Print

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

[Donald X.]

And yes, this means golden decks are engines. I don't see anything wrong with this. The whole point of engines is consistency, and a golden deck is about as consistent as you can get.

The point of engines is snowballing. Golden decks are static.

A snowball phase followed by a static one is characteristic of every deck, due to the nature of the game. The static phase comes sooner in money and golden decks, but you have to snowball up to both of these first; in golden decks the snowballing is necessary to get all the needed components before trashing all the others.

If you call golden decks "engines," for whatever reason that makes sense to you, you will find that you are not communicating clearly with other people who use the word "engine."

[Holunder9]

I guess the terminology confusion is partly due to other boardgames.
What is called a golden deck in Dominion is called an engine in a tableau builder. For example if you consistenly make x VPs via consuming in Race for the Galaxy.

For obvious mechanic differences it makes no sense to use the term engine for a deckbuilder in which setting up a static, VP-generating deck is a rare exception instead of, like in the case of tableau builders, the norm that occurs in a large fraction of games.

[Screwyioux]

I guess the terminology confusion is partly due to other boardgames.
What is called a golden deck in Dominion is called an engine in a tableau builder. For example if you consistenly make x VPs via consuming in Race for the Galaxy.

For obvious mechanic differences it makes no sense to use the term engine for a deckbuilder in which setting up a static, VP-generating deck is a rare exception instead of, like in the case of tableau builders, the norm that occurs in a large fraction of games.

This is a huge part of where the confusion originates when you start talking about Dominion with people who aren't as focused on it in their gaming as the average FDS frequenter.

[markusin]

After much deliberation, I have come to a point where I feel like I can adequately describe what an engine is in layman's terms.

An engine is a deck where you are able to both (a) potentially gain more than one set of points a turn and (b) seeks to increase consistency (or at least not decrease consistency) in the deck before greening. In this way, an engine seeks to expand further than a set boundary of one Province/Colony/Dominate a turn.

Let me break down what that means a bit. Say you buy an Estate. That is a set of points, or in this case a point. Say you buy a Province, that is a set of points. Any time you score with a purchase or gain, that is a single set of points, no matter how big or small. Play a Monument? That is a set of points. Play a Goons and buy something? That is a set of points. Buy a copper and get Fountain points? You get the picture.

Secondly, consistency increase in deck building, at least to the point of where consistency does not decrease. The idea is, you want to play your good cards more often. This means trashing, this means draw, this means sifting.

Since a "money" deck seeks to only buy a single set of points a turn, thusly it only has an X hurdle to clear. Engines have a higher hurdle to clear and thusly want at least the potential for an increase of consistency, and an output greater than a single set of points a turn.

Some edgecases:

...

You know what, rather than lose sleep over this, I'll just agree with Seprix's definition here and concede that there are edge cases where it doesn't cleanly apply.

On the other hand, it seems odd that a deck which draws itself every turn but still can only gain one VP card a turn is not an engine ("draw-your-deck money"?), but then you add a single source of +gain and suddenly it becomes an engine. So like a Scrying Pool one-terminal-per-turn deck with a single Expand as the only source of additional points (an example to reflect an actual game I played), and that stops becoming an engine if you remove the Expand?

An engine is a collection of cards that can repeatedly be used together for extra benefit. I think main critieria of an engine definition is not to define specific ideas but to exclude

• A good stuff deck that succeeds because individual cards are working well in a suitable environment
• A planned deck that never uses cards together (like workshop - gardens)
• Some megaturn decks that do little apart from hitting the megaturn

I like this list of things that are not engines. It's not too hard to complement it and come up with a definition for engine. Something like: a planned deck based on interactions between multiple cards, with the goal of having consistent production  for several turns (of money, attack plays or whatever the payload is).

Maybe this is the better way to look at it.

[Cave-o-sapien]

I guess the terminology confusion is partly due to other boardgames.
What is called a golden deck in Dominion is called an engine in a tableau builder. For example if you consistenly make x VPs via consuming in Race for the Galaxy.

For obvious mechanic differences it makes no sense to use the term engine for a deckbuilder in which setting up a static, VP-generating deck is a rare exception instead of, like in the case of tableau builders, the norm that occurs in a large fraction of games.

I think you're spot on.

This is kind of where I was going with my question about the build process being the engine. In many games, you spend some turns building an engine that can generate points, then just fire that engine every turn until you force game end.

In many (but not all) engine boards in Dominion, the engine's performance peaks before you start greening, then starts to degrade as you gain points.

[theblankman]

On the other hand, it seems odd that a deck which draws itself every turn but still can only gain one VP card a turn is not an engine ("draw-your-deck money"?), but then you add a single source of +gain and suddenly it becomes an engine. So like a Scrying Pool one-terminal-per-turn deck with a single Expand as the only source of additional points (an example to reflect an actual game I played), and that stops becoming an engine if you remove the Expand?

So thinking about engine in contrast to money, we usually refer to money decks by a single card, e.g. Embassy-BM, Swindler-BM, etc. Even if there might be another kingdom card in the deck, that's not the focal card and doesn't interact with much with the focal card, like maybe there's a trasher that does its job early and then turns dead.

Extra gains don't generally turn a non-engine into an engine, or else we'd have to call a deck with a bunch of Silver, Gold and a few Margraves an engine (I'd call it Margrave-BM).

Nonterminal stacks are a gray area, especially lab variants. Like would we say "Hunting Party BM" or "Hunting Party engine?" I think that depends: usually I say the former if the deck consists mostly of HP and treasures, with maybe one other terminal. But if I'm using HP to draw villages and terminals and play them, that's an engine.

So I think the defining feature of engines is interaction. A money deck has one action as its focal point (maybe two, depending on how we classify Lab-variant-plus-terminal), and mostly uses that card for its effect in isolation. In contrast an engine is built around interactions between different actions.

[Dingan]

Soooo .. when do we get to see the form responses?

[markusin]

On the other hand, it seems odd that a deck which draws itself every turn but still can only gain one VP card a turn is not an engine ("draw-your-deck money"?), but then you add a single source of +gain and suddenly it becomes an engine. So like a Scrying Pool one-terminal-per-turn deck with a single Expand as the only source of additional points (an example to reflect an actual game I played), and that stops becoming an engine if you remove the Expand?

So thinking about engine in contrast to money, we usually refer to money decks by a single card, e.g. Embassy-BM, Swindler-BM, etc. Even if there might be another kingdom card in the deck, that's not the focal card and doesn't interact with much with the focal card, like maybe there's a trasher that does its job early and then turns dead.

Extra gains don't generally turn a non-engine into an engine, or else we'd have to call a deck with a bunch of Silver, Gold and a few Margraves an engine (I'd call it Margrave-BM).

Nonterminal stacks are a gray area, especially lab variants. Like would we say "Hunting Party BM" or "Hunting Party engine?" I think that depends: usually I say the former if the deck consists mostly of HP and treasures, with maybe one other terminal. But if I'm using HP to draw villages and terminals and play them, that's an engine.

So I think the defining feature of engines is interaction. A money deck has one action as its focal point (maybe two, depending on how we classify Lab-variant-plus-terminal), and mostly uses that card for its effect in isolation. In contrast an engine is built around interactions between different actions.

Yeah that makes sense, but it's hard to pinpoint what constitutes "engine-like" interaction as opposed to the idea of "good stuff", which would be like a deck with a bunch of good terminals, some cantrips like Market, and some Menageries. According to Seprix's definition though, Margrave BM would be an engine. I was thinking of using a single terminal like Expand to gain two VP cards per turn instead of one.

[trivialknot]

You know, for all the difficulty in defining the term "engine", I think the term "golden deck" is even more contentious.

The problem with a "golden deck" is that it was originally defined by pointing to a particular deck: Bishop, Silver, Silver, Gold, Province.  And that might have made sense in the days of Prosperity, but I think by this point it's not very common, and not very good either.  I'm not sure I've ever made a deck like that.  So the question is, do we expand the "golden deck" label to a larger set of decks?  Or do we just think of it as a narrow category, like the Hermit/Market Square deck, or the classic Hunting Party deck?

Some people seem to define "golden deck" as one of those decks that does the exact same thing every turn.  So, like, if I have the bishop thing, and I opt to buy Gold instead of Province one turn in order to manipulate the Province supply, it's not a golden deck anymore?  What if I added a few Chariot Races?  Honestly this definition is just weird to me.  In my play group, we use "golden deck" to describe decks that score points without adding dead cards, but maybe that's weird too.

I don't know why the term "golden deck" has such a hold on us at all.  Maybe if people had just called it the bishop deck, we would have forgotten about the very concept by now.

[markusin]

You know, for all the difficulty in defining the term "engine", I think the term "golden deck" is even more contentious.

The problem with a "golden deck" is that it was originally defined by pointing to a particular deck: Bishop, Silver, Silver, Gold, Province.  And that might have made sense in the days of Prosperity, but I think by this point it's not very common, and not very good either.  I'm not sure I've ever made a deck like that.  So the question is, do we expand the "golden deck" label to a larger set of decks?  Or do we just think of it as a narrow category, like the Hermit/Market Square deck, or the classic Hunting Party deck?

Some people seem to define "golden deck" as one of those decks that does the exact same thing every turn.  So, like, if I have the bishop thing, and I opt to buy Gold instead of Province one turn in order to manipulate the Province supply, it's not a golden deck anymore?  What if I added a few Chariot Races?  Honestly this definition is just weird to me.  In my play group, we use "golden deck" to describe decks that score points without adding dead cards, but maybe that's weird too.

I don't know why the term "golden deck" has such a hold on us at all.  Maybe if people had just called it the bishop deck, we would have forgotten about the very concept by now.

I dunno, Dominate also enables a Golden Deck if you keep trashing the Province, as does Monument and King's Court in the same kingdom.

[Commodore Chuckles]

I get the sense that the broadest definition of "Golden Deck" is one that gains a Province each turn with 100% reliability. So, the Bishop one, Mandarin HoP etc. The Hunting Party one is borderline because it's not 100% reliable, but still very reliable nonetheless.

I think maybe the term is popular simply because the idea of such a minimalistic deck seems really cool in theory. You're right that practically, it doesn't show up often, due to the dominance of that other deck type that we can't figure out how to define.

[Jack Rudd]

I get the sense that the broadest definition of "Golden Deck" is one that gains a Province each turn with 100% reliability. So, the Bishop one, Mandarin HoP etc. The Hunting Party one is borderline because it's not 100% reliable, but still very reliable nonetheless.

There are Golden Decks that don't fall under that definition though. The best-known one consists of four Bishops and four Fortresses.

[Commodore Chuckles]

I get the sense that the broadest definition of "Golden Deck" is one that gains a Province each turn with 100% reliability. So, the Bishop one, Mandarin HoP etc. The Hunting Party one is borderline because it's not 100% reliable, but still very reliable nonetheless.

There are Golden Decks that don't fall under that definition though. The best-known one consists of four Bishops and four Fortresses.

I guess if you use that you're assuming your opponent is emptying piles? Otherwise the game would never end...

[Awaclus]

I get the sense that the broadest definition of "Golden Deck" is one that gains a Province each turn with 100% reliability. So, the Bishop one, Mandarin HoP etc. The Hunting Party one is borderline because it's not 100% reliable, but still very reliable nonetheless.

There are Golden Decks that don't fall under that definition though. The best-known one consists of four Bishops and four Fortresses.

I guess if you use that you're assuming your opponent is emptying piles? Otherwise the game would never end...

The idea is that you get super far ahead and then you can empty the piles yourself. In practice, whenever you pull it off and your opponent can't do anything better, they just concede.

[GendoIkari]

I thought Golden deck was defined as simply a deck that remains exactly the same after each turn, and does the exact same thing every turn. So if you trash down to nothing but 5 Coppers, that would be technically a Golden deck, but people wouldn’t use it in that way because it would be a pointless and bad Golden deck. But KC KC Masq Masq Masq would be a Golden deck. Or would have been under old Masq wording.

[Awaclus]

But KC KC Masq Masq Masq would be a Golden deck.

You want a handsize attack there.

[teamlyle]

The idea is that you get super far ahead and then you can empty the piles yourself. In practice, whenever you pull it off and your opponent can't do anything better, they just concede.

Wouldn't the optimal play for your opponent be to make the same golden deck and gain the same number of VPs a turn? Even though you're ahead, neither player can empty the piles with a win, so it's a stalemate.

[GendoIkari]

But KC KC Masq Masq Masq would be a Golden deck.

You want a handsize attack there.

Right, meant KC KC Goons Masq, the classic example.

[Jack Rudd]

But KC KC Masq Masq Masq would be a Golden deck.

You want a handsize attack there.

Right, meant KC KC Goons Masq, the classic example.

I've done that one as KC KC Margrave Masq. That's even more painful, because it adds in a pointless decision for the victim each turn.