I understand that this is *your* definition, but I'm saying that this definition is tenuous at best. The crux of your definition is speed v. reliability/consistency. These terms are not only vague and ambiguous, but I think inaccurate when describing engines folks might put into this box.
Combo engines are not necessarily faster than other engines (and how would you even measure that), and they certainly aren't less reliable or consistent than other engines (again, good luck proving that as well) just because they are "combo engines." Their speed and reliability/consistency is a function of factors that have nothing to do with them being 'combo engines.' Necropotence is no more or less fast or reliable because it is a combo engine.
We look at speed in terms of incremental advantage or bursts of advantage. Dark Confidant grants incremental card advantage; Griselbrand grants bursts of card advantage. Which is more suitable to the combo strategy and which is more suitable to the control strategy? It should be pretty obvious.
This is, again, a distinction I make in my Gush book, in the first chapter, which was written 3 years ago: I have a table that compares Burst versus Incremental forms of card advantage.
The idea that control decks prefer incremental forms of card advantage is not a given. I do not take your assumption as true. My table in my Gush books shows that control decks like both forms equally. The Deck circa 1995 used Ancestral Recall and Braingeyser and 2 Tomes. It was a perfect split between the two. Some 2001 BBS decks used Ophidian, but most used 4 Fact (burst). Modern Landstill? The archetypical slow control deck in the format? It uses Burst, not incremental: Standstill.
Your dichotomy that control decks prefer incremental to burst is simply false as an empirical and historical fact. No such preference is evident.
In either case, this distinction is irrelevant to this discussion. The issue is simple: I think your definition of 'combo engines' is wrong. I disagree with your definition that combo engines are less reliable/consistent. I think that element is not a part of the definition of a combo engine.
Necropotence is less reliable because a.) it is restricted and thus by its nature as a 1-of is less consistently drawn and
Which illustrates my point. The fact of a card's restriction cannot be an aspect of whether a card constitutes an engine or not. An engine is system or process that is 1) continuous or iterative, and 2) transforms inputs into outputs. That is all an engine is. Whether an engine is a combo engine or not means nothing more than that a system of cards that satisfy the definitional elements (1) and (2) are used as part of a combo strategy.
That definition has absolutely nothing to do with reliability or consistency. Whether a card is restricted or not makes it a relatively more or less reliable combo engine, but has nothing to do with whether it is, definitionally, a "combo engine" or not.
You are confusing a definition of a thing with an adjective describing that thing in some forms.
Your definition of combo engine is like saying that "red" is an element/criteria of a definition of "Apple." Being red has nothing to do with the definition of an Apple. Rather, it is a description of some apples. b.) the BBB mana cost is less reliably paid in the average deck than other card advantage engine mana costs such as Dark Confidant (1B) or Night's Whisper (1B).
Anticipating this sub-argument, I heavily quoted your statements from your previous post explaining how, at its apogee, Necropotence was extremely reliable. In truth, Necropotence was extremely reliable as all of these decks from the 1990s or more recently played 4 Rituals/Lotus, and, in Extended, cards like Lake of the Dead, and, later, Mox Diamond. Anyone who played Extended at the time in either Necro-Trix would attest to its reliability as it prompted multiple bannings in that format, starting with Dark Ritual. In any case, the only reason I made that argument is because you already emphatically explained how reliable it was. I do not deny that Necro is less reliable than Bob or Night's Whisper, but this sub-argument irrelevant because Necropotence is an engine, and a combo engine, but it's reliability has nothing to do with it being a combo engine. I only pursued it to highlight a gap in your previous contentions.
The moniker of "combo" placed before "engine" is ascribed merely to denote the appropriate strategy into which a particular engine (draw, mana, storm, etc) best fits.
I agree with this, since this is basically my position in this thread, which is counter to your definition or Rich's. Your definition of combo engine is not consistent with this. Your definition purports to provide a contextual criteria by which we can assess whether an engine is a combo engine or not (to wit: reliability/consistency, and speed).
The word combo is a misnomer in Magic, and refers to a broad set of strategies that may not even rely on specific combinations. It's a heuristic or rule of thumb that is not precisely definable. I agree that decks that fit that description, "combo," that when they employ engines, those engines may be appropriately described as "combo engines." But that has nothing to do with the nature of the engine itself (your original position), and everything to do with the strategies that use it.
Necropotence in today's Vintage environment is a "combo" engine because, simply, it best fits a combo archetype that can disregard its lack of consistency:
So, if Necropotence were unrestricted, would Necro still not be best in combo decks? Of course it would. But that's an inference from your analysis here, demonstrating its flaws, which I won't belabor.
Taking the first part: What is a "quick win"? The Gushbond engine is supposed to be a "combo engine," according to Rich, yet it's clear that the Gushbond engine is sometimes anything but quick. You might have turn 1 Fastbond + Gush, not win quickly -- it might take until turn 4 or so. And, it's not clear that there is any sacrifice in consistency or reliability. What about Animating Dragon? What consistency or reliability is sacrificed by this mana (or, combo engine)?
Fastbond itself is a mana engine that can fit nearly any strategy. I could play Fastbond in a control deck, an aggro deck, or a combo deck. As a singleton, again, its reliability is fundamentally compromised; thus it most frequently appears in combo archetypes as do most other engines that are restricted in Vintage for reasons that I explained above (wrt Necropotence).
Wrong again.
Fastbond is not a mana engine. See my definition of engine. That's like saying Black Lotus is an engine. It is not. Both Lotus and Fastbond are acelerants. The difference is that Fastbond is a conditional acellerant. You've clearly miscategorized Fastbond.
I think the term "combo engine" is misleading for the reason that the term 'combo' is actually a misnomer in Magic. Combo refers to specific interactions: Illusions - Donate, Power Artifact + Grim Monolith, Channel + Fireball. Somehow this term evolved to refer to amorphous sequences that aren't really specific combos at all. Gush + Fastbond is a combo, but the Gushbond engine is not. It refers to the entire sequence of plays and the package of cards that supports this engine.
You're right in that the entire term "combo engine" and "combo" as a prefix in general is vague and misleading. However, it is useful in this context simply to illuminate the more common appearance of a card in whichever strategy it reaches its maximum effectiveness (and whichever strategy best mitigates that card's shortcomings in terms of reliability and consistency).
I agree with everything here except that parenthetical.
Per my Gush book, I offer these definition: "An engine is a continuous or iterative system or process that is strategically significant or central to a deck's game plan." Engines transform inputs into useful outputs. Real life engines turn thermal energy (i.e. petroleum) into kinetic energy. The Gushbond engine transforms Gushes into storm, card draw, and mana production, among other ends.
An apt description.
However, through the use of this definition you fail to impart the crucial distinction between bursts of advantage or increments of advantage.
Not at all. I already make this distinction in earlier chapters in my book (from 2010). This distinction doesn't matter here. Engines are engines. All this distinction does is describe that engine.
A real life engine could be useful for a one-time burst of energy or could also be useful as a continuous process generating energy over a longer period of time. Any definition of an engine in Magic must take into account the turn-based nature of the game that splits engine productivity into single or multiple turns.
But my definition does. Re-read my definition.
The first element is "continuous or relatively continuous (i.e. iterative).
Dark Confidant satisfies that element by being relatively continuous (i.e. iterative).
This further distinction is unnecessary because it is already built into the structure of my definition.
Moreover, it's not necessary necessary that an engine respect the turn-based nature of the game. Channel probably satisfies my definition of an engine, yet produces an effect that only lasts a turn. It's continuous while in operation, although it's not iterative.
To be an engine, you have to have inputs that become outputs in a sequence. There has to be some transformation of one resource, usually abundant or not, by itself, hugely impactful, into something that is extremely valuable.
Fastbond is the sparkplug/starter, Gush is the engine fuel, and the rest of the package is the oil lubrication.
I don't think the definition of a combo engine, to the extent one exists, hinges at all on this idea of "reduced reliability or consistency." How does any combo engine have reduced consistency relative to any other engine? All engines have relative consistency, reliability, and nothing about being "combo" has any impact on that whatsoever.
Again, as I mentioned before, "combo" is used to denote the strategy an engine best fits. A singleton is by its nature less reliable and better fits a combo archetype for all of the reasons I already discussed.
And, again, as I said, being restricted or singleton and therefore less reliable has no bearing whatsoever one whether something is a combo engine. That merely describes the combo engine, but is not a definitional element.
The thrust of the bits of argument I did not quote is basically a claim that combo decks are less reliable or somehow less consistent (see your point about different strategies having different standards of consistency). Yet, that's clearly unprovable or false. WDG Combo (today, Minus 6) uses the Bazaar/Squee engine, which was far more reliable than Psychatog's Intuition/AK engine. Modern Doomsday uses a draw and search engine that is more or equally consistent than anything control decks use, the preordain/Gush engine. Burning Tendrils uses 4 Oath and 4 Burning Wish as complementary engines. Clearly not less consistant than Bob/Jace. Your dichotomy is simply false or impossible to prove. Your claims aren't empirically founded.
whereas a control deck wants no part of one-shot mana accelerants,
Because Control decks want nothing to do with Black Lotus, right? :/
To make statements like that, you have to be trolling this thread; I'm done.
