Combo or Synergy? | Commander Clash Podcast #15
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- What's a combo? What's a synergy? The community uses both interchangeably, so the crew sets out to find a concrete definition for both!
This video is brought to you by Card Kingdom! Support the show by buying stuff at www.cardkingdo...
===
Follow us on your favorite podcast app!
▲ Spotify: open.spotify.c...
▲ iTunes: podcasts.apple...
▲ Google Podcasts: podcasts.googl...
Buy our merch! Clear out Richard's garage! mtggoldfishmer...
It’s a combo if crim does it or Seth dies after telling everyone he is going to have it next turn
Crim does pull out spike combos quite often. And Seth makes it easy by saying "combo, it's a combo" when he has it :D
A combo is any combinations of cards that work together to produce a continuous effect (doesn't have to go infinite or win you the game). Synergy is card or cards that work well with your commander or strategy. Basalt infinite is a combo, playing artifacts in jhoira weatherlight captain is synergy
That is how most people use the terms. Well defined my man
This ^
By that definition, no commander has any combos. They dictate playstyles, which helps get close to a definition, but they're also normal cards.
@@josephwodarczyk977 how do you figure? There's a ton of combos in commander, anything that makes infinite mana, lets you draw your whole deck, or wins on the spot counts. Vito combos with exquisite blood, that's a combo. Synergy dictates play style for the most part, combos are either finishers or enablers. There's a ton of both present.
Synergies are cards that improve each other by being together. Combos are cards that specifically interact with each other to create a gamestate that neither of them create alone. Bolas' Citadel and Aetherflux Reservoir are synergistic. Sanguine Bond and Exquisite Blood are a combo. Goblin Electromancer and Thousand Year Storm are synergistic. Vorinclex and almost any planeswalker with an ultimate is a combo. Synergies don't have to be specifically related to your deck strategy or commander. Any two cards that together create and effect that neither can manage on their own is synergistic, it's what the word means. As a general rule, almost all of the Class enchantments from Adventures of the Forgotten Realms are designed as synergy pieces.
I guess the easy way to tell is, spot removal doesn't stop synergy from mattering. Spot removal shuts down combos.
Combos require specific pieces to fulfill the desired task at the time of casting , whereas Synergies are a series of cards that share a similar purpose but can fullfill this purpose interchangably over multiple turns. ( a hard control deck utilizing The Rack, Blood chief ascension, etc. etc ). Tribal decks with lords are highly Synergistic...specific cards within the deck can function to make combos they need to fullfill a desired task.
This is a perfect definition/differentiation.
This is the correct answer. Combos are specific cards that produce a deliberate result. Synergies are any grouping cards that when combined, the sum is greater than their parts.
Combos don't have to be game winning on the spot. Just two or more specific cards that produce a desired result. Synergies are fish all swimming in the same direction.
My take...
Combo: 2+ cards that when used together has a major affect on the game, often but not exclusively winning on the spot.
Synergy: when cards make other cards in your deck work better (e.g. Lords in tribal decks, affinity, etc).
I'd make a distinction between win-con and combo, where combos facilitate the win-con.
Ex. Purphuros the win con, curio and two kobolds is the combo
Ex 2. Blood Artist win con, phyrexian altar and gravecrawler + one zombie is the combo
Ergo, Maze's End is the win-con, the gates and land searches are the combo
Maze's End is the payoff, getting all the Gates is the setup.
I agree. A combo doesnt mean that you win the game with. For me combo is an inifnite effect that seems stronger than the developpers wanted to create. Combo with win con need one or more cards for sure.
I feel like mazes end is a SYNERGY based win con, not a combo
For me, it's repeatable loops, like deadeye navigator+peregrine drake, or kenrith+goblin bombardment+2 reducers+cloud of faries
Glad to see tomer is still on The podcast
They filmed this before he was fired
Tomer is just taking a season off
I view a combo as a a few cards that when on the field at the same time do some interaction that would not exist without those specific peice, aka twin and untap etb. Synergy is cards that generally booste each other. But their not trying to nessisarily creating some sort of fed interaction. Lords are synergy. But the deck works outwithout them. Twin doesn't work without the pieces.
synergies are like lords and creatures of their type
I'd say Valakut with Prime Time back in the day was just synergistic, Valakut with things like Scapeshift that do almost all of the work with one play are combos.
I have to agree with Crim on the nomenclature surrounding combos in the MTG community. MTG *is* a game where the precise wording of an action is extremely important, so it is odd that the community uses the term "combo" in such a loose and hard to define manner.
I don't know why people struggle with the definition so much. A combo is simply cards that have an extremely high level of synergy together, very typically giving you a way to win either there on the spot, with an extra component or in the very near future due to insurmountable advantage / completely locking out your opponent.
For some reason people want to strictly define combo only for infinite combos or game ending combos. In reality it's clear people want to use the word for other cases too. We can just define the other types as "infinite" and "game-ending".
A "combo deck" or a "combo win" in the context of magic is referring to a deck that has a specific combo that wins the game or gives them the means to win the game (e.g. infinite mana), on the spot or on the next upkeep (if specified by the combo / lacking haste or similar).
When talking about things like 8-card combos you're basically getting into the realms of something where you may as well call it synergy, because it's weaker than a lot of things we'd call synergy. So at that point it's only a "combo" if it literally wins the game or does something infinitely.
I agree, infinite mana is still a combo because you are putting those cards in specifically for that purpose. A synergy is simply a card benefitting off the effect of another. My piru deck is a great example. Piru and elendra are a synergy because piru dies so plus counters elendra, and piru's damage probably kills other things to grow elendra making her a bigger threat but not a game ender. But piru + repercussions is a situational combo that requires your opponents to have a board of creatures.
@@atk9989 Great examples.
Idk after listening to the discussion in the video, it makes sense to me why there’s a lot of grey area around the word combo. Some combos are obviously combos, but there are some cases where I think some people would argue. For example, giving an infect creature unblockable and double strike. I wouldn’t consider it a combo, but it’s a combination of cards that wins on the spot. So the definitions are hard to make consistent.
@@austinmairet1772 Exactly. The fact is that people want to use the word "combo" loosely because its definition in English is different to how people want to use it for specific things in magic. That's why I think the definition should be loose, then we specify others as "game ending combos".
For competitive magic lingo it can be the norm that the term combo is only for things which win you the game, maybe more specifically when it's cards interacting to create an effect which isn't already clearly specified on the cards (i.e. it's only through their combination that something happens which can win you the game). I don't know if that's exactly what they want to specify, but at least for commander lingo I think it's silly for us to stress too much about what is and isn't a combo. Just let people call it what they like and if they're overusing the word combo then tell them we use the word "synergy" for things that amplify each other but not in a huge way.
I think that an episode about removal and how much, what kind, and how to go about putting it in your commander deck would be a great episode. 😃
Depends on play group, right? If you've got a control player, force them to do it all. Otherwise their deck will simply outpace everyone else's due to not having to spend their resources to accomplish their deck's win condition. If you've got aggro players, every deck runs a lot of low-cost removal to prevent the aggro player from preventing the game from even starting. If everyone runs mid-range, that's where the question gets interesting, and you start having meaningful decisions on that front.
For me, one of the major differences is, that the goal of synergy is value, while the goal of a combo is, to win if no one interacts with you
I would argue mazes end isn’t a combo because it’s not GREATER than the sum of its parts. It’s exactly what the parts say and do.
The sum of its parts is 11 lands though.
The sum is 11 tap lands. 11 of them. Maze's End is just a land BUT if you assemble 10 other shitty lands, it becomes grater than that. Of course it's greater than the sum of its parts.
I would say that Maze's End was intentionally designed as a combo piece, so it's still a combo, but if you're using it at it's baseline it's slower than most combos. If you support it with other items that put specific lands on the battlefield then it can speed it up a lot and the combo just became more viable to pull off.
@@josephhawkins7974 I agree with that. Just because it's meant to be a combo, doesn't suddenly make the card not a combo anymore. It's just more obvious what you do with it.
By itself, yes. But you're not running Maze's End without other ways to grab gates from your deck or plop out more lands. Individual cards aren't combos by themselves, that'd be absurd. Maze's End is a combo *piece* but not a full combo.
A synergy is a combination of cards that generates a ressource advantage greater than the sum of it's individual parts.
A combo is a combination of cars that breaks the rules related to the use or conservation of ressources in the game.
For instance infinite mana is a combo because it break the implicit rule that you're supposed to be able to play a limited amount of cards in a single turn by making use of limited amount of mana.
Interestingly this definition makes omniscience a one card combo.
There are two types of combos.
Finite combos and engine based combos.
Finite combos are made of a set number of cards while engine based combos are combos where the whole deck functions in a particular way towards a single goal that breaks one of this rules of ressources spending in game.
A classical example of engine based combo is KCI.
Storm could also be fit it in that category.
You may note that both these decks are non deterministic in terms of being able to win the game with their combo even though they definitely break the rules of how cards and mana should interact together.
I think magic has an inherent hyperbole problem as well, every is strictly better( although recently it has been) or everything is combo and everything is unbeatable etc
Have you ever noticed even the tiniest bend in a card makes it a pringle? As a whole lately folks overuse hyperbole because it gets a reaction from others. It also means the depth terms once had is lose as overuse numbs the connotations they once held.
Combo: a set of actions performed in a sequence, with strict timing limitations.
Synergy: the interaction or cooperation of two or more things to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of its separate effects.
I love this episode and conversation, I do feel leaving it that by trying to categorize a combo only leaves the definition of a combo more vague somehow
Can't help but agree!
That's because they are taking the fringiest of situations to see if their definition is working or not.
Richard: Any combination of cards that puts you in an overwhelming position to win
A board of creatures + craterhoof is officially a combo LET'S F****NG GOOOOOOOOOOOO
Craterhoof isn't a combo, it's a self-contained win condition. It's less of a combo than Door to Nothingness by itself.
A Combo is a combination of 2 or more cards that when played together on the same turn (or one is a Permanent already present before the other one is played) cause a devastating effect to all other players on the table (opponents), and their ability to catch up to that player after that point and/or preserving their ability to contend for the victory on the current turn or the next "go-around".. if not outright being eliminated.
Some additional thoughts :
+ An infinite-mana generation combo by itself doesn't affect other players.
++ A combo that kills a player does affect his continuation in the game, but doesn't affect all players equally and the game can continue. But considering that the possibility of those cards repeating their effect on a "go-around" for another player.. I would still consider a combo! Although more of a *board-winning state* than anything else. Players ability to catch up to the present state should be considered as well to it's definition, and if the removal of one of those parts shatters said circumstances.
+++ A *board-winning state* is the most problematic one when trying to define a combo. The mentioned Insurrection or dropping a Hoof. It's neither a combo nor a synergy, but a card with high probabilities of creating a board-winning state.
Combos are interactions between cards where those specific cards interacting with each other was planned out and it puts you in a position to win. Basalt monolith rings of bright hearth yes. Favorable winds bird #27 no. Rituals and storm card yes. Nyxbloom and just casting random stuff no. Nyxbloom and a x burn spell yes. Insurrection no. Some card that lets you cast your insurrection every turn yes. Valikut no. Valikut with scapeshift yes.
Combo = game ending
Synergy = value generating
Ad Nauseam + Angle's Grace -> Combo
Guttersnipe + Opt -> synergy
With each episode Richard just shows himself more to be a Magic Nihilist, nothing exists, only Dowsing Dagger
My take at 6 mins into the podcast: a combo is anything that wins the game, reduces one or more players life totals to 0, or allows a player to perform a game action an infinite number of times (or comes close to doing these things). A synergy is when a card performs better in your deck (on average) than it would in a random deck in the same colors - the higher the disparity between how it performs, the higher the synergy. A card like Path to Exile is not really a synergy since it would perform close to as good in your deck as any other random deck with a white identity, whereas a card like Edgar Markov has a very high synergy in vampire decks since it would be a lot worse in a random Mardu deck.
It seems like you just need more terms. If you define the base 'Combo' as: 2+ cards with unique or semi-unique effects (e.g. not lands) that interact in a way that produce a unique repeatable or game ending effect, then you can have:
Synergy - cards that just work well together (lords, hatred/commander, narset/wheel, prime time/valakut)
Combo - can end the game on the spot but doesn't necessarily (storm, karn/lattice, scapeshift/valakut)
Semi-Infinite Combo - limited by some resource (thop foundry/sword, Niv/Curiosity)
Infinite Combo - goes arbitrarily high, but not game ending by itself (monolith/rings, heliod/spike feeder)
Game-Ending Combo - *always* results in a win given no interaction (oracle/consultation, heliod/ballista)
Then you have Finishers, which aren't combos like Craterhoof and Insurrection
These all feel like different categories of interaction to me. Also no terms should ever be different depending on what format you're playing or what decks your opponents are playing.
I would define a combo as a combination of cards that produce an effect, that can be repeated multiple times in the same turn. A synergy provides incremental value.
Edit: also any combination of cards that immediately wins the game is a combo
That would still have corner case short comings.
Heartless Hidetsugu plus a damage doubler is lethal, but not necessarily repeatable. Same with Traumatize and Bruvac.
this also leaves out oracle+consultation, which should be a combo by all definitions
@@timbombadil4046 fixed
@@stanislav328 fixed
A synergy is a group of cards that are good on their own like Sheoldred the Apocolypse and Sign in Blood, and they work together to be even better. Casting Sign on yourself with Sheoldred nets 4 life, or causes and opponent to lose 6 and 2 more on their draw step.
A combo is a bunch of cards that would be bad all on their own, like Underworld Dreams and Peer into the Abyss, but when combined will win the game on the spot. Casting Peer into the Abyss for 7 mana while having this 3 mana enchantment out will cause an opponent to lose at least 20 life (if you can pull it off).
Then again, if you have Sheoldred, Sign, Underworld and Peer all in the same deck, the deck is synergistic, not a combo deck, since the goal is clearly more flexible than to just cheat out a combo. You play around Sheoldred, but your goal isnt always to combo offwith Peer, its just another win con.
For me, "synergy" is just a sliding scale from weak to strong for how well any two cards work together. On one end you have simply paying the cost of a spell and doing what the card says exactly once, while the complete other end is two cards that bounce off of each other infinitely (or effectively infinite) in a way that closes out the game. So a "combo" is just the strongest level of synergy.
Rampaging Baloths + Basic Land is a stronger synergy than using a vanilla creature, but replacing that land with a Fetch is twice as strong. They synergize well together. Pair those Baloths with a Garruk's Packleader and you have a very strong synergy, where each land drop draws you a card, and that card could be your next land. It's not infinite, but together they are stronger than the sum of their parts.
I think to understand a combo you have to think not only of the outcome but the structure. A combo wins the game but is also composed of an engine and payoff - the two pieces which COMBINE together.
A lot of the questions you discuss can be understood by applying this framework.
Basalt monolith + rings of brighthearth or mesmeric orb is an engine. When you pair it with a payoff that can win the game like thrasios (and whatever he draws from your deck like blue sun's) or labman, you have a combo.
Combos are definitely contextual, like you noted. Craterhoof or Storm are combos in formats where they match up favorably against the life total they need to chew through. Your mana dorks are the engine, ramping you and providing bodies for the hoof, and your craterhoof or GSZ is your payoff.
Sometimes pieces combine both aspects of engine and payoff. In the context of your discussion, Niv-Mizzet is both an engine which is drawing you cards and a payoff which is killing players. You will likely have built your deck around this combo - so the loop will draw you into a third piece, like an elixir of immortality or something similar. This is another engine piece which makes your combo sustainable for long enough to kill the table.
I also think that hard locks or infinite life gain are - contextually - game winning comboes. If your opponents' decks have no outs, you have essentially won as long as you have more cards in your deck. They're pretty fragile, and with imperfect info, you can't know that they'll actually win the game for you.
Alternatively, the engines which gain you life or hardlock the game can buy you an extremely long amount of time to find a payoff like aetherflux reservoir or approach of the second sun.
I feel like combos have some sort of algorithm to them, and synergies are just cards that work well together or buff one card or another
If you can blow it up with one piece of spot removal, it's a combo. If you can't, it's synergy.
adding "what if"s to each of these card selections as a rebuttal to whether it is a combo or not is the most ridiculous argument i've ever heard.
When having a rule 0 discussion it is important to distinguish what you mean on an individual level. Combo is a broad description. I wouldn't call a one card a combo. More than 2 cards are an engine (so it takes more time and effort to set up).
You put certain cards in a deck because their interactions provide benefits that eventually have the potential to win the game in a reasonable time. This is a synergy (and it excludes jank piles).
If you put specific cards in your deck with the intention of those cards interacting with eachother on a deeper level to bring you immediate and unsurmountable advantage if left uninterrupted, that is combo. (this excludes unintentional combos)
The key distinction between combo and synergy is the time frame and severity of it's impact and the relative interaction it provides to the rest of the table. It can't be a binary condition, but more of a scale.
Elfball into Craterhoof might be seen as a combo, but by it's own it's only high synergy. When you introduce something like tutoring for the Hoof then it becomes more of a combo.
You can see the distinction in the intent:
-Did my opponents see it coming (I have 10 elfs and loads of mana, if there's a pump spell they're all dead)?
-Was there a reasonable window for an answer (in this case a sorcery speed boardwipe)?
-Counterspell or bust (there will be tables that will have decks with no blue present, does the wincon operate outside of the usual interaction that only a counterspell or any other instant speed interaction might stop)?
-During deckbuilding, did I put this finisher (Hoof) in here planning to use it most of the time to finish the game with it on the spot (purpose or intent)?
-Is my deck build in a way that gets me towards a boardstate that allows me to use my finisher to end the game (high consistency)?
-Do I win like this most of the time or every time (repetition)?
It's this distinction that makes combos unpopular among casuals and why they can be outlawed with prejudice among playgroups.
You should totally do a podcast on the most complicated and convoluted combos you can assemble. None of this 2 card combo nonsense. I want to explore some 7-13 card combos.
In my mind its a combo piece if it sits on the board and threatens to instantly win the game or take out a player. The difference is that I can watch the elfball player build up elves and predict a craterhoof. With a phyrexian altar on the board any number of cards could mean instant game over.
Nah i am not going to play a craterhoof ima play triumph of the horde and kill everyone with Surprise infect!!
Glad we all agree Modern Burn is a combo deck. 4 Lightning Bolts and 3 Lava Spikes are by far my favorite combo/synergy
I prefer to keep it simple:
Synergy: The sum is better than the individual parts
Combo: A process, which can be repeated infinite times as you like, while generating some kind of value.
Further thoughts:
- Synergy and Combos are not depending on the context.
- There are game-winning synergy effects (for example: Scapeshift-Valakut, Niv-Mizzet-Curiosity....) but they are not combos.
- Locks are synergy effects.
- All combos are infinite combos
- The combo alone might need a wincon to end the game
- One-shotting someone does not mean it has to be a combo
I guess this might be a bit of a controversial definition. Especially if you think about the Niv-Mizzet-Curiosity example.
(explanation: It draws cards, while you are shooting your opponents. You can do around 85 damage at max., then you die. The number of opponents you can kill depends on the situation. It needs resources, which can run out -> not infinite -> not a combo. but one of the strongest synergy effects for sure.)
Nevertheless, I think it is worth to give this definition a second thought. It is very easy to define, which combination of cards is a combo, and which is not. That helps to clarifiy discussions.
Still, this definition might not be the best to clarify if you play "combos" at the beginning of the game, but if everyone follows this definition, it takes only 2 minutes to clarifiy enough corner cases to start the game.
Keeping it context-independent is very important to me. If you open that door for discussions, its only a question of corner cases you can think of to varify any standing point. And then, its not about magic, its about discussion-skills, and it is not simple at all. Plus, its not easy to build a very strong deck without combos.
For future podcast topics, I was wondering about how the group feels when making deck building decisions based on whether you’re playing in paper or on MODO. Like how certain combos like Splinter twin are easier to do in paper compared to online where you have to click through all the steps.
A combo is a combination of cards that wins the game on the spot, like Thassa's Oracle + Demonic Consultation; Breya + Ashnod's Altar + Eldrazi Displacer; Heliod + Ballista; Flash + Hulk; Ashnod's Altar + Thopter Foundry + Sword of the Meek + Reckless Fireweaver. A combo requires a Setup and a Payoff. The more cards a combo requires to be assembled the less effective it is.
A sinergy is 2 or more cards that give you incremental value by being together. Foundry Inspector + artifacts is a sinergy. Goblin King in a goblin deck is sinergy. Slivers are sinergistic in nature. A card can be sinergistic in a deck, and absolutely not in another. Skred is awesome with snow lands, and useless without.
I don't know what to call it but being able to win from a zero board state is for me where the real power level increase from combos is (and I think why non-blue players hate it)
Hardly ever see salt even from an "infinite" combo if its deployed over a few turns
By their nature neither synergies nor combos should be able to pop off from no board state. They require having permanents on the battlefield to do anything.
A synergy is any two or more cards, abilities, or other game objects which interact in a way that is beneficial to one or more players. A combo is a synergy which can consistently result in one of the following: A player winning the game; One or more players losing the game; The game ending in a draw; One or more infinite cycles of interaction be it manual or automatic; A boardstate which prevents basic game actions from being taken by one or more players, likely resulting in their loss (ex. Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite + Living Plane effectively prevents opponents from controlling lands); Or anything which has an overwhelming likelihood of resulting in anything previously listed (Ex. Angel's Grace + Ad Nauseam can draw one's library, likely resulting in one's victory).
Seth's definition of combo is lands that cast your spells Richard says it has to end the game immediately everyone else is somewhere in the middle...
Synergy - Synergy is the bonus advantage you gain when activate a certain condition than a normal basic advantage.
Combo - Combo is a deck type that focus around a specific synergy to win the game.
I know I'm a little late, but here's my take on combos and synergies...
Synergy: a beneficial interaction between cards, effects, abilities, etc. (e.g. Faithless Looting + Madness)
Combo: a synergy involving specific cards or groups of cards (i.e. redundant combo pieces). Usually extremely powerful or game winning, but not always.
My definitions:
combo-two or more cards that do something outside the scope of those individual cards by themselves.
Synergy-two or more cards that enhance the scope of one or more of those cards.
Winning the game has no relevance on whether you're comboing or synergizing. You can cast a card that creates a game state that leads to an immediate win, such as a Craterhoof or Insurrection, that aren't combos. On the other hand, there are combos that don't win the game on their own, but are definitely a combo, like infinite life or mana.
The problem people are having is that people think of combos in the context of turn 0 conversations that are designed to look just for the oppressive, game-winning combos, which makes people get this idea in their head that combos are inherently powerful and game ending, but, if you talk to anyone that isn't specifically in a podcast about the debate between combo and synergy, they would almost certainly call Isochron Septer imprinted with Dramatic Reversal a combo.
Wandering fumarole does actually combo with crackdown construct to produce a game winning board state
And ceaseless searblades
Synergy: the interaction between two or more cards that produces an effect greater than the sum of the separate parts.
Examples:
Kalamax + any instant.
Lucky Clover + any adventure card.
Urza's Incubator + a tribal deck.
These interactions could provide spicy game plays, but will probably not win outright.
Combo: an interaction between two or more cards that produces an infinite (or near-infinite) loop and/or produces a non-combat win condition/finisher.
Examples:
Thopter Foundry + Sword of the Meek + Ashnod's Altar = infinite loop combo sans the win condition.
Thopter Foundry + Sword of the Meek + Ashnod's Altar + Heliod's Intervention + Aether Reservoir = infinite loop complete with win condition.
Elfball that produces infinite mana = combo sans the win conditions.
Elfball that produces infinite mana + token creature generator + Craterhoof Behemoth = infinite combo that leads to a non-combo win condition/finisher.
A deck can have a variety of combos built in that can lead to a combat-related win condition. It's best to think of combos as gears in the machine of your deck. You might have lots of small gears turning to pull out an eventual non-combat finishing move, or one giant gear than crushes all before you with a combo.
I think the intuitive way most players define combos in their heads is:
A combination of two or more cards that results in either
1. An infinite resource gain for you or drain for your opponents OR
2. A synergy that will end the game within a single turn cycle if unanswered.
Combos are your win-cons; synergy is what you add to your deck while ignoring playing more interaction.
Synergy is two or more cards interacting to provide more value than they would alone. A deck built around lifegain as a central theme is synergistic, as opposed to what we might refer to as a goodstuff pile. Yes, both are decks built from good cards. The difference is in how one is constructed to maximize the value drawn from each individual card based on their interactions with one another in order to make the deck stronger in general, whereas a goodstuff pile is just a bunch of known staples and strong cards thrown together because they're good. A basic Plains and Swords to Plowshares aren't synergistic; there needs to be more value generated overall than a simple resource generation and expenditure. On the other hand, that Plains has a great deal of synergy with a card like Land Tax; not only can it be used to pay for the enchantment's mana cost, but the enchantment can also search for the Plains or any other Plains in your deck.
A combo is two or more cards which are included specifically for how they interact with one another in order to achieve a very specific outcome, usually as an extreme value engine (infinite combos) or as a win condition. Heliod + Walking Ballista is a combo not because of the synergy between those cards (though they're certainly synergistic) but because they're included as a package with the intention of utilizing their interaction for a specific purpose.
Every combo has synergy, because without synergy you wouldn't be able to generate the extra value required to accomplish the goal of the combo. But a combo is more than just synergy; it's the deliberate selection of cards with extreme synergy to accomplish a very specific objective.
Combo- Requires multiple steps to achieve the effect
Synergy- Requires only 2-3 cards to obtain the desired effect
My 2 cents but I'm a novice so who knows.
An interesting take. Put another way, would you agree that "static" interactions between cards are by default not combos (for example, the video-discussed "Teferi+Knowledge Pool" interaction)?
@@Sevifor like how Storm is the poster boy for Combo, I would put Sliver as poster boy Synergy.
Zero second in, and I can tell this is going to be a contentious one. I am 0% through this and I already have strong opinions.
I love all the semantics in this one lmfao
I think maybe a more useful definition of a combo would be... two or more cards, that when assembled in the right order win you the game or provide you with infinite resources, and that your opponents won't have any foreknowledge that you are about to do it until the last possible moment.
This way we can intentionally exclude card synergies that slowly accumulate more and more value over the course of a game until they finish you off (like elfball) from being considered a combo.
So turn 5 craterhoof into a board where you already have 4 elves to pump up wouldn't be a combo.
But Rise of the Dark realms + Hammer of Purphoros + Craterhoof is a combo.
in the elfball example everyone see's you build up your board state over multiple turns and craterhoof is your finisher.
Whereas in the second example, you simply cast those three cards no matter what your board state was and you basically win. The fact that they are expensive mana wise is not important to weather or not it's a combo... but the fact that you can do it out of nowhere is important.
I consider a combo to be a combination of cards that formulaically lead to an end-game condition (incl. probabilistic non-determinism).
e.g. Basalt Monolith + Rings of Brighthearth + [Game Ending Mana Sink]
I consider synergy to be cards that affect each other by being in your deck or on the board. I consider this a sliding scale at a deck level.
e.g. creature lord effects -> more tribal -> more synergy; Ramanup Excavator -> more fetch lands -> more synergy, etc.
Synergy = strategy = linear progression
Combo = tactics = exponential progression
So you can have a deck that specializes in lifegain, +1/+1 counters, tribal, infect, etc and the cards being put in those decks should facilitate that strategy in some way. These are synergistic cards. Putting a card in that untaps your creatures when they all have ETB effects denotes a lack of synergy.
Combo represents two or more cards that interact as an engine, propelling you towards winning the game. This does not strictly mean it ends games, because combo can be value plays as well.
Ex. I have a Licia, Sanguine Tribune deck that I classify as a “Life Swing” deck. The cards facilitate gaining and/or losing life in some way. I gain life to spend it on cards/mana and I purposely lose it to gain it back. Some cards do both simultaneously.
In the deck, I have Words of Worship, Well of Lost Dreams, and Treasonous Ogre. While those cards synergize with the theme, they are also a combo (gain 5 life, lose 6 life per cycle). That is an engine that drives the deck to a win. I can add in Vizkopa Guildmage to drain the table or I can add in a lifegain addition/doubler (Angel of Vitality/Rhox Faithmender) to gain AND lose infinite life. How does that win me the game? Well it lets me cast Licia for 3 mana basically as many times as I want and my main finisher is Greven, Predator Captain who is more powerful the more life I’ve lost during a turn. I can do the same thing using K’rrik and Blood Celebrant too, which are a combo by themselves.
Another combo is Heartless Hidetsugu and Shadowspear/Whip of Erebos/Sorin, Vengeful Bloodlord. This also produces a huge life swing that, while not infinite, powers what the deck is trying to do.
Generating resources (mana, cards, discounts, abilities, etc) are what combos do. Then you find a way to utilize those resources to your advantage. Basalt Monolith + Rings of Brighthearth are still a combo (infinite mana) but they don’t synergize with the rest of the deck.
Tomer you're back ! I thought they had "retired" you!!
Combo is when there are two or more cards that interact with each other causing a particular player to win or lose. Synergy is when there are two or more cards that interact with each other that causes an ample advantage
Exactly.
For me, generally it goes like this:
Combo: a combination of specific cards that produce a specific expected result, usually a big effect (Rings of Brightheart and Basalt Monolith)
Synergy: Cards that work well together but dont specifically need each other to create the intended result, usually a smaller effect (Ochre jelly and counter/token doubler)
I think some people are using combo interchangeably with win con. This seems silly, and I'd rather have combo mean something other than exactly win con.
A combo (according to me) is when two or more cards create value wildly beyond what the card's cost/design would indicate, IE infinite life or mana is always a combo, but it's not always good enough to win, it can require a Pay Off as well. Synergy is when cards work together largely as designed, but are exceptionally good together (they may now be stronger than originally intended, but the card does what it always did), and are never infinite. The designer would still recognize what you are doing as something the card is balanced for, while a combo would not meet that standard. Helm of Obedience and Rest in Peace is a combo, even in a 4 player. I also think Web of Inertia and Rest in Peace are a combo, even though it doesn't win you the game, just because it protects you from attackers, a major part of the game. Not all combos are infinite, but all things infinite are combos, afaik. Synergy always requires 2 non-mana source cards, or there is nothing synergizing. I think combo should probably be understood to require at least 2 cards as well. You don't need a bloody word for the 'effect you get' when you use lands to cast a spell that stands 100% alone IE Counterspell. This isn't synergy, it's just playing a card. Having Baral out could make it a synergy, and if you played it off of Isochron you might be able to turn it into a combo piece (via some untap shenanigans).
After further thought, regardless of whether I agree or not, I think it's probably useful to know that some people's definition of combo is actually just a win con that requires more than 1 card to work. That's it. Meaning almost every deck is combo unless it's just hitting people with creatures or burn. I dunno, this seems deeply pointless (bordering on incredibly stupid), but at least it helps to understand how other people think, and what they might mean if they are refer to as a combo.
The definition of synergy Crim is pushing is inadequate, since it includes everything that isn't combo that is an interaction of some kind. Period. That's a stupid term, since it doesn't have any restrictions on what it means, it means literally everything involving 2 cards. I think you need to whittle it down a bit to make it useful.
Legacy Elves in the traditional sense is Craterhoof finisher with a combo to enable. You don't get Craterhoof out on turn 2 (with other attackers) with synergy! Anyways, my budget elves are not a combo deck I'd say, they just are all in on synergy and pay offs for having lots of mana. If I add Staff of Domination, it can become a combo deck, even though Staff won't actually 'win the game itself', it'll set up the situation. Just being able to untap a Priest of Titania once or twice isn't combo.
It's Popping Off!
*Clash* *On* !
Podcast idea: TableTop etiquette, Drinks Off the Table, Please!
*Thanks* *For* *The* *Content* !
My definitions- a synergy is two or more cards interacting together to create more value. A combo is when two or more cards create an infinite or a critical mass of value
Thopter Foundry and Sword of the Meek "Combo" is one of those set of cards which borderline "Synergy" and Combo..but that is just coming from one player on the internet..
Each time a loop of actions is performed you need to gain some incremental value to be a combo.
In my mind the main difference is combos are typically infinitely repeatable or repeatable enough to overwhelm the board with value in a very short amount of time.
Once LSV was entering a Vintage tournament and realized that his sideboard only had 14 cards, so he added some random card. When he was in the first round, he cast Burning Wish…and realized that Tendrils of Agony wasn’t in his sideboard, but his opponent scooped. 😂
He did that several more times throughout the tournament before making Top 8.
Combos are what you build your deck around.
Synergies are what you add to your deck afterwards.
A Combo is a repeatable automated game action that generates value; so Sword of the Meek + Thopter Foundry creates a loop where you sac Sword, to create a 1/1 Thopter, where Sword sees the 1/1 and comes right back from the graveyard to be sac'd again. An Infinite-Combo, or Game-Ending Combo is one that creates a similar loop but threatens to end or lock the game if it is not interacted with; so Sword of the Meek + Thopter Foundry + Time Sieve w/5 mana per turn. This creates the same loop as above, but allows you to sac the 5 created Thopter to take another turn and lock the game. Just my .02 though.
EDIT: Grammar; good podcast!
What about non-repeatable actions that win you the game when 2-3 cards are played in tandem?
Things that win on the spot usually or things that can be repeated infinitely are combos. Things that improve your win percentage significantly are synergies i.e. sword of the meek + thopter foundry
Sword + Thopter without anything more is just sinergy.
Sword + Thopter + Ashnod's Altar + Reckless Fireweaver is a combo.
@@felipeguidolin1055 correct
A synergy sets up an engine. A combo sits up a win.
B4 watching
Combo = winning combination of cards (thoracle and forbidden tutor) or at least easy win with (infinite mana). Usually the core is a loop you can do infinetly and win with it at the very turn (recasting craterhoof).
Strong synergy = something that can overwhelm the board in next two turns if left uncheck, but it doesnt win right from the get go. Imo , the timing of the win after you played the cards is a key distinction.
To me a synergy is a pair of cards that don't require one another but thrive together. A combo is a synergy that happens multiple times in a row, likely in the same stack but at least the same phase.
Now I know why Seth didn't answer this question when I asked it in stream chat a few weeks ago 😅
Locks prolong the fun. Never concede.
My definitions:
Synergy, is cards with aligned mechanics, like madness cards and discard outlets.
Combo, cards that when played in a specific ordering. Resulting in value has no defined upper limit. (So as going infinite)
Loop, a board state which is self perpetual and the player is able to repeat the loop any number of times they choose.
Been playing MtG since 1999. I never used the term synergy until the past couple of years. A combo is a combination of two or more cards that generate an effect. I ran Opposition and Squirrels Nest to lock down the board. A combo does not have to win the game or be repeatable. A synergy is running Font of Angonies in a Yawgmoth deck.
Synergy: One time effect that grants you an additional positive reward above what is printed on a single card.
Combo: A repeatable effect that grants you an additional positive reward above what is printed on a single card.
Wangrod: A repeatable effect that does nothing.
To me, synergies are cards that enhance or work alongside strategies found in your deck, like a guttersnipe in your spell slinger deck, or enchantresses in your enchantment deck. Combos are strictly loops you can demonstrate in the game. So ashnod's alter, with reassembling skeleton, and a aristocrat is a combo. Then you can add cards to that to make it an infinite combo. Then stuff like storm, or Thasa's Oracle are just wincons. It's just a way to win the game without using combat.
The best examples I can think of are, pristine talisman and sanguine bond are a synergy but sanguine bond and exquisite blood are a combo
I have been guilty of saying “ no I don’t have infinite combo” with the Niv Mizzet Curiosity thing
Treat it like RNA building a protein. Scaffold synergies and functional section combo cards. Combo = the protein itself, the "meat", the win. Cards that "scaffold" are there to support - lands for Valakut. The "combo" itself is the final product - Scapeshift slapping 7+ lands down at once, Valakut being at least one. Without the protein, the scaffolding does nothing, and without the scaffolding, the combo doesn't go off. You -can- cast Scapeshift at less than 7 lands -and- grab every Valakut in your deck doing it, but it won't result in anything. Blood Artist is a synergy with Chatterfang, and the treasures dude plus Chatterfang is the combo (albeit, in this example, still a mostly-functional "protein" without BA).
If you take Scapeshift outta the deck, it basically can't win; If you kill Chatterfang, the loop of squirrels breaks; but you can swap lands around and you don't -need- BA.
Gist?
My opinion on instant-win combos in the pre game discussion is that people should just tell everyone what their combo is. The only time I've been salty because of a combo is when I didn't know what the combo cards were and therefore wasn't able to recognize what was threatening on the table, then losing "out of nowhere".
Whenever I parooz peasant cubes and the like, and I read the cubes' descriptions, I always see people labeling stuff like "Arbor Elf and Utopia Sprawl" type interactions as combo. But that's a truly synergy.
Combos produce an infinite amount of some resource, synergies produce a out sized but finite amount of resources. Resource includes stuff like pings, damage, 1/1 counters
So to me, the difference between a synergy and a combo is that all combos are based on synergies, but not the reverse. A synergy is a number of cards working together to produce something better - Kinnan + mana dorks is synergy, Valakut + Prime Time is a synergy. A combo has to be consistent, repeatable, and have a notable impact upon the board state - generate infinite mana, put you at infinite life, kill someone, etc. Valakut + Prime Time is synergy, Valakut + Scapeshift is a combo. Lords of Atlantis is a synergy, Wanderwine Prophet is a combo, etc!!
In my experience the difference between the two is how much your opponent's laughing..
Synergy: giggles of satisfaction
Combo: bwahahahaahahahha!
Or if it's Tomer piloting the synergy/combo:
_"wheeee!"_
I go full comic book villain in all of my synergies. The train is coming from value town and it's bringing pain to everyone.
When I think of combos I think about how the term is used in fighting games. Attacks that lead to another attack that are difficult for your opponent to stop. For Magic, this would be more like effects that can lead into another effect. With Magic having counter magic, opponents have a higher chance of stopping it unlike in fighting games. An example I would use for magic is a Lightning Bolt to the face in order to play a card like Skewer the Critics for 1 mana instead of 3. Of course infinite combos and auto win combos are the best types, but as long as it is an effect that leads to another effect I think it is a combo. Something more static like Lord effects I generally consider more as synergies. It needs to progress you closer to winning, but it doesn't have to win right then or in the next turn or 2. Lightning Bolt into Skewer The Critic into Light Up The Stage is a powerful combo that helps push you forward to win, but doesn't necessarily guarantee a win.
Personally, I think of combo as essentially the top % of synergy, where the cards cover each other's effects in a way that achieves some kind of result, often (but not limited to) winning the game. For example, exquisite blood and sanguine bond. Those cards are so incredibly synergistic that they loop infinitely, Exquisite Blood providing the life gain, and Sanguine Bond providing the life loss needed to loop. Thassa's Oracle and Demonic Consultation synergize by Oracle needing an empty library to win, and Consultation providing that. Basalt Monolith and Rings of Brighthearth work the same way. Basalt Monolith can tap for mana, and use mana to untap, but it doesn't achieve anything. Rings of Brighthearth copying the untap trigger synergizes really well, in that now the monolith goes positive in mana, resulting in infinite colourless mana.
I think that's why Maze's End doesn't feel especially like a combo, because it's just the effect of Maze's End, not that it interacts in any particularly synergistic way with the gates.
Synergy is when 2 or more cards create an effect that creates its own "card" in a way. Think of how Sylvan Library and Underrealm Lich work together & essentially creates "Underrealm Library" as the Underrealm Lich warps the ruling on Sylvan Library.
A combo is just 2 or more cards abusing each other to an effect thats absurd, most likely game-winning. The power of this is so high that usually it presents game winning on that very turn with the weak end of combos requiring to wait 1 more turn. These combos are usually creature based & only waiting due to summoning sickness. Things like infinite life is still considered a combo because your life total becomes so high that you're essentially immune to dmg - meaning you can only lose via another infinite combo, infect dmg, or commander dmg
Voltron isn't not combo or synergy. Its is its own genre - voltron. You are combining multiple cards into essentially 1 super card that can overpower everything. But these cards aren't warping any rules of the others nor allowing some sort of mass ability abuse.
To my mind a Combo has to do one of three things.
Win the Game
Establish a Lock
Establish a Loop (of the same actions)
Synergy is an accumulation of value between cards. Valakut + Prime Time is a Synergy. Valakut + Scapeshift is a Combo (it often wins the game) is an example I would use to demonstrate my meaning.
[[Creeping Chill]] and [[Narcomoeba]] are a synergy because they support each other but don't interact directly with each other.
[[Brudiclad Telchor Engineer]] and [[Helm of the Host]] are a combo because they increase each other's effects.
To me a combo presents a loop, and a synergy just works well together
Lots of combos don't loop, they just win when they resolve. The difference between the two is the amount of value generated, and the use of a very specific selection of cards to achieve a very specific line of play. Synergy generates more value than just playing good cards, and a combo generates extreme value by using the specific interactions between your combo pieces to achieve the predetermined goal.
Combo - combination or sequence of cards, effects and game actions played together in a short amount of game time (same turn) that proactiveley attempt to translate into a win.
Synergy is when cards work together, combo is when cards work off of each other
Combo is active, synergy is passive.
Combo you play the pieces for a desired immediate effect, usually to win or do something extremely powerful.
Synergy is either passive buffs like lord effects or value-based interactions that durdle without advancing the game massively.
EZ.
Combo is assembled on the spot same turn like Thessaloniki oracle and tainted pact. Synergy is assembled over time like setting up lands to set up mana rocks to set up creatures to swing
Combo - a specific number of cards are together and when activated start a chain. Splinter Twin plus untappers, thopter sword, etc.
Synergies- are cards that just go together and work toward your strategy, tribal decks, you want all or most of your creatures to be the same if you say it's elves and you have no elves, not synergy. Or in the sense of commander building around your commander like Voltron or just playing to your commanders strength. Like a ponder on its own in the open, don't make it synergy or combo. Its just a card. If your commander wants to draw cards ponder (while not great is still a small synergy). Like craterhoof isn't a combo it's a win condition.
I would say power level discussions that discuss whether decks have combos should also be asking how many cards they take and roughly how much mana, as well as how many ways there are to find the combo. A deck with consultation/oracle and many ways to find either piece is much more powerful than a deck like my Teysa Karlov deck which has no hard tutors and most infinite combos in it require at least four cards. And I'm still careful to warn people that that deck often does win through infinite combos.
In general, I think 'combo' is any combination of more than one card that wins the game on the spot, prevents other players from taking further game actions (locked out of draws, casting spells, etc.), or produces arbitrarily large resources (life, mana, card draw, creatures, etc.) assuming other players do not have interaction to stop it or 'stax' preventing it from working in the first place. Typically 'combo' requires at least one specific card, and often multiple specific cards. Synergy is various non-specific cards in your deck providing a value engine which consumes resources. It increases your chance of winning and helps deck run smoothly, but it does not win the game immediately.
Combo deck is something you need to put together to win. Basically chain the cards your deck to get the win. A combo could be just a combination of cards that generate a specific outcome (like infinite). There are some cards that are one card combo. A synergy may enhance each other, but it the combination aren't really needed to win the game. I think people don't say synergy deck because combo decks are synergistic by nature, but I think people think about theme deck. At least I don't see people say synergy like an archetype like combo.
you guys have to add a jingle for this podcast like the one for the mtg Goldfish podcast!
I learned nothing from this but I loved it!
Combo (the deck archetype) and Combo (the verb, he's comboing off! stop him!) are a bit different than "I'll take a number 9 combo with fries and a Dr. pepper" or something. I don't think most people in Magic context do use Combo and synergy interchangably, because combo is a bit of an MTG lingo thing that also bleeds into other games(or bled into MTG from fighting games!) If your deck has a combo kill, your deck is some kind of combo deck, though it may be aggro/combo, midrange/combo, or control/combo as well, or any number of things. Combo decks are actually very likely to be multi-archetypal because you only need two cards in your deck to win with it and the rest of the deck space is free.
Anyways, when I say 'combo,' I generally mean "game-winning combination." Other terms; "Combo turn." "Combo off." "Combo breaker." I don't think synergy as a term in MTG has any specific meaning in the MTG lexicon like combo does. There's some good ancient MTG articles about The Metagame Clock and Who's the Beatdown that never go out of relevance, if you want to look them up.