Combo vs. Synergy
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Oct. 4, 2017, 5:12 p.m. by Profet93
I've come across different playgroups who all have their own definitions of "combo" and "synergy." Even people within my LGS differ very greatly with regards to their opinion on this matter.
Personally, I consider something a combo if it goes infinite, otherwise it is just a synergy between 2 or more cards. Other people within my LGS state that a combo is an interaction of 2 or more cards that "win you the game." For example, one of my decks can make either infinite mana, or just a lot of mana. Since they said no infinite combos, I took them out and replaced them with what I consider to be good synergy which is as follows...
Cabal Coffers + Vesuva + Thespian's Stage + Mirage Mirror (4th coffer) + Candelabra of Tawnos + Rings of Brighthearth. It goes as follows, use all 4 coffers to make a bunch of mana, use the candelabra to untap all the coffers and repeat. Rings is optional as it allows you to get an additional (not infinite) activation of Candelabra. Even after I told him that you need to tap the Candelabra of Tawnos to activate it (the card itself doesn't show the tap symbol), he said it's still considered a "combo."
What is everyone else's thoughts on this, whether it's regard to the specific example I provided, or just your experiences in general.
SpectrumMaster says... #3
For me, synergy is more of a secondary interaction, such as a creature entering with a +1/+1 counter and drawing a card when a creature with a counter deals damage. This is two effects you are combining directly, repeating the desired effect. That, to me, is a combo.I also agree that an interaction which directly causes a win or unbeatable board state can be considered a combo, it does not need to be infinite.The problem is, combos, by their very nature, are synergistic. So all combos are a form of synergy. But saying a combo is just synergy is like saying an explosion is just sound. There is more going on.
October 4, 2017 6:02 p.m.
Megalomania says... #4
I would not be against it. Its pretty far from being OP.
I believe there have been discussions on this same topic in the past.
this was the last one I came across.
October 4, 2017 6:03 p.m.
You say direct or indirect. Vesuva could copy an opponent's cradle, same with Thespian's stage. Because I chose to copy coffers when I could copy anything else (same with mirror, except even more targets). With regards to depths, I run mirror, stage and hexmage. However, although I can usually pay for it, I prefer to cheat it out.
While I disagree with your definition, I kind of see what you mean. My problem is that if someone in my LGS says "oh that's (referring to my example or anything similar in my decks or others) a combo, I'll be like, and you getting to cheat out dragons with Ur Dragon and have a bunch of powerful ETB triggers isnt? Nevertheless, I love your sound/explosion analogy as that is the way I see it as well.
Thank you. That's my thought on it too. A lot of mana is only as powerful as what you can do with it. It only takes one counterspell to stop a win con. That's where people say "I don't play blue, I'm not an a**hole." LOL. I'm sorry, I apologize for posting if there was already a discussion posted. I'll take a look right now.
October 4, 2017 6:31 p.m.
SpectrumMaster says... #6
Ur-Dragon isn't a combo, it is an effect. A very strong effect. Combo-ing it would be using the free permanent effect to drop Omniscience (which is what I do) to get all your stuff free.
October 4, 2017 6:34 p.m.
I know. I wasn't clear in my explanation. I meant, if they can classify mine as a combo based on their arbitrary definition (and as Qolorful said there is no definition), then what's to stop me from utilizing my own classifcation and saying "no, that's not allowed because it's a combo" when in reality, it is just really good synergy or value in most cases?
That's what I'm trying to figure out. How can I explain this calmly to someone at my LGS who has a tendency to get made over stupid shit (Ex: His field is filled with dragons, he dealt 26 damage to me last turn so I board wipe EVERYONE'S field, including my own). He gets mad even though other people lost a bunch of their cards as well (lands not affected). I'm not sure if you guys experience this at your LGS/playgroups
October 4, 2017 6:39 p.m.
SpectrumMaster says... #8
Best way to handle those players is to not play them. Your land effects are combos, but not infinite. And there is zero way to eliminate combos, because the game is based on combos. At its very core, casting a spell is combining lands adding mana to pay for the cost. So the only viable distinction in if it has a finite duration not tied to ending the game.
October 4, 2017 7:04 p.m.
While I disagree with your classification of combo, I agree that you're right, it is not infinite. However, I cannot avoid this player as he is always there and I would prefer not to get on bad terms with someone unless ABSOLUTELY necessary, but I see what you mean.
October 4, 2017 7:28 p.m.
shaistyone says... #10
It really is a scale. And the line is pretty personal over what is a combo (which I personally view as the top tier of synergistic effects). Sometimes it is obvious to me, like Exquisite Blood / Sanguine Bond is a combo, theft effects and Conjurer's Closet is synergy.
But there are cases where the line gets blurry, a la Teferi's Puzzle Box / Tomorrow, Azami's Familiar (which put the game drastically out of reach) or Nacatl War-Pride / Cathars' Crusade (which won the game immediately).
In your case, I wouldn't call that combination a combo. It seems to be more of a thought exercise to see how much mana you could generate, as you probably would have been fine doing anything you needed with two of them.
October 4, 2017 9:02 p.m.
Yeah I dont see what the problem with combos is. Thats like saying you wont play with people who play magic
October 4, 2017 9:19 p.m.
Profet93, I would deal with it in the way we have at our LGS and Meta. Explain to the other players that every magic combo or effects can be answered, they just have to build it into their decks and offer to help. This helps the meta get stronger and well rounded. Sadistic Sacrament, Jester's Cap,Counterspell,Disallow all stop a lot of things. If you build your decks for multiplayer then you need to be able to deal with more than one style eg: mill, infect, etb triggers, infinite combos, grave recursion etc. You can not stop everything, but at least have a plan for some.
October 4, 2017 9:21 p.m.
For a long time, my LGS had a rule of three. If a combo would normally go infinite; you were only allowed to do it three times then had to stop.
Of course there's wiggle room there. An example would be when I was playing my Animar, Soul of Elements deck. Animar had a pile of +1/+1 counters with Cloudstone Curio on the field. Normally I could infinitely bounce two eldrazi back n forth (in this case Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre and Kozilek, Butcher of Truth). What I did was have them bounce each other 3 times (drawing 12 cards, destroying 3 things), then bounced Ulamog with Palinchron 3 times, then kozilek with Palinchron 3 times, then preceded to just go nuts. If I just went infinite I could have outright won on the spot anyway, but the rules made me work for it. Might be an idea to bring up
@Qolorful, when I think of Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite synergy, my mind goes to blowing up opponent's lands with Kamahl, Fist of Krosa lol that's fuckin evil
October 4, 2017 9:29 p.m.
Izu_Korasu says... #14
so for starters, Johnny, Combo Player is one of the three fundamental magic archtypes, and from a technical standpoint, any beneficial interaction between two effects is a COMBO (or Combination) .. especially in commander where you get everything from 2 card wincons, to elaborate 6+card infinite/near infinite setups.
it is however common for playgroups to be against infinite combos (which is easy to draw a line at, but creates incentive for near-infinite luck based combo's that are worse) you may want to get a specified description of what a "combo" is from the person making your mtg dreams difficult to achieve.
From my perspective:
a "Synergy" is a combination of effects that allows for a strong, often incremental effect that has a natural limit. (, cards, , targets, symmetry)
while a "Combo" as a category of Synergy that uses specific, often tutored for "pieces" to create instantaneous value by delaying or avoiding a synergies natural limits.
October 4, 2017 11:42 p.m.
You're absolutely right. It is a sliding scale and your points are very well taken.
It's funny because he played a Savage Ventmaw then immediately drew an Aggravated Assault top deck and killed us. He said it's a "fair combo" because it requires combat damage and can be interacted with. I told him that the candelabra and rings can also be interacted with (Krosan Grip).
That's EXACTLY what I told him, word for word. His response? I hate blue and people who play blue suck. Moreover, those options are mostly (key word) available in blue to which i mentioned the sacrament and jester cap as you stated and he said, I don't want to build my deck to stop your deck, I want to build my deck to have fun. I told him, I have fun with my decks and you should try to have fun with yours, but you need to anticipate any and all strategies and do your best to either stop them or work around them. He stuck to his guns.
Thats a very interesting idea. I will need to bring that up. Thank you for your suggestion. Also, my mind went to LD with Norn as well. However, most people at my LGS consider it a combo (I don't).
I asked him what he considered a combo and how it differed from synergy and he gave me an arbitrary definition, to which I responded with my own arbitrary definition. Wow, that's a very good/great definition. I'm going to use that at my LGS because that is the most straightforward one I have heard and it seems acceptable to most (normal) people.
October 5, 2017 12:59 a.m.
I think I'm goint ot try and read this in the context of remembering a few other posts I have seen you make from time to time (generally playgroup related one stick in my memory better). Here goes:
The thing at hand here is that it sounds like you and your playgroup have a fundamentally different way of thinking about and playing MtG. It doesn't matter if you call it a synergy or a combo (side note, I do agree with your definition), the problem is that it sounds like your playgroup wants people to play in a very specific way. "no infinite combos" usually states that "I want to play big creatures and you should play big creatures and we will swing big creatures into each other until somebody losses" as the preferred way of playing. Anything that doesn't follow that similar logic would be considered "unfun" and thus gets banned. And it's easy to just call something a combo once you've put the "no combo' rule in place.
How does your playgroup feel about storm (not infinite sotrm, just Aetherflux Reservoiresque storm) or Laboratory Maniac? I'm will ing to be that these kind of stategies are seen as undesirable as they follow the same combo mindset.
Honestly, since I can remember seeing a few posts with a similar subtheme and reading into the root cause for the question, it sounds like you need to sort some stuff out with you and your playgroup rather than have an arguement over semantics. Though I could be completely misreading this. If so, please ignore.
October 5, 2017 1:22 a.m.
I do apologize for all of my posts. I just want other people's opinions. And yes, that is basically it. Only stompy creatures, some enchantment protection and some burn here and there.
Lab Maniac they HATE with a passion. Aethurflux esque storm is also looked down upon, although the individual card itself is not.
And no, you are absolutely right. There needs to be a discussion. It's just very difficult because everyone's opinions differ even within the same LGS. It's interesting, yet annoying, because I can have a discussion with one group go one way and another discussion go very badly. Sometimes it's due to nature of the discussion (aka, disagreeing of what a combo is), other times its just due to the nature of the person (complaining about everything, EXTREME stickler for the rules, etc....).
People hate combo (however you define it) because "its one track mind, no skill, makes the game boring." I love combo because it ensures you have a win condition (although doesn't always have to be the only 1), it makes for very interesting mind games (I know he will play rings of brighthearth and he knows I have krosan grip so he is going to try to make me discard it so I need to counter his spell), and it makes the games very quickly (just because they don't have jobs and can play magic from 2pm-12pm doesn't mean I can. I don't like when games take over 2 hours), etc...
I explained this logically. I also explained how "you aren't right" (regarding combo or how the game should be played)simply if your playgroup agrees with you. That's just sample bias. Of course we surround ourselves with people who tend to agree with us. Funny because they think I'm just being a pompous a** when in reality I'm just trying to explain to them logical fallacies in their thought process (I feel like I said that in a rude way)
October 5, 2017 2:39 a.m.
I think if they're going to sit there and let you draw into that janky 6 card combo they deserve to lose.
October 5, 2017 6:48 a.m.
Yeah honestly this guy sounds moderately uncool. If he was in my playgroup he would have been put in his place, which happens to be the first one killed every single match... I had a guy like this at my old meta and everyone kinda just put up with him, but no one liked to play him
October 5, 2017 8:17 a.m.
Illusificate says... #20
I'd say a synergy is something like Shield Sphere and Scourge of Skola Vale. A combo would be more like a chain of things that cause a big effect. Like, if on turn 1, you play Shield Sphere, Dark Ritual, Entomb and Soul Exchange. Those cards combo so you can have any card in you library on th field turn 1. That's not Infinite, but a very powerful Combo.
October 5, 2017 8:53 a.m.
@Illusificate, your second example is just good magic, mixed with a lot of luck! That's why we play edh: for the inevitable random and unique plays. I'm not sure if I'd be mad at that play because of how unlikely it'll ever happen again. I might be mad if they chose Iona, Shield of Emeria and picked a color I'm playing and lock me out turn one lol
I have a friend who mostly plays graveyard shenanigans; and he once skipped a land drop turn 1 to discard Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur, then turn two cast Reanimate. Every player before me had to discard their entire hands since they couldn't remove it. On my turn 2 I target Jin-Gitaxias with Cyclonic Rift. Now that player has 1 less land, 10 less life, and everyone else has an empty hand. I was lucky to have my removal, but would you all consider this good or bad magic?
October 5, 2017 9:38 a.m.
Profet93: no need for apologies. We've all been there (some of us multiple times) where we have to deal with someone in our playgroup who is a pain.
Unfortunately, generally the kind of people who cause issues are also not the kind of people who listen to reason or show much understanding. And putting them in their palace or getting angry at them doesn't help either. While it might feel good at the time, it just enforces bad attitudes and stubbornness.
But the most important thing in all of this is that you sent by want to get the rest of your playgroup offside. Talk to them separately about the issue and all agree on a resolution.
But the other thing is, if you're the outlier, then you might need to find a group more conducive to playing magic at the same level as you. Some people don't want to be pushed and if the majority of your play group is that way inclined, it might be worth finding a group more your speed. It's not easy to do, but it might yield the best results.
Just some thoughts for now (not sure how coherent they are, typed out on my phone and it's late) but I would definitely look at your way forward here.
October 5, 2017 9:59 a.m.
shaistyone says... #23
Turn 2 Jin is a pretty cutthroat maneuver. For that level of vigorous play, you have to make sure that you are well matched in your playgroup. I have been in games where no one would bat an eye, and I have been in others where the table would have ejected the player who did that before anyone discarded.
I do admit, in the original poster's example, I would probably be leading a vigorous chant of 'Mr. Moneybags', and asking for a new business loan once the $500 artifact came into play... lol
October 5, 2017 10 a.m.
MindAblaze says... #24
If Im understanding this correctly, the problem is the LGS isnt divided on being opposed to combo, but the semantics of what combo entails. Correct? Thats a slippery slope because, as someone already pointed out, someone can just say; thats a combo thats against the rules, at anytime and if the definition is broad enough, it catches all cards that interact with other cards. If Im right, from the amount of swing this guy has (pun totally intended) it sounds like youre in the minority.
So, you get a Battlecruiser meta where fatties bounce off each other and even ThopterSword is probably frowned upon? Im hearing you say thats not fun for you, because reasons. Work etc.
Whats the houses stance on this? Moneybags makes them money obviously, so that doesnt help your cause, but what percentage of the voters stand beside him? What adult conversations have been had? (Telling him hes wrong probably doesnt count.)
I guess the question becomes what other options do you have? Have you tried building a battlecruiser deck? What about Grave Pact/Martyr's Bond style sac-outlet decks? Sublime Archangel/Rafiq tokens?
October 5, 2017 1:01 p.m.
They didn't "let" me. It was a 6 player EDH game and my mono black deck has like 8 tutors (capitalizing on my color's strengths). But yeah, I know what you mean.
Yesterday I lost a 4 player game so I went to grab food. Came back 10 minutes later and one person said to the complainer that he complains a lot. So I know I'm not the only one who feels this way, regardless of who actually voices their opinion in the public playgroup.
You're right, it is good synergy with some luck. I consider that AMAZING magic. I would do it (although not in this playgroup) and I wouldn't mind if someone did it to me (even in the same playgroup, which as been done before). The reason I don't mind is because if 1 of the 3 players plays archenemy, then it's fun regardless if I'm the 1 of the 4 who is attacking, or the 1 of the 4 who is being attacked by the rest. It's fun to me. Then when the archenemy is weakened enough, you guys attack each other until he builds himself up. Or, you could kill the archenemy entirely (that is extremely frowned upon by the playgroup since no one wants to get hated out of a game).
You're right, I should definitely talk to all the players outside the playgroup to get their opinion. It would work better, thank you. I will take that advice. I have been thinking about that, there is another meta I could go to (No combos allowed which sucks, but their playstyle is more cuthroat which could help I guess).
On an unrelated note, 1 year ago I went to a random LGS and this guy used Enchanted Evening and Cleansing Meditation to wipe out 3 of the 5 players. He would have then beat me next turn had I not tutored for Living Plane when I had Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite on the field to blow his lands and he got mad. He blows up the ENTIRE board (except my field since I had indestructible) and he gets mad that I only blew up his lands, not his mana producing artifacts. See the irony? Lol
I get that. I made weaker decks. I had Grand Arbiter Augustin IV combo control that I took apart since no one liked it. Then I had a Captain Sisay deck whose win con was Paradox Engine or LD or attacking with infinite P/T creatures. I took that apart too. I made a Norin the Wary deck with ETB triggers off of Impact Tremors and Genesis Chamber and similar cards they got SO SALTY (there was no MLD or anything like that despite running mono red). I even made a mono blue shitty clone deck that SUCKS and I play it from time to time against their most casual decks and that seems to work I guess (since I never win with that deck).
Also, yeah...I have been called names similar to that. The deck (according to tapped out) is like 5.6k or something realistically more like 4k with cards like The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale, Candelabra of Tawnos, Mishra's Workshop and the like. It's a lot of money, I get it. But I'm not going to let others make me feel bad that I spend $ on my decks. They choose to spend all their time at a game store instead of trying to find a job (maybe they tried to find one and failed, idk), doing focus groups, or many other things that can help them. So whenever they see my expensive cards, I downplay it like "yeah, it's just cardboard" or when shit gets super salty I say "it's just a game, why are you getting mad at something that is supposed to help you relax?" I try not to say it in a rude way, but more so in a caring nature.
It's both. Some are opposed to combo and EVERYONE has their own definition of what a combo is. Yes it is a very slippery slope. But it's not one individual person that has power, but the group. And yes, that broad definition (or lack thereof) makes things like this happen all the time. Yes, that would be frowned upon as well (although not completely disallowed) since that example in particular isn't devastating in and of itself. Not sure if I made it clear but I am "Mr. Money Bags" according to them. House stance is divided since everyone has their own opinion. Percentage of people is hard to say, but a rough estimate is 30%-40% depending on who is in the group at the time. I tried having 2 adult conversations, so far, nothing worked since as someone else said, you can't really use logic with those type of people.
Other options are different LGS (definitely considering 2 others at the moment), building more timmy decks (working on Xenagos and Freyalise as my next projects), or just avoiding that player in general. Option 1 is definitely viable, I have 2 other places 2 try out. Option 2 is most viable, as it is a simple and straightforward deck, although this still doesn't get rid of the larger issue at hand. Option 3 is difficult/impossible because there isn't always enough wiggle room at out meta to say "no" to this person when either you want to play or they want to play with the group. Then IF the group sides with one person, the other would get left out and feel pain (look up psychological studies of "Cyberball")
October 5, 2017 2:33 p.m.
shaistyone says... #26
Oh no, I wouldn't be trying to make you feel bad about your voluminous cash flow. It really would be just for teasing purposes and some political benefit. Most average players at an LGS are pretty bad at threat assessment, and pointing them at the guy with the deep pockets is usually a sound strategy for both balancing the financial advantage and keeping myself alive.
As far as dealing with the whiners, I would definitely go the multi-deck route. When I was playing a lot more IRL, I would often have 12-15 decks on me for different situations. For your particular situation, I would go with a deck that is all about 'Bam!' and 'Kapow!' rather than grinding efficiency. Pick a theme, and find off-the-wall stuff to do with it. If people are still complaining after that, then you will most likely have to just develop some selective deafness. lol
October 5, 2017 3:58 p.m.
I get that. They have used that tactic before for better or for worse and I'm somewhat ok with that (depending on the other threats on the board of course).
I made multiple decks of different power levels (in the process of making more battlecruiser decks to match their playstyle). I'm 24 years old and going deaf so it shouldn't be too hard to ignore them after a while.
October 5, 2017 8:05 p.m.
shaistyone says... #28
lol, that would be one of the benefits of hearing loss, for sure.
Take a look at my decks if you want some inspiration for that style, as I have lots. :)
I think my Rune-Tail Vigilance EDH is one of my most effective 'pick a theme' type decks.
Qolorful says... #2
I personally find the difference between a combo and a synergy in this. A synergy as I see it is two or more cards that work well together in an indirect way. And example of this being Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite and just about any card that pumps out tokens. They work well together, but in an indirect way. Meanwhile, a combo is two or more cards interacting more directly. Like your example. Those cards work in your deck because of strong interactions with each other, and without those interactions, they are okay at best. Another example being Dark Depths. If you arent running a way to cheat Marit Lage out, its an okay card. No one wants to pay 30 mana to get the token, but they want the token. When you combo with thespians stage or hexmage, it becomes horrifying. While cards with the synergy I mentioned are generally good on their own, as norn is. Thats just my personal take though, the words are entirely connotative and you cant objectively say one definition is correct
October 4, 2017 5:55 p.m.