Wow. We've got 2 or 3 actual strategy and theory discussions going on that are including more than 2 people. So let's throw in another one. This one could be especially good for new players:

What makes a combo?

It was observed in another thread recently that as a community, we tend to be control players with a smaller, but dedicated, rush contingent. There aren't a whole lot of combo players, or even that many combos, in the game. And historically, when combos are found, errata tends to stop them from working before too long.

But is that true? What is a combo? Sometimes I think we expect a combo to have some huge, overbalancing effect (like discarding an opponent's entire deck or generating 15 power out of nowhere), but can they be more subtle?

So that's my question for the week: What is a combo? How is it different from a couple of cards that work really well together (i.e., "card synergy")? Does it have to have some huge, immediate impact on the game, or is creating a surprise or swing enough for you to call it a "combo"? What are your favorite combos?

Obviously the line between synergy and combos is rather fine. But I recently discovered by accident that discarding Darkstar to pay the Maester of the Sun's ability cost was rather fun.

Now I would definitely call that a combo, not just synergy.

The reason I'd call that a combo is because the two cards end up doing more together than they do on their own. The sum (potentially a 2-character swing; Darkstar, Maester and the saved character in play instead of just the Maester) is more than the total of their parts. To me, that's the distinction. Putting Aegon's Blade on a tricon is synergy (you have a tricon with +2 STR, Stealth and Renown); 1+1 = 2. Paying for the Maester with Darkstar is a combo; 1+1 = 3. It doesn't end the game, but it certainly shakes up the board.

That's my distinction between combo and synergy, anyway. Thoughts?

^ I was on the receiving end of the Maester-Darkstar combo.

I guess I would call it a "combo," but not something that would fuel a combo strategy as opposed to rush or control. If there were more cards that rewarded you for discarding cards from your hand and you put them all in your deck with Maester of the Sun, I would say that you had a deck with a lot of synergistic discard effects rather than a discard combo deck.

I would say overall that when I hear "combo" in reference to a strategy I think of some huge, game changing effect like the ones ktom mentioned (gaining 15 power, discarding a player's deck; others might be things like infinitely recurring Orphan of the Greenblood to take away all of an opponent's characters icons or some effect that let you discard cards from your opponent's hand during the draw phase so that he/she could never marshal another card).

When I think of "combo" in reference to cards, it can be almost any kind of effect that's not generated by those cards when used on their own. Another good example of a two card combo is Carrion Bird with either Lion's Gate or Old Nan. On its own, Carrion Bird's main function is to control the season. Lion's Gate and Old Nan twiddle around with traits to not much effect. Together, though, the cards become a powerful form of board control. I think that this kind of combo is a subcategory of synergy. To follow the Bird example, the more cards you put in your deck that deal with traits, the more they will interact with each other in synergistic ways - with possibly some combinations of two or more cards combining to be more than the sum of their parts. The reason I think of combo as a subcategory of synergy is that in this synergistic trait deck (where we're ignoring house affiliation) you could also play Starfall Bannerman. I'd say using Old Nan to make another character House Dayne for the +1 strength is more strait synergy than a combo - Old Nan could already manipulate traits and the bannerman could already boost strength so together they aren't doing anything unique like Old Nan plus Carrion Bird.

ktom said:

1) obviously

2) easily

apologies

~ See, this is how topics get derailed and killed....

ktom said:

Perhaps I look at things different than conventionally accepted definitions. What makes a "Combo Deck" as opposed to a deck that combos off of several synergies?

For instance in my personal view I see Targ burn as a "combo deck" since Burn effects can combine in many ways- Plot (Threat), Character (KL Assasin), Location (Dragonpit), Event (Forever Burning) and Attachment (Flame-Kissed). So does that qualify as combo deck?

If not, then I don't see what makes a specific "combo deck".

I would call that a themed deck, specifically it is a control deck where you are constantly reducing and removing your opponents characters in a fashion that is almost impossible to save from.

A Combo to me, is precisely what ktom stated, the use of two or more cards where the end result is greater than the sum of its parts. A Combo deck to me is not a deck that works off synergy or theme, or even one which is dedicated to a single combo that wins the game or so gretaly hampers your opponent that your win is practically inevitable, but a deck which may use one or more combos as the main way of reaching victory. Some combo's may be control oriented other may be rush oriented, but they rely on playing specific pairings or groupings of cards to achieve a specific effect that is more powerful than the cards alone could achieve.

Bard/Braggart/Kingslayer was probably my first combo deck, prior to that thrice-damned errata. I hadn't come across a really good one until my version of the Septon deck.

There are some definite synergies that are borderline though, a deck that is very focused on achieving a specific thing and the majority of the cards working together to bring about that goal can start to feel like a combo deck, where any 2-3 cards start having a cumulative effect. I like synergies and combos. I wish the game allowed, rewarded them better.

I think part of the confusion over the difference between a card combo and "combo deck" has to do with the translation from competitive Magic. I never played any tourney level Magic (and would appreciate input from someone more familiar), but the balance between control/aggro/combo doesn't translate perfectly between MtG and GoT. Not just the simple countdown vs. counting up, but even the pace of the games. Magic tournies play best of 3 in every round because games play quickly even between control decks. Players aren't going to object to an instant-win combo isn't quite as objectionable when it only costs you a game that's running 10 minutes than one that's 40, and that a combo's got to be robust enough to win two out of 3 shorter matches, rather than having a single long match to get it's combo off. Hence we see the general errata-fication of almost every combo that can win in a single action window, or even over the course of the 7 phases of a single turn.

I think the metagame acceptance of combo decks comes down to whether they are "infrequent" enough to not feel demoralizing (because they're overly complex or take long enough time that you can disrupt them), can be easily disrupted (often a function of speed or fraility of the pieces) or whether they require such dedication in deckbuilding that they're essentially non-winners if they combo doesn't go off (Great Sept of Baelor). Though I'm sure ktom will provide instances of the Septon or WED Viserys deck winning normally.

As for card combos vs. synergy, I'd ditto the 1+1=3 comment. Anything that get's around the normal calculus of the game. (Which tends to be why undercosted "copy" effects tended to play a part in quite a few). I normally wouldn't describe Targ burn as a combo deck, though I suppose anything that lets you get around the games limitations would. Most of Targs burn is either attachment dependent, or precludes the use of attachments. The fact that Forever Burning extends most -2 terminal effects to the 3 STR slot and is repeatable might qualify... or moving a Poisoned Wine after you've used a Dragon attack might qualify as more than synergy. If you can minimize the cost (the Darkstar example) or make a reciprocal effect assymetrical (having saves for all your characters during Valar) I think you've probably captured the spirit.

I would have to pretty much agree with most anyone on the definition of a combo. Mainly: "A combination of cards that produces effects of a type or scale that the same cards played independently do not form."

...I think this calls for another spin-off thread concerning combos in LCG...

Maester_LUke said:

I pretty much agree with this. To add a bit of context about MTG, I'd actually say that the reason it is tolerated (and even seemingly promoted by game designers) is that there seems to be an inherent balance between various MTG decks at the competitive level, at least when I played in 2004-06. In my experience, it tended to be that fast aggro (the only competitive kind) beat control, which beat combo, which beat fast aggro. This is because, all things being equal, combo tended to be the fastest deckbuild, at least in type 1.5, which uses most older cards (but not the really old ones, like Beta, Unlimited, etc.). So in the tournaments I played, it wasn't uncommon for me to win on turn 2 if I played combo. It was, however, uncommon for me to win against a control deck at all, because disrupting any piece of the combo usually meant losing the game, and even if control was slow, it could always manage to disrupt at least one (seemingly minor but nevertheless important) component. In contrast, an aggro deck ideally came out fast but then continued to build momentum until it overwhelmed the opponent (for example, elves, slivers, and goblins). Each piece of an aggro deck is expendable, but the combined effect of so much aggro easily overwhelmed most control decks, which could not rely on simply disrupting one piece to hold back the tide.

Control tends to be more reliable in AGOT because (a) control-oriented plots supplement the draw deck and (b) drawing two cards each turn (versus MTG's one card) makes control more consistent. In addition, I personally think that control decks feel much richer in AGOT because there are more moving parts than MTG and other card games that lack the multiple challenges, etc. AND because control decks are more reliable and popular, combo decks becomes MUCH more difficult, if not impossible, to play successfully. Of course, combos are just as common in AGOT, if not more so, given the variety/flexibility of the mechanics.

My favorite combo (and I admit I am partial) involved a regionals deck I played a couple years ago: http://tzumainn.com/agot/decks/deck.php?current_deck_id=13963

Aggro decks in magic tend to be (from what I remember) most closely related to our synergy decks, where pieces just get more powerful as more hit the table, multiple cards being affected or effecting one to many other cards in play, with various instants and sorceries that key off the cards in play. We haven't had decks like that available to us in a while. I'd love to see some serious thematic trait based decks be viable in competitive play. I think the last one was the Timmet Clansmen decks... which incidently my Alayne Stone combo deck used Lannister and the Clansmen as its base. Was quite the teror in my meta, when both joust and melee games... so much so that when Calicon rolled around Chaos coppied my deck for his melee deck and we both made the final table with essentially the same deck.

I should note it looks like House Dayne in Martell is a viable build... but I think it still needs some pieces to work more consistently. Darkstar and Arthur are great boons, but it feels like I need non-Dayne pieces to usually supply the big hammer because keeping it summer and using Knights of the Sun as a gold sink to be my hammer is much harder. Kingsguard definitely also looks viable, I'm waiting to see if a Whitebook deck can score highly in tournaments now that the full cycle has been released.

Just about that MTG combo interpretation thing.... MTG players call a deck a combo deck if it´s trying to create a lockdown situation with 2+x cards. If you can´t stop the combo of the deck you will loose immediately. Combo decks usually need some build up time and that´s their major weakness.

In AGOt we luckily have no or very few of these "end of the game" lockdowns, so a combo is for me either a 2 card net situation whereas special game circumstances lead to a 2 cards gross effect or a combination of 3 or more cards.

Winter said:

It´s even more funny if you have house dayne reserves in your hand and you lose an intrigue challenge as an attacker when Doran Martell is in play. ;-)

Hm... I can't think of too many occasions when I would have *just* the Reserves in my hand and so get them for free. I may be wrong, but this combo sounds like KTom's warning that Martell can go "one step back to go one step forward" if it is not careful.

Winter said:

This is more where Martell can benefit when it finds itself in the position of 1 or no cards in hand something I try and avoid, but occasionally bad draws will happen. If you have no cards in hand, and a knelt Reserves in plays, and are about to lose the INT challenge, bounce the reserves to your hand to stand them. Is it a "great" strategy heck no, but it does turn a negative (or null) situation into a positive one. Generally, though, I'll have the reserves since my opening hand, and they won't get discarded all game.

What I have found in LCG is that it is possible to win playing a Martell deck while losing challenges. The right combination of Red Vengeance, Elaria Sand and Taste for Bloods has often put me in the lead, and amassing more power than my opponent. It is tricky to pull off, and your opponent has to make some unwise decisions (like an early Valar, so you can set it up without much risk), but there is nothing quite like watching your opponent have to pass on challenges because when you lose the challenge you will win the game.

JJ - Certainly; I agree Martell is very well-suited to these combinations of losing events and I like playing them. I suppose the chance of the Reserves being discarded vs. the likelihood of them sitting in my hand is something I'm unkeen on.