A big part of it is probably meta. Once people start acceopting the power of combo and that a game has to end, decks start including at least one as a way to finish things out. Spot removal also goes up proportionally to deal with combos. It becomes a much more interactive game, that just happens to end quickly. People will argue this point, but theyre probably playing in a more casual circle where not every player wants to win so much as they want to play.
More casual groups aim for a more battlecruiser style game, and thats fine, the games just last forever and the person who realizes combo wins will be hated on so hard. Removal also tends to be light because you dont need to stop someone from going off.
The two ideaologies dont mix well, so when you mix a player with one mentality with the other it clashes. Battlecruiser style players tend to gripe and hate on a combo player regardless of board State and deck type. This in turn forces a person who understands combo to play more aggressively if they want to play, it also ensures the person who knows how to combo can never play a battlecruiser deck with those people because they will always expect a combo and hate on them.
A good example of this appears in the ettiquette thread where one person tailored their deck to hate blue and will always target blue regardless of what the deck does, meaning if youre playing blue in that guys pod you have to win aggressively fast or hes not going to let you play the game at all regardless of other players. He in essence escalates the thing he hates and creates a bigger problem where none should exist. This is also something ive experienced locally recently, along with some of my friends, and we know now that if a certain person is in our pod we have to play the most cutthroat deck just to cram it up his ass and hate him out of the pod, because even if we play derpyelephant tribal he still hates because we have another deck that can combo. Its a gross misunderstanding of threat assesment, clashing ideaologies, and most times an inability to adapt with a group.
I think a lot of people also confuse synergy with combo. Theres a huge difference. The noninfinite combo posted above is a synergy, not a combo. Combo ends a game on the spot. Synergies tend to just put you in a position where its difficult to lose.
I'll say that consistency is a huge issue when including combos. When my friends and I started getting together regularly we would pretty often lose to one guys Bant good stuff deck. And almost every game would play out the same way. He would ramp hard in the early turns amd hit 8 or 9 by the time we hit 4 then he'd draw a ton of cards or tutor out Avenger of Zendikar and Champion of Lambholt and then flash them in with Alchemist's Refuge and swing lethal. I don't have a problem with the combo. What I, and the rest of the guys, had an issue with was the games all ending the same way. And the issue, again wasn't the combo itself but the consistency with which he would get it because of the amount of tutors and mass card draw he used.
Point being if you're going to include a combo for the sake of ending games that have gone to long don't make your deck able to pull it off super consistently as it will agitate your group of they were otherwise against it. And if you can do it consistently then sometimes chose not to. Sometimes don't tutor for your combo piece. Or if you draw it hold it back and try any other method to win until you're stuck with only that one option.
I'll say that consistency is a huge issue when including combos. When my friends and I started getting together regularly we would pretty often lose to one guys Bant good stuff deck. And almost every game would play out the same way. He would ramp hard in the early turns amd hit 8 or 9 by the time we hit 4 then he'd draw a ton of cards or tutor out Avenger of Zendikar and Champion of Lambholt and then flash them in with Alchemist's Refuge and swing lethal. I don't have a problem with the combo. What I, and the rest of the guys, had an issue with was the games all ending the same way. And the issue, again wasn't the combo itself but the consistency with which he would get it because of the amount of tutors and mass card draw he used.
Point being if you're going to include a combo for the sake of ending games that have gone to long don't make your deck able to pull it off super consistently as it will agitate your group of they were otherwise against it. And if you can do it consistently then sometimes chose not to. Sometimes don't tutor for your combo piece. Or if you draw it hold it back and try any other method to win until you're stuck with only that one option.
The problem with "holding it back" means that you are then playing with your food. My opinion is that's rude to people's time. If you choose not to tutor for said combo, fine, I get that. But if it's in your hand? Just end the game already. I guess that's where we differ. If I'm going to draw the combo but not play it, I'll take it out of my deck first. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this point.
I think a lot of people also confuse synergy with combo. Theres a huge difference. The noninfinite combo posted above is a synergy, not a combo. Combo ends a game on the spot. Synergies tend to just put you in a position where its difficult to lose.
Per the article, a lot of the synergies above are combos exactly because they are put in there to interact with each other and likely in the deck for no other reason. They just aren't infinite. Really, it's all needless semantics. The dictionary definition of combination is generic, something to the effect of different things put together to do something where the parts remain distinct and different. Which also meets the criteria of a combo. I've honestly never understood why people in this game slavishly and needlessly define combo as immediately game ending, but it's pretty common. Yet I've seen combos that take longer than a regular game to win that are endless loops of frustration. It's a combo, it is infinite, but it couldn't win a game instantly to save its life.
Per the article, a lot of the synergies above are combos exactly because they are put in there to interact with each other and likely in the deck for no other reason. They just aren't infinite. Really, it's all needless semantics. The dictionary definition of combination is generic, something to the effect of different things put together to do something where the parts remain distinct and different. Which also meets the criteria of a combo. I've honestly never understood why people in this game slavishly and needlessly define combo as immediately game ending, but it's pretty common. Yet I've seen combos that take longer than a regular game to win that are endless loops of frustration. It's a combo, it is infinite, but it couldn't win a game instantly to save its life.
That's confusing as hell. Saying combo for both Mikaeus+Triskelion and sporesower thallid+sporoloth ancient would just mislead a lot of players.
Combo as an archetype win the game on the spot when the combo is assembled. That's why you are not playing a combo deck if you are playing a fungus deck with sporoloth and sporesower.
Mislead them on what exactly? If anything is confusing, it's Magic players warping the language of a society to needlessly stratify a difference between combo and synergy. You're arguing that an intentional combination of cards is not a combo unless and only if it ends the game instantly, which is itself a false position, as many combos don't. Combos are by their very nature synergistic, so the distinction is absurd. It's just as ridiculous as calling ramp an archetype when ramp cards won't win you a blasted thing. Most decks ramp anymore, either with rocks or spells, and the wincon should be what defines the archetype. I would argue ramp as it's commonly used means simply Battlecruiser magic, as opposed to (instant) combo, mill, stax, or other archetypes.
In environments where at least some fraction of a playgroup has access to better cards and as a consequence is able to draw more, ramp faster, and spew a lot of threats onto the table, it is natural for players on a budget to find instant-win combos as a way to still be able to punch through all that value without having to draw as many cards. I don't fault players for doing this in an effort to fight against players with access to better cards. This is where I started. Boros 1-shot infect/Worldslayer and Necrotic Ooze combo. These play patterns became unsatisfying to play very quickly though for a variety of reasons.
On the other hand, when it's the players who have the big expansive collection WITH all the best ramp and card draw/tutoring who are playing the game-ending combos, I think it can very easily become problematic for play groups. In either case, the possibility of losing out of nowhere to a surprise before you untap generally has a bad effect on the kinds of decks that are viable from the metric of: "Can I do my fun thing before the game ends?" Trying to achieve a deck's fun goal in a timely manner is not aligned with holding up mana every turn in case you need to Krosan Grip or otherwise having your board state instantly invalidated by a win-button because you wanted to play it 20-30 minutes sooner when it was on curve.
At any rate, I think that playgroups would have a better experience overall if the players with the larger collection had decks to play that wouldn't force the budget players down the path of all or nothing game plans. Trying to figure out how build such a deck has been difficult because I'm drawn to recurring value cards (typically recurring recursion) as a way to stay viable in multiplayer, but those cards make it very hard for the weaker decks to fight back.
The problem with "holding it back" means that you are then playing with your food. My opinion is that's rude to people's time. If you choose not to tutor for said combo, fine, I get that. But if it's in your hand? Just end the game already. I guess that's where we differ. If I'm going to draw the combo but not play it, I'll take it out of my deck first. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this point.
Per the article, a lot of the synergies above are combos exactly because they are put in there to interact with each other and likely in the deck for no other reason. They just aren't infinite. Really, it's all needless semantics. The dictionary definition of combination is generic, something to the effect of different things put together to do something where the parts remain distinct and different. Which also meets the criteria of a combo. I've honestly never understood why people in this game slavishly and needlessly define combo as immediately game ending, but it's pretty common. Yet I've seen combos that take longer than a regular game to win that are endless loops of frustration. It's a combo, it is infinite, but it couldn't win a game instantly to save its life.
Don't get me wrong. I've never held back a combo when I drew it. I was just suggesting something in case you're going off so consistently that it upsets your group.
Also: combo doesn't necessarily end a game immediately. Deadeye Navigator+Peregrin Drake is a combo but it, by itself, doesn't end the game instantly.
]Mislead them on what exactly? If anything is confusing, it's Magic players warping the language of a society to needlessly stratify a difference between combo and synergy. You're arguing that an intentional combination of cards is not a combo unless and only if it ends the game instantly, which is itself a false position, as many combos don't. Combos are by their very nature synergistic, so the distinction is absurd. It's just as ridiculous as calling ramp an archetype when ramp cards won't win you a blasted thing. Most decks ramp anymore, either with rocks or spells, and the wincon should be what defines the archetype. I would argue ramp as it's commonly used means simply Battlecruiser magic, as opposed to (instant) combo, mill, stax, or other archetypes.
Hey guys i have combo! *plays Sporoloth and Sporesower in a thallid deck*
Hey guys i have combo! *plays Mikaeus and Triskelion and actively tutors to find them asap*
Of course the players are worping the language. Games, hobbies, sports and what else warp languages frequently. What's wrong with that?
"Combo" in magic have got a particular meaning and it came from the combo archetype. Playing the combo archetype means that you play two or more cards that together win on the spot. So "combo" became to mean "two or more cards that win on the spot".
I see no problem with that. Cards that together win on the spot need a clear definition for the game to work properly and not mislead players and players have found a solution for that.
You know, I originally typed a snarky response, but I'm just going to end it here by saying your narrow application of a term isn't as monolithic as you think. Good night.
]You know, I originally typed a snarky response, but I'm just going to end it here by saying your narrow application of a term isn't as monolithic as you think. Good night.
For many players, it is. I'll always use combo to mean something that win on the spot or almost win on the spot. Other things are sinergies. Simple as that, way more functional than applying a dictionary definition in a game that has its own language fr the sake of it. I don't know why this bothers you so much.
This is also derailing the topic. It's clear that the OP, by saying combo, meant a 2-3 cards combination that win on the spot. He surely wasn't talking about dauntless river marshal+hallowed fountain
Well to be fair, you're the one that started this off by lecturing several of us on what is not actually a combo because they aren't infinite, and then kept arguing instead of letting it drop. So I could say the same thing to you about why it's so important to you. But since this is the internet then obviously you are NEVER responsible for anything, it's always someone else, right? Smh.
But, before returning it to the topic at hand, I will say that my combos did end the game or put it out of reach right there, which meets your criteria. They just weren't infinite.
According to ilovesaproling's typically hostile and antagonistic stance, non-deterministic combos with random elements that have to depend on statistics (negligible, but still extant chance of whiffing) to elicit forfeits from the pod if you don't want to play it out step be step...
Are not combos.
I'm talking things like Dualcaster Mage in response to Warp World with roughly as many permanents on board as cards in your deck and high token-generator density in the deck, or Fiery Gambit in Zada, Hedron Grinder brews with enough bodies on the board that you're statistically VERY likely to flip enough coins to the damage reward to kill the pod, but not guaranteed to.
On the main topic: a decent way to both pack solid, conclusive game-enders and avoid bruising the feelings of more casual players to badly is to run combos that are more fragile, more of a gamble. The more moving pieces your finisher takes to lock, the more room there is for someone to feel heroic disrupting you, the less likely having combos in your brew is to salt casual tables.
If we take "combo" (I'm not going to argue about the definition here just going to use mine for my statement here) as any number of high synergy cards that can help close out the game, then yes, you should include those.
I had a relatively recent (5-player) game where I knocked out 3 other players at one go with a X=15 Debt to the Deathless and left the last player with 7 life. My Commander was equipped with Sunforger and Umezawa's Jitte with 2 counters on it but my opponent had tokens to block with, so I attacked, brought back Stoneforge Mystic for Whispersilk Cloak, which I put on my Commander for assurance next turn.
In desperation my opponent cast and used Slate of Ancestry and managed to draw and cast Day of Judgment, but I responded by unequipping Sunforger and (I didn't think of it prior it was just because I had no other response, but it came quickly when I was running through the deck) realized I could tutor for Enlightened Tutor for Sanguine Bond, which I could use the 4 counters on Jitte for lethal (opponent spent all his mana on Slate and DOJ). In that moment the 5 cards involved (Commander, Sunforger, Jitte, E.Tutor, Bond) were an impromptu combo - but among the 5 only 1 was really a "combo piece" (I also had Cliffhaven Vampire and Exquisite Blood in the deck, so no prizes guessing which is the piece) when I was building the deck.
Likewise, my Debt to the Deathless only fired so successfully because I had Urborg and Coffers (and that I timed it precisely when I knew there were no counterspells). Like Blood-bond, it was an intended combo, but it's variable enough that whether it was a lethal one isn't a confirmed one and in fact the one I did was lethal to 3 players but didn't win me the game straight (but put me in a high position enough though). But, at the same time, without the 5-card impromptu combo that situation could have very easily dragged out if I drew into the wrong cards and/or the opponent drew into good cards (he was playing Trostani, so lifegain was very probable). Do I credit to the fact I put Blood-Bond combo in the deck, or that the cards all just had great synergy to end the game quickly? I personally thought it was the later.
That all being said, I personally find it's still a lot easier to invoke impromptu combos via synergy if you put "intentional combos" (like Blood-Bond) in a deck that already revolves around the combo's mechanics (that deck had plenty of lifegain and was supposedly combat-orientated to inflict damage, but had fallbacks like Blood Artist and the similar cards, but without the Blood-Bond combo I would have not likely considered putting Bond into the deck at all.)
Either way, regardless of synergy or combo, the most important thing it adheres to the enjoyment of the group (my entire example is only applicable because my group certainly didn't want that game dragging out especially when I had over 140 life and the opponent has lifegain as well). If you alone like a playstyle that most others don't, or the whole group just consists of people who want to win and will complain regardless of losing to anything, then it becomes more of a player/community problem then a deckbuilding/playstyle issue anymore.
As others have put before, it not quite a black and white answer.
In 1 word: no
In many words: yes you should have a way of bringing a game to a quick end particularly from a dominant board state. I dont play combo decks because I dont really enjoy them but I do have Chandra's Ignition in my Kresh deck to end the game. It requires me to have a sizable creature in play and is really open to disruption but means that the game will end quickly but not "out of nowhere".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH BRGKresh the BloodbraidedBRG, A box of lands and ideas.
Modern: RG Titanshift. A deck made of cards too stupid for EDH.
Retired: Lots. More than I feel you should suffer through or I should type out.
Since EDH is a casual magic playstyle (I dont like the wording format, which imo suits more for competitive) we are free to use cards the way we prefer. Combos are also a part of magic, no matter if we like it to play with and/or against or not.
Call me a masochist but I enjoy being beaten by some combos I've never seen before "Wow, those cards together can make such an effect?!?! Gratz dude, you just gìve me an idea for one of my deck"
To the question "All deck must have a combo?" my answer would be: must have, no but they definitely should have atleast one.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I can not win the game and my opponents can not lose the game.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A big part of it is probably meta. Once people start acceopting the power of combo and that a game has to end, decks start including at least one as a way to finish things out. Spot removal also goes up proportionally to deal with combos. It becomes a much more interactive game, that just happens to end quickly. People will argue this point, but theyre probably playing in a more casual circle where not every player wants to win so much as they want to play.
More casual groups aim for a more battlecruiser style game, and thats fine, the games just last forever and the person who realizes combo wins will be hated on so hard. Removal also tends to be light because you dont need to stop someone from going off.
The two ideaologies dont mix well, so when you mix a player with one mentality with the other it clashes. Battlecruiser style players tend to gripe and hate on a combo player regardless of board State and deck type. This in turn forces a person who understands combo to play more aggressively if they want to play, it also ensures the person who knows how to combo can never play a battlecruiser deck with those people because they will always expect a combo and hate on them.
A good example of this appears in the ettiquette thread where one person tailored their deck to hate blue and will always target blue regardless of what the deck does, meaning if youre playing blue in that guys pod you have to win aggressively fast or hes not going to let you play the game at all regardless of other players. He in essence escalates the thing he hates and creates a bigger problem where none should exist. This is also something ive experienced locally recently, along with some of my friends, and we know now that if a certain person is in our pod we have to play the most cutthroat deck just to cram it up his ass and hate him out of the pod, because even if we play derpyelephant tribal he still hates because we have another deck that can combo. Its a gross misunderstanding of threat assesment, clashing ideaologies, and most times an inability to adapt with a group.
I think a lot of people also confuse synergy with combo. Theres a huge difference. The noninfinite combo posted above is a synergy, not a combo. Combo ends a game on the spot. Synergies tend to just put you in a position where its difficult to lose.
Point being if you're going to include a combo for the sake of ending games that have gone to long don't make your deck able to pull it off super consistently as it will agitate your group of they were otherwise against it. And if you can do it consistently then sometimes chose not to. Sometimes don't tutor for your combo piece. Or if you draw it hold it back and try any other method to win until you're stuck with only that one option.
The problem with "holding it back" means that you are then playing with your food. My opinion is that's rude to people's time. If you choose not to tutor for said combo, fine, I get that. But if it's in your hand? Just end the game already. I guess that's where we differ. If I'm going to draw the combo but not play it, I'll take it out of my deck first. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this point.
I disagree. I took a few minutes and looked up an MTG article.
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/level-one/two-card-combinations-2014-06-30
Per the article, a lot of the synergies above are combos exactly because they are put in there to interact with each other and likely in the deck for no other reason. They just aren't infinite. Really, it's all needless semantics. The dictionary definition of combination is generic, something to the effect of different things put together to do something where the parts remain distinct and different. Which also meets the criteria of a combo. I've honestly never understood why people in this game slavishly and needlessly define combo as immediately game ending, but it's pretty common. Yet I've seen combos that take longer than a regular game to win that are endless loops of frustration. It's a combo, it is infinite, but it couldn't win a game instantly to save its life.
In environments where at least some fraction of a playgroup has access to better cards and as a consequence is able to draw more, ramp faster, and spew a lot of threats onto the table, it is natural for players on a budget to find instant-win combos as a way to still be able to punch through all that value without having to draw as many cards. I don't fault players for doing this in an effort to fight against players with access to better cards. This is where I started. Boros 1-shot infect/Worldslayer and Necrotic Ooze combo. These play patterns became unsatisfying to play very quickly though for a variety of reasons.
On the other hand, when it's the players who have the big expansive collection WITH all the best ramp and card draw/tutoring who are playing the game-ending combos, I think it can very easily become problematic for play groups. In either case, the possibility of losing out of nowhere to a surprise before you untap generally has a bad effect on the kinds of decks that are viable from the metric of: "Can I do my fun thing before the game ends?" Trying to achieve a deck's fun goal in a timely manner is not aligned with holding up mana every turn in case you need to Krosan Grip or otherwise having your board state instantly invalidated by a win-button because you wanted to play it 20-30 minutes sooner when it was on curve.
At any rate, I think that playgroups would have a better experience overall if the players with the larger collection had decks to play that wouldn't force the budget players down the path of all or nothing game plans. Trying to figure out how build such a deck has been difficult because I'm drawn to recurring value cards (typically recurring recursion) as a way to stay viable in multiplayer, but those cards make it very hard for the weaker decks to fight back.
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
Don't get me wrong. I've never held back a combo when I drew it. I was just suggesting something in case you're going off so consistently that it upsets your group.
Also: combo doesn't necessarily end a game immediately. Deadeye Navigator+Peregrin Drake is a combo but it, by itself, doesn't end the game instantly.
But, before returning it to the topic at hand, I will say that my combos did end the game or put it out of reach right there, which meets your criteria. They just weren't infinite.
Are not combos.
I'm talking things like Dualcaster Mage in response to Warp World with roughly as many permanents on board as cards in your deck and high token-generator density in the deck, or Fiery Gambit in Zada, Hedron Grinder brews with enough bodies on the board that you're statistically VERY likely to flip enough coins to the damage reward to kill the pod, but not guaranteed to.
On the main topic: a decent way to both pack solid, conclusive game-enders and avoid bruising the feelings of more casual players to badly is to run combos that are more fragile, more of a gamble. The more moving pieces your finisher takes to lock, the more room there is for someone to feel heroic disrupting you, the less likely having combos in your brew is to salt casual tables.
Most Used (of many dozens) EDH Decks:
Brago, King Eternal - Stax
Grenzo, Dungeon Warden - Aggro Combo
Wort, the Raidmother - Spellslinger Swarm Control
Animar, Soul of Elements - Tempo Combo
Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder - Spellslinger
Exodia the Forbidden One:
Oona, Queen of the Fae - Combowins.dec
I had a relatively recent (5-player) game where I knocked out 3 other players at one go with a X=15 Debt to the Deathless and left the last player with 7 life. My Commander was equipped with Sunforger and Umezawa's Jitte with 2 counters on it but my opponent had tokens to block with, so I attacked, brought back Stoneforge Mystic for Whispersilk Cloak, which I put on my Commander for assurance next turn.
In desperation my opponent cast and used Slate of Ancestry and managed to draw and cast Day of Judgment, but I responded by unequipping Sunforger and (I didn't think of it prior it was just because I had no other response, but it came quickly when I was running through the deck) realized I could tutor for Enlightened Tutor for Sanguine Bond, which I could use the 4 counters on Jitte for lethal (opponent spent all his mana on Slate and DOJ). In that moment the 5 cards involved (Commander, Sunforger, Jitte, E.Tutor, Bond) were an impromptu combo - but among the 5 only 1 was really a "combo piece" (I also had Cliffhaven Vampire and Exquisite Blood in the deck, so no prizes guessing which is the piece) when I was building the deck.
Likewise, my Debt to the Deathless only fired so successfully because I had Urborg and Coffers (and that I timed it precisely when I knew there were no counterspells). Like Blood-bond, it was an intended combo, but it's variable enough that whether it was a lethal one isn't a confirmed one and in fact the one I did was lethal to 3 players but didn't win me the game straight (but put me in a high position enough though). But, at the same time, without the 5-card impromptu combo that situation could have very easily dragged out if I drew into the wrong cards and/or the opponent drew into good cards (he was playing Trostani, so lifegain was very probable). Do I credit to the fact I put Blood-Bond combo in the deck, or that the cards all just had great synergy to end the game quickly? I personally thought it was the later.
That all being said, I personally find it's still a lot easier to invoke impromptu combos via synergy if you put "intentional combos" (like Blood-Bond) in a deck that already revolves around the combo's mechanics (that deck had plenty of lifegain and was supposedly combat-orientated to inflict damage, but had fallbacks like Blood Artist and the similar cards, but without the Blood-Bond combo I would have not likely considered putting Bond into the deck at all.)
Either way, regardless of synergy or combo, the most important thing it adheres to the enjoyment of the group (my entire example is only applicable because my group certainly didn't want that game dragging out especially when I had over 140 life and the opponent has lifegain as well). If you alone like a playstyle that most others don't, or the whole group just consists of people who want to win and will complain regardless of losing to anything, then it becomes more of a player/community problem then a deckbuilding/playstyle issue anymore.
In 1 word: no
In many words: yes you should have a way of bringing a game to a quick end particularly from a dominant board state. I dont play combo decks because I dont really enjoy them but I do have Chandra's Ignition in my Kresh deck to end the game. It requires me to have a sizable creature in play and is really open to disruption but means that the game will end quickly but not "out of nowhere".
BRGKresh the BloodbraidedBRG, A box of lands and ideas.
Modern:
RG Titanshift. A deck made of cards too stupid for EDH.
Retired: Lots. More than I feel you should suffer through or I should type out.
Call me a masochist but I enjoy being beaten by some combos I've never seen before "Wow, those cards together can make such an effect?!?! Gratz dude, you just gìve me an idea for one of my deck"
To the question "All deck must have a combo?" my answer would be: must have, no but they definitely should have atleast one.