[Article] Eternal Europe - Fundamentals: What Is Combo

[Mon,Goblin Chief]

I decided to cover some fundamental understandings of different decktypes this time. I'm looking at the different sub-archetypes of what we call combo-decks and what their strengths and weaknesses are. Enjoy!

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/24745-Eternal-Europe-Fundamentals-What-Is-Combo.html

[tonedown]

Kudos to you for a good article.

[TarmoX]

Very interesting and useful article! :smile:

[Justin]

I enjoyed the article as well, although I've always considered the term "one-card combo" to be an oxymoron.

[Ignithas_]

Good article. There's only one thing I don't understand. Why is Hypergenesis a one card combo, when you need a cascade spell/SnT and at least a fattie and SneakShow, where you need a Sneak Attack/SnT and at least one fattie not?

[rufus]

A combo deck in Magic terms is a deck that is fully dedicated to setting up a line of plays that will, if left undisrupted, either end the game on the spot or move it into a position that all but guarantees a win in the next one to two turns.


Every magic deck tries to do that.
Is Burn a combo deck? Is Goblins? I think that the hallmark of a combo deck is that it tries to win using the synergies of a small number of specialized cards, rather than a larger number of more generic ones.

[Darkenslight]

Good article. There's only one thing I don't understand. Why is Hypergenesis a one card combo, when you need a cascade spell/SnT and at least a fattie and SneakShow, where you need a Sneak Attack/SnT and at least one fattie not?

Because Hypergenesis is really the fundamental engine in the deck. Cascade is merely the mechanism by which the Genesis happens. It's like Food Chain Goblins is fundamentally a one-card combo deck, with a combo-like synergy in its tribal aspect. ANT, however, is also a one-card combo deck, as you focus on resolving your Ad Nauseam, and usually win from there.

Otherwise, a good article.

[Vacrix]

I would say that storm combo is technically a system deck rather than a combination of X cards that creates a very powerful/game winning board position or straight up kill.

However, I think that system decks have to have actual decision trees, so Burn wouldn't fall into that category. Goblins is more of an aggro-control deck with more complex lines of play than, say Zoo, because of cards like Matron that provide more complex decision trees. And we know it can be a 2 card combo deck when you consider Goblin Recruiter/Food Chain. Recruiter was banned for a reason; a combo plan, control plan, and aggro plan make the deck quite formidable, especially when you consider variations that specialize in some of those aspects, ie. Waste/Port Goblins vs. Dedicated Food Chain, vs. Instigator/Chieftains/Krenko.

I'm slightly disappoint.. in PSI being mentioned merely as a list and completely left undiscussed. Considering its an archetype that many are unfamiliar with, I think it at least deserved a description so people aren't like "what the fuck is Odious Trow for?"

Also, I think that CMU Academy should have been discussed further as there are many cards in there that would have a player unfamiliar with Legacy saying, "how in gods name were these cards left unbanned?"

[Lord Seth]

Why is there no decklist for Dredge? You talk about it and give it a section, but give no decklist.

[Mon,Goblin Chief]

Thanks everybody, happy you enjoyed it :)

@trivial_matters: that was awesome!

@Ignithas: I look at Hypergenesis as having so many fatties that it is kind of bound to have something to drop into play. Admittedly that point of view could easily be contested given that 14, only 12 of which are actually board-dominating, isn't that high. Good catch.

@Rufus: I disagree, though maybe there are semantics involved here and my definition could have been clearer/cleaner.
Most decks don't spend a lot of time setting up a certain line of plays that suddenly leads to a game win in short order. They play the game from turn one onwards with the goal of edging out advantages (be it by reducing the opponents life total, establishing a favorable board state, creating card-advantage or limiting the opponent's options) that will eventually accumulate and lead to a won game. You aren't setting up a certain line of plays, you're following a line of plays that is dictated by the gamestate, the matchup and both player's draws until one player dies because he couldn't stand up to how his opponent's game progressed compared to his own.

Combo on the other hand just sets up as long as is necessary to make one of its core lines viable, at which point you just die (well, sometimes with a turns delay). They either find&reolve the necessary pieces and you're dead or they don't and you win. The progression of the game, the timings and windows of opportunity are very different from those in games involving more traditional decks, which is what the definition tries to capture.

Also, for the record, it makes a lot of sense to look at Burn as a relatively slow (turn 4) engine-combo-deck that goes off over multiple turns and really runs nothing but engine pieces and mana sources (the engine being 7 Lightning Bolts).

/edit:
@Lord Seth: Argh, I must have forgotten to put one in when I added all the lists after writing the text of the article. Sorry about that.

@Darkenslight: ANT could be considered a one card combo deck if all it did was resolve Ad Nauseam->GG every game. If someone plays the deck that way, they're not using it to its full potential at all.

@Vacrix: I think what you call a system deck and what I call an engine deck are pretty close to the same thing. Essentially what these decks do is to set up a certain combination of cards that wins the game, though the deck contains a very large number of different combinations that lead to the desired end result.
As for the decklists not being discussed in-depth, I was aiming for a very general strategic view here. I don't think explaining the sample decklists (that serve mainly for people to get an impression what kind of deck I'm talking about in each subcategory) in detail would really have helped to do that.

[Koby]

I got a good laugh from the last header of the article. Go Off as an outro. Brilliant!

[Finn]

Whenever I read Carsten's articles I find myself astounded at how poor my nephew's English is. Same was true when I used to talk to Eldariel. Never a flaw even when talking in slang. Forget bilingual, after reading his facebook crap I would be happy if the kid were lingual.

Cool coverage, Carsten. We need stuff like this every now and again to keep the constant supply of new players ejumacated.

[aaronm678]

ANT, however, is also a one-card combo deck, as you focus on resolving your Ad Nauseam, and usually win from there.

An ANT player who resolves Ad Nauseam every game is a very bad ANT player (I'd say <40% of games come down to Ad Naus).

[Lord Seth]

One suggestion I have is that it would be nice if, when listing the various combo decks, you engage in a brief description of how they work. If you're not familiar with them, it can sometimes be annoying and/or difficult to look through the cards in the deck to try to figure it out. It doesn't have to be more than a sentence or two (e.g. "Spiral Tide works by using High Tide in conjunction with cards that untap lands or draw cards--or in the case of Time Spiral both--in other to build up tons of mana and Storm to win the game by decking the opponent via Brain Freeze and/or Blue Sun's Zenith."), but it would probably help some readers.