Spike, Tournament GrinderSpike, Tournament Grinder | Art by Zoltan Boros

Hello, everyone, my name's Jonathan and today I'll be discussing a very interesting question: does every Commander deck need a combo?

At first glance, this may seem a very obvious, if not banal, question. Clearly the answer is no, right? Well, this was my initial opinion as well. But the more I thought about it, the more I recognized nuances I had ignored before.

As always when reading a discursive article, please remember these are my personal opinions, and they're not meant to be set in stone, nor do I think they're the only correct ones. So, feel more than free to share your opinions and thoughts in the comments!

Without further ado, let's dive into this question.

What's in a Combo?

The very first topic we need to address is the definition of "combo". According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word is short for "combination" and it was originally used to refer to a "small instrumental band" in entertainment. Clearly, its meaning has changed through the years and now the Oxford English Dictionary defines it primarily as "combination, partnership".

Nonetheless, the meaning we Magic players most commonly associate with "combo" is the one originated from fighting games, and made popular by Street Fighter II in particular, where it refers to a combination of "several attacks" that leave "no time for the computer player to recover".

So, a "combo", in its gaming-related meaning, is a sequence of actions chained together and performed in a precise order. But is it the same in Magic?

Not exactly.

When I think of a combo in Magic, my mind immediately goes to Thassa's OracleThassa's Oracle and Demonic ConsultationDemonic Consultation. Let's focus on these cards for a moment:

The series of actions to perform to win the game is evident: cast Thassa's OracleThassa's Oracle and, with its trigger on the stack, cast Demonic ConsultationDemonic Consultation to exile your library and win the game. These are actions that need to be performed in a precise order so that you can obtain a result.

Another example comes from Exquisite BloodExquisite Blood and Sanguine BondSanguine Bond:

In this case, as soon as an opponent takes damage, an infinite loop will start and drain them to death. Once again, to perform the combo, you need to cast these two spells and then deal damage: a series of actions completed in a specific order.

So, what's the difference between these two cases and a Street Fighter-like combo?

Of Combos and Synergies

In Magic, the term "combo" has basically become synonym with "game-winning action". Or, to be more precise, in general a combo is defined as such only if its outcome is either someone winning the game or someone losing the game.

There are two main consequences to this shift in meaning.

First, the creation of a complex dichotomy: does the term "combo" refer to its fighting-related origin? Or does it respond to its newly-acquired Magic-related use?

Then, if we accept this second scenario, whatever doesn't lead to the victory and/or defeat of a player shouldn't be described as a "combo", but rather as a "synergy" or something similar to it.

But is this a solution? In other terms, are we sure this definition of "combo" is complete enough?

Let me give you an example to better understand the situation.

I've recently put together a Niv-Mizzet, VisionaryNiv-Mizzet, Visionary deck, full of pingers just like Kessig FlamebreatherKessig Flamebreather. In this way, whenever I deal damage with an instant or sorcery, I'll draw a ton of cards thanks to both the damage dealt by the spell and Kessig FlamebreatherKessig Flamebreather's triggers.

I wouldn't define this as a "combo", but rather as a pretty obvious synergy between a commander and a creature in the 99. But what happens if we toss a CuriosityCuriosity into the mix enchanting our pinger?

Picture this:

• I cast Lightning BoltLightning Bolt targeting an opponent, dealing three damage to them.
• This triggers both Niv-Mizzet, VisionaryNiv-Mizzet, Visionary and Kessig FlamebreatherKessig Flamebreather.
• I draw three cards off of the first one.
• I ping each opponent off of the second one.
• This triggers both Niv-Mizzet, VisionaryNiv-Mizzet, Visionary and CuriosityCuriosity.
• I draw three cards off of both triggers, six cards in total (or nine, if we consider the previously drawn ones).

Are we sure this is still only a synergy? Or has it become a combo, although not a game-winning one? Keep in mind that this series of actions will happen every time I cast an instant or sorcery, with the numbers changing according to the damage dealt by the spell.

Does Every Deck Need a Combo?

So, with all of this being said, does every Commander deck need a combo?

The answer is still no. And it's not up for debate. Above all, Commander is a format based on personal expression and what you as a player like to include in your decks. No deck needs a combo; actually, no deck needs anything. This because the verb "to need" implies that something is fundamental for the existence of the deck, and I don't think there's anything like that.

Nonetheless, I think I started to scratch the surface of the question to show you it's actually deeper than it seems. Fundamentally, I don't think we should all be running combos in our decks. But I also think we include way more combos than we think. And this is due to the definition we give to this term.

Of course, if we only consider things like Thassa's OracleThassa's Oracle + Demonic ConsultationDemonic Consultation, Underworld BreachUnderworld Breach + Brain FreezeBrain Freeze or Grim MonolithGrim Monolith + Kinnan, Bonder ProdigyKinnan, Bonder Prodigy as "true" combos, then most decks have little-to-nothing to do with them. But I also think this would be a very reductive definition, which I also think is connected to the lingering stigma I still perceive tied to combo decks. But this is another topic and, perhaps, only my perception/experience of the format.

Still, my main goal today was to show that there's more than game-winning combos out there. Isn't it a combo when the Landfall player takes 13 game actions after simply making their land drop for the turn? Or when the Enchantress player starts deploying a myriad of permanents and drawing even more cards turn after turn?

At first glance they may all seem like synergies tied to a specific strategy or commander. But synergies this strong and with so many redundant pieces start transforming into a combo, where different series of game actions all lead to the same outcome.

Conclusion

I think this topic is still wide open and there's a lot of room for different opinions. Drawing the line between "synergy" and "combo" is extremely difficult, if possible at all. Personally, I've started looking at my decks differently ever since I widened my definition of "combo". I used to think they were unfun and unjust in a sense, as they take away a lot of game time. And boy do I love casting my spells and playing the game.

But then I also started playing more optimized decks, with a clear strategy in mind and a way to execute it. There I noticed how allegedly "synergistic" cards actually created combos, just like the Kessig FlamebreatherKessig Flamebreather one. While I still dislike game-ending combos, this changed my deckbuilding mentality, as I now try to include at least some of these "smaller", but still impactful, packages of cards. I also applied the same method to some older decks I have, revitalizing them and making them way more fun for me to play.

But hey, this is only my experience, and it may be very different from yours. Maybe you think this is all a silly rant on terms and definitions, or maybe you have an even different idea of what a combo is. In any case, let me know what you think in the comments, and I'll see you in the next article!