between cards exists if one or more of the cards in the interaction become more efficient than if the cards acted separately.
So a card giving a Goblin "+1 attack" makes the golbin paired with it more efficient and it is a synergy. Coppersmith makes Copper more efficient, so it is a synergy.
Admittedly, Smithy/Village doesn't fit this definition quite as neatly. You can say the Village makes the Smithy more efficient by allowing the Smithy to draw action cards that can be played instead of drawing them dead, but it's a bit of a stretch I suppose.
This does not necessarily imply a "combo", which refers to interactions that make the cards behave in ways that go much beyond their general case and/or are game warping/winning.
-
well then by golly Smithy "synergizes" with treasures because they give you a payload to draw.
That's exactly true.
Admittedly, Smithy/Village doesn't fit this definition quite as neatly. You can say the Village makes the Smithy more efficient by allowing the Smithy to draw action cards that can be played instead of drawing them dead, but it's a bit of a stretch I suppose.
That's because it's the other way round. Smithy makes Village more efficient by making Village do anything at all.
-
If people want to debase the term synergy into just meaning, "these cards do useful things that you want to have more of at the same time", well then by golly Smithy "synergizes" with treasures because they give you a payload to draw.
Markusin's example of Coppersmith "synergizing" with copper is even more ridiculous. No it doesn't, it just works with copper in an ordinary, banal fashion that does not rise to the level of any synergy.
For an actual example of bona-fide synergy: Coppersmith synergizes with Apothecary.
So, please explain your exact definition of synergy, such that for any two cards, a person who has read your explanation can identify whether those cards have synergy with 100% accuracy.
The dictionary definition of synergy is that the effect needs to be greater than the sum of its parts. How you interpret that in the context of dominion is somewhat arguable, so I can't give give you an explanation everyone will interpret the same, but I can go through some cases:
Does Coppersmith synergize with Smithy? No, your Smithy can draw more coppers but it can also draw other things, this is a simple additive effect that is the same when standalone.
Does Coppersmith synergize with Village? No, a Village lets you play more Coppersmiths but it also lets you play more of other things, this is a simple additive effect that is the same when standalone.
Does Coppersmith synergize with Apothecary? Yes, because Coppersmith makes the copper card more valuable and Apothecary draws a lot of that specific card and prevents it from cluttering your deck, so their combined benefits of keeping copper around multiply in the presence of each other.
Another example of synergy is Hoard and Alt VP cards. We know what Hoard does with ordinary VP and we know what Alt VP cards do on their own, those are the individual effects. When you combine the availability of the two you get a multiplicative effect to early greening, especially in the case of VP cards that give non-VP benefits such as Harem and Nobles.
Other threads on this forum have discussed what a "combo" is. One way to define "combo" is as a strong synergy that you can build part of your strategy around when you see those 2 cards on the board.
-
The dictionary definition of synergy is that the effect needs to be greater than the sum of its parts.
That definition is correct; how you personally apply it is not.
-
Does Coppersmith synergize with Smithy? No, your Smithy can draw more coppers but it can also draw other things, this is a simple additive effect that is the same when standalone.
Coppersmith is much stronger with larger hand sizes. Smithy's only function is to make your hand size larger. Synergy.
Does Coppersmith synergize with Village? No, a Village lets you play more Coppersmiths but it also lets you play more of other things, this is a simple additive effect that is the same when standalone.
By this logic, village doesn't synergize with anything, because for any thing X that it allows to you do, it also allows you to do another thing Y. If that sounds like nonsense, it's because it is.
Does Coppersmith synergize with Apothecary? Yes, because Coppersmith makes the copper card more valuable and Apothecary draws a lot of that specific card and prevents it from cluttering your deck, so their combined benefits of keeping copper around multiply in the presence of each other.
It really seems to me that what you're saying here is that synergy isn't synergy unless it meets some arbitrary strength threshold. Where is that threshold?
Another example of synergy is Hoard and Alt VP cards. We know what Hoard does with ordinary VP and we know what Alt VP cards do on their own, those are the individual effects. When you combine the availability of the two you get a multiplicative effect to early greening, especially in the case of VP cards that give non-VP benefits such as Harem and Nobles.
Sure, agreed. I'm not sure it really makes sense to talk about synergy with basic cards that are always in the game. Not because of any specific specialness that they have, but because usually we're talking about synergy in the context of Kingdom cards that are only sometimes available. This isn't a point against your argument, Gherald; I'm just putting it out there. It sounds weird to me to say that Coppersmith and Copper have synergy. You could claim (probably falsely) that Beggar and Coppersmith have synergy, though.
-
Copper synergizes with itself, because if you have only one Copper there usually isn't anything to buy for $1, but if you collide it with another Copper, you can buy a whole Estate.
Wait, what was the argument about again? Oh, Guide and Ghost Town. Meh. How about Shanty Town and Ghost Town, now there's a synergy.
-
Why are so many threads derailing into linguism stuff nowadays? It's like "Ambigous Fool" all over again.
-
Why are so many threads derailing into linguism stuff nowadays? It's like "Ambigous Fool" all over again.
We've clearly achieved a level of Dominion enlightenment such that the only issues left to debate are the trivial ones.
-
Does Coppersmith synergize with Village? No, a Village lets you play more Coppersmiths but it also lets you play more of other things, this is a simple additive effect that is the same when standalone.
By this logic, village doesn't synergize with anything, because for any thing X that it allows to you do, it also allows you to do another thing Y. If that sounds like nonsense, it's because it is.
You're correct that by my logic Village does not synergize with many things! It's a very simple card that doesn't do much besides allow you to gain additional actions to spend, which is a basic additive benefit.
Off the top of my head, one of the few card Village synergizes with is Scrying Pool. (Scrying Pool synergizes with almost all action cards that already do something useful, even itself--it's a very strong card)
Village doesn't even synergize with Diadem because that effect is merely a different way to benefit from unspent actions.
Does Coppersmith synergize with Apothecary? Yes, because Coppersmith makes the copper card more valuable and Apothecary draws a lot of that specific card and prevents it from cluttering your deck, so their combined benefits of keeping copper around multiply in the presence of each other.
It really seems to me that what you're saying here is that synergy isn't synergy unless it meets some arbitrary strength threshold. Where is that threshold?
The threshold is that it has to be more than merely additive, but there's more than one way to look at what "additive" means.
Multiplication, after all, is just repeated addition. So if you look at Village+Smithy and think, well, chaining lots of these together lets me eventually increase my handsize by several factors (like say 3x or 4x) and lets me do much greater things (like draw enough to afford Colonies, or say draw 5 Werewolves to let loose) -- you can look at this as a multiplicative effect on your handsize from those two cards working together -- synergy!
I don't like this usage of synergy because it's nonspecific and fungible with other cards' effects, so to me it doesn't tell us something we couldn't already see by looking at each part individually and summing them up. But it's a valid way to apply the concept, and by that logic a card like Lab is self-synergizing as I mentioned earlier.
I prefer to reserve synergy for more specific interactions like Coppersmith + Apothecary's effect on copper's deck value, or Hoard+Alt VP's effect on greening sooner. That, to me, is where the concept of synergy is actually useful and not just telling us something we could have figured out with addition.
-
You're correct that by my logic Village does not synergize with many things! It's a very simple card that doesn't do much besides allow you to gain additional actions to spend, which is a basic additive benefit.
It's not a basic additive benefit. You can play 10 Villages and you haven't gained anything at all if that's all you play that turn.
-
You're correct that by my logic Village does not synergize with many things! It's a very simple card that doesn't do much besides allow you to gain additional actions to spend, which is a basic additive benefit.
It's not a basic additive benefit. You can play 10 Villages and you haven't gained anything at all if that's all you play that turn.
The benefit is additive. You just don't have a way to spend it in your scenario, which has nothing to do with my point.
-
Why are so many threads derailing into linguism stuff nowadays? It's like "Ambigous Fool" all over again.
We've clearly achieved a level of Dominion enlightenment such that the only issues left to debate are the trivial ones.
After reading all these debates "Enlightenment" isn't really the first word that comes to mind...
-
I don't see a clear distinction between Smithy/Coppersmith and Apothecary/Coppersmith other than Smithy and Coppersmith cannot be played together without a village.
Both Smithy and Apothecary can draw you more coppers, and from the top of your deck too. Apothecary has a search space of 5 while Smithy has a search space of 3. Smithy is terminal like Coppersmith, which is what really makes them interact poorly. This just tells me the synergy between Coppersmith and Apothecary is stronger than the synergy between Smithy and Coppersmith.
Put Lost Arts +1 Action token on Smithy, and all of that changes. Only the first few Apothecaries will tend to be better than lost arts Smithy, because the Smithies can draw the non-coppers that get in the way better than Apothecary. If there are six non-Coppers on top, you need to play three Smithies or three Apothecaries to find Copper, and the third Apothecary can only find up to one Copper while the third Smithy can find up to three Coppers. It seems to me like even Governor and Coppersmith synergize because of how easy it is to get a big hand with Governor (and you are helped by your opponent for draw sometimes).
-
The distinction isn't a matter of degree or search space, it's a matter of specificity to how they interact with the rest of your deck or play decisions.
Coppersmith+Apothecary synergize because together they combine to increase the value of having copper in your deck in a way that's specific to copper and more than merely additive.
Coppersmith+Lab (to simplify the comparison) don't interact in a specific way. Their effects are generic and work just as well independent of each other, so they are just additive benefits. For example, why not trash the coppers and use your Labs to draw 1-2 silvers and a Gold?
Labs are nice and do reliable work in increasing your handsize, which can be good for many things, of which Coppersmith and coppers are only one (likely weak) possiblity. Not so with Apothecary, which has its peculiar synergy to keeping coppers around.
-
You're correct that by my logic Village does not synergize with many things! It's a very simple card that doesn't do much besides allow you to gain additional actions to spend, which is a basic additive benefit.
It's not a basic additive benefit. You can play 10 Villages and you haven't gained anything at all if that's all you play that turn.
The benefit is additive. You just don't have a way to spend it in your scenario, which has nothing to do with my point.
If you don't have a way to benefit from the benefit, there's no benefit.
-
Do Apothecary and Bank have synergy according to Gherald's synergy rules?
-
Do Apothecary and Bank have synergy according to Gherald's synergy rules?
I’m going to guess they do.
-
The distinction isn't a matter of degree or search space, it's a matter of specificity to how they interact with the rest of your deck or play decisions.
Coppersmith+Apothecary synergize because together they combine to increase the value of having copper in your deck in a way that's specific to copper and more than merely additive.
Coppersmith+Lab (to simplify the comparison) don't interact in a specific way. Their effects are generic and work just as well independent of each other, so they are just additive benefits. For example, why not trash the coppers and use your Labs to draw 1-2 silvers and a Gold?
Labs are nice and do reliable work in increasing your handsize, which can be good for many things, of which Coppersmith and coppers are only one (likely weak) possiblity. Not so with Apothecary, which has its peculiar synergy to keeping coppers around.
I think I have a clearer picture of what you are getting at now. However, I would argue that Coppersmith and Apothecary are two cards that both synergize with Copper, and so naturally they synergize with each other as well since they want the same thing.
You say "Coppersmith+Apothecary synergize because together they combine to increase the value of having copper in your deck in a way that's specific to copper and more than merely additive." Well each of those cards alone increase the value of having Coppers in your deck. Why then is it is ridiculous to state that Coppersmith synergizes with Copper, or that Apothecary synergizes with Copper? Okay, maybe I am fixated more on the "increase the value of having copper in your deck", and they both do that on their own.
Of course together they synergize, with Coppersmith doubling the money drawn by Apothecary when it finds Copper. I guess this is what you mean by "more than merely additive"? This doesn't mean there isn't an innate synergy between these cards and Copper.
-
Even by the Village/Smithy yardstick, I'm not sure Guide and Ghost Town synergize. [...] (Guide either fails to account for the Ghost Town extra card, or throws it away.)
Uh... you're allowed to call Guide before taking Ghost Town's benefit, yes?
-
Even by the Village/Smithy yardstick, I'm not sure Guide and Ghost Town synergize. [...] (Guide either fails to account for the Ghost Town extra card, or throws it away.)
Uh... you're allowed to call Guide before taking Ghost Town's benefit, yes?
Yes. It took awhile for me to get that to click.
-
I think I have a clearer picture of what you are getting at now. However, I would argue that Coppersmith and Apothecary are two cards that both synergize with Copper, and so naturally they synergize with each other as well since they want the same thing.Well
You say "Coppersmith+Apothecary synergize because together they combine to increase the value of having copper in your deck in a way that's specific to copper and more than merely additive." Well each of those cards alone increase the value of having Coppers in your deck. Why then is it is ridiculous to state that Coppersmith synergizes with Copper, or that Apothecary synergizes with Copper? Okay, maybe I am fixated more on the "increase the value of having copper in your deck", and they both do that on their own.
Of course together they synergize, with Coppersmith doubling the money drawn by Apothecary when it finds Copper. I guess this is what you mean by "more than merely additive"? This doesn't mean there isn't an innate synergy between these cards and Copper.
Well yes, obviously Copper works with these cards, both of which have "Copper" in their play instructions. That's just what the cards straightforwardly do. Each gives a certain additive benefit to having more coppers in your deck.
With both together (Coppersmith+Apothecary) you get more than the merely additive value to keeping some coppers in your deck, now you're going so far as to be buying Dominate with just your starting coppers (!). One card is basically doubling the base benefit of the other card, in a multiplicative way. (this particular case is not only a synergy, it's a yuuuge synergy, of the sort we typically called a "combo")
For a more ordinary level of synergy, I think Hoard and some nice Alt VP like Harem or Nobles -- or even just Mill -- is a good example.
-
Well yes, obviously Copper works with these cards, both of which have "Copper" in their play instructions. That's just what the cards straightforwardly do.
By that logic, obviously Hoard works with alt-VP, which have the "Victory" card type. That's just what the card straightforwardly does.
-
The synergy comes from allowing you to green earlier than you otherwise would, not from what the cards straightforwardly do.
-
The synergy comes from allowing you to green earlier than you otherwise would, not from what the cards straightforwardly do.
And the synergy between Coppersmith and Copper comes from allowing you to green later than you otherwise would, not from what the cards straightforwardly do.
-
You're correct that by my logic Village does not synergize with many things! It's a very simple card that doesn't do much besides allow you to gain additional actions to spend, which is a basic additive benefit.
It's not a basic additive benefit. You can play 10 Villages and you haven't gained anything at all if that's all you play that turn.
The benefit is additive. You just don't have a way to spend it in your scenario, which has nothing to do with my point.
If you don't have a way to benefit from the benefit, there's no benefit.
There was a benefit, which expired at the end of your action phase (something, something edge case Diadem)
Playing a bunch of treasures gives a (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/14px-Coin.png) benefit, which expires at the end of your buy phase.
But thank you for raising and allowing us to clarify these basic game mechanics for you.
-
There was a benefit, which expired at the end of your action phase (something, something edge case Diadem)
No, there wasn't any benefit. You played ten Villages and they did nothing. You are well aware that being a Village idiot is not a functional strategy so stop pretending that it is.
-
There was a benefit, which expired at the end of your action phase (something, something edge case Diadem)
No, there wasn't any benefit. You played ten Villages and they did nothing. You are well aware that being a Village idiot is not a functional strategy so stop pretending that it is.
You are the one who raised the village idiot scenario, not me. Each play of Village gives a +1 action benefit, which is a usable resource that expires before the end of your turn. I haven't said anything otherwise.
-
There was a benefit, which expired at the end of your action phase (something, something edge case Diadem)
No, there wasn't any benefit. You played ten Villages and they did nothing. You are well aware that being a Village idiot is not a functional strategy so stop pretending that it is.
You are the one who raised the village idiot scenario, not me. Each play of Village gives a +1 action benefit, which is a usable resource that expires before the end of your turn. I haven't said anything otherwise.
You have said that it's an additive benefit on its own, which it isn't.
-
You have said that it's an additive benefit on its own, which it isn't.
It is an additive benefit within your turn, just like plays that net +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/14px-Coin.png) or +buys are additive benefits within your turn.
-
You have said that it's an additive benefit on its own, which it isn't.
It is an additive benefit within your turn, just like plays that net +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/14px-Coin.png) or +buys are additive benefits within your turn.
But not on its own. It doesn't do anything on its own.
-
I never suggested playing a Village on its own. I did say that the beneficial +1 action effect of village can be quantified on its own. You have to use this benefit for something else before the end of your turn, otherwise it expires.
-
I never suggested playing a Village on its own. I did say that the beneficial +1 action effect of village can be quantified on its own. You have to use this benefit for something else before the end of your turn, otherwise it expires.
Yeah, and in order to use it for something, you need to have terminal Actions. So it synergizes with terminal Actions.
-
I mean, there are a lot of things that need something in order to do something with it. Coin needs remaining buys or debt, Merchant needs a Silver to be played, etcetera. Those are the basic game or card mechanics, and they're straightforward and additive. You're calling them a synergy, I'm not.
-
I think I have a clearer picture of what you are getting at now. However, I would argue that Coppersmith and Apothecary are two cards that both synergize with Copper, and so naturally they synergize with each other as well since they want the same thing.Well
You say "Coppersmith+Apothecary synergize because together they combine to increase the value of having copper in your deck in a way that's specific to copper and more than merely additive." Well each of those cards alone increase the value of having Coppers in your deck. Why then is it is ridiculous to state that Coppersmith synergizes with Copper, or that Apothecary synergizes with Copper? Okay, maybe I am fixated more on the "increase the value of having copper in your deck", and they both do that on their own.
Of course together they synergize, with Coppersmith doubling the money drawn by Apothecary when it finds Copper. I guess this is what you mean by "more than merely additive"? This doesn't mean there isn't an innate synergy between these cards and Copper.
Well yes, obviously Copper works with these cards, both of which have "Copper" in their play instructions. That's just what the cards straightforwardly do. Each gives a certain additive benefit to having more coppers in your deck.
With both together (Coppersmith+Apothecary) you get more than the merely additive value to keeping some coppers in your deck, now you're going so far as to be buying Dominate with just your starting coppers (!). One card is basically doubling the base benefit of the other card, in a multiplicative way. (this particular case is not only a synergy, it's a yuuuge synergy, of the sort we typically called a "combo")
For a more ordinary level of synergy, I think Hoard and some nice Alt VP like Harem or Nobles -- or even just Mill -- is a good example.
Okay, I see what you mean. I think the Apothecary / Coppersmith interaction fits nicely with your concept of "multiplicative benefit". I think many other examples of what you might call synergy are going to get muddy because their benefit is not as easy to quantity.
For example the Hoard / Mill synergy. I don't know if gaining a Gold while buying a Mill is supposed to be additive or multiplicative. I would call it a synergy because Hoard increases how "efficient" Mill is for you, because the Mill now comes with a Gold when I normally get the Mil for other purposes.
I still find it weird that Coppersmith doesn't synergize with Laboratory when Coppersmith is increasing the average value of the cards being drawn by Laboratory. No card that simply gives +$x changes the value of Laboratory draw like that. There is a multiplicative factor there, no? I can agree however that Coppersmith/Apothecary is much closer to being a "combo" than Coppersmith/Laboratory due to the power level of the interactions.
-
No card that simply gives +$x changes the value of Laboratory draw like that.
I think I found secret chamber's +$1 per dead card to be useful in more games than Coppersmith was. (Vault and Storeroom are even nicer obviously, but they do more than simply give +$x)
For example the Hoard / Mill synergy. I don't know if gaining a Gold while buying a Mill is supposed to be additive or multiplicative. I would call it a synergy because Hoard increases how "efficient" Mill is for you, because the Mill now comes with a Gold when I normally get the Mil for other purposes.
Yeah true, I just wanted to give an example of a lighter synergy -- so we can see the difference from a full "combo". One might argue that, hey, Hoard is just doing what Hoard says it does, what's so special about combining it with Mill?
The reason I consider it a synergy is that with this combination (in the ordinary, non-"combo" sense) you can buy Hoard and VP cards sooner than you otherwise would, if Hoard and base VP cards were the only ones available to you.
With only base VP, you typically buy Hoard after a Gold or two, once you're ready to grab your first Province on the next cycle, right?
With Mill around, you can buy Hoard with your first $6, get a Mill+Gold or two on the following cycles, and then be ready for your first $8 Province+Gold soon after that. So Hoard+Mill are accelerating the early-green strategy, which I see as a synergy. Harem and Nobles are of course even nicer and I sometimes go double Hoard with those.
-
You have said that it's an additive benefit on its own, which it isn't.
It is an additive benefit within your turn, just like plays that net +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/14px-Coin.png) or +buys are additive benefits within your turn.
But not on its own. It doesn't do anything on its own.
It cycles your deck on it's own! With 10 villages you get 10x the cycling power of one village!
I'm sorry I had to
-
With only base VP, you typically buy Hoard after a Gold or two, once you're ready to grab your first Province on the next cycle, right?
With Mill around, you can buy Hoard with your first $6, get a Mill+Gold or two on the following cycles, and then be ready for your first $8 Province+Gold soon after that. So Hoard+Mill are accelerating the early-green strategy, which I see as a synergy.
Similarly, without any terminal Actions, you typically don't buy any Villages at all.
With Smithy around, you can buy Villages and build an engine out of them, so Village+Smithy are enabling the engine strategy. Why don't you see that as a synergy?
-
Basically, I think that almost all cards have some synergy with almost all other cards. It can be positive, negative, or both. There's almost always reason why you want both in the same deck or there's a reason why you want to avoid having both in the same deck. It can just be something like "they do very similar things so they're redundant" or "they do very similar things so the deck that wants that thing probably wants both cards in it". For instance, Forager has both synergy and anti-synergy with itself for exactly those reasons, and it's important to understand when the fact that you're playing an engine makes you want to buy two Foragers and when the redundancy makes you only want to buy one.
-
I clicked on the thread for the title and was not disappointed.
-
Full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
-
You know, technically this thread isn't about nothing. I mean, we wouldn't spend 3 pages arguing about what the word "nothing" means, right guys?
-
I take issue with the thread title, because the other thread wasn't about nothing, it was about philosophy and linguistics.
-
I saw coppersmith brought up multiple times, and that isn't even a card...
-
You know, technically this thread isn't about nothing. I mean, we wouldn't spend 3 pages arguing about what the word "nothing" means, right guys?
Please start a thread about "nothing". Not about nothing, because that's what this thread is. Try not to be ambiguous.
-
No card that simply gives +$x changes the value of Laboratory draw like that.
I think I found secret chamber's +$1 per dead card to be useful in more games than Coppersmith was. (Vault and Storeroom are even nicer obviously, but they do more than simply give +$x)
I think so too, and this idea points to Tactician/Vault, which surely is worthy of being considered a synergy.
Edit: you can even consider Tactician/Vault a Combo as it is very likely to have major influence on any board in which it appears.
-
No card that simply gives +$x changes the value of Laboratory draw like that.
I think I found secret chamber's +$1 per dead card to be useful in more games than Coppersmith was. (Vault and Storeroom are even nicer obviously, but they do more than simply give +$x)
True, and this idea points to Tactician/Vault, which surely is worthy of being considered a synergy.
Hey, we were trying to get off topic here!
-
No card that simply gives +$x changes the value of Laboratory draw like that.
I think I found secret chamber's +$1 per dead card to be useful in more games than Coppersmith was. (Vault and Storeroom are even nicer obviously, but they do more than simply give +$x)
True, and this idea points to Tactician/Vault, which surely is worthy of being considered a synergy.
Hey, we were trying to get off topic here!
This topic is already the spawn of off-topic discussion. Bringing it further off-topic risks circling back to discussion of the Nocturne Preview Day 1 cards.
-
No card that simply gives +$x changes the value of Laboratory draw like that.
I think I found secret chamber's +$1 per dead card to be useful in more games than Coppersmith was. (Vault and Storeroom are even nicer obviously, but they do more than simply give +$x)
True, and this idea points to Tactician/Vault, which surely is worthy of being considered a synergy.
Hey, we were trying to get off topic here!
It's not hard to get off topic when the topic is nothing.
-
"What do we got?"
"An idea."
"What idea?"
"An idea for the thread."
"I still don't know what the idea is."
"It's about nothing."
"Right."
"Everybody's doing something, we'll do nothing."
"So, we go into f.DS, we tell them we've got an idea for a thread about nothing."
"Exactly."
"They say, 'What's your thread about?' I say, 'Nothing.'"
"There you go."
(A moment passes)
(Nodding) "I think you may have something there."
-
I'm currently putting an article together about self-synergy and I'll probably ignore everything in this thread.
-
I'm currently putting an article together about self-synergy and I'll probably ignore everything in this thread.
You'll miss nothing by doing that.
-
I'm currently putting an article together about self-synergy and I'll probably ignore everything in this thread.
Please, please do this! :)
-
They can't all be the best thread ever.
-
You know, technically this thread isn't about nothing. I mean, we wouldn't spend 3 pages arguing about what the word "nothing" means, right guys?
Please start a thread about "nothing". Not about nothing, because that's what this thread is. Try not to be ambiguous.
I know when my girlfriend says "nothing" that a whole lot of something is about to be discussed.
-
You have said that it's an additive benefit on its own, which it isn't.
It is an additive benefit within your turn, just like plays that net +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/14px-Coin.png) or +buys are additive benefits within your turn.
But not on its own. It doesn't do anything on its own.
Just wanted to point out that if one Village has 0 benefit, and ten Villages played together also have 0 benefit, then those benefits do in fact add up.
-
You have said that it's an additive benefit on its own, which it isn't.
It is an additive benefit within your turn, just like plays that net +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/14px-Coin.png) or +buys are additive benefits within your turn.
But not on its own. It doesn't do anything on its own.
Just wanted to point out that if one Village has 0 benefit, and ten Villages played together also have 0 benefit, then those benefits do in fact add up.
And they are also multiplicative, so it's a synergy!
-
I can't believe I fell for this. Reading this thread feels the same as being punished.
-
You have said that it's an additive benefit on its own, which it isn't.
It is an additive benefit within your turn, just like plays that net +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/14px-Coin.png) or +buys are additive benefits within your turn.
But not on its own. It doesn't do anything on its own.
Just wanted to point out that if one Village has 0 benefit, and ten Villages played together also have 0 benefit, then those benefits do in fact add up.
And they are also multiplicative, so it's a synergy!
Hey guys, Curse and Village are a synergy, because while Curse has negative value, playing Village by itself has zero value, so they multiply to a better value!
-
You have said that it's an additive benefit on its own, which it isn't.
It is an additive benefit within your turn, just like plays that net +(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6d/Coin.png/14px-Coin.png) or +buys are additive benefits within your turn.
But not on its own. It doesn't do anything on its own.
Just wanted to point out that if one Village has 0 benefit, and ten Villages played together also have 0 benefit, then those benefits do in fact add up.
And they are also multiplicative, so it's a synergy!
Hey guys, Curse and Village are a synergy, because while Curse has negative value, playing Village by itself has zero value, so they multiply to a better value!
Curse only has synergy in that scenario if you draw it in your starting hand and are able to actually play it turn 1. After that you are only continuing the "-1 VP" effect.
Another case of synergy might be if you have 5/2 and you buy a mint turn 1 and a Chapel turn 2. You could then Chapel away your remaining cards and then gain a curse with Alms every turn. It works extra good if your opponent gives you a Hireling with their Ambassador around maybe turn 8 or 9.
-
The best example of synergy I can think of is King's Court / Tactician. You get to draw up to 10 cards AND you get +1 buy and +1 action. The best way to win with this strategy is to ask your opponent nicely to Chapel away their estates, never buy VP and allow you to 3-pile. I believe there is a video of Mic Qsenoch winning with this strategy.
Adam Horton wrote an article on it too, I think.
-
I saw coppersmith brought up multiple times, and that isn't even a card...
It wasn't a card before, but it has become a card once again through the power of guided visualization.
synergy is cool but don't nobody know what it is synergy is cool but don't nobody know what it is synergy is cool but don't nobody know what it is synergy is cool but don't nobody know what it is
synergy is cool but don't nobody know what it is
-
This topic is already the spawn of off-topic discussion. Bringing it further off-topic risks circling back to discussion of the Nocturne Preview Day 1 cards.
S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi S - Y - N - E - R - G - Y You ain't got no alibi
-
I'm bringin' synergy back (yeah)
This thread split is amusing, I did not think I was saying anything remarkable when I mentioned the analogy. It never occurred to me people would call things like Village+Smithy a synergy.
But if some want to debase the term to apply to a [Dominion Intrigue 1st Edition] Coppersmith working on coppers, or Village being a support card for generic terminals...I guess I can't stop them.
I'll just note that it does not relate to the greater-than-additive meaning I use when I talk about card synergies, and move on. Maybe I'll add an adjective like "multiplicative synergy" so it's clear that I'm talking about something more than just chaining one card's basic use with another's.
And on the subject of this being "an awful thread about nothing", to me this is actually key thought process when looking at an initial board and deciding what to do with it. Searching for synergy is like looking for known "combos", but more wide-encompassing.
Maybe the people who use synergy to talk about basic card interactions (meh) would be happy to call what I'm talking about with the word "strong synergy". I guess that works.
-
I'm bringin' synergy back (yeah)
This thread split is amusing, I did not think I was saying anything remarkable when I mentioned the analogy. It never occurred to me people would call things like Village+Smithy a synergy.
But if some want to debase the term to apply to a [Dominion Intrigue 1st Edition] Coppersmith working on coppers, or Village being a support card for generic terminals...I guess I can't stop them.
I'll just note that it does not relate to the greater-than-additive meaning I use when I talk about card synergies, and move on. Maybe I'll add an adjective like "multiplicative synergy" so it's clear that I'm talking about something more than just chaining one card's basic use with another's.
And on the subject of this being "an awful thread about nothing", to me this is actually key thought process when looking at an initial board and deciding what to do with it. Searching for synergy is like looking for known "combos", but more wide-encompassing.
Maybe the people who use synergy to talk about basic card interactions (meh) would be happy to call what I'm talking about with the word "strong synergy". I guess that works.
I think it would be helpful to have a few more examples of each category (whatever you want to call them).
-
I'm bringin' synergy back (yeah)
This thread split is amusing, I did not think I was saying anything remarkable when I mentioned the analogy. It never occurred to me people would call things like Village+Smithy a synergy.
But if some want to debase the term to apply to a [Dominion Intrigue 1st Edition] Coppersmith working on coppers, or Village being a support card for generic terminals...I guess I can't stop them.
I'll just note that it does not relate to the greater-than-additive meaning I use when I talk about card synergies, and move on. Maybe I'll add an adjective like "multiplicative synergy" so it's clear that I'm talking about something more than just chaining one card's basic use with another's.
And on the subject of this being "an awful thread about nothing", to me this is actually key thought process when looking at an initial board and deciding what to do with it. Searching for synergy is like looking for known "combos", but more wide-encompassing.
Maybe the people who use synergy to talk about basic card interactions (meh) would be happy to call what I'm talking about with the word "strong synergy". I guess that works.
I think it would be helpful to have a few more examples of each category (whatever you want to call them).
"Examples" sounds good to me, but I guess you could also call them "instances", "cases", or even "prototypes".
-
I'm bringin' synergy back (yeah)
This thread split is amusing, I did not think I was saying anything remarkable when I mentioned the analogy. It never occurred to me people would call things like Village+Smithy a synergy.
But if some want to debase the term to apply to a [Dominion Intrigue 1st Edition] Coppersmith working on coppers, or Village being a support card for generic terminals...I guess I can't stop them.
I'll just note that it does not relate to the greater-than-additive meaning I use when I talk about card synergies, and move on. Maybe I'll add an adjective like "multiplicative synergy" so it's clear that I'm talking about something more than just chaining one card's basic use with another's.
And on the subject of this being "an awful thread about nothing", to me this is actually key thought process when looking at an initial board and deciding what to do with it. Searching for synergy is like looking for known "combos", but more wide-encompassing.
Maybe the people who use synergy to talk about basic card interactions (meh) would be happy to call what I'm talking about with the word "strong synergy". I guess that works.
I still don't really understand why Village and Smithy don't have synergy, even using your overly specific definition. Smithy draws 3 more cards, this means that your deck can benefit from the effect of Village more often and with a lower action density than if you were to replace all the Smithies in your deck with a non drawing action like e.g. Militia. Basically the Smithies make your Villages more likely to do something and Villages make your Smithies better as they mean that you can play the action cards you draw with Smithy. It seems reasonable to me to describe this as an interaction producing a combined effect stronger than the sum of it's parts, but this is obviously subjective. I wouldn't say that Village and Militia have synergy. I also have no idea what a "generic terminal" is.
What about the interactions of Secret Passage and Native Village? Secret Passage lets you position bad cards in your deck and Native Village can then remove them from your deck. This isn't multiplicative, it's essentially giving Native Village an entirely new function- that of a reliable deck thinner. What do you call this? A combo? A positive interaction? Not calling this a synergy seems like nonsense to me.
-
I would contest that cycling cards and villages have synergy because they can't really be an engine on their own, but can create an engine together.
-
You were right, this thread IS awful (except for page 4).
The question arising in my head is: Why? Why even start such an argument? What are you trying to achieve here? People have different opinions on what synergy is but so far they've been coming to terms on which cards synergize with each other just fine. Individual notions of "synergy" in general discussions on strategy have been completely sufficient for years. Why is it so important to you that people now assume yours?
What's the point in trying to define what Village and Smithy have going with each other, when all there is to know is that in an engine you want splitters and draw (which are provided by Village and Smithy) and the more copies you have of both, the more card you draw total? You can say, they have synergy, or they work well together in an engine, or you need both (or similar cards) to draw your deck.
The conclusion is always the same; they are both engine components, or, in broader terms, parts of a specific deck you need to build to pursue a specific strategy. If your strategy requires Apothecaries and Coppersmith, or alt-VP and Hoard, it doesn't matter whether they have synergy or just add their values, as long as you have a reason to include those cards in your strategy.
This is what this forum is about. It says it in its name: Dominionstrategy; not Dominionterminology!
-
The definition of synergy being floated by many here is being called arbitrary by many others. It is not. A good definition of synergy is:
X and Y have synergy iff Strength of (X + Y) > Strength of X + Strength of Y.
-
I think at least one person is using "synergy" to mean something along the lines of, "when X and Y are used together, extra function Z happens."
-
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png)
-
The definition of synergy being floated by many here is being called arbitrary by many others. It is not. A good definition of synergy is:
X and Y have synergy iff Strength of (X + Y) > Strength of X + Strength of Y.
The problem here is one of clarifying scope.
"Strength of X" all by itself? Strength of X on a typical board where you'd use X?
The latter is the one I'm interested in when I look for synergy. X typically brings a certain strength to the table, Y typically brings a certain strength. Those are fast priors I know from all my previous play experience. But here we have X+Y, so is that better or worse than what I typically use X and Y for?
If it's somehow noticeably better, that's a 2-card synergy I pay attention to and basically register as a possible option to execute as I'm reviewing initial strategy. Looking for this type of card synergy is a very fast first/second pass at evaluating a board, almost intuitive based on your priors of previous games. It's a way to quickly spot things that might well fall short of a "combo" but are clearly worth having in mind as options to execute.
Separately from noticing synergies -- a.k.a situations 2 things together are stronger than they'd usually be separately -- , you still do all your essential analysis of basic mechanics like trashing and +buys and action support for the terminals you'd like to play and draw support for the payload you'd like to have, etcetera.
-
Well, I'm the one who said Village and Smithy have synergy. It takes two to tango, a dozen or so to line dance, but I can't help feeling slightly responsible.
I am amazed at the monster I unintentionally released, unsure whether to be proud or horrified.
-
I posit that the only reason everyone is doomsaying about this thread (which is a ridiculous thread!) is because of the title, which gives everyone an open invitation to call everything in it awful.
-
Also, I posit that the only reason everyone is doomsaying about this thread (which is a ridiculous thread!) is because of the title, which gives everyone an open invitation to call everything in it awful.
What an awful suggestion!
-
An awful thread about nothing is at least better than a awful thread about something. I hope this thread turns into Random Discussion 4.
-
I saw coppersmith brought up multiple times, and that isn't even a card...
For playing what is ostensibly a card game, Dominion players sure like to deny that cards really are cards.
-
I saw coppersmith brought up multiple times, and that isn't even a card...
For playing what is ostensibly a card game, Dominion players sure like to deny that cards really are cards.
When people say something isn't a card anymore, they really mean it has been removed.
-
When people say something isn't a card anymore, they really mean it has been removed.
Yeah, I got that. I was also referring to the fact that people like to say that Event cards are not cards.
Coppersmith is removed from new printings, but not from the game. It's still an official card (unlike old versions of revised cards).
-
I was also referring to the fact that people like to say that Event cards are not cards.
That's because they aren't.
-
I was also referring to the fact that people like to say that Event cards are not cards.
That's because they aren't.
You're actually claiming that cards are not cards. Just in case you didn't realize that. (But thanks for validating what I just said above!) If you actually wanted to say something sensible about the topic instead, I refer you to the other thread about this very matter. I'll locate it if you're interested and don't know where it is.
-
Actually, no card (printed piece of cardboard) is a card (a specific type of abstract game object). It's just handy to use the former to represent the latter because that makes it easier to shuffle them.
-
If you put sleeves on Events and Landmarks, do you use card sleeves?
I love these discussions that don't actually go anywhere useful. :)
-
So who keeps changing the thread title, is the question I have.
-
So who keeps changing the thread title, is the question I have.
Gherald changed it to "A beautiful thread about synergy and terminology" and Donald X. changed it to what it currently is.
-
I guess the next question is: given we have standard-sized rectangular pieces of cardboard that aren't "cards", will Dominion ever get a "card" that's not a standard-sized rectangular piece of cardboard?
It's not a completely stupid idea. For example, a slim plastic deck box:
Secret Society, Action
Shuffle the cards from this and put them on top of your deck. +1 Card, +1 Action.
When you trash this, discard its contents
When shuffling this, you may look through your remaining deck, put up to ten cards in this, then put this anywhere in the shuffled cards.
-
It never occurred to me people would call things like Village+Smithy a synergy.
Of course it is synergy, you need two to tango and if they work smoothly together they are cheaper than a pair of Labs.
As Awaclus has pointed out, extra actions are worthless unless you use them to play terminals.
It is like having a deck that generated 16 each turn without any extra buys. You could argue that adding extra coin-generating cards like a Poacher to that deck is good but it isn't as you cannot do anything more with 17 coins and 1 buy than you could do with 16 coins and 1 buy.
-
It never occurred to me people would call things like Village+Smithy a synergy.
Of course it is synergy, you need two to tango and if they work smoothly together they are cheaper than a pair of Labs.
As Awaclus has pointed out, extra actions are worthless unless you use them to play terminals.
It is like having a deck that generated 16 each turn without any extra buys. You could argue that adding extra coin-generating cards like a Poacher to that deck is good but it isn't as you cannot do anything more with 17 coins and 1 buy than you could do with 16 coins and 1 buy.
But... a deck of only Smithies and Villages is also worthless.
-
It never occurred to me people would call things like Village+Smithy a synergy.
Of course it is synergy, you need two to tango and if they work smoothly together they are cheaper than a pair of Labs.
As Awaclus has pointed out, extra actions are worthless unless you use them to play terminals.
It is like having a deck that generated 16 each turn without any extra buys. You could argue that adding extra coin-generating cards like a Poacher to that deck is good but it isn't as you cannot do anything more with 17 coins and 1 buy than you could do with 16 coins and 1 buy.
But... a deck of only Smithies and Villages is also worthless.
Which is why there's also a synergy between that and payload.
-
Personally, I find threads like this fascinating and informative, much like the equally explosive and somewhat annoying deck archetype discussions. Not because the terminology part of the argument is important, but because many extremely subtle and difficult game mechanics issues are hashed out in defense of particular positions. I almost always read something that gives me a new perspective on some aspect of the game.
So, let me suggest a possible perspective on the issue of synergy. The so-called "trivial" cases are not, in fact, all that trivial. The degree to which elements synergize or not is (apparently) actually extremely subtle and worth grading on a continuum, not as a binary proposition.
In fact, I would suggest that all elements have a relationship to others that has two simultaneous measures: The amount of synergy they have, and they amount of anti-synergy they have. It's not a yes/no. It's a how much. And it's BOTH. Always.
Example: Tactician/treasure. There is some synergy, because Tac sets up large hands and a +buy, and treasure gives you lots of non-terminal cash to spend. There is some anti-synergy, because Tac makes you discard treasure on the turn you play it. The only possible debate is the degree to which those terms apply, not whether they apply.
And to bring it right back to the original Guide/Ghost Town question: Those cards have some synergy, in that you can use Guide to find a hand that has at least one terminal draw card in it, and Ghost Town allows you to play that hand knowing that you can draw first and keep going. They also have some anti-synergy, in that you have to call the Guide without knowing what the sixth card would have been if you hadn't called it, and because there's some redundancy.
Saying that the term "synergy" does not apply to the relationship between game elements is like saying you can't apply the term "weight" to a feather or a helium balloon just because it's small or even negative. You can say that the synergy between elements is large or small or negative or trivial, but you can't say it doesn't exist.
-
You can say that the synergy between elements is large or small or negative or trivial, but you can't say it doesn't exist.
I wouldn't say it doesn't exist, I would just say it's a separate discussion and not a useful application of the actual concept of "synergy". I don't use the term synergy on a continuum to discuss how well cards work together or don't work together. It has a more useful and specific meaning, which is greater than the sum of its parts, which I interpret (in the context of Dominion) to be relevant for how those parts would perform in other typical kingdoms, not how those cards perform if they're the only thing you play that turn or are the only card in a 1-card kingdom, which to me is irrelevant.
So, do Guide/Ghost Town have complementary uses? Sure, you can play your guide to skip past starting hands that have no terminals in them and then resolve your Ghost Town.
Is this a 2-card "synergy" ? Not really, both of those effects are similarly useful on their own. Lining them up gives you both benefits at once which is great, but they aren't "synergizing" to be better-than usual cards when each other is present or not present.
Guide is just as good/bad in other 10 card kingdoms that lack Ghost Town, and Ghost Town is just as good/bad in other 10 card kingdoms that lack Guide. It's not a synergy, it's an "oh look I played two good effects and got two good effects, yay me"
-
On today's episode of "Gherald argues with himself..."
A: (synergy) has a more useful and specific meaning, which is greater than the sum of its parts
Not A: So, do Guide/Ghost Town have complementary uses? Sure, you can play your guide to skip past starting hands that have no terminals in them and then resolve your Ghost Town.
https://www.google.com/search?q=define:complementary (https://www.google.com/search?q=define:complementary)
B: I wouldn't say it doesn't exist
Not B: Is this a 2-card "synergy"? Not really...
So playing that Guide didn't make that Ghost Town even a little, tiny bit better than it would have been otherwise? Clearly it did. So is it just a matter of degree? How much does it need to help before it crosses the magical Gherald binary on/off "now it has synergy" threshold? So "complementary" is a continuum but "synergistic" is binary?
A "useful application" of language is to communicate ideas and information. Reducing the degree to which cards work together to a binary yes/no proposition reduces the ability to communicate ideas and information about card relationships so significantly as to be utterly useless.
-
Synergy is not generally defined as two things working together harmoniously or complementarily, which is a lower bar to clear than a combination being "greater than the sum of its parts".
I'm sorry you want to use the word "synergy" to apply to complementary beneficial effects but it has nothing to do with my perspective or what I have said.
The very reason I am objecting to people's use of synergy with regard to things like Village+Smithy is that we already have other, better words for those concepts (like "complementary" or "works well with") and people are debasing what "synergy" actually means on its own.
I'm sorry this isn't more clear to you.
-
This thread is modern art at this point.
-
The definition of synergy being floated by many here is being called arbitrary by many others. It is not. A good definition of synergy is:
X and Y have synergy iff Strength of (X + Y) > Strength of X + Strength of Y.
The problem here is one of clarifying scope.
"Strength of X" all by itself? Strength of X on a typical board where you'd use X?
The latter is the one I'm interested in when I look for synergy. X typically brings a certain strength to the table, Y typically brings a certain strength. Those are fast priors I know from all my previous play experience. But here we have X+Y, so is that better or worse than what I typically use X and Y for?
If I usually use X and Y for different things than you use them for, could their interaction be synergy for you but not me (or vice versa)? Is 'synergy' defined subjectively?
If you usually use X and Y for their interaction with commonly occurring functions, e.g. you're using villages for their interactions with terminal draw and terminal draw for its interaction with payload, do those interactions fail to qualify as synergies merely because you've used them often? If we don't have the same amount of experience, could an interaction be synergy for you but not for me (or vice versa)?
If I typically use Herbalist to topdeck Philosopher's Stone (and only that), is Herbalist+PhilStone not a synergy? Abstracted and generalized, if X+Y is the thing you use X (and maybe also Y) for, is it synergy?
For clarity's sake: your board analysis process is probably fine; that's not what I'm commenting on. But your board analysis process and everything you bring to it is a bad place to start an attempt at defining synergy. Maybe the thing you care about is "strategically important synergy" or "[other adjective] synergy", which is different from synergy proper.
You old farts had a thing that collected play data and calculated "win rate with" certain cards, I understand. Maybe win-rate-with-x-and-y > win-rate-with-x + win-rate-with-y is evidence that the player in question is exploiting some kind of synergy? (I think this is a bad definition of synergy, but plausible evidence for its existence.)
Maybe something like this could serve as a first draft of a rigorous definition of synergy: the impact on the probability of you winning one game when adding x and y to your deck is greater than the sum of the impacts of just adding x or y by themselves, assuming otherwise optimal play from everyone.
-
Synergy is [...] generally defined as [...] "greater than the sum of its parts".
[...] The very reason I am objecting to people's use of synergy with regard to things like Village+Smithy
I hope I'm not misrepresenting what you take synergy to mean. I certainly don't intend to.
I think Village+Smithy has synergy by the quoted definition.
As a baseline, imagine a deck with some treasures, including Counterfeit or Charm or some other treasure with +buy.
Then, add a bunch of Villages. With no other action cards, they do nothing.
If instead of Villages you add Smithies, you have your typical Smithy/BM deck.
If you add enough Smithies that you're quite overterminaled, adding the Villages (which did nothing on their own) will do more than nothing.
If Smithy/Village/"BM" is greater than just Smithy/BM but Village/BM is the same as BMU, I think that's "greater than the sum of their parts".
Maybe the disagreement here is over which baseline to use?
(I don't think the +buy is necessary for my example to work: Village/Smithy/treasures can hit $8 more reliably than Smithy/treasures and be better in that way.)
-
Village+Smithy offer complementary effects that are useful independently on many other kingdoms with different villages and terminals, so they have no particular synergy according to my definition. They just do useful additive things that harmonize well, but are not "synergetic" in a way that distinguishes them from what they already bring to the table in other kingdoms.
Festival+Library do synergize, because together they offset negatives/deficiencies of each other in a way that makes them behave in a way that's greater than the sum of what you can normally use them for.
-
Example: Tactician/treasure. There is some synergy, because Tac sets up large hands and a +buy, and treasure gives you lots of non-terminal cash to spend. There is some anti-synergy, because Tac makes you discard treasure on the turn you play it. The only possible debate is the degree to which those terms apply, not whether they apply.
I don't think that this is particularly helpful as it is like saying that a Conspirator deck has some synergy with Treasures as "treasure gives you lots of non-terminal cash to spend" which MIGHT be useful.
Tactician wants virtual coins. Of course the card is not totally useless in a deck which generates coins via Treasures but it is usually better if you generate coins via Action cards. And in some Coonspirator or Tactician decks extra Silvers or even Golds could hurt.
-
This thread is modern art at this point.
Do you consider the thread to exhibit synergy?
-
Gherald, is your definition of synergy subjective?
Festival+Library do synergize, because together they offset negatives/deficiencies of each other in a way that makes them behave in a way that's greater than the sum of what you can normally use them for.
How is Festival+Library different from Festival plus other draw-to-x? Are they all instances of synergy?
How is Festival+Library different from Library plus other disappearing village giving +$ and +buy (I can think of Villa)? Are they all instances of synergy?
Village/Smithy, Village/Patrol and Fortress/Catacombs are all very similar and slightly different. What's the difference between one set of differences and the other?
[Village/Smithy] do useful additive things that harmonize well, but are not "synergetic" in a way that distinguishes them from what they already bring to the table in other kingdoms.
So is your definition of synergy something like "In expectation it holds that Strength(X + Y in the context of 8 random cards) > Strength(X in the context of 9 random cards) + Strength(Y in the context of 9 random cards))"? I think this captures your notion of "what you can normally use [X and Y] for".
('8/9 random cards' is shorthand for 'in a kingdom chosen uniformly at random among those which have X/Y/both', and maybe the right hand side should be combined with 'average' rather than 'plus'.)
Something I think is true of this definitions: if we assume terminal draw is stronger (in expectation) on boards with villages, then smaller the probability of having a village on a random board, the more likely it is that each particular <terminal draw, that village> pair is an example of synergy, simply because "Strength(X in the context of 9 random cards)" gives a lower weight to the strength of <X, that village>.
So, with my proposed rigor-ification of your (Gherald's) definition, whether X+Y exhibits synergy is a function not only of X and Y—and maybe the other cards in the kingdom—but also the set of cards that are not in the kingdom but are in some other kingdoms. I think that's a bad feature for a definition of synergy to have; I think it should merely be about the interaction of X and Y.
My proposed formula might—I haven't really thought this through—be a good definition of what I would call "relative (magnitude of) synergy".
Village+Smithy [...] [both] do useful additive things
Do you think Village does something useful in the 1-card kingdom {Village}? How about {Village, Baker}? How about {Village, Baker, Harbinger, Warehouse, Minion, Highway, Ratcatcher, Rebuild, Forum, Chariot Race}, or any other kingdom with Village and 9 non-terminals? Do you think, like I think most people think, that Village only does something useful in combination with terminals?
Consider the following variant: flip three coins; if they're all heads, include Smithy in the kingdom, otherwise don't. Then add Village and random non-terminals to the kingdom. Play a normal game of Dominion in this kingdom. Do you think Village and Smithy have synergy in this game? (If it's true only for some probabilities of including Smithy but not others, why does the probability matter?)
-
This thread is modern art at this point.
Do you consider the thread to exhibit synergy?
No, it must contain Tactician.
S Y N E R G Y -- I S -- THE -- REAL -- FRIGGIN -- DEAL
Yeah, baby!!!!!!
-
Village+Smithy offer complementary effects that are useful independently on many other kingdoms with different villages and terminals, so they have no particular synergy according to my definition.
According to the Oxford dictionnary synergy is "he interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects"
Playing 6 Villages is pointless, playing 6 Smithies is impossible but playing 3 Villages and 3 Smithies leads to an 11 card hand.
If you wanna use some funky subjective definition of a word that is your prerogative. But it makes communication fairly pointless.
-
Village+Smithy offer complementary effects that are useful independently on many other kingdoms with different villages and terminals, so they have no particular synergy according to my definition.
According to the Oxford dictionnary synergy is "he interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects"
Playing 6 Villages is pointless, playing 6 Smithies is impossible but playing 3 Villages and 3 Smithies leads to an 11 card hand.
If you wanna use some funky subjective definition of a word that is your prerogative. But it makes communication fairly pointless.
Nailed it.
-
I feel like there's something for me here.
-
Alas, fooled again!