I don't quite agree about combo deck tempo (at least in SE). The reason being that there are not really much in the way of response tools to most combo components, so the combo deck is not actually the one dictating the flow of the game. Combo decks win by breaking the conventional rules imo, and are basically always behind on tempo. Think of them as a control deck taken to an extreme. In a control deck you start out being the reactive player, until you are ready to become the active one and now your opponent has to try (and usually fail to) react to you. A combo deck works on the same principle, but does not give your opponent any reaction time.
As for Cait's definition I feel it is a bit too simplified, but not a bad way of putting an actual value on something that is more of a concept than really tangible. I feel it doesn't work for things like draw engines though. For example if I play IGG, based off Cait's definition I have 4 tempo points and be in more control of the game than if I had a Jasmine on the board. Imo this is completely not true. IGG should count as basically 0 tempo points because it does nothing to dictate the course of the game on its own. The hope is that the tempo loss will be off set by the card advantage generated in the long term.
Bookmarks