Interesting.

Decks like pure U/R splinter twin in modern have the option of running 8 copies of each of their combo pieces (or even 12 if they run white) yet they often choose 5 of each and even don't feel compelled to mulligan with actual no combo pieces in hand and despite not having the best blue card selection available to them (ponder/preordain).

Of course, you could argue that this is because the deck can also play an aggressive tempo game (true), but then your definition of combo deck is too narrow since viable combos rarely dictate enough slots to be called a deck in and of themselves. Gifts/unburial/monster is a 6-slot "combo" that sees play in a variety of archetypes, some of which could be construed as "combo" and some of which certainly couldn't. Those decks would almost never mulligan simply because they don't see enough combo pieces.

Then there are "engine" decks. Decks like Legacy Lands rely on Life from the Loam as an "engine" card. They often feature combo's (such as thespians stage + Dark Depths) yet can be build without the combos. I'm not sure where your certainty theory would apply here either.

Deleted User 97295

1137 Posts

March 26 2014 20:57 GMT

--- Nuked ---

Sn0_Man

Tebellong44238 Posts

March 26 2014 21:08 GMT

Well, that might be more about the "Fundamental Turn" theory.

Wizards publically want the Fundamental Turn of modern to be turn 4. Which is why splintertwin still exists, as it wins turn 4.

Burn can reasonably do 18 damage turn 3 but that is both best-case scenario and still not a turn 3 win. Storm generally wins turn 4. While tron is simple to assemble turn 3, tron doesn't win turn 3 barring concessions. Aggro decks like zoo and merfolk are also capable of goldfishing turn 4 afaik. Etc.

Now, how interactive these combos are and how effective hate is vs them is a different discussion but wizards has recently been pushing creature combos which are inherently simple to interact with.

Edit: interestingly, zoo and burn can both win turn 3 in magical christmas land which is faster than most combo decks except storm. I mean there are some more fringe combo decks that can win turns 2-3 but less reliably and they are also much more vulnerable. "all-in-ness" is an interesting measure to look at.

Deleted User 97295

1137 Posts

March 26 2014 21:26 GMT

--- Nuked ---

Sn0_Man

Tebellong44238 Posts

March 26 2014 21:34 GMT

I don't see the value though. Dredge has pretty damn good certainty and isn't particularly playable despite goldfishing on absurdly early turns absurdly consistently.

The thing about legacy is that the more streamlined combo decks where your certainty analysis is valuable are also the ones so trivial to hate that they see limited play. Like, storm scoops to a disgusting amount of early plays, as do many many other combo decks. If you want to provide the numbers on "how many sideboard slots do I have to dedicate to graveyard hate to see at least 1 card if I'm willing to mulligan for it twice and need to see it by turn 3" or whatever then that might be a bit more valuable but I think that is already out there.

I'm not trying to shoot down your ideas out of hand, I'm trying to figure out how to apply them myself and I'm not seeing it

Deleted User 97295

1137 Posts

March 26 2014 22:00 GMT

--- Nuked ---

Vasoline73

United States8058 Posts

March 26 2014 23:08 GMT

#10

lol I very reluctantly got into Magic and it took awhile to understand anything, but the game is pretty fun. Don't have the time or motivation to REALLY get into it but it's been surprisingly better than my initial impression.

MCMcEmcee

United States1609 Posts

March 27 2014 14:51 GMT

#11

Modern/Legacy/Vintage combo decks are nothing but redundancy. They are all library manipulation, draw engines, tutors, and fast mana. If a combo deck mulligans, that isn't really any more information than if any other deck mulligans. Only like... Belcher needs to mulligan looking for win conditions.

I don't want to nitpick at the examples you provided too much, but they aren't particularly convincing for your ideas. You are finding a lot of "Certainty" off of things that actually don't give very much concrete information...
For instance, t1 GSZ for Dryad Arbor doesn't instantly signal Elves. It could be a big Zoo or Maverick style deck, it could be Bant Stoneblade, it could be possibly even be something like the Pod deck.

T1 mountain certainly doesn't suggest Splinter Twin and really doesn't point to it much at all, and him mulliganing or not gives no clues as to the deck he's playing. Assuming you already know it's Splinter Twin in a game 2/3 situation, t1 mountain points more to him having a lot of removal or Blood Moon rather than combo pieces.

Storm doesn't really need any particular hand to win. There are several routes to combo out and any given hand can find at least one if given enough time.

The basic premise feels off. Combo is a very repeatable strategy; find the combo, cast the combo, if it resolves you win. Combo decks are very redundant; there are several ways to find the combo or even multiple combos within the same deck. Against some combo decks you want to attack a key synergy/card or hope they don't draw it but some decks you just want to keep them low on resources to keep them off critical mass; either way, you want to put pressure on them because the only actual "certainty" in a combo matchup is that the combo deck WILL win if given enough time, regardless of being disrupted early.

Hryul

Austria2609 Posts

March 27 2014 17:53 GMT

#12

At first I didn't want to write anything because I definitely don't know enough about tournament MTG, but I think I found the problem with your assumption:

Well it's the idea that, of a certain percentage of a combo deck's games, they will mulligan cards at least once in order to have more Certainty.

Speaking as a legacy player I'd say that combo decks need to be strong enough to win even without the combo or are so redundant that you shouldn't have to worry about drawing the cards you need eventually.

Maybe MCMcEmcee said the same but better.