Print

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

[dondon151]

Big quote, abridged

So what I am getting from this, and from the examples in the OP, is that a "combo deck" satisfies one of these characteristics:

1. Once the combo is ready, it will always gain at least some substantial amount of VP every turn (Golden Deck, Apo/NV, Scavenger/Stash, HoP/Mandarin, Tactician/Vault (or BM) with support)
2. Once the combo is ready, it will always inevitably render your opponent's deck unplayable, with some exceptions, of course (Masq pins, Cutpurse and Bureaucrat pins, Possession/Forge pin)
3. NV/Bridge. I feel like this is shoehorned into the category because other one-shot megaturns, like KC/Bridge, HoP, Goons, Highway are excluded.

In some way, I feel that the essence of a combo deck is consistency. Everything else is an engine. Correct me if this sentiment is wrong.

EDIT: Let me clarify: an engine can stall/die with green or bad draws, but they are mostly consistent. A combo deck won't.

[theory]

I interpreted it as, a deck that relies on exact cards, where the underlying concept isn't duplicated or even approximated by substitutes.

[Empathy]

Combo decks aren't always consistent. Some play off a low probability (per turn) of getting a huge payoff. And given enough turns, that low probability event will happen. Warehouse/TM is a weak version of such a combo. Tact/bank is another, unlike double-tact. Most HoP decks are actually not 'stable', and just keep building up while they wait for a good turn. Or at least, they shouldn't be stable in a mirror-match, because that makes you lose.

I mean, imagine you can build a completely stable tact/vault, or HoP-super turn deck in X turns. You can most likely build one slightly less stable one such that, in expectation, it wins in less turns. Hence the unstable version will win in a mirror match. How much stability you actually need is dependent on the matchup. Same often goes with golden decks: if an engine is present on the board, you can sometimes just do a not completely stable golden deck and squeeze out a little bit of extra win probability. Mind you, some combos are hard to tinker with (e.g. NV\apo).

I like theory's definition the most. Some combos are actually a lot more than 2 cards, but the crucial point is that some parts are irreplaceable (or very hard to replace). Also, the metric you use is very different from other decks.

Money-based strategies basically measure their 'value' in terms of moneyness per turn, that is, their average game state.

Engines in how consistently they go through their deck and reproduce a game state. (Hence why minion, HP and alchemist are usually engines)

Metrics for combo decks vary a bit more, but tend to be 'expected number of turns until winning state', whether that winning state is some completely stable golden deck type thing, or an actual insta win (or just connecting two TM in the case of weak combos).

[WanderingWinder]

theory has it.

Engines tend to be highly replaceable - you can replace a village with a farming village with a fishing village with a worker's village, and one or the other might be better or worse to some extent, but by-and-large they do the same kind of job. Similarly, you can use a smithy or an envoy or a rabble or whatever, but it's the same kind of thing. Or you can do lab/stables/(caravan/apothecary/wishing well stuff), but they're more or less similar. You can have discard attack a/b/c/d/e; you can have money production f/g/h/i/j.
Combos, you need the specific cards.

The other thing is, for an engine, you need big card draw, going through big parts of our deck every turn, but while combos CAN have this, they don't have to - and usually they don't.

[dondon151]

That definition is so broad, though. A lot of cards can't be substituted. A Minion stack with support (like Oasis or other disappearing money) isn't the same if it's with another non-terminal drawing card like Lab or Stables. An HP stack that doesn't have HPs just doesn't work. Everything that combos well with FG is only strong because FG has certain properties that make those combos work. You can replace every part of a Goons engine with other cards, except for Goons. Procession does ridiculous combos that no other card can do.

Actually, I would like to draw a parallel between every kind of Goons engine and every kind of pseudo-Golden deck. You can make decks that Bishop Province, buy Province without trashing the deck down to 5 cards (and do it pretty fast, too). Are those "combo decks?" Why isn't every kind of Goons engine a "combo deck?"

Empathy cites connecting TMs as advancing the game towards a winning state. Duh! You might as well say that buying Golds is advancing the game towards a winning state. Is Gold + Silver a combo?



I just don't see it. You're drawing the line between a combo deck and an engine in some arbitrary place where x components have y amount of "uniqueness." What I'm wondering is why your arbitrary (x, y) is better than my (x, y) or someone else's (x, y). It seems that trying to define this is somewhat of a pointless endeavor. When someone says slog, or money, or engine, or rush, we have a good idea of what that is in our heads. But when we say combo, half of us say that it's engine, or that it's money, or that it's rush, or that it's even slog. So I feel like this isn't a deck archetype so much as it is just cards that have been discovered to work well together.

[Empathy]

You quote me pretty much completely out of context.

Are you actually saying you would use the same metric to compare a TM deck and a BM deck mid game? Because that was what the quote was referring to.

When I play a BM deck, I might have a vague notion of when I'll reach 43 points (game winning state for BM), but first I keep track of my moneyness to decide what I buy.

In a TM deck, I quickly compute the probability of collision at next cycle to decide what I buy. And there is an easy formula that relates collision probability to average turns until collision.

Golden deck, average number of turns until I reach the golden deck stage.

NV/Apo, average number of turns until I get the golden apo deck.

KC/bridge: average number of turns until I buy everything. etc...

In an engine building phase, my first metric is usually: what percentage of my deck do I go through?

Somehow, I see the golden deck and TM as being closer related to each other than BM or engine. A combo is something that makes this 'average turn until state X' metric explode. Maybe the word 'winning' was poorly chosen, as you tend to win a few turns after a state X (and sometimes lose if the state X arrives too late: think late TM collision, or late bridge-combo). BM and engines just tend to behave linearly/quadratically, but don't make you reason as hard in terms of probability of events.

In a nutshell, combos need to go through a pretty specific game state before winning, and try to minimize their expected time to that event. Engines and BM don't have such dominating events before the game actually ends. Hence their primary metrics will differ.


Edit:

I guess another way to explain my vision of deck classification/metric is as follows. Answer the question: when do I green/make my points?

BM: if moneyness > threshold (simplified)
Engine: if I draw my deck with proba > x and have enough money
Combo: after event x happens.

And unlike BM and engine, that event is very specific and a one-time thing.

[WanderingWinder]

That definition is so broad, though. A lot of cards can't be substituted. A Minion stack with support (like Oasis or other disappearing money) isn't the same if it's with another non-terminal drawing card like Lab or Stables. An HP stack that doesn't have HPs just doesn't work.

Well, like I said, the little differences can make all the difference in the world, but these cards are just filling card draw.

Everything that combos well with FG is only strong because FG has certain properties that make those combos work.

FG doesn't combo with almost anything - it's just a good card that works with virtually EVERYTHING.

You can replace every part of a Goons engine with other cards, except for Goons.

Yeah, this makes it an engine. I mean, one irreplaceable card isn't a combo - it's ONE card. This actually also flips around to the minion/HP business we're talking about before.

Procession does ridiculous combos that no other card can do.

Maybe it does - I wouldn't know.

Actually, I would like to draw a parallel between every kind of Goons engine and every kind of pseudo-Golden deck. You can make decks that Bishop Province, buy Province without trashing the deck down to 5 cards (and do it pretty fast, too). Are those "combo decks?" Why isn't every kind of Goons engine a "combo deck?"

You don't actually draw the parallel explicitly enough for me to see what your point is here. Goons doesn't make a combo deck by itself. If you're talking an engine, it's an engine.

Empathy cites connecting TMs as advancing the game towards a winning state.

Yeah, but that's just what TM does - doesn't make a combo. Warehouse/TM? Naw. I mean, maybe they're a combo, sort of? They work well together. But it's not a combo deck - this doesn't make the world go around, it's just good. Not everything that's good is a combo.

Duh! You might as well say that buying Golds is advancing the game towards a winning state. Is Gold + Silver a combo?



I just don't see it. You're drawing the line between a combo deck and an engine in some arbitrary place where x components have y amount of "uniqueness." What I'm wondering is why your arbitrary (x, y) is better than my (x, y) or someone else's (x, y). It seems that trying to define this is somewhat of a pointless endeavor. When someone says slog, or money, or engine, or rush, we have a good idea of what that is in our heads. But when we say combo, half of us say that it's engine, or that it's money, or that it's rush, or that it's even slog. So I feel like this isn't a deck archetype so much as it is just cards that have been discovered to work well together.

Well, it seems to me that other people are getting it. Sure, it's arbitrary to some extent - it's ALL arbitrary to an extent. And gee, I don't think people really got the difference between rush and slog say two months ago - people would talk about every gardens game like it's a rush, when really it's more often a slog card.
Combos in-and-of-themselves are cards that work well together (well, how much synergy constitutes a combo is debated, but...). But there's a difference between a combo and a combo deck. Horse Traders combos with Duke, but it doesn't make a combo deck. Warehouse combos with conspirator, but it's not a combo deck. Same with treasure map.

I dunno, if you don't see it, it's not a huge deal - and like I say in the article, this is super uncommon, and every combo deck is pretty different anyway.

[Kirian]

I think what I'm getting from WW's distinction is this:

If no card can be interchanged, or there is a tiny subset (Goons vs. Militia in a pin deck), it's a combo.  If any card can be interchanged with a similar card, it's an engine.
If it relies on gimmicks, quirks, or edge cases (NV/Apothecary, for instance), it's a combo.  If it relies on simpler synergies, it's an engine.
If it is often hurt by buying other cards, it's a combo.  If other cards are useful/welcome, it's an engine.

[theory]

Look, the idea isn't to come up with a precise definition that is immune to edge casing. I'm ok with excluding questionable entries. But there are clearly "combos" that are much too specific to be called an "engine". We can just look for those.

[theory]

The way I see it is, the "Engine" is a deck constructed to play certain key actions over and over again.  Sometimes some actions work even better than others -- all engines do super well with Goons and they have this own little Goons-world.  But that world is one particularly strong outgrowth of a general engine.

The "Combo", on the other hand, is something like NV/Bridge.  It doesn't make sense to adapt it.  It doesn't make sense that it's just "the best" kind of a "NV engine" or whatever.  It really inhabits its own little outpost, disconnected from other viable engines.

So I'd consider NV/Bridge, Scavenger/Stash to be sort of canonical "combos" rather than engines.  They are not just especially good versions of something else, like FG/Wharf (an especially good version of FG/draw/+buy).

[jomini]

Look, the idea isn't to come up with a precise definition that is immune to edge casing. I'm ok with excluding questionable entries. But there are clearly "combos" that are much too specific to be called an "engine". We can just look for those.

Most of the combos to one degree or another can substitute cards:

Tac/Vault is a nice clean way to start with 10 card hands and generate province buys using discard for benefit. Well the Vault can be replaced by Secret chamber or Storeroom provided that either comes with some live draw (e.g. Lab/Secham/Tac). Likewise, a remarkably similar setup can be observed with 5 Alchemists on deck top, allowing Alchemist/Vault to play 10 card hands and generate provinces using discard for benefit. Other assured draw of big hands (e.g. Scheme/Hunting Party/Village) or top decking Border Village/Apprentice every turn can setup a very similar mechanic.

The pins are highly degenerate. I mean first off most of the "Discard down to 3 cards" attacks are interchangeable; Outpost also can go into play. Kc isn't needed - we can do Tr/Tr/Minion/Op/Masq or Tr/Tr/Urchin/Op/Masq or more complicated things like Tr/Tr/village/Scheme/Op/Margrave/Masq or Tr/Tr/Sch/village/Ghost Ship/Masq, etc. Even screwy things like Kc/Kc/Mountebank/Cutpurse/Masq will eventually work. Not even the masq is strictly needed to trash most of the opponent's deck and give him useless hands - you can go for Gov/Council Room to draw his deck and Ambassador/Possession/Top decking (e.g. Count) to leave the opponent with garbage on top and steal cards with Amb.

Other combos also have parts that can substitute:
Apothecary/Native village can swap out a Nv for cantrip/Bishop or Iw/Island options.

Counting House/Golem can have the same net effect if you ditch the Golem and use University to gain Inns and keep enough actions out to never reshuffle.

Golden decks can ditch Bishop and play village (any but Nv)/Grand Market x3/Nv/Mandarin/Prov (play through the Gm, play the village, top deck Prov with Mandarin, Nv away Prov) for example.

Chancellor/Stash can replace the Chancellor with Scav (as noted), but also Golem. Other options, like Cartographer or Warehouse can approximate the same mechanic.

Even Nv/Bridge can replace the Bridge with Highway/Market or HoP/cheap enablers.

Now virtually all of these subsitutions are inferior to the classic combo, often vastly so. But they still use the basic mechanisms to get the same net effect. Uniqueness of the cards is not really a requirement so much as a by-product.

The bigger thing about combos is that they play weird with non-similar tempos. For instance, Chancellor/Stash has really weird tempo for what you buy. Few other options prioritize treasure to actions at 5, particularly for the first 5. Weirder you tend to prioritize a weak terminal silver at three over silver. Then there is the whole buy duchies whenever you can once you get enough Chancellors/Stashes, virtually nowhere else do you buy duchies before you buy your first province ... and yet most of your points will come from provinces.

Most games you fall into one of the other templates for when to buy say payload (e.g. coin), engine components/enabling cards, and VP. Combos through most of that out the window. You don't buy anything in a Pin game that isn't non-terminal or a Pin component once you have the cash to hit Kc (or 5 if you are using a cheaper alternative). Kc/Scheme setups get to buy duchies (or heck, estates) as soon as they have their few action cards and the Kc/Scheme on top looking for the other parts of the combo. Golden decks will most often have a good number of buy nothing (and even the odd do nothing with 7 coin) hands. Combos don't have set patterns of when to buy what and they are all over the board for what they care about (deck size, action density, copper count, etc.).

Looking at "does it play like a combo" tells me that things like Kc/Bridge definitely are combos, you just buy combo cards and anything that increases the odds of hitting it. Buying the odd province first is often worse than picking up another Kc. You love Cartographer but hate Warehouse (without live draw). Most treasure is actively bad. Likewise, University/Watchtower plays a lot like a combo - stock up on Unis, top deck your gains, draw them, and explode your deck quickly; lining up University and Watchtower can matter a LOT more than getting cash or even cheap, but useful actions you'd normally want in the engine (e.g. Fishing Village can actually be worth less than Oasis).

[DWetzel]

(grunch)

Does something like Highway/Market (ideally with good trashing) belong here?

[Qvist]

(grunch)

Does something like Highway/Market (ideally with good trashing) belong here?

I agree, but I guess some will disagree.
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Combo:_Highway_and_Market

[InfinitePerplexity]

I would like to suggest another way of looking at this deck type, instead of focusing on combos and substitutability.  It seems to me that the key feature of many of these deck types is...hmmm..."deck control"?  I'm struggling to find the right way to articulate this.  Apothecary/NV, Golden Deck, Golem/Counting House, and the various pins all seek ways to circumvent the usual mechanic whereby the buying power of your deck is improved or degraded by gaining new actions, treasures, or victory cards.

NV/Bridge and Tactician/Vault seem a bit different to me - more like degenerate cases of engine decks.  In NV/Bridge, for example, both cards are playing something like their usual mega-turn-engine enabling roles, but taken to a ridiculous extreme.

[InfinitePerplexity]

Another way to articulate why I don't think we should be calling this deck type the Combo Deck is to point to the Golden Deck as an example.  What's the combo?  Bishop + Gold + Silver?  There are a heck of a lot of things you can substitute for the Gold or the Silver in that combo.  The distinguishing feature of this deck isn't the combination of Bishop with specific other cards, but the use of the Bishop to tightly regulate the composition of your deck and ignore the usual slowdown from buying victory cards.

[WanderingWinder]

I would like to suggest another way of looking at this deck type, instead of focusing on combos and substitutability.  It seems to me that the key feature of many of these deck types is...hmmm..."deck control"?  I'm struggling to find the right way to articulate this.  Apothecary/NV, Golden Deck, Golem/Counting House, and the various pins all seek ways to circumvent the usual mechanic whereby the buying power of your deck is improved or degraded by gaining new actions, treasures, or victory cards.

NV/Bridge and Tactician/Vault seem a bit different to me - more like degenerate cases of engine decks.  In NV/Bridge, for example, both cards are playing something like their usual mega-turn-engine enabling roles, but taken to a ridiculous extreme.

Native Village Bridge doesn't play like an engine. At all. There's no cycling. Heck, there's less cycling than in BM-smithy. And as for deck control - I mean, there is a certain air of golden-ness or invincibility to them, but there's not more control than in most engines - in fact, there's less than in a lot of engines.

The main distinguishing factor between the deck types is how they play - engines cycle a lot to play their key cards as often as possible. BM buys treasure, a couple actions, and goes for the big green. Rushes grab gainers and points and end it. Slogs get a little cash then buckle down for long bleeding grinds of middling cards forever. And combos... well first of all, they're all different. But generally, they do SOMETHING to get in place, and then just roll, just go with their thing.

[Polk5440]

This is my third in a series of articles on the five basic dominion deck types. This covers The Combo Deck, probably second-rarest of all, which rests between The Rush and Engine decks.

I particularly like the suggestion to think about the 5 types of decks on a wheel. This is a great "big picture" organizational idea about deck building to keep in mind. Thanks, WW!

(As a bonus, there are no edge cases on a wheel.)

[dondon151]

The main distinguishing factor between the deck types is how they play - engines cycle a lot to play their key cards as often as possible. BM buys treasure, a couple actions, and goes for the big green. Rushes grab gainers and points and end it. Slogs get a little cash then buckle down for long bleeding grinds of middling cards forever. And combos... well first of all, they're all different. But generally, they do SOMETHING to get in place, and then just roll, just go with their thing.

So... combos are engines? Apo/NV aims to play NV as much as it needs and get in play 8 Coppers. Pseudo-golden decks play Bishop as much as possible. Chancellor/Stash plays 4 Stashes as much as possible.

[Powerman]

I think the best way to think of the difference between them is to think of the general money output per turn.

In Big Money, the money increases pretty linearly (and quickly) until ~Turn 10, then starts to decrease pretty linearly as you green.

In Engines, the money increases pretty slowly, then picks up, like the right side of a parabola as it starts to click, lets say at ~Turn 13.  It has a couple of BIG payouts, and the decreases very fast as you add green.

In Slogs, the money only increases a little bit, and then slowly starts to decrease as you fill it with green.

In Rushes, the money only increases a little, and the game is (hopefully) over before it has much of a chance to decrease much.

In combos, the money might not build up at all (a la NV/Bridge), and then one turn everything "clicks".  It either can last 'forever' (a la Golden Deck) or just a few turns.  But there isn't an 'increase.'

And by money, I don't mean just silver and gold.  I mean productivity, cycling, buying power, etc.

[Saucery]

Herbalist/Pstone
Scheme/Conspirator
Feodum/Trader
Count/Rebuild

I would say a combo deck depends mostly or entirely on a key interaction between some cards, and will work on its own or with a variety of replaceable components. The interaction may very well fall under one of the other deck archetypes; I'd call KC-scheme-whatever a combo deck which is also (usually) an engine deck.

I think clear cases of combo decks occur when adding other stuff hurts it much worse than usual. Like adding another action to a Counting House/Golem deck, or another card to a golden deck. Not a conclusive characteristic obviously, but these decks have to be much more carefully controlled.

[clb]

I think the point that is trying to be articulated is that a "Combo Deck" is not a good combination of cards - things we typically call combos are not necessarily a combo deck. What makes a combo deck is that it is an extreme or, dare I say it, an edge case, of a combo. That is, the involved cards combo so well that it allows you to play the game in a different manner. Some combo decks do nothing, absolutely nothing, for a very long time, then explode to end the game in a mega-mega turn. These seem to be close to the "engine" neighbor. Other combo decks thrive on a sort of symbiosis between the cards that allows them to run perpetually once they start. NV/Apothecary will be able to set aside the one green card you buy for forever. The Golden Deck will never, ever choke on green (some of the approximations do play more similarly to engines than the purest form, and, as such, are at a higher risk of not lining things up just perfectly). I am sure there are other families of combo decks, but the point is that they are unique.
There seems to be a sentiment that perhaps there are only 4 types of decks and that perhaps "combo decks" would more rightly be classified as a category of engine decks. I am not the one to make that call. My opinion is that the combo decks are perhaps limited in number and significant enough in power that they deserve special mention.

[WanderingWinder]

I guess I would say that the main thing in my mind that distinguishes the decks is how they play. And moreso than most of the other archetypes, combo decks can often also be other deck types. Apothecary/Native Village really is an engine. Is it also a deck built around the combo? Yeah. Tactician/Vault is really centered around the combo. Is it an engine? Well, double tac is sort of its own subsection, but I would have no problem with this kind of classification. But at least SOME combos don't fit other types.
Native Village/Bridge is really the prototypical example here - it's really not an engine, you don't draw nearly enough cards. It's really not a money deck, or a slog, and it's not really like the rushes usually either. Chancellor/Stash, Golden deck, Herbalist/PStone also fit into this 'pure combo deck' strategy.

[ftl]

Another way to articulate why I don't think we should be calling this deck type the Combo Deck is to point to the Golden Deck as an example.  What's the combo?  Bishop + Gold + Silver?  There are a heck of a lot of things you can substitute for the Gold or the Silver in that combo.  The distinguishing feature of this deck isn't the combination of Bishop with specific other cards, but the use of the Bishop to tightly regulate the composition of your deck and ignore the usual slowdown from buying victory cards.

The combo is Bishop/Chapel. There really isn't much you can substitute for chapel. Maybe steward, but it gets so much worse.

[Qvist]

Another way to articulate why I don't think we should be calling this deck type the Combo Deck is to point to the Golden Deck as an example.  What's the combo?  Bishop + Gold + Silver?  There are a heck of a lot of things you can substitute for the Gold or the Silver in that combo.  The distinguishing feature of this deck isn't the combination of Bishop with specific other cards, but the use of the Bishop to tightly regulate the composition of your deck and ignore the usual slowdown from buying victory cards.

The combo is Bishop/Chapel. There really isn't much you can substitute for chapel. Maybe steward, but it gets so much worse.

Maybe it works with Count too and I've done it once with Baron into Forge, but basically it's Bishop/Chapel.

[dondon151]

But you can also do, like, Bishop + Lab/Stables + other stuff that yields the same thing.