Combo Detection
TappedOut forum
Posted on Dec. 20, 2013, 3:08 p.m. by yeaGO
Hey all,
You will now notice some additional features surrounding MTG combos.
1) Mentioning combos such as Channel + Fireball (that's bracket bracket channel plus fireball bracket bracket) will now aggregate discussion on the new combo pages
2) Mentioning combos and key synergies in your deck descriptions will provide YET ANOTHER place for your deck to cycle to. This uses the above syntax.
Enjoy.
Sorry. A hard lock is a lock that COMPLETELY locks a person out of doing something. An example of this is Knowledge Pool + Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir.
A soft lock is a lock that doesn't completely lock them out. An example of this is Boomerang + Call to Mind + Snapcaster Mage etc... (I made it up on the spot, but my point is that it doesn't completely stop them from having enough lands to cast spells).
December 24, 2013 8:29 p.m.
Soft lock example, Rune-Tail's Essence
+ Pariah
+ Stuffy Doll
(any creature can fit here, I only chose stuff doll as a "safe" choice), right?
While the before mentioned Possibility Storm
+ Curse of Exhaustion
is a hard lock.
Soft lock being more of something that simply hinders the opponent but can be dealt with and is in no way game ending. Hard lock being a game ender to the degree previously mentioned as well?
December 24, 2013 8:30 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #4
@Matsi883: I don't see how Boomerang + Call to Mind + Snapcaster Mage is a soft lock. Once you cast a card for its flashback cost, it gets exiled. These cards don't create any kind of lock or loop.
@Dorotheus: Rune-Tail's Essence + Pariah would be a combo. Stuffy Doll 's ability is shut down by Rune-Tail's Essence 's ability. Also, by Matsi883's definition, this is a hard lock because it prevents anyone from dealing damage to you.
Unless we're differentiating the two kinds of locks based on whether they can be broken. And if we are, there's no such thing as a true hard lock that doesn't involve five or more cards.
December 24, 2013 8:52 p.m.
My question now is...what defines a lock? Does it have to be inescapable, or can there be cards that can get through it and it is still a lock? For example, Cumber Stone + Dovescape + Humility makes all your opponents spells into 0/1 blockers unless they happen to have uncounterable things like Supreme Verdict . Is that a lock? Is Cumber Stone needed?
Is Smokestack + Sundial of the Infinite a lock on permanents, because it is highly susceptible to removal. Do you need something like Avacyn, Angel of Hope to make most removal into useless cards too?
December 24, 2013 9:58 p.m.
smash10101 says... #6
I'd go with Stuffy Doll + Pariah rather than Pariah + Rune-Tail's Essence. And I would say that's a hard lock, it prevents any damage that would be dealt to you (unless that damage is unredirectable, which is pretty rare). What about Chronatog + Stasis? Is that a hard lock? And as for what Matsi883 was saying, maybe a better example would be Boomerang + Isochron Scepter. Minimum of 1 bounce per turn. It's evil, but it can't actually prevent them from doing everything. They could have a 1 cost spell, or they could have enough lands to get by despite never being able to play one without it getting bounced. On that note, I once dealt a good 30 damage after getting Curse of Exhaustion + Possibility Stormed. Does that make it not a hard lock? I just couldn't cast spells from my hand, no one said anything about not casting spells from Isochron Scepter .
December 24, 2013 10:18 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #7
There is a way around every lock. The only time anything becomes truly impassable is when you have multiple locks that shut down all avenues of action. Therefore, I don't really agree with abstract "differentiations" between hard and soft locks. Most of the time, it seems like the difference is more of an intuition-based concept rather than a definable characteristic. That does nothing to help us here.
December 24, 2013 10:26 p.m.
The ONLY reason I put Stuffy Doll on there is because its indestructible, it can literally be ANY creature, so long as its a creature.
Cumber Stone
+ Dovescape
+ Humility
is a hard lock, if anything Humility is the card not needed, but it does stop everything on the board currently from doing anything. Cumber Stone
+ Dovescape
makes them unable to do damage to you, or play the thing they want to do deal with it, so they can't deal with it, and then they just stall their inevitable loss.
Curse of Exhaustion
+ Possibility Storm
is still a hard lock, it prevents you from playing anything, that was the other player's fault in not being able to deal with whatever board presence you already had...
Chronatog
+ Stasis
is a just perma-sleeping a current board, you're not draining their mana or silencing them at all. Its annoying but you're not locking a player out.
One of the best soft locks I can think of is pretty much anything with Gravepact, because you're allowing them to pretty much play anything, but any creatures will inevitably die so long as Gravepact is on the board.
December 25, 2013 12:25 a.m.
Humility is actually needed, because otherwise they can cast creatures that can remove your enchantments and/or bounce them. Or just make you sac them with hasted annihilator, etc.
There's actually no uncounterable spells with any relevance that get through it other than Wreak Havoc which still has a minimal impact, but Boseiju, Who Shelters All can get through it. There is usually at least 1 card that can get through any lock, but if you make the deck with enough synergy, it covers those gaps.
I'm not exactly sure how one would get around Possibility Storm and Curse of Exhaustion though, and the only ways to get around a teferi based lock (Knowledge Pool or Omen Machine - with hand control prior) are to have 2 Cabal Pit . Most "hard" locks are pretty hard, and there aren't very many ways to get around them.
December 25, 2013 1:52 a.m.
Well, I guess there is the cards with cycling effects like Resounding Wave but they aren't ran because there's cards that are pretty much "strictly better" unless you are looking at them specifically for the cycling ability.
December 25, 2013 2:36 a.m.
smash10101 says... #11
I dealt with a Curse of Exhaustion + Possibility Storm lock by having Lightning Bolt and Fire/Ice on Isochron Scepter s. But at that point you don't need to cast anything from your hand to win.
December 25, 2013 3:42 a.m.
I don't think this discussion is going to yield to much more useful information or insight. It just comes down to what will we do about synergies and combos being part of the base, and we all know to whom that decision lies with.
December 25, 2013 3:55 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #13
Now, after some absence, I've got to drop my two cents into the the discussion. A linguistic distinction between combo and synergy is nonsense, so I'll bow to the majority and go with the game-winning thing.
That, on the other hand, is a huge reason to include synergies. Combos are those pieces of bullcrap that end the game in the most anticlimactic way, while synergies are what makes the game interesting and fun to play. You are free to disagree on that. But many people don't.
All we need to do is to make sure the word synergy is understood right. Using Giant Growth on a True-Name Nemesis is not a synergy, it's just the normal use of a card. Exiling an opponents creature with Path to Exile after stealing it with Callous Oppressor on the other hand is, because it changes the total outcome of the combined effects.
If the synergy list is checked by the "total outcome improvement" condition, keywords and tags for variable cards are added, the amount of synergies will shrink down to a well controllable number.
Synergies like card xxx plus every buff, if they are synergies at all (i'm too lazy to look up that one card you mentioned a few pages ago, sorry), can be listed just like that: card xxx plus "buff", where buff is the tag that can be added to cards.
December 26, 2013 1:04 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #14
@Triforce-Finder: You're missing the point. It's not worth listing buffs because it's obvious which cards are buffs, and it's unnecessary to list every card they can buff. It so much extra work just to "officially" include entries that are obvious, common sense things to almost every player.
December 26, 2013 1:21 p.m.
It is a little bit unfortunate that people are massively seeming to "not get it". I don't think it is hard to understand why. A set of English words that are frequently used in a more generic way are being used as very specific technical terms and the easy and obvious mistake of applying the more general meaning is running rampant.
I use combos quite a bit. I eat them - in two different ways (pretzels and meal deals). Neither of these are particularly game-ending - they just "go together" or "combine well", if you will. Actually, I think "combo" is a shortened version of "combination", no?
Another thing to be aware of (if you aren't already - if so, please excuse any annoyance) is the co-opting of a generic symbol (+) to mean something completely specific and technical. So I have to ask Do you see a difference between:
Channel + Fireball and Channel + Fireball ?
The first is very specific. The second is meant as the generic "combine". But now what if the second becomes interpreted as an attempt to be specific?
I really think that the heart of this issue is that we are not sharing a commonly understood or agreed-upon (not even close) language or set of symbols for this. That should be settled before implementing. Even if it ends up being one individual's interpretation that gets used, that should be clearly posted somewhere so that differing localized variations and accidental common-usages don't cause confusion.
My view of it (for what it's worth): I differentiate between "combo deck archetype" and "card combos".
- The combo deck archetype is one that employs the strategy of aggressively tutoring / controlling up to the point where a specific and reasonably attainable combination of cards are played / activated in such a way as to effectively end the game immediately.
- A card combo is just a shortened way of saying a card combination and it could include anything from thematics to synergies or locks - and the sacred "combo" everyone is arguing about.
In short, as I see it, the "combo deck archetype" is a strictly technical MTG thing with a specific meaning. But it still makes sense to talk about combos of cards (as in combinations of cards), even if they wouldn't necessarily be an effective combo for a successful "MTG combo-archetype deck".
Basically, since you are borrowing the word "combo" which is already in use for a wide variety of purposes, you are probably going to find yourself pretty frustrated if you expect to purge all MTG player discussions / blogging / deck descriptions / what have you - of the common usage of the word as applied to MTG cards equivalently to any other thing from food to musicians.
I'm not saying that you should not attempt to do this. But if you do then I recommend making your expectations / interpretations explicit rather than assuming that everyone else has adopted this exclusionary use of the word combo since they play MTG.
December 26, 2013 1:35 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #16
I thought the point of the last several pages was to establish an accepted definition.
December 26, 2013 1:38 p.m.
Precisely. If we want to include some thigns and not others, we need to decide a strict definition to go by.
December 26, 2013 1:50 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #18
Sure, that's true for buffs. Just taking up your example. You used it as a reason to exclude synergies, if I got that right. In my opinion, buffing a creature doesn't even register as synergy, just as common card use. I did mention that...
The way I understood your example, you were concerned about the mass of synergies that come with interchangeable parts, but then I misinterpreted it. That concern would have been unnecessary, so it's good that yours is a different one. Although that doesn't serve to support the "exclude synergies" argument, because buffing isn't synergy.
Synergies aside, a buff is easy to recognize when seeing it, but getting an exhaustive list of buffs without mixing all the self-buffers and cards that give +1/+1 counters in the list needs some searching skill, so tags can be useful even for seemingly common and trivial effects. Just think about those "which cards can reanimate" threads that appear on so many mtg forums...
December 26, 2013 1:52 p.m.
I just think that "card combos" could really include synergies, locks, or even tribal themes. I think it gets specific and exclusionary in the context of a combo deck archetype rather than becoming specific as applied to the realm of MTG.
I think the generic use of the word "combo" as it applies to any group of objects from people to foods applies and gets used systematically by MTG players in a non-exclusionary way. I think that coming to an agreement here and now will not get rid of the common use sense of the word "combo".
But it is good if you are able to come to an agreement and post it. Then people should be able to adapt easily even if it is a little different than their own terminology. From what I have seen in the thread so far, there seems to almost be more variation in the use of the word combo than consistency. If that is the case then it might be reasonable to let a smaller group decide and just post what they mean by the word in terms of any kind of submissions or anything like that to an "official combo list".
If it proves to be harder than expected to generate consensus among the player base where none currently exists, then I still think it would be worth having this list of official combos and I wouldn't mind if someone or a smaller group just went ahead and defined terms for us.
December 26, 2013 1:55 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #20
@ r3v13w
It's true what you're saying, but masses of people that use the term the way they agreed on and are used to aren't easily swayed. It's useless to stand in front of a stampede, you'll just get stepped on, even if you're right.
Just go with using synergy instead of combo and don't bother about it any more.
It's the same problem with sarcasm and irony, there are probably ten times more people who don't know the difference than those who actually do, and there's nothing you can do about it if you don't happen to have say in mass media and know a way to get everybody to give a damn and watch your documentation about linguistic misconceptions. Even then, you would have to make sure people understand it and then keep them from forgetting it right away...
December 26, 2013 2:10 p.m.
smash10101 says... #21
Jumping back in, I want to voice my support for card tags again. Like Triforce-Finder said, searching for certain types of cards, for example, reanimator cards, takes quite a bit of skill in working with gatherer and knowing what different types of phrases are used to reanimate. I would love to go through the card database and give all the cards that can reanimate a tag. (I think I do have some skill at gatherer searches.) I feel like it would be a very useful function to be able to search by tag, and I don't believe any other site has such functionality.
As for combo vs. synergy and what not, I agree that Giant Growth + creature is not synergy, as that is using Giant Growth for exactly what it says on the card and nothing more, but what about Giant Growth + Invisible Stalker ? Or Giant Growth + Chameleon Colossus ?
Also, what do we do about something like 2x Archaeomancer
+ Ghostly Flicker
? Instant speed 2U get an instant or sorcery back from the graveyard. Brutal when that instant or sorcery happens to be Counterspell
, but does it qualify as a combo?
Last point (for this post anyways), I would be ok with just getting rid of synergies from the combase, but before we do that, we need to very publicly post what exactly is combo worthy. I know this is already being discussed, but I wanted to get my opinion in on the whole should we include synergies thing. One of my biggest problems with this site lately is the difficulty for new users to find information about how to use the site, with the number of "How to I use the deckbuilder?" threads to the misuse of the Q&A. I know there is an FAQ, but it's old, missing a few things (in my opinion), and not somewhere most people think to look. /rant
December 26, 2013 3:52 p.m.
No. That is exactly what Epoch said he did not want. Invisible Stalker + random pump spell is NOT worthy of a mention. How ridiculous would the database be if it had literally every pump spell and every unblockable creature. Ridiculous
December 26, 2013 4:04 p.m.
smash10101 says... #23
I agree that it would be ridiculous. However, I do think that that would qualify as synergy, and therefore should be included in the debate about what should and should not be in the database as an example of synergy. Clearly, this example is far on the synergy side of the combo/synergy spectrum, but when we work to define the distinctions between the two, having an example of something that we can all agree is one and not the other is important.
December 26, 2013 4:08 p.m.
here, a list of synergies and infinite combos This should be the example/criteria
December 26, 2013 4:13 p.m.
Epochalyptik already has a solution that works just fine for our initial purposes.
Synergy: An interaction between two cards is merely some kind of synergy between their effects that works to create advantage that neither card inherently has.
Combo: A combo is an interaction between two cards that leads to game-ending advantage through a self-sustaining repeatable loop, an infinite loop, or a lock.
Baby steps first. Start with just those definitions and only combos. Then once we're happy we can include a broader range of things.
December 26, 2013 4:13 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #26
Are you mixing up combos and synergies?
Well, the intended use for Ghostly Flicker is to evade targeting and trigger etb effects, so it would need to have a kind of interaction that makes it better than that or is special in some other way. Two Ghostly Flicker and two Archeomancer would definitely count as synergy, maybe even as combo because they loop. Flicker both, get any spell and the other Ghostly Flicker back, repeat.
Buffing an unblockable still isn't synergy, as i stated before. Buffing Chameleon Colossus is borderline... It should pass the "improved total output" test, but that improvement is the intended use of chameleon colossus. I'd say no.
December 26, 2013 4:19 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #27
Sorry, I'm not going to leave out really good synergies like Ghostly Possession + Palace Guard, not even on a temporary base. Call me stubborn if you like. Synergies have their place in the game, so they should have it on tappedout too. I'm not letting synergy-haters get a foot in that door.
December 26, 2013 4:28 p.m.
smash10101 says... #28
I wold say that buffing an unblockable is synergy. It combines the aspects of the two cards to create a better outcome than either would produce on their own. Pumping a Eager Cadet is the vanilla use of Giant Growth , therefore the pumping of a creature with evasion, particularly one with unblockable and hexproof, is synergy.
As for the Ghostly Flicker loop, I was asking if it should be a combo, because it is repeatable, and gains you a huge advantage, or just a synergy, because it is not game winning, a lock, or self sustaining. I think we still need to clarify our definition of a combo. And I really don't like how it specifies two cards. I still am not arguing that we should include synergies in the database, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't define synergies.
December 26, 2013 4:31 p.m.
You need to stop thinking about what you would like and start thinking about what's physically possible for Epoch, Femme and Yea to do. Have some sympathy. Whilst the system is being put in place we really need to chill out and prioritise.
December 26, 2013 4:32 p.m.
smash10101 says... #30
@ChiefBell: At whom was that last comment (p9c18) directed at?
December 26, 2013 4:34 p.m.
Things that may be obvious or even tedious to humans are not obvious at all to computers and a suggestion engine is my secondary goal with this feature. People who have paid attention have seen a few attempts at suggestion engines pop up and go away on this site. A decent human-input driven suggestion engine really needs both synergies and combos because people will be interested to know both.
Thank you all for a rather exhaustive discussion. I am thankful to have a community that can delve so deeply into their differences and remain impeccably polite. Bravo to all involved. Rather than attempting to come up with a global definition of correctness, we should state plainly our interest and goals.
Ideas:
Do we need a type system where new items appear as mere synergies but can be manually graduated to combos?
Do we need additional type data for combos? Infinite vs Life vs ???
ps: I know card links don't work, but man, aren't these new forum pages a slick ride on desktop and mobile?
December 26, 2013 5:06 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #33
That's not the intended or vanilla use, it's the least effective use. That's a difference. Combat abilities like unblockable, trample, buffing etc. will always merge and work together, so they have to undergo special scrutiny. Giant Growth will increase the damage dealt by 3, be it to a creature or a player. Since it's an instant, it can be used on any unblocked creature, and that doesn't have to be Invisible Stalker . Those two work well together, but the sum of effects doesn't surpass them seen by themselves. It's a case of 2+2=4, and although four is higher than two, synergy requires 2+2=5.
I'm aware that managing the combase is a lot of work and appreciate it. I see it as minimum courtesy to use only real synergies that are useful. So I won't flood the combase with forest + island or questionable synergies, not now and not in the future. I just can't take this "exclude this, exclude that" attitude.
December 26, 2013 5:07 p.m.
Maybe any user can suggest a synergy or combo but it goes to a panel of 5 or 6 users who then approve them or delete them. Instead of making items appear as synergies but get 'promoted' to combos manually.
Additional type data for combos may be easier to add first (I mean - from the outset) instead of leaving out and then trying to go back over later. It would certainly be helpful.
December 26, 2013 5:14 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #35
Graduation Idea: Yea! Go! Sorry, couldn't resist... Anyways, that would be great. Maybe with some kind of vote function: If 5 users click the "C-C-Combo!" button, the synergy becomes a combo.
The combo type might help solve some of the combo/synergy issues. Whenever I attempted to discuss about the meaning of the word "combo", I tried to establish some kind of differentiation between loops, infinite loops, resource-limited loops, one-shots, resource-proportional one-shots, and so on. It would be necessary to discuss what criteria we use to differientate between different kinds of combos.
An Idea I just had: Creating a combo/synergy gives you the privilege/responsibility to write a description for it or get someone to do it, giving access by mentioning him/her in the description. If you don't for a full week, the combo page is flagged for revision.
December 26, 2013 5:33 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #36
@yeaGO!: It's probably better to immediately determine whether an entry is a combo or a synergy so as to avoid anything slipping through the net.
Perhaps it's more important to determine what kinds of entries might be worthy of inclusion. I think most of us can agree that buff spells have no place in the database from a logistic and a common sense standpoint. Ghostly Flicker + Archaeomancer + Archaeomancer is different; does that qualify as a synergy or a combo? Either way, it should be included. But where do we draw the line on what is and isn't acceptable?
The "exclude this, exclude that" to which you're opposed, Triforce-Finder, is precisely what we need. We simply can't handle entries covering every possible arrangement of cards in the game. We need to define exactly what is acceptable, and that does mean some things won't make it into the database. Remember, we have to start small. We can expand later on if the need arises, but we can't just open the floodgates and expect everything to work.
@yeaGO!: Going with my pattern of implementing modified versions of existing systems, what if we were to give the combos/synergies their own set of tags/hubs? We could tag each entry as recursion, infinite mana, infinite life, etc. That would allow users to navigate the combo pages more easily, and it would lend itself to a nifty advanced search using parameters such as "includes this card," "produces this result (hub/tag)," and "contains X cards."
December 26, 2013 5:36 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #37
And, as I have for a while, I stress the need for some kind of proofreading and quality control. If we take 10-15 of our most active and cooperative users and give them privs to manage the entries, we could maintain some pretty high standards without greatly increasing the workload for any one person.
December 26, 2013 5:39 p.m.
smash10101 says... #38
@yeaGO!: The new UI really bothered me last night when it first popped up without warning. The changes were fairly subtle but just felt off, especially the smaller logo at the top. It's grown on me though. I do hate how cards only show up half the time when you hover over the link. That is one of the features that make T/O (in my opinion) the best MTG site. Most sites you have to click on the link and it pops up a magiccards.info page in a new window. And the tag syntax is longer. Anyways, I think a featured thread with the update would have been nice. A combination of my internet being wonky and other people telling me everything looked normal made me question whether or not there actually was an update.
As for the combase, here is my favorite idea, at least for right now:
- Nuke all existing combos.
- Make a system where people can tag combos/synergies/whatever, where it sends a request thing kind of like when someone adds a card to the database. Epoch, Femme, whoever else, have power to accept as combo, synergy or blacklist.
- Add a new data type to cards for tags, i.e. sac outlet, wheel, anything else we can think of. Have option for multiple tags on a single card, so we could have Krark-Clan Ironworks be "sac outlet", "artifact sac outlet", and "no extra cost sac outlet." Use same system for tag approval as card approval. Implement search by tag feature.
- Allow modular combos by either tag or some sort of "or" syntax. I.E "Sac outlet + Dross Scorpion + Throne of Empires + Mycosynth Lattice " or "Krark-Clan Ironworks /Ashnod's Altar + Dross Scorpion + Throne of Empires + Mycosynth Lattice " I kind of like both systems, but the second one seems easier to use (can specify cards that are actually in the deck). Not sure how it should link to the combo page though.
- PUT THE INFO ON HOW TO USE COMBASE SOMEWHERE SUPER VISIBLE! Communication of how to use features to new users is something this site is kind of bad at. I know where to find it, but that's mostly because I direct someone to the help pages about once a month, not counting the times I just tell someone how to tag a card or edit their deck.
I don't know how hard this would be to build into the site, but from my (limited) experience in programming, at least some of this should be fairly doable. Also, maybe have more that 2 or 3 people who can approve combos/tags/whatever. Epochalyptik went insane last night going through the inane "combos" people had tagged.
@Triforce-Finder: The vanilla use and the intended use of cards are almost never the same. Magic is designed around synergies. It allows them to build complexity into the game for us experienced players while maintaining a low(er) complexity for new players. To quote Mark Rosenwater, "Card A is simple. Card B is simple. Using Card A with Card B creates something stronger than either can do in isolation. Until the beginner is ready, he or she is not going to be looking for the interaction between Card A and Card B. The advanced player, on the other hand, starts evaluating Card A by figuring out what cards will be synergistic with it." The vanilla use is how the beginner plays it. The intended use is both how the beginner uses it and (almost) every other use you can think of. Titan's Strength has the vanilla use of "Your creature deals 3 more damage, maybe to hit the opponent, maybe to kill a creature it's in combat with. It also has one more toughness, so maybe it won't die. And scry 1." One other use, that was likely intended, is "scry 1."
As for Invisible Stalker + Giant Growth , I'd say it is better, because the stalker guarantees that you'll have an unblocked blocker. I'd say that "combat abilities like unblockable, trample, buffing etc. will always merge and work together," is true, but just because they always work well together doesn't mean they're not synergies. I'd argue that "work well together" is synergy. Sure, maybe Invisible Stalker + Giant Growth doesn't equal 5, but it sure as hell is at least 4 1/2. And if it's just because Giant Growth is an instant, and therefore can be used on any unblocked attacker, what about Invisible Stalker + Phytoburst ?
December 26, 2013 5:47 p.m.
smash10101 says... #39
Quadruple Ninja'd!
@Triforce-Finder: I like the idea of a description. Some combos are pretty obvious, like Exquisite Blood + Sanguine Bond (though there are still quite a large number of posts in the Q&A dedicated to how that works), while others, even if you know what the end result is, may elude many users as to how the cards produce that result. A quick list of actions to take for the combo would be a really nice feature, but I don't think it should rest on the first person to tag it, I think it should be like "You just tagged a combo without a description, would you like to add one? (Link)" and use the same system as everything else for submitting/approving the description. We could still flag all the undescribed combos for people to go through and add. Could be the same team of people who approve the combos or could be all upgraded users or all users or all ranked users. But I don't think we should have one person responsible for making it because there will be people who will just not do it, and then we'll be stuck with no description for a week or so. Also, I suggest some sort of form to fill out when describing the combo. It could include end result, which would be standardized to "infinite mana" "infinite damage" or whatever else, but like the hubs, you would have to pick from a list (with a place to add a new one), steps to activate/trigger/whatever combo, in a ordered list format, for infinite combos, it would include a step at the end like "Go to step 3." so everything would be nice and recursive. If a combo did not have a description, I vote it defaults to:
"
- Cast card 1.
- Cast card 2.
- ???????
- Profit.
December 26, 2013 6:04 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #40
Of course it's necessary to differentiate and exclude certain things, Epochalyptik. Its the arbitraryness that I disagree with, and the way some people are hellbent on pushing synergies out of the combase, for whatever reason they might have.
Could it be that you missed my post about the importance of making clear what synergy means and not including every card that is a possible target for another? My "improved total outcome" or 2+2=5 speech? Sigh... That's how it goes on the Internet...
Then I'd suggest rounding down when it comes to evaluating synergies ;P
As you said, cards working together is the way magic works. That's why I don't think it stands out enough to be mentioned, except maybe as a basic template for a common move. I disagree on 4 1/2. Buffing an unblockabe is 4, while buffing inefficiently is 3 1/2.
December 26, 2013 6:13 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #41
-looks at chest- "Wow, where did that blade come from?"
Yeah, isn't perfect. It was an attempt to link some effort with the creation of a combo so people are careful what they mention as one, and give users who like giving descriptions (and are able to) an incentive to fill the combase.
December 26, 2013 6:20 p.m.
smash10101 says... #42
I guess that's where we differ. I agree that we should not include every single combination of cards. There are over 13000 unique cards, so over 169000000 2 card combinations. I'm not disagreeing on how synergies are where 2 + 2 = 5, I'm just saying that using a buff on a random creature is not making the card worse, it's just not making it better. An unblockable creature turns Giant Growth into Lava Spike . The fact that you suggest rounding down means that there is some continuum of synergies, rather than a dichotomy. Or goal here is to determine what constitutes a synergy worthy of inclusion in the combase. I think we can all agree that we don't want unblockable + pump in there, but it's a slippery slope. What about Ophidian + Aqueous Form ? (Or Invisible Stalker + Curiosity ?) Sure, you could just attack and not get blocked, but it's better to guarantee that you won't get blocked. We need to draw a hard line before we start accepting submissions to the combase, lest we change our minds half way through and let something slip through the cracks.
December 26, 2013 6:29 p.m.
smash10101 says... #43
@Triforce-Finder: (RE:p10c10, got ninja'd again)
I like the idea of that, but I just don't think the benefit outweighs the risk. We could encourage people to add descriptions, but we shouldn't force whoever first tags it to do it. We'll just end up with lots of combos with no descriptions. If we open it up to a large userbase, people who want to help the site can fill in the combase, while people who just want to tag their combo won't get in the way.
December 26, 2013 6:34 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #44
My suggestion to "round down" was a joke, a metaphor aiming at your metaphorical 4 1/2 response to my metaphorical 2+2=5... wait a sec... another blade?!
Ophidian + Aqueous Form combine scry and draw, so they should be synergy. The combat abilities become secondary compared to the card advantage they generate, and that's not too common.
Unblockables still can be removed. Sure, they are more likely to deal damage, but it's no guarantee. Effects that trigger on combat damage imply an effort to deal that damage. We can make that a bit more broad and say: Means to ensure triggering an effect don't qualify as synergy. These means are enablers. Just as Kodama's Might is an enabler for heroic, but doesn't synergize with it by default.
December 26, 2013 7:07 p.m.
smash10101 says... #45
Whoops, I guess I should read cards better. I meant Ophidian and Cloak of Mists . Sure, unblockables can be removed, but so can pretty much anything else. Would Progenitus + Bident of Thassa be considered synergy then because he is ublockable and very hard to kill?
I disagree with your statement that "Means to ensure triggering an effect don't qualify as synergy." Means to ensure triggering an effect, if such effect would not otherwise be guaranteed to trigger, is synergy, provided that the means of ensuring said effect would do something, but less on their own. Example: Dosan the Falling Leaf + any spell you really don't want countered - not synergy, because Dosan isn't doing anything extra, the whole point of Dosan is to prevent counterspells. Pawn of Ulamog + Bloodthrone Vampire - synergy, because the Pawn gets you extra use out of one sac to the bloodthrone, where on his own the pawn would just get you extra chump blockers or mana.
Also, yeaGO!, it seems the card tags are up and working again, but they all show up as white bordered. Almost everyone agrees that Wizards made a good decision when they decided to stop printing white bordered cards. (Subtle hint that I much preferred the old style of how cards showed up when you hovered over a tag.)
December 26, 2013 7:27 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #46
All this faffing about we've all done with definitions and philosophy and we're still not much closer to a conclusion.
What if we change gears a bit and work backward. What kinds of things should be in the database? We'll start a list.
Infinite mana combos
Infinite lifegain combos
Infinite recursion combos
Infinite damage/life loss combos
Infinite turn combos
Recursion loops
Locks
December 26, 2013 7:31 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #47
@smash10101: The white mouseover borders will be gone in a while. We just needed to do something to get mouseovers to work at all again.
December 26, 2013 7:33 p.m.
smash10101 says... #48
I vote for infinite combos of any kind, including ones that don't win without some other card, such as:
- Creatures ETB/LTB (usually done with tokens, so no trigger on the creature itself, could win with a Purphoros, God of the Forge , sometimes involves sac, and therefore could win with Blood Artist , but I'm suggesting we have the combo without the damage outlet, unless that is an actual part of the combo)
- Infinite Twiddle combo
- Infinite draw combo (stoppable or not)
- Infinite token creation
- Infinite mill/xill (I think that's how Femme_Fatale spelled it)
Also, Epoch, for the recursion loops, did you mean something like Ghostly Flicker + 2x Archaeomancer or something else? Also, we should define locks better. We sort of stopped that discussion without coming to a conclusion, despite quite a bit of faffing.
December 26, 2013 7:43 p.m.
smash10101 says... #49
@Epochalyptik: Sounds good. I do prefer them to nothing at all.
December 26, 2013 7:43 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #50
Hmm...
- drawback negation / drawback profiting
- loops (even if they are resource-limited or not instantly game-winning)
- Immortality (like modular + Cauldron of Souls )
- recursion (like Glen Elendra Archmage + Mikaeus, the Unhallowed)
Only 4 points, but it's 2:30 in the morning here and i'm slowly getting tired...
If the Bloodthrone Vampire has a synergy with Pawn of Ulamog , that is not because it ensures the trigger, but because it profits from the pawns effect as it resolves. The pawns effect gives another creature as he dies. That creature is always a creature, no matter what you want to use it for, you could use any other creature for it. Raise the Alarm also gives two creatures with one card, or any undying or persist creature. Do you think those are synergies in combination with Bloodflow Connoisseur ?
Epochalyptik says... #1
@Matsi883: Then you need to differentiate between hard locks and soft locks. I'm all for having a discussion about these things, but you can't just throw out undefined terms and then base your opinion around them. That doesn't actually communicate anything.
December 24, 2013 8:23 p.m.