Print

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

[werothegreat]

So I've been adding a whole bunch of new Navboxes on the wiki (Navboxes are your friend), and in making one for card combos, I noticed there aren't all that many that have pages on the wiki.  I added a couple more I could think of, but surely there are more.  Add some and help fill in the ones that don't have pages yet!

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Template:Navbox_Card_combos

[Asper]

I don't know that many combos by heart, but i allowed myself to change "Horny of Plenty/Mandarin" into something more boardgame-related.

Edit: This is not a joke, by the way.

Also edit: Trusty Steed/Feodum isn't important enough for it's own entry, i guess? After all, when you have Prizes, you allready are on a path to victory.

[werothegreat]

I don't know that many combos by heart, but i allowed myself to change "Horny of Plenty/Mandarin" into something more boardgame-related.

Edit: This is not a joke, by the way.

Also edit: Trusty Steed/Feodum isn't important enough for it's own entry, i guess? After all, when you have Prizes, you allready are on a path to victory.

God damn it.

[sudgy]

One that I thought of (it doesn't have an article though) is Market Square/Apprentice.  I have a game with Andrew that could go in there.

[dondon151]

Some of these combos aren't very strong or have been more or less proven to be nombos. Caravan/Vault is not a combo. I'm pretty sure that Counting House/Golem isn't a viable combo. I'm not sure how Amb/Pirate Ship is a worthwhile combo. Trader/Feodum is conspicuously missing. Apothecary/WW is a fairly well-known interaction.

There are a bunch of combos are interactions that are variations on a theme. Workshop/Gardens is listed, but IW/Gardens is stronger. Chancellor/Stash is listed, but Scavenger/Stash is stronger. HT/Duke is one of many minor Duke enablers like Haggler, Explorer, Duchess, Bureaucrat, etc.

Minion vs. Scheme and Militia vs. Vault are two counters that are conspicuously missing.

[Warfreak2]

I played Golem/Counting House once, and it was about as fast as pure BM.

[AJD]

There are a bunch of combos are interactions that are variations on a theme. Workshop/Gardens is listed, but IW/Gardens is stronger. Chancellor/Stash is listed, but Scavenger/Stash is stronger. HT/Duke is one of many minor Duke enablers like Haggler, Explorer, Duchess, Bureaucrat, etc.

Minion vs. Scheme and Militia vs. Vault are two counters that are conspicuously missing.

In some of these cases, the variations are also discussed on the same page, which is named after the more famous or more vanilla of the versions of the combo. For instance, Scavenger/Stash is discussed on the Chancellor/Stash page.

Minion vs. Scheme is mentioned on the Minion vs. Treasury page, though I think either Minion vs. Scheme or Minion vs. Alchemist would be a better name for the page.

[Mic Qsenoch]

If the wiki is supposed to be offering useful strategy, then it should emphasize the stronger version of the combo rather than the more famous/vanilla one. Workshops/Gardens is just barely playable on most boards and is easily outscored by Provinces, while Ironworks/Gardens is significantly faster and better.

There's no reason to mention the crappy combos at all (the ones dondon mentioned). They are cute but useless. Or maybe there could be a separate Fun but Bad Combos. Leaving the crappy ones with the good combos makes them look like they are viable.

[greatexpectations]

If the wiki is supposed to be offering useful strategy, then it should emphasize the stronger version of the combo rather than the more famous/vanilla one. Workshops/Gardens is just barely playable on most boards and is easily outscored by Provinces, while Ironworks/Gardens is significantly faster and better.

There's no reason to mention the crappy combos at all (the ones dondon mentioned). They are cute but useless. Or maybe there could be a separate Fun but Bad Combos. Leaving the crappy ones with the good combos makes them look like they are viable.

i can definitely see where you are coming from, but i think there is still value in listing the first/simplest/most well known iteration of a combo instead of the straight up strongest. i think the simpler pairings allow the core concept of the combo to become more readily apparent, especially if the focus is meant to be education. starting from that point you can demonstrate the flaws while also making it easier to work upwards towards the stronger and more viable combos.

your post also comes across (to me) from the viewpoint/assumption of having access to the full catalog of dominion cards. it might be beneficial to keep combo names rooted in the simpler standalone base and intrigue sets whenever possible.

[werothegreat]

If the wiki is supposed to be offering useful strategy, then it should emphasize the stronger version of the combo rather than the more famous/vanilla one. Workshops/Gardens is just barely playable on most boards and is easily outscored by Provinces, while Ironworks/Gardens is significantly faster and better.

There's no reason to mention the crappy combos at all (the ones dondon mentioned). They are cute but useless. Or maybe there could be a separate Fun but Bad Combos. Leaving the crappy ones with the good combos makes them look like they are viable.

i can definitely see where you are coming from, but i think there is still value in listing the first/simplest/most well known iteration of a combo instead of the straight up strongest. i think the simpler pairings allow the core concept of the combo to become more readily apparent, especially if the focus is meant to be education. starting from that point you can demonstrate the flaws while also making it easier to work upwards towards the stronger and more viable combos.

your post also comes across (to me) from the viewpoint/assumption of having access to the full catalog of dominion cards. it might be beneficial to keep combo names rooted in the simpler standalone base and intrigue sets whenever possible.

I agree.  However, I'd be fine with dropping the "combos" that haven't stood the test of time - I was just putting up ones that were on theory's blog to fill it up a little.

[Mic Qsenoch]

i can definitely see where you are coming from, but i think there is still value in listing the first/simplest/most well known iteration of a combo instead of the straight up strongest. i think the simpler pairings allow the core concept of the combo to become more readily apparent, especially if the focus is meant to be education. starting from that point you can demonstrate the flaws while also making it easier to work upwards towards the stronger and more viable combos.

your post also comes across (to me) from the viewpoint/assumption of having access to the full catalog of dominion cards. it might be beneficial to keep combo names rooted in the simpler standalone base and intrigue sets whenever possible.

These are fair points, it's a question of what level you think most of your audience is at. I tend to think that most of the people who are aware of the wiki are probably familiar with the basics, but maybe not. The problem with filling in the details later is that people will get inaccurate first impressions. If Ironworks/Gardens is only talked about as a variation of Workshop/Gardens, the useful strategy is buried unless a reader does some digging.

And some of these "combos" are not good no matter what amount of sets you are playing with, there's no reason to include them, they are just straight up bad advice.

[greatexpectations]

These are fair points, it's a question of what level you think most of your audience is at. I tend to think that most of the people who are aware of the wiki are probably familiar with the basics, but maybe not. The problem with filling in the details later is that people will get inaccurate first impressions. If Ironworks/Gardens is only talked about as a variation of Workshop/Gardens, the useful strategy is buried unless a reader does some digging.

i think you could avoid IW slipping by in this case by including a brief introduction at the start of the page. something like "though the combo is known as WS/gardens, the basic concept is the ability to quickly gain cheap cards. Ironworks is perhaps the strongest/most frequently played variation because it offers you bonuses when you gain." it seems reasonable that you can explain the choice for the combo naming, the base concept, and the strongest/most popular variation in two lines before going into heavy detail later.

And some of these "combos" are not good no matter what amount of sets you are playing with, there's no reason to include them, they are just straight up bad advice.

workshop/gardens strikes me as being strong enough for base only games. i would also argue that it gets more powerful in games involving more than 2P. which is basically what i was getting at with the last post: strong/strongest for 2P all sets full random will not always be equivalent to that status in multiplayer or limited/nonrandom kingdoms.

as long as all of the variations redirect to a main entry and that entry discusses (or ranks?) their relative strengths i'm not sure it matters which method. i don't have a preference myself. maybe just skip past all that and just cut to the bare bones of it all. make a gainer/gardens combo page, list the variations/styles, and then categorize them into relative strength.

[Mic Qsenoch]

And some of these "combos" are not good no matter what amount of sets you are playing with, there's no reason to include them, they are just straight up bad advice.

workshop/gardens strikes me as being strong enough for base only games. i would also argue that it gets more powerful in games involving more than 2P. which is basically what i was getting at with the last post: strong/strongest for 2P all sets full random will not always be equivalent to that status in multiplayer or limited/nonrandom kingdoms.

as long as all of the variations redirect to a main entry and that entry discusses (or ranks?) their relative strengths i'm not sure it matters which method. i don't have a preference myself. maybe just skip past all that and just cut to the bare bones of it all. make a gainer/gardens combo page, list the variations/styles, and then categorize them into relative strength.

Workshop/Gardens is good enough, although it is not hard to beat even in Base only. I was thinking of the ones dondon specifically mentioned. I like the idea a lot of having the page title being as generic as possible, with the details on the page itself.

[TheMirrorMan]

How about some Tunnel stuff ? Thinking of :

Warehouse/Tunnels
Cartographer/Tunnels
Navigator/Tunnels
Wandering Minstrel/Tunnels
Golem/1 action (preferably + buy)/Tunnels
...

[SirPeebles]

The title of the page should match what the reader is looking for, which is more likely to be Workshop/Gardens, in my opinion.  But yes, the page should absolutely discuss Ironworks/Gardens, and probably also Armory/Gardens if only to compare strengths and weaknesses.

[SirPeebles]

How about some Tunnel stuff ? Thinking of :

Warehouse/Tunnels
Cartographer/Tunnels
Navigator/Tunnels
Wandering Minstrel/Tunnels
Golem/1 action (preferably + buy)/Tunnels
...

I'm not sure about Wandering Minstrel.  It will skip over your Gold too.  The best Tunnel enablers tend to be snifters which not only discard Tunnel for Gold, but which then helps you gather the Gold together.  Like Embassy or Storeroom.

[werothegreat]

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Combo:_Workshop_and_Gardens

Since this is the one most of you are discussing, what do you think of what I've put so far?  And it's a wiki, so you can just change things if you don't like them.

[werothegreat]

Also, please bear in mind that if you're editing a pre-published article portion (usually from theory's blog), you can't just change things.  If you're adding or replacing something, the addition/replacement should be in square brackets - [  ].  That signifies that it's different from the original.  You can also put notes, like I've done for Secret Chamber vs Pirate Ship, where you can put some context to old assertions.

[AJD]

Also, please bear in mind that if you're editing a pre-published article portion (usually from theory's blog), you can't just change things.  If you're adding or replacing something, the addition/replacement should be in square brackets - [  ].  That signifies that it's different from the original.

I don't think that's necessary; the header could instead say just something like "this was originally based on a blog post" rather than "this is a copy of a blog post". The whole point of a wiki is that the text is collaborative and dynamic.

[dondon151]

If you have articles like "Hunting Party/terminal Silver," you might as well change the Workshop/Gardens article to "$4 gainer/Gardens" and most things/Tunnel to "in-hand discard/Tunnel." Similarly for the counters, "Militia vs. Vault" should be handsize attack vs. Vault and "Library vs. Militia" should be draw-to-X vs. Militia.

[GeoLib]

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Combo:_Workshop_and_Gardens

Since this is the one most of you are discussing, what do you think of what I've put so far?  And it's a wiki, so you can just change things if you don't like them.

I thought the sims indicated that you wanted to go hard on workshops before switching to gardens: I recall it being 9 WS in a non-mirror.

Edit: Yup. Found the text from Geronimoo's simulator:
"The ultimate combo for the basic game.
Surprisingly the optimal number of Workshops to get before starting to gain Gardens is 9.
When two players are going for the same strategy, you only want 2 Workshops before you start gardening."
I'll add this to the wiki

[werothegreat]

If you have articles like "Hunting Party/terminal Silver," you might as well change the Workshop/Gardens article to "$4 gainer/Gardens" and most things/Tunnel to "in-hand discard/Tunnel." Similarly for the counters, "Militia vs. Vault" should be handsize attack vs. Vault and "Library vs. Militia" should be draw-to-X vs. Militia.

In the particular case of HP/TS, there's no particular Terminal Silver associated with the combo, so that's fine.  WS/Gardens, on the other hand, is a referenced combo.  That's the name used.  I'd prefer to go by the name used.  And combos should be for things that aren't inherently obvious - yes, anything that discards from hand is going to do well with Tunnel, but that should be discussed in the Tunnel article. 

[SirPeebles]

If you have articles like "Hunting Party/terminal Silver," you might as well change the Workshop/Gardens article to "$4 gainer/Gardens" and most things/Tunnel to "in-hand discard/Tunnel." Similarly for the counters, "Militia vs. Vault" should be handsize attack vs. Vault and "Library vs. Militia" should be draw-to-X vs. Militia.

In the particular case of HP/TS, there's no particular Terminal Silver associated with the combo, so that's fine.  WS/Gardens, on the other hand, is a referenced combo.  That's the name used.  I'd prefer to go by the name used.  And combos should be for things that aren't inherently obvious - yes, anything that discards from hand is going to do well with Tunnel, but that should be discussed in the Tunnel article.

I strongly agree with this.  Wiki articles titles are for reference.  They are not the place to impose the terminology you wish others would use over the terminology that is actually used.

[werothegreat]

They are not the place to impose the terminology you wish others would use over the terminology that is actually used.

Yeah.  That's what Wikipedia is for.

(I totally influenced the biology section to go with Archaeplastida over Primoplantae   Shows what you can do when you're in charge of the Navboxes.)

[dondon151]

In the particular case of HP/TS, there's no particular Terminal Silver associated with the combo, so that's fine.  WS/Gardens, on the other hand, is a referenced combo.  That's the name used.  I'd prefer to go by the name used.  And combos should be for things that aren't inherently obvious - yes, anything that discards from hand is going to do well with Tunnel, but that should be discussed in the Tunnel article.

That's only because there are more terminal Silvers than we can bother listing. There are only 3 unconditional $4-gainers. For Tunnel combos, on the other hand, you have the canonical Vault/Tunnel and Embassy/Tunnel, in addition to Oasis/Tunnel, Hamlet/Tunnel, Storeroom/Tunnel, etc.

Now it just so happens that the nature of Tunnel means that it has to be part of a combo in order for it to do anything at all (technically not entirely true, since its mere existence as a stack of $3-cost Victory cards can mean something), but I don't see why this is an exception when Hunting Party isn't.