two cards combo in casual EDH
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on April 25, 2020, 4:49 a.m. by marco-piatti
Hello everyone, I want to ask your opinion about icluding cards just to pull off a two cards combo when the cards alone do not synergize well with the rest of the deck (or don't do very much on their own) in casual EDH. I mean sure there are tutors but i fear that including cards just for the sake of pulling off that one time it's not worth including those cards. At the same time it's clearly not my intention to build the entire deck around that particular combo. However, I see many casual players include in their decks cards with the only purpose of playing a particular combo, without focusing too much on cards that will increase the probability of putting all the pieces together. I'm not sure if this is a good idea since the combo may win you the game even if that would mean that most of the times you would end up with cards with low value.
If you are keeping it more casual, I have found it to be far more satisfying to not include incrementals that are dead drops on their own. Instead I would refine more single-play impact cards. Torment of Hailfire for example... Rarely a dead drop, mostly impactful.
April 25, 2020 11:45 a.m.
It comes down to whether the deck is a combo deck or not. If it is, then it shouldn't be relying on only one two card combo that has no assistant to assemble. You should be having redundancy on your pieces, to both protect the function of the deck as well as increase you it chance of drawing into it.
But if you're not a combo deck, you can run two cards to form an out, for if games go too long (mind you, this is for casual settings). You're not trying to hit the combo but if you do, it means you can finish an otherwise stale game. And since you've only lost two card slots to it, it's not affecting the deck that much.
That being said, any two card combo should be relevant to the deck. It doesn't have to be great. But it should at least be tangentially helpful.
April 25, 2020 8:46 p.m.
personally i say do it!
There is no doubt deck synergy is the most vital component in deck building. I would even argue that combo decks themselves are type of synergy (tutor/combo).
But what happens if your running a combo deck and your opponent drops a Stranglehold
That maybe a bad example but the point is if the tighter you make a deck function around a single mechanic the easier it is for your opponent to stop you.
So i always suggest to stray a little from the flavor.
as Gleeock pointed out "single-play impact cards" will give you the most value by always being usable. how ever i consider causal to mean 10+ turns before a win con so your not looking at 2 in 99 its more like 2 in 82 that means 2 card combos can happen. i would not push to 3 or more.
April 27, 2020 11:09 a.m.
Daedalus19876 says... #6
I never run a combo in my decks unless 1) the deck runs at least ten tutors that can hit the pieces, or 2) the individual pieces are at least decent on their own. There's nothing worse than drawing half of a combo and having it be a completely dead card.
May 4, 2020 5:59 a.m.
Sultai_Sir says... #7
In my Sidisi combo deck, I run Nooze lines, and all the combo pieces besides one are either incredible picks for the deck on synergy alone (Necrotic Ooze), or are mana dorks to help accelerate the deck (Devoted Druid, Channeler Initiate). I say do it, but if you're pieces don't go well with the rest of the deck, and you're playing casually, don't run the combo.
LordBlackblade says... #2
My advice would be to run the pieces in these two situations:
You're running a dedicated combo deck with a lot of tutors already and this is simply another avenue for victory
The combo pieces themselves are highly synergistic with your deck, even by themselves
Otherwise, I don't feel they are worth the card slots.
The best combos are ones whose parts are impactful even without the full combo in place. When I build a deck I tend to go for as many synergies as possible, and oftentimes the combos just form themselves naturally.
April 25, 2020 5:01 a.m.