Do you hate combo decks?

[Slyvester12]

There's more to combo decks than just playing the same combo though. They need a protection package, card advantage, removal to eliminate stax pieces, and the well-built combo decks will layer their combos and streamline them to eliminate dead cards. Building a functional homebrew combo deck is difficult, and it's hard to execute when other players have their own interaction. If you go up against a combo deck it's very easy to be a reductionist and say that it wins the same way every time, but that undermines the complexity of what combo decks actually do.

In the same vein, I get pretty bored of games that are just combat damage. I always enjoy combo interactions more than straight beats. Synergistic decks like aristocrats and prison decks can be fun too, but they also tend to win in the same way. In my experience, most decks play basically the same game plan every game unless they're something weird like chaos, but everyone usually hates chaos. Even when there are different cards, well built decks usually have some redundancy. Sure, last game someone played Grave Pact, but this game someone played Dictate of Erebos. Decks with a focused strategy tend to be good at getting that strategy online, and that usually means similar games, but there can also be a lot of variance in how those strategies play out.

[robort]

There's more to combo decks than just playing the same combo though. They need a protection package, card advantage, removal to eliminate stax pieces, and the well-built combo decks will layer their combos and streamline them to eliminate dead cards. Building a functional homebrew combo deck is difficult, and it's hard to execute when other players have their own interaction. If you go up against a combo deck it's very easy to be a reductionist and say that it wins the same way every time, but that undermines the complexity of what combo decks actually do.

You put lipstick on a pig it’s still a pig. It’s like watching a magician pull a rabbit out of the hat. It’s still the same trick even with smoke and mirrors.

[Aetherium Slinky]

There's more to combo decks than just playing the same combo though. They need a protection package, card advantage, removal to eliminate stax pieces, and the well-built combo decks will layer their combos and streamline them to eliminate dead cards. Building a functional homebrew combo deck is difficult, and it's hard to execute when other players have their own interaction. If you go up against a combo deck it's very easy to be a reductionist and say that it wins the same way every time, but that undermines the complexity of what combo decks actually do.

You put lipstick on a pig it’s still a pig. It’s like watching a magician pull a rabbit out of the hat. It’s still the same trick even with smoke and mirrors.

Hey no-one is telling you to change your mind. Just offering an alternative view on the matter. It's okay to dislike combos.

Combos use the same cards most of the time but they don't always go about getting there the same way. Like Slyvester12 said many non-combo decks have interchangeable pieces (think Llanowar Elves / Elvish Mystic / Fyndhorn Elves) which often results in similar lines of play. Obviously they're not always the same cards but the overall strategy doesn't change. An aristocrats deck will always have a Blood Artist effect, it will always have a way to sacrifice creatures and it will always have creatures to sac. An argument could be made that these decks also have repetitive lines of play.

Magic is a unique game in the sense that it has multiple win conditions. Ways to make someone lose the game: reducing someone's life to zero, making someone draw from an empty deck and alternative win conditions printed on the card itself that either say "you win" or "an opponents loses". All strategies play very differently which makes the game very multidimensional. Combo decks occupy an extreme on this spectrum because they hinge on a few cards that have a rare effect. There are basically three Lab Maniac effects and basically two Demonic Consultation effects out of the 20 000+ cards that Magic has. However - the interaction is so strong that it's worth it to go and pick it up.

This is where Morganator's point comes in: let's assume you have 33 lands, Thassa's Oracle and Demonic Consultation. What do you do with the remaining 65 cards? Try to support the main strategy. These cards are obviously random and each game plays out differently due to this randomness. A combo will finish the game with the same cards but that part of the game takes up next to no real life time. Most of the game is spent playing random cards you can't predict. This is where you can find the variance in combo decks. Having that one gimmick in the end shouldn't make the game repetitive because the steps to get there are always different.

[Morganator 2.0]

There's more to combo decks than just playing the same combo though. They need a protection package, card advantage, removal to eliminate stax pieces, and the well-built combo decks will layer their combos and streamline them to eliminate dead cards. Building a functional homebrew combo deck is difficult, and it's hard to execute when other players have their own interaction. If you go up against a combo deck it's very easy to be a reductionist and say that it wins the same way every time, but that undermines the complexity of what combo decks actually do.

You put lipstick on a pig it’s still a pig. It’s like watching a magician pull a rabbit out of the hat. It’s still the same trick even with smoke and mirrors.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. This isn't a smoke and mirrors thing; it's how you build a combo deck.

[Bonethousand]

Not to muddy the waters here, but I think I understand both sides of these last few posts, so I thought I'd weigh in. I think the point about redundancy being considered variance is valid. For example, when playing against my friend's Teysa deck, we're always expecting to get bombed with a big life draining sacrifice; however, sometimes that's Gary, sometimes it's Kokusho, etc., and that doesn't feel the worst because he's drawing into whatever top-decks, as well as is dependent on Teysa/sac/recursion/enabler. Even combo's have dynamics, and for those who value the competitive/strategy aspect of the game, this results in fun.

From the perspective of other players who value the social aspects of the game (flavor, creativity, play-time, etc.) this still feels like repetition. I would posit that most players these days agree, so correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the major complaints about the pushed power levels in Magic is that it reduces variance. This isn't because of the new core strategy cards; it's mostly because of the cards that are most efficient for the shells. When I build a deck, the part I get the least excited for is the shell. Like, sometimes I'm relieved to have a Swords in my grip at the right moment, but I've never said, "So glad I drew this card." In my experience, decks that are built efficiently around a strategy feel like the entire thing is a shell; it's hard to find the subtlety between a Grave Pact and a Dictate of Erebos when my first thought is, "Here we go. It's doing the thing again." If anything, the redundancy there sometimes feels worse, because I know that I don't have to just hold up one piece of interaction for the right time, but also one for a redundant counterpart, and also one for a couple tutors, and also one to counter their counter, and so on and so forth.

That's why I have the most fun with decks that have diverse combos, or the big combo play is like the nuts draw, to support an already effective strategy. If someone has no tutors in a Primal Surge deck, and then one out of every 10 games they get it in their hand, my first thought is, "Hell yeah! Flip that library upside down and swing!" Or if I'm playing against an Alesha deck that sometimes wins with a 3-4 piece Reassembling Skeleton combo, but also sometimes wins with a Brash Taunter and a Blazing Sunsteel, or Kiki-Jiki, then it feels like I've got a game. At least a game that I can experience memorably.

[robort]

There's more to combo decks than just playing the same combo though. They need a protection package, card advantage, removal to eliminate stax pieces, and the well-built combo decks will layer their combos and streamline them to eliminate dead cards. Building a functional homebrew combo deck is difficult, and it's hard to execute when other players have their own interaction. If you go up against a combo deck it's very easy to be a reductionist and say that it wins the same way every time, but that undermines the complexity of what combo decks actually do.

You put lipstick on a pig it’s still a pig. It’s like watching a magician pull a rabbit out of the hat. It’s still the same trick even with smoke and mirrors.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. This isn't a smoke and mirrors thing; it's how you build a combo deck.

Quite simple because it’s still the same trick with the use of smoke and mirrors. Pulling a rabbit out of hat without smoke and mirrors is the same trick when done with smoke and mirrors. So in the end it’s still the same trick

[Morganator 2.0]

Quite simple because it’s still the same trick with the use of smoke and mirrors. Pulling a rabbit out of hat without smoke and mirrors is the same trick when done with smoke and mirrors. So in the end it’s still the same trick

I'm sorry but I don't understand the metaphor here. Could you please explain how this relates to combo decks?

[The Golgari Guy]

There's more to combo decks than just playing the same combo though. They need a protection package, card advantage, removal to eliminate stax pieces, and the well-built combo decks will layer their combos and streamline them to eliminate dead cards. Building a functional homebrew combo deck is difficult, and it's hard to execute when other players have their own interaction. If you go up against a combo deck it's very easy to be a reductionist and say that it wins the same way every time, but that undermines the complexity of what combo decks actually do.

This is actually a fair point. I guess I'll have to play more combo decks myself to experience this better.

[CleanBelwas]

There's more to combo decks than just playing the same combo though. They need a protection package, card advantage, removal to eliminate stax pieces, and the well-built combo decks will layer their combos and streamline them to eliminate dead cards. Building a functional homebrew combo deck is difficult, and it's hard to execute when other players have their own interaction. If you go up against a combo deck it's very easy to be a reductionist and say that it wins the same way every time, but that undermines the complexity of what combo decks actually do.

This is a completely fair and valid point, but I fear it is one that gets lost the lower down the power level gradient you go, which in turn is in part what contributes to the negative perception of combo decks.

A well built, high powered combo deck has a lot of moving parts and is a thing of beauty, but for those moving parts to be useful and appreciated, your opponents need to be operating on the same level.

In a high powered meta, you expect tight, efficient combos and as such you build your deck with those in mind. You pack more interactive elements designed to deal with these types of combos.

The type of interaction you use will change as your power level does. Nature's claim is an excellent and efficient removal spell in high powered metas as it is very mana efficient and impact of the life gain is negligible, but in battle cruiser EDH you're likely better off with a Reclamation Sage as mana efficiency is less of a consideration and your removal options being able to chump block later down the line or be more easily recurred is more advantageous.

As such, it becomes much harder to deal with combos (as most combos will typically end the game the turn they are assembled) and often the play pattern can devolve into "they hit their combo pieces, they win again" rather than "they are attempting to assemble their combo, what can I do to stop them?", which can massively contribute to the perception of combos feeling "samey".

This is why I feel that my second point in my original response is the most important one. You have to make sure your combo is an appropriate power level for your meta. If your group likes playing battle cruiser EDH, you probably shouldn't run Heliod and always tutor for Ballista. If you have an 8 card combo with no tutors that only works when the stars align and everything comes together, you're probably fine in a battle cruiser meta.

I would also conjecture that combo is not the only archetype that looks to win through the same method every time. I personally don't see much difference between a combo deck doing its thing or an elfball deck going to get Craterhoof (or the much cooler Big Pigs). They're both disruptable if you have the right answer in hand and both will kill you immediately if you don't.

For me, it's an abundance of tutors that result in games being "samey" rather than the method the deck looks to win. I pulled a Tiamat so built a 5 colour dragon deck. Played it three times, got the same 5 cards each time. Not even 5 cards that automatically win the game when played together, just 5 objectively good cards. Took the deck apart immediately after and gave the Tiamat to my friend.

[mcamokk]

for me combos are a perfectly legal way to decide the game and a very fun one at that. I love being able to protect a combo, search and then detonate it out of nowhere.

But I also noticed that many players who are upset about combos play "unfun" cards themselves, such as Torment of Hailfire or Approach of the second sun. From my point of view, these cards are also to be seen as combos, because they also end the game and in a similar way. Therefore, the whole hatred of many players against combos is completely exaggerated. Anyone who plays a torment or approach should also be able to handle a combo.

[robort]

Quite simple because it’s still the same trick with the use of smoke and mirrors. Pulling a rabbit out of hat without smoke and mirrors is the same trick when done with smoke and mirrors. So in the end it’s still the same trick

I'm sorry but I don't understand the metaphor here. Could you please explain how this relates to combo decks?

Simple : Combo(Pull Rabbit out of hat) and Smoke and Mirrors (complexity) which is added to the trick. So no matter what is done for or added  to the trick it still becomes the same pull the rabbit out of the hat.

With that out of the way. Could you also please explain how your 1st initial response correlates to the Op's original topic?

[Mynus]

There's more to combo decks than just playing the same combo though. They need a protection package, card advantage, removal to eliminate stax pieces, and the well-built combo decks will layer their combos and streamline them to eliminate dead cards. Building a functional homebrew combo deck is difficult, and it's hard to execute when other players have their own interaction. If you go up against a combo deck it's very easy to be a reductionist and say that it wins the same way every time, but that undermines the complexity of what combo decks actually do.

I understand, but I still disagree. Creating all the things you mention still serve only one purpose, the combo. Protection of the combo (card advantage to get the combo, etc) is not complexity in my opinion, it just reinforces the combo. At the end the same two to three cards win the game, and when the goal of the deck is to exactly that, that's not magic I enjoy or want to play against. Yay, I lost to Heliod and Ballista again, so so fun. Yay, I lost to Thassa's Oracle again, so so fun.

Edit:
I would feel the same way for combat decks if the only wincon was Craterhoof everytime.

Edit #2:
I would actually refine my idea, and say I dislike the idea of multiple tutors to guarantee the combo more than the combo itself.

[anjinsan]

I don't hate them, but I do dislike them - mainly because they "come out of nowhere" and just end the game, often with little regard for the existing game state.

Now, they don't actually come out of nowhere, but compared with a lot of other things they do. Combat presence is pretty much the other extreme - you can see someone has one creature, two creatures, etc, they're building up slowly, and you have a reasonable guess at how much they will be putting out next turn and how "close" you are to death, bearing in mind there may be pump spells, combat tricks, haste, etc. If, however, you have two combo cards in your deck, it's more about how many cards you've drawn which is a pretty statistical thing (and, admittedly, whether you've tutored). You can have nothing for the whole game and then bam!

There's an addendum here which is system mastery. If someone drops a Grindstone, a player with a high skill level but low knowledge level might look at that and go, eh, that's pretty useless. Then they drop a Painter's Servant and it's game over. Same with Leyline of the Void or whatever. As a player, you have to know the combo potential of things, and it's not at all forgiving; if you get it wrong, you just lose. I just don't consider that great game design, honestly.

Interestingly, my Acererak, the Archlich deck can "go infinite" but it doesn't work like this. It uses cost reduction pieces to be able to storm of with Acererak so whilst there is an element of "Oh, I dropped K'rrik, now I win!", it's rather dependent upon the board state. People can see it coming, or should be able to; if I have Bontu's Monument out and cast Acererak ten times one turn, it should be pretty clear what's going to happen next turn. It's not really a combo deck (it's not trying to be, and anyway if it works people tend to die before it actually goes infinite), I just think it's interesting that it's a combo you can sort of build towards and which feels a lot more like a combat board state, rather than being all-or-nothing type of combo. (I think I have one with servos which is similar, actually)

The other reason I dislike them is that I find them boring. I consider myself a Johnny; I like cool interactions between cards. Actually coming up with combos is quite fun, in fact. When you drop them, though, the interactions usually don't really matter. Except in some fringe cases, these cards may as well say things like "if you control card X, you win the game"... and that's, well, I just find it exceedingly bland.

[Morganator 2.0]

This is a completely fair and valid point, but I fear it is one that gets lost the lower down the power level gradient you go, which in turn is in part what contributes to the negative perception of combo decks.

This is true, but I don't think the fault lies with combos in themselves, but rather with the pilots of those decks who didn't describe the deck well enough in the pregame discussion. As I said on the other thread, you don't need to give away what the combo is, just give an approximate strength rating (cEDH, fringe, casual, jank, something like that), what turn you expect to combo off on, and if you have any strong protection or card draw or tutors. That should be enough for your opponents to either match your strength, or ask if you can use a different deck.

Combo does get a bad rap because it is generally stronger than a combat-based win (combat wins are almost non-existent in cEDH), but that doesn't make combos unfair. As you said, you just need to pack more interactive elements.

... I mean it's a little more complicated than that. At the request of some other users I made a guide to stopping combos. No one has asked for a guide to stopping combat.

I would also conjecture that combo is not the only archetype that looks to win through the same method every time. I personally don't see much difference between a combo deck doing its thing or an elfball deck going to get Craterhoof (or the much cooler Big Pigs). They're both disruptable if you have the right answer in hand and both will kill you immediately if you don't.

For me, it's an abundance of tutors that result in games being "samey" rather than the method the deck looks to win.

This is kinda the point I was trying to make when I said it's easy to be a reductionist. All of my decks have at some point been accused of being the same every game, regardless of how many tutors they have (most of my decks don't have that many). Edric always just wins by looping extra turns. Scarab God always wins by reanimating zombies. Brudiclad always wins with tokens. Even your example about elfball. It's easy to minimize what these decks actually do, regardless of how many tutors they run. Of course there's a lot more nuance to what these decks do, that's what makes playing them so much fun.

And on one final note, the deck I own with the most amount of tutors has the least amount of consistency. Try to figure that out.

With that out of the way. Could you also please explain how your 1st initial response correlates to the Op's original topic?

The title of this thread is "Do you hate combo decks?" We are discussing combos. You had said that combo decks are a one-trick pony, and that is just not true. There are so many things combo decks need to take into account. Building a new combo, making sure you're able to get all the pieces in the game, protecting the combo, and then having a backup plan in case it all goes wrong... it's a challenge. And that's not including that you also need answers to your opponents' things. It's a puzzle with 99 pieces and a commander. It is not just as easy as getting to your combo and winning. Or at least it shouldn't be, assuming you're in a fair matchup and the other players are packing interaction.

Try making a unique combo deck yourself, and then test it out. You'll see, homebrewing this stuff is not easy.

[Aetherium Slinky]

At the end the same two to three cards win the game, and when the goal of the deck is to exactly that, that's not magic I enjoy or want to play against.

What about everything that leads up to it? I mean the game is "random" up until the point that the combo is announced. (Also you mentioned high power combos only... What about low power ones? Are they any better?)

bearing in mind there may be pump spells, combat tricks, haste

But these don't come out of nowhere for you? For me they do. To me they're "one card combos" basically because it's a single card that pivots the entire game to that player's advantage and most likely victory.

There's an addendum here which is system mastery. If someone drops a Grindstone, a player with a high skill level but low knowledge level might look at that and go, eh, that's pretty useless. Then they drop a Painter's Servant and it's game over.

I think this is why a pregame talk is hugely important. You make sure everyone understands what you're about to do and explain anything that might be unclear. If you're really nice you give a heads up when you're about to drop a combo piece and let them know what their best window of interaction is. That's if someone doesn't know the combo you're running. I agree with you that playing Magic shouldn't be about knowing all 20 000 cards and their possible interactions.