Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Seprix]

A combo is a deck that is not big money, engine, rush or slog.

So... What is a combo? You say it's not anything with your definition. It's not really great to define something as 'is not something'. Also, with your definition, would your starting 10 cards be a 'combo' then? It's not BM, it's not an engine, rush, or slog. If I trashed all my cards with Raze, would that be a combo then? It's a deck that's not BM, engine, rush, or slog.

Synergy is two (or more) cards having an interaction which is stronger than the sum of the individual cards.

I can agree with this.

A combo and a combo deck are pretty much the same, just like "an engine" and "an engine deck".

My favorite combo deck is the 7 copper 3 Estate one.

I don't agree with this definition either.

[Awaclus]

So... What is a combo? You say it's not anything with your definition. It's not really great to define something as 'is not something'. Also, with your definition, would your starting 10 cards be a 'combo' then? It's not BM, it's not an engine, rush, or slog. If I trashed all my cards with Raze, would that be a combo then? It's a deck that's not BM, engine, rush, or slog.

If, by "your starting 10 cards", you mean a strategy where you never buy anything, then yes, that's a combo. The same applies to trashing everything with Raze. Just because your strategy is trivially awful, doesn't mean it isn't a combo strategy — many big money, engine, rush and slog strategies are also awful. However, your starting cards aren't inherently a combo deck unless you do something with them that deviates from the regular strategy principles that engine, big money, rush and slog are based on.

[Seprix]

If, by "your starting 10 cards", you mean a strategy where you never buy anything, then yes, that's a combo.

So there is more to your definition of 'combo' then?

[Awaclus]

If, by "your starting 10 cards", you mean a strategy where you never buy anything, then yes, that's a combo.

So there is more to your definition of 'combo' then?

Kind of, but not really. When I was talking about decks in that post, I wasn't referring to any state that your deck might be in during a game, but your overall strategy of building the deck, because that's usually the sense in which people talk about deck types.

EDIT: It's worth noting, though, that there exists another theoretical deck type which is not engine, big money, rush, slog or combo. It doesn't have a name and nobody ever talks about it, and rightfully so, because in practice, it only ever manifests as buying a lot of Bakers and hoarding up a lot of coin tokens before starting to green, which is, well, incredibly weak. New mechanics in Empires and possibly some that haven't been thoroughly explored in Adventures might also result in the creation of new deck types that still aren't combo decks.

[singletee]

A combo is a deck that is not big money, engine, rush or slog.

You are starting from a point so wrong that it's difficult to describe why this is wrong. But I will try anyway. In bold below I point out the distinguishing characteristics of a Combo strategy, an important thing to note about deck archetypes and how to think about them, and why it's a bad idea to use definitions that no one else agrees with.

Deck archetypes are a tool used by players to classify and understand the different types of decks we can build in Dominion. Each archetype has certain characteristics that make it unique. For example, Big Money involves buying mostly money and only a few actions. Engine involves getting a lot of actions and playing most or all of your deck every turn. Rush involves quickly getting lots of a specific card (IGG) or class of cards (like Actions for Vineyards), getting a point margin over your opponent, and quickly ending the game. Combo involves obtaining or using two or more cards or events whose synergy is both unique (or nearly so) and so strong that it enables you to establish a point margin over your opponent and win the game, either by giving huge buying/gaining power or by generating massive amounts of VP. For example, Hermit/Market Square, Counting House/Travelling Fair, Scavenger/Stash, Bishop/Fortress. An important thing about combo decks is that at least one of the cards/events cannot be switched out with any other card/event and still be effective.

So, isn't the standard Bishop Golden deck a combo? It's certainly not an Engine, since you aren't doing lots of different things on your turn. It does actually have some characteristics of Big Money (buy only one or few actions, otherwise money and VP), Rush (once you get the Golden Deck and a lead your opponent is on a timer to get the lead back), Slog (if you trash Golds instead of Provinces), and Combo (no other card can fill the Bishop slot). But deck archetypes are not rigid categories into one of which every single possible Dominion strategy fits. A strategy does not have to fit exactly one of the archetypes. It can be a mix of several, or something that comes up rarely enough that people haven't bothered to create a new archetype describing it.

Under your definition a "Good Stuff" deck would be a combo. A newbie deck full of random Action cards with no synergy would be a combo. And as you said above, you consider keeping your starting deck and not buying anything to be a combo strategy. This is completely at odds with the general English meaning of the word "combo". The main reason why it is bad to use your definition is that no one else uses it, and so by insisting on using it, without proactive explanation, you create an impediment to greater understanding.

[Haddock]

A combo is a deck that is not big money, engine, rush or slog.

You are starting from a point so wrong that it's difficult to describe why this is wrong. But I will try anyway. In bold below I point out the distinguishing characteristics of a Combo strategy, an important thing to note about deck archetypes and how to think about them, and why it's a bad idea to use definitions that no one else agrees with.

Deck archetypes are a tool used by players to classify and understand the different types of decks we can build in Dominion. Each archetype has certain characteristics that make it unique. For example, Big Money involves buying mostly money and only a few actions. Engine involves getting a lot of actions and playing most or all of your deck every turn. Rush involves quickly getting lots of a specific card (IGG) or class of cards (like Actions for Vineyards), getting a point margin over your opponent, and quickly ending the game. Combo involves obtaining or using two or more cards or events whose synergy is both unique (or nearly so) and so strong that it enables you to establish a point margin over your opponent and win the game, either by giving huge buying/gaining power or by generating massive amounts of VP. For example, Hermit/Market Square, Counting House/Travelling Fair, Scavenger/Stash, Bishop/Fortress. An important thing about combo decks is that at least one of the cards/events cannot be switched out with any other card/event and still be effective.

So, isn't the standard Bishop Golden deck a combo? It's certainly not an Engine, since you aren't doing lots of different things on your turn. It does actually have some characteristics of Big Money (buy only one or few actions, otherwise money and VP), Rush (once you get the Golden Deck and a lead your opponent is on a timer to get the lead back), Slog (if you trash Golds instead of Provinces), and Combo (no other card can fill the Bishop slot). But deck archetypes are not rigid categories into one of which every single possible Dominion strategy fits. A strategy does not have to fit exactly one of the archetypes. It can be a mix of several, or something that comes up rarely enough that people haven't bothered to create a new archetype describing it.

Under your definition a "Good Stuff" deck would be a combo. A newbie deck full of random Action cards with no synergy would be a combo. And as you said above, you consider keeping your starting deck and not buying anything to be a combo strategy. This is completely at odds with the general English meaning of the word "combo". The main reason why it is bad to use your definition is that no one else uses it, and so by insisting on using it, without proactive explanation, you create an impediment to greater understanding.

All of this.  This is exactly right.

[Aleimon Thimble]

You are starting from a point so wrong that it's difficult to describe why this is wrong. But I will try anyway. In bold below I point out the distinguishing characteristics of a Combo strategy, an important thing to note about deck archetypes and how to think about them, and why it's a bad idea to use definitions that no one else agrees with.

Deck archetypes are a tool used by players to classify and understand the different types of decks we can build in Dominion. Each archetype has certain characteristics that make it unique. For example, Big Money involves buying mostly money and only a few actions. Engine involves getting a lot of actions and playing most or all of your deck every turn. Rush involves quickly getting lots of a specific card (IGG) or class of cards (like Actions for Vineyards), getting a point margin over your opponent, and quickly ending the game. Combo involves obtaining or using two or more cards or events whose synergy is both unique (or nearly so) and so strong that it enables you to establish a point margin over your opponent and win the game, either by giving huge buying/gaining power or by generating massive amounts of VP. For example, Hermit/Market Square, Counting House/Travelling Fair, Scavenger/Stash, Bishop/Fortress. An important thing about combo decks is that at least one of the cards/events cannot be switched out with any other card/event and still be effective.

So, isn't the standard Bishop Golden deck a combo? It's certainly not an Engine, since you aren't doing lots of different things on your turn. It does actually have some characteristics of Big Money (buy only one or few actions, otherwise money and VP), Rush (once you get the Golden Deck and a lead your opponent is on a timer to get the lead back), Slog (if you trash Golds instead of Provinces), and Combo (no other card can fill the Bishop slot). But deck archetypes are not rigid categories into one of which every single possible Dominion strategy fits. A strategy does not have to fit exactly one of the archetypes. It can be a mix of several, or something that comes up rarely enough that people haven't bothered to create a new archetype describing it.

Under your definition a "Good Stuff" deck would be a combo. A newbie deck full of random Action cards with no synergy would be a combo. And as you said above, you consider keeping your starting deck and not buying anything to be a combo strategy. This is completely at odds with the general English meaning of the word "combo". The main reason why it is bad to use your definition is that no one else uses it, and so by insisting on using it, without proactive explanation, you create an impediment to greater understanding.

Yes. Thank you so much. I was gonna type something similar, but couldn't find the necessary amount of fucks given yet. I'm very glad you managed to find them.

One thing I'd like to add: if I'm not mistaken, the distinction between the 'five main deck types' was first established back when people thought Pirate Ship was a good card. So it's probably best to take strategy insights from back then with a grain of salt.

[Dingan]

I don't think of Dominion in terms of deck archetypes (and is archetype even a word, or a thing? like, what is that even??).  The reason being, they overlap a lot.  You can have a rush that turns into an engine.  Or a Bishop/Fortress thing that fits inside of an engine, thereby outpacing a straight Bishop/Fortress.  Or a slog that turns into a Gardens/Silk Road rush.  Or like Goons, in which case you don't want green, but then you do want green in the endgame.  Is that an archetype that changes midgame?  And like straight Rebuild or straight Cultist -- we all know well that other things can fit into your deck besides those "archetypes" to beat the mirror.

[traces Around]

One thing I'd like to add: if I'm not mistaken, the distinction between the 'five main deck types' was first established back when people thought Pirate Ship was a good card. So it's probably best to take strategy insights from back then with a grain of salt.

Deck type articles out in 2013... Pirate Ship on 5 worst 4 costs in 2011... not so much, but point taken.

Deck type is more of a goal than a game type (hence why it is called deck type and not game type - duh) and the five fundamental ones is still quite relevant simply because putting a name on something helps a person to better understand it.
I think that there is a sixth which Awaclus sort of mentioned with mass baker and Dingan wrote a bit about as I was writing this that is what I will call the monolith, which is play a non-terminal certain action card as often as possible because there is nothing else to do, which is occasionally classified as something like a "one card engine" on the wiki, but that is not the entirety of it. People tend to hate the cards which make strong monoliths (rebuild and minion) and like the ones which make weak ones (hunting party, laboratory, baker) because they better fit into a traditional engine. Thinning helps both but is too slow when looking at the strong ones.

[Awaclus]

But deck archetypes are not rigid categories into one of which every single possible Dominion strategy fits. A strategy does not have to fit exactly one of the archetypes. It can be a mix of several, or something that comes up rarely enough that people haven't bothered to create a new archetype describing it.

A strategy has to fit exactly one of those archetypes or it's going to lose against another strategy that does fit exactly one of those archetypes.

Under your definition a "Good Stuff" deck would be a combo. A newbie deck full of random Action cards with no synergy would be a combo. And as you said above, you consider keeping your starting deck and not buying anything to be a combo strategy. This is completely at odds with the general English meaning of the word "combo". The main reason why it is bad to use your definition is that no one else uses it, and so by insisting on using it, without proactive explanation, you create an impediment to greater understanding.

A "Good Stuff" deck is big money in the cases where it actually works. The common usage of the word "combo" in the context of strategy board games has, to my knowledge, been much closer to my definition of the word in the context of Dominion than the general English meaning of the word. For instance, in Magic, nobody would call Faerie Ninja Still a combo deck despite the fact that it relies much more heavily on specific card synergy than certain decks that are obviously combo decks, such as Belcher.

One thing I'd like to add: if I'm not mistaken, the distinction between the 'five main deck types' was first established back when people thought Pirate Ship was a good card. So it's probably best to take strategy insights from back then with a grain of salt.

I'm not just taking said strategy insights without a grain of salt, I'm expanding upon them. It's a much better idea to listen to what I'm saying now than what Wandering Winder was saying back then (where we disagree), although his articles are definitely worth reading as well and much of it is still relevant.

I don't think of Dominion in terms of deck archetypes (and is archetype even a word, or a thing? like, what is that even??).  The reason being, they overlap a lot.  You can have a rush that turns into an engine.  Or a Bishop/Fortress thing that fits inside of an engine, thereby outpacing a straight Bishop/Fortress.  Or a slog that turns into a Gardens/Silk Road rush.  Or like Goons, in which case you don't want green, but then you do want green in the endgame.  Is that an archetype that changes midgame?  And like straight Rebuild or straight Cultist -- we all know well that other things can fit into your deck besides those "archetypes" to beat the mirror.

A Bishop/Fortress thing that fits inside of an engine is just a payload for a pure engine strategy, the only reason why Bishop/Fortress is a combo is that it's a golden deck. A strategy that turns into another strategy is not "an archetype that changes midgame", it is something called "a mistake". I don't really get how wanting green with Goons is an example of deck types overlapping. Straight Rebuild is rush and straight Cultist is big money, and it is true that you should play rush against another rush in a different way than you should play rush against an engine, but you're still playing rush.

[singletee]

Under your definition a "Good Stuff" deck would be a combo. A newbie deck full of random Action cards with no synergy would be a combo. And as you said above, you consider keeping your starting deck and not buying anything to be a combo strategy. This is completely at odds with the general English meaning of the word "combo". The main reason why it is bad to use your definition is that no one else uses it, and so by insisting on using it, without proactive explanation, you create an impediment to greater understanding.

A "Good Stuff" deck is big money in the cases where it actually works. The common usage of the word "combo" in the context of strategy board games has, to my knowledge, been much closer to my definition of the word in the context of Dominion than the general English meaning of the word. For instance, in Magic, nobody would call Faerie Ninja Still a combo deck despite the fact that it relies much more heavily on specific card synergy than certain decks that are obviously combo decks, such as Belcher.

My point is that it's incredibly not-useful to define combo as "something that doesn't fit into any of these other categories". If you think there is merit to discussing such decks as a group, great, but you should use a different word rather than one that already has meaning both to people in general and specifically to players of strategic games.

[liopoil]

You are literally the only one who uses combo to mean what you think it should mean on this forum. Don't expect people to interpret what you say the way you want it to and certainly don't correct people using it the way everyone else does.

[Haddock]

A "Good Stuff" deck is big money in the cases where it actually works. The common usage of the word "combo" in the context of strategy board games has, to my knowledge, been much closer to my definition of the word in the context of Dominion than the general English meaning of the word.

This seems to be the root of the argument.

It seems you agree that in normal English, the word combo could be used to describe a set of a few things that work really well together.

You claim that the context of strategy card game discussion means that the expected use of the term becomes something else.  That might even be true, but it doesn't matter.  Just because one meaning of the term becomes more prevalent in a certain context, doesn't mean that the usual English usage becomes wrong.

[Awaclus]

My point is that it's incredibly not-useful to define combo as "something that doesn't fit into any of these other categories". If you think there is merit to discussing such decks as a group, great, but you should use a different word rather than one that already has meaning both to people in general and specifically to players of strategic games.

The key is that all the other categories have something in common that combo decks do not share: they're based on strategy principles that apply universally. Combo decks, in contrast, are based on throwing all the regular strategy principles out of the window because of a very specific situation. This is the meaning of the word that I grew up with, being a Magic player. In Dominion, for any strategy based on strategy principles that apply universally, there is an existing deck type, and for any new ones that are discovered (probably through new cards being released), new deck types should be established. What this means in practice is that "strategies taking advantage of a highly specific situation" is always equivalent to "strategies that don't fit into any of these other categories".

You are literally the only one who uses combo to mean what you think it should mean on this forum. Don't expect people to interpret what you say the way you want it to and certainly don't correct people using it the way everyone else does.

Presumably you are using "literally" in the figurative sense, because there have been people agreeing with me when we have had this discussion in the past.

[Haddock]

Presumably you are using "literally" in the figurative sense, because there have been people agreeing with me when we have had this discussion in the past.

Quotes or it didn't happen.

[eHalcyon]

You are literally the only one who uses combo to mean what you think it should mean on this forum. Don't expect people to interpret what you say the way you want it to and certainly don't correct people using it the way everyone else does.

Presumably you are using "literally" in the figurative sense, because there have been people agreeing with me when we have had this discussion in the past.

I'm pretty sure literally nobody is going to agree with your definition if it includes this:

If, by "your starting 10 cards", you mean a strategy where you never buy anything, then yes, that's a combo.

[Awaclus]

I'm pretty sure literally nobody is going to agree with your definition if it includes this:

If, by "your starting 10 cards", you mean a strategy where you never buy anything, then yes, that's a combo.

Well, what kind of universal strategy principles that strategy is based on in your opinion? For that to be a good idea, it would require truly extraordinary circumstances.

[singletee]

Combo decks, in contrast, are based on throwing all the regular strategy principles out of the window because of a very specific situation.

This is already a better definition than "not BM, rush, engine or slog".

EDIT: I guess what I mean is that enumerating a set of things in your definition is a bad idea if that set may change.

[singletee]

I'm pretty sure literally nobody is going to agree with your definition if it includes this:

If, by "your starting 10 cards", you mean a strategy where you never buy anything, then yes, that's a combo.

Well, what kind of universal strategy principles that strategy is based on in your opinion? For that to be a good idea, it would require truly extraordinary circumstances.

See, this is the thing. It's not based on any of those principles and it's not a combo either. It's just a really bad strategy that no one has bothered to name because it's so bad.

[Awaclus]

Presumably you are using "literally" in the figurative sense, because there have been people agreeing with me when we have had this discussion in the past.

Quotes or it didn't happen.

But I really just totally agree with the OP.

See, this is the thing. It's not based on any of those principles and it's not a combo either. It's just a really bad strategy that no one has bothered to name because it's so bad.

Normally, yes, but in theory, there could be a situation in which it's actually good if some future cards get released that allow it to actually be a good strategy in that one very specific situation. Doing something which is only good in a very specific situation is a combo. That's like saying "buying a Native Village on all of your buys under $4 until the NVs run out is just a really bad strategy", but the thing is, it's actually a good strategy in the situation where you're also buying Bridges with the other buys until the Bridges run out as well.

[eHalcyon]

See, this is the thing. It's not based on any of those principles and it's not a combo either. It's just a really bad strategy that no one has bothered to name because it's so bad.

Normally, yes, but in theory, there could be a situation in which it's actually good if some future cards get released that allow it to actually be a good strategy in that one very specific situation. Doing something which is only good in a very specific situation is a combo. That's like saying "buying a Native Village on all of your buys under $4 until the NVs run out is just a really bad strategy", but the thing is, it's actually a good strategy in the situation where you're also buying Bridges with the other buys until the Bridges run out as well.

In that case, your combo involves those future cards, not just the 10 starting cards.  Your example contradicts the premise.

As for the NV-Bridge example, "NVs only" isn't a combo, but "NV+Bridge" is.

[Awaclus]

In that case, your combo involves those future cards, not just the 10 starting cards.  Your example contradicts the premise.

You don't necessarily need to have those future cards in your deck. They could be in your opponent's.

[eHalcyon]

In that case, your combo involves those future cards, not just the 10 starting cards.  Your example contradicts the premise.

You don't necessarily need to have those future cards in your deck. They could be in your opponent's.

Well then you may as well invent a new name for this deck archetype, because it makes no sense to call it a "combo" when it doesn't involve including some sort of card combination in your deck at all.

[Awaclus]

Well then you may as well invent a new name for this deck archetype, because it makes no sense to call it a "combo" when it doesn't involve including some sort of card combination in your deck at all.

But it has all the strategically relevant characteristics in common with combo decks.

[eHalcyon]

Well then you may as well invent a new name for this deck archetype, because it makes no sense to call it a "combo" when it doesn't involve including some sort of card combination in your deck at all.

But it has all the strategically relevant characteristics in common with combo decks.

The characteristics in common aren't strategically relevant, since the characteristic is that they don't have characteristics in common with the other four archetypes.  That makes the categorization a catch-all instead of something actually useful.