Thing is, you can say this about many competitive level aggro decks. The come out too fast and too powerful for most "casual" decks to do anything meaningful about. So why is it just fast combo that's the problem?
Combo decks being a problem is very dependant on what you are playing, what your opponent is playing, and if you are playing within a format or in a multiplayer game. Without specific situations we are all probably thinking in different directions.
I assume his friend's are playing casual creature based decks in a multiplayer format. In this type of meta it is likely for there to be lots of removal and the group should be able to stop an aggro deck that is getting out of control most of the time. Counterspells (and black hand disruption) are horrible in multiplayer. Combo's two weaknesses are going to be missing from a multiplayer game. If the combo deck revolves around 2 or more artifacts/enchantments it may fit the meta. Most multiplayer meta's should be able to deal with those permanents. Busting out a turn 2-6 combo deck (that often goes off) in a creature based meta is kinda douche. I have indulged in blowing away 4 people before they even get a chance, and then I put the deck away.
I've played dredge in legacy, I love how some people are so scared when they find out you are playing combo. I also love crushing combo with cards like Hymn to Tourach, Thoughtseize, Sadistic Sacrament, and Extirpate.
The key is when to know to play combo. If your group of friends love combo decks then fill yer boots. If you are going to a new playgroup for the first time you should bring more than one style of deck.
You should never hear serious players actually groan about combo within a format. Learning how to deal with these decks are part of the format and the game.
Lots of game design, Magic included doesn't care about fairness or balance. What it cares about is the illusion of balance. If things are unbalanced but variance leads people to think that things are fair, then there's no issue. This is the principal behind Magic. Similarly, if things are balanced but the perception is that things are unbalanced the players will be upset because they think things aren't fair.
Combo gets hated on while hyper aggro doesn't because it breaks that illusion. It visibly locks a player out of the game by being non interactive. The end result of both decks is the same, but one of them lies to you about your chances. Lots of people like being lied to.
this is still what i consider to be the best post on this thread.
Whoa. Whoa there. Whoa whoa whoa! Hold your horses.
I can tell you that if anyone tried that with me, I'd have never started playing magic.
I was arguably exaggerating a little bit... certainly I'm not saying that you introduce magic as "ooh, look at the pretty pictures on the cards! and this one is a dragon, RRAWR!!!" or anything like that. But I do think that the first card type you teach people about is creatures, and the first games you play with them are creature-oriented games.
Let's put it this way.... you're going on a road trip with a friend of yours who you think might enjoy learning to play magic, and you can only pack 2 decks to bring along, and you have two creature-oriented midrange decks, Eggs, and Storm. Which two decks do you bring with you?
Player A builds a deck with disruption elements. Player B does not. Both players are matched up with a combo deck. Player B cannot interact and does not have fun.
WHY ARE PEOPLE BLAMING THE COMBO DECK?!?! The combo deck could have a third of the deck dedicated to interaction, but since HIS OPPONENT chose something, then HE (and not his opponent) is to blame for something. This is irrational, was irrational, and will continue to be irrational for all purposes and effects. PEOPLE NEED TO OPEN THEIR EYES.
You're responding to a point I wasn't making. If people don't enjoy a format, then they don't enjoy that format, and they will play it less. No one is blaming anyone for anything, but if they play the format less, then that's bad for the format and for the health of the game. If attendance starts dropping at Standard tournaments, and sales of packs drop, and WotC does some research and determines it's because players hate X, then it makes sense for WotC to address that by reducing the amount of X, or the power of X, or changing how X works. Certainly, it's WotC's responsibility as a capitalistic entity to do SOMETHING. And you may have a truly convincing argument about how players SHOULD enjoy X, because YOU enjoy X, and if they don't enjoy X then it's their fault, and why is everyone blaming X. And it doesn't matter how airtight your arguments are, WotC should STILL do something.
I was arguably exaggerating a little bit... certainly I'm not saying that you introduce magic as "ooh, look at the pretty pictures on the cards! and this one is a dragon, RRAWR!!!" or anything like that. But I do think that the first card type you teach people about is creatures, and the first games you play with them are creature-oriented games.
Actually, the first card type I introduce to the new player is Lands.
Without land you can't do anything, unless you're in Manaless-Dredge... A combo deck...
Lands are the source of mana to cast spells and summon creatures. Usually, I end on creature cards to come full circle to the goals of the game, to lower your opponent's life total to zero.
I taught a new player to play the game a while back using the lands first-creatures last philosophy.
And you know what happened? That new player went and built STORM to play their first game... I was like "You don't want creatures?" and they said "Nah, creatures swinging is boring, this is much more exciting!"
This is why I don't subscribe to the "All new players hate combo" arguments that some people throw around, it just isn't true.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[W]FREE STONEFORGE MYSTIC and JACE THE MINDSCULPTOR[/W]
Let's put it this way.... you're going on a road trip with a friend of yours who you think might enjoy learning to play magic, and you can only pack 2 decks to bring along, and you have two creature-oriented midrange decks, Eggs, and Storm. Which two decks do you bring with you?
I'd like to chime in here. First of all, I don't think it's fair to limit our choices to certain decks.
So let me answer the question this way. If I was going to teach somebody the game of Magic, I'd bring 3 decks with me.
1. Aggro
2. Control
3. Combo
I'd want him to see each end of the spectrum so that he could make a relatively informed decision on what he'd like to play.
Now, if you were to ask me for 3 specific decks out of the above archetypes, this is what I'd bring.
Goblins
MUC
UR Storm (grapeshot, EtW)
These aren't necessarily the best decks but I think they're the purest in their respective archetypes.
This way, the person could clearly see the vast difference between each way of playing and then make an informed decision on what he prefers. I know most players that I've known over the years prefer either aggro or control with the leaning towards aggro. And that's fine. But at least give them every option.
Had I not introduced myself to each archetype I would have missed out on so much since I started playing during Revised. If nothing else, I can't say I feel cheated one little bit in regard to my Magic experience.
Shouldn't everybody have that same option to at least say, "Ugh...I hate this combo deck. How can anybody play this and enjoy it or enjoy playing against it?"
So many players are poisoned against certain decks because their friends or people at forums are constantly bad mouthing them.
How do you think we learn most of our prejudices?
When my friend Eric plays TES against me, I relish figuring out how to beat him when I'm not playing a control deck. It's damn hard, but it doesn't frustrate me. It doesn't make me want to tell him to not play that deck anymore because I don't happen to like playing against it, which I do. I love playing against that deck. It's a challenge.
Too much of Magic is NOT a challenge on BOTH sides of the table.
When I'm playing control and I lose in 3 turns to a nut draw Naya Blitz deck, that's no challenge. That's just the aggro player playing solitaire while I'm trying to find something to stop him. That's just stupid top deck luck.
Or am I supposed to ship back a hand with 3 lands, 2 draw spells, a 4 mana planeswalker and a soft counter?
That's a perfectly reasonable hand to keep. Well if I do and don't draw any sort of removal, I'm pretty much dead in 4 turns.
So what am I supposed to do when I play against aggro? Mull until I have a board wipe or at least a spot removal in my opening hand? If you ask me, that's a pretty stupid way to play Magic.
Sometimes you just sit there with nothing to do because there is nothing to do. Not every game in Magic is a back and forth affair. Some are totally one sided.
When it's the aggro that's the one side, it's okay.
When it's the combo that's the one side, it's not okay.
I mean that's really what it comes down to and if you ask me, that's just bull cookies.
But whatever. When I sit down to play somebody casually, I ask them before we even begin if there is any kind of deck they'd rather not play against. If they say "Anything but control" I don't take out a control deck. If they say anything but storm, I don't take out a storm deck. If they specifically say, "Got an aggro deck?" I'll take one out.
I have no problem accommodating my opponent if it's just for fun.
But if I'm sitting across the table from you and there are packs or boxes of cards on the line, understand that I'm going to bring my best and won't apologize if I storm out on turn 1.
Some reasons why people don't like it:
• It's not fun to play against, as it's entirely non-interactive.
• It tends to abuse "unfair" mechanics (not derogatory, simply descriptive).
• It tends to win on T2-4.
I'm not saying people should stop playing it, as it's important in the checks and balances of things (especially in tournament settings, where sideboarding comes into play), but it's obv inappropriate to play a degenerate combo deck that involves 15 minutes of masturbation in a one-game casual setting.
If you want to teach someone magic, what you should do is get a deck, or get a booster pack or something, and hopefully have two players. Play a game with them watching or playing. You don't need two decks for this, just cut the deck in half, and half them shuffle and draw 7. Start by having them reveal their hand, and you reveal yours, and then explain what cards do.
If you want to teach someone magic, what you should do is get a deck, or get a booster pack or something, and hopefully have two players. Play a game with them watching or playing. You don't need two decks for this, just cut the deck in half, and half them shuffle and draw 7. Start by having them reveal their hand, and you reveal yours, and then explain what cards do.
This thread isn't for teaching people to play magic, I was just using that as a point that not all new players dislike combo.
BTW, I even got him to play with my affinity deck vs. my Storm deck... and I won using Storm. He was still excited to play the deck though. He didn't much like playing affinity either. Even though he picked up the synergy in 5 minutes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[W]FREE STONEFORGE MYSTIC and JACE THE MINDSCULPTOR[/W]
This thread isn't for teaching people to play magic, I was just using that as a point that not all new players dislike combo.
It seems like every time a thread like this comes along that's exactly what a lot of us end up doing.
I don't know where the 'new players don't like combo' **** came from, because in my experience it's completely false. You ever see a newbie watch a game where someone's playing Dredge for the first time? They have no idea what is going on and are immediately intrigued. The first time I saw Dragonstorm I was intrigued, and then frustrated, then starting playing decks to kill Dragonstorm and by association combo decks.
It's just another dynamic magic that I think people need to learn. The way WotC is dumbing down Magic by trying to destroy this fundamental aspect of the game is disheartening and it concerns me greatly when I try and foresee what the game will look like in the future once this concept is completely eliminated.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
It seems like every time a thread like this comes along that's exactly what a lot of us end up doing.
I don't know where the 'new players don't like combo' **** came from, because in my experience it's completely false. You ever see a newbie watch a game where someone's playing Dredge for the first time? They have no idea what is going on and are immediately intrigued. The first time I saw Dragonstorm I was intrigued, and then frustrated, then starting playing decks to kill Dragonstorm and by association combo decks.
It's just another dynamic magic that I think people need to learn. The way WotC is dumbing down Magic by trying to destroy this fundamental aspect of the game is disheartening and it concerns me greatly when I try and foresee what the game will look like in the future once this concept is completely eliminated.
Unfortunately, that future is already here. Fast ritual cards are almost gone. You will never see anything like a Dark Ritual, Rite of Flame or Seething Song again.
Combos may be "possible" in the future but they will be "mistake" combos and most likely turn 5 or 6 at best, at least as far as Standard goes.
So there is no waiting. We are already there. The only question remaining is how long the eternal formats will last in order to be able to play classic combo like ANT, TES, Belcher, etc.
Future? There is no Magic future for this archetype.
People don't like combo because combo isn't fun, you may have had fun against it, but the mean of the community is that combo isn't fun.
Here: I liked cawblade. Reprint JTMS, SFM, equipment!
As a general rule which can be seen from the kinds of decks people like to play, combo is a niche deck with a low proportion of the population. Whereas, control/aggro/tempo, are all highly championed archetypes.
So what am I supposed to do when I play against aggro? Mull until I have a board wipe or at least a spot removal in my opening hand? If you ask me, that's a pretty stupid way to play Magic.
Why though? If you need (absolutely need) a removal spell to survive, then it is okay to ship a reasonable hand to a less reasonable hand that might have a removal spell or two.
If you're playing against, say, storm, and your best defense against it is leyline of sanctity, wouldn't you consider shipping a 'reasonable hand' to one that might have a leyline to survive?
I think people just need a reason to complain if they lose quickly to combo. Some people also complain it's like not playing the game, but they need to play a deck that can interact with all combo.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not." - John Lennon
You ever see a newbie watch a game where someone's playing Dredge for the first time?
The first time I saw a Dredge player, he comboed off on turn 3 in a casual game while his opponent sat there for 15 minutes with a glazed over look on his face. I thought it was bull****, and was glad I was just a casual player so I could refuse to ever play against competitive players (who at the time, I believed were ALL obviously complete jerks).
The first time my best friend saw a Dredge player combo off, he thought the deck was the greatest thing ever and proceeded to devote a year of his life to mastering it.
Differences of opinion, they happen, nothing wrong with it.
I'd like to chime in here. First of all, I don't think it's fair to limit our choices to certain decks.
So let me answer the question this way. If I was going to teach somebody the game of Magic, I'd bring 3 decks with me.
1. Aggro
2. Control
3. Combo
I gotta say, I think that's a bit weird... so as far as I can tell, in every possible matchup between those three decks, it is literally impossible for any creature ever to block any other creature? I mean, I realize that in legacy tournaments there isn't much blocking, but the vast vast vast majority of all magic that's ever played (casual, edh, limited, standard, even modern) involves LOTS of blocking. You've also, intentionally or not, chosen three decks which are a classic rock-paper-scissors. Goblins beats MUC beats combo beats goblins, with fairly little "interaction" (hey, there's that word again!).
Remember, your objective here is not "take someone and mold them into someone with a comprehensive knowledge of the magic metagame as a whole", it's "get this guy interested in the game so he'll have fun and play games with me and we'll have a fun time on the road trip". There's another group of people whose objective it is to get people interested in playing magic... namely, WotC. And they have done a lot of thinking and research about how to teach people to play and get them hooked, and they print intro decks of various sorts, pretty much all of which are centered around creatures. I think there's a reason for that.
Actually, the first card type I introduce to the new player is Lands.
Fair point
Usually, I end on creature cards to come full circle to the goals of the game, to lower your opponent's life total to zero.
I taught a new player to play the game a while back using the lands first-creatures last philosophy.
And you know what happened? That new player went and built STORM to play their first game... I was like "You don't want creatures?" and they said "Nah, creatures swinging is boring, this is much more exciting!"
A brand new player had already decided that attacking with creatures was boring and wanted to play storm instead? I'm sure that happens, but I also think it's quite unusual.
This is why I don't subscribe to the "All new players hate combo" arguments that some people throw around, it just isn't true.
All sentences involving the word "all" are false.
Like I said in my previous post, there's a group of people who have spent WAY more time thinking about how to teach people to play magic and get them interested than either you or I, a group of people who are knowledgeable and passionate on the topic, and who produce various products, ranging from intro decks through Duels of the Planeswalkers, precisely to accomplish that end, because that end is what they need in order to keep their jobs. And the vast, vast, vast majority of those products have centered around creatures (I'm tempted to say every single one of them, but I don't know that that's actually true). What's more likely, that those people are all wrong and short sighted and actually people learn magic just as well from storm decks and eggs? Or that MOST people learn magic best, and get interested most quickly and dependably, from creature decks, and your friend mentioned above is the exception?
(Admittedly, this is all a bit of a departure from the original topic of this thread.)
To get someone interested in Magic, you don't start with combo. Neither do you start with midrange. You start with Grizzly Bears and Hill Giants.
Can you introduce a new player to combo at this stage? Why not? Temple Bell + Mind over Matter. It won't melt their brains like Storm or Eggs would. Both cards have only one line of text. Simple to understand.
It seems like every time a thread like this comes along that's exactly what a lot of us end up doing.
I don't know where the 'new players don't like combo' **** came from, because in my experience it's completely false. You ever see a newbie watch a game where someone's playing Dredge for the first time? They have no idea what is going on and are immediately intrigued. The first time I saw Dragonstorm I was intrigued, and then frustrated, then starting playing decks to kill Dragonstorm and by association combo decks.
It's just another dynamic magic that I think people need to learn. The way WotC is dumbing down Magic by trying to destroy this fundamental aspect of the game is disheartening and it concerns me greatly when I try and foresee what the game will look like in the future once this concept is completely eliminated.
One imagines it comes from Wotc/Hasbro's well funded market research team.......
I don't know where the 'new players don't like combo' **** came from, because in my experience it's completely false.
Depends what you mean by new players... are we talking about people who have played zero games and are in the process of being taught? Or people who have played for a few weeks?
My claim is that while you are teaching someone to play, and thus presumably want to get them interested in the game in the first place, creature-based decks are far and away the best choice.
I also think people in this thread are underestimating the diversity of game experiences you can have just with creature-based decks. People like to somewhat snobbishly talk about just turning creatures sideways, but look at a deck like The Aristocrats. That's a deck that's full of interesting interactions and choices, and someone who started out playing a "plain" creature deck while initially learning and then got bored of it could easily start playing any of hundreds of other decks and start to see the huge variety that's available... and that includes creature-based decks of all shapes and sizes in addition to combo decks, control decks, etc.
The majority of players don't like combo decks because it's as if you're playing a game of solitaire, waiting for the right cards to come up. It doesn't matter what you are playing against, only that you can dig for your pieces. In fact, combo decks make magic not a game anymore, because it's a race to see who can assemble the pieces the quickest.
Magic is a blood sport. To have fun, it demands player interaction, aka aggro and control. At least with beatdown and control decks, players can either make mistakes or be outplayed. These interactions are what makes magic the fun game that it is known for.
Simply put, combo decks take the fun out of magic.
The majority of players don't like combo decks because it's as if you're playing a game of solitaire, waiting for the right cards to come up. It doesn't matter what you are playing against, only that you can dig for your pieces. In fact, combo decks make magic not a game anymore, because it's a race to see who can assemble the pieces the quickest.
Magic is a blood sport. To have fun, it demands player interaction, aka aggro and control. At least with beatdown and control decks, players can either make mistakes or be outplayed. These interactions are what makes magic the fun game that it is known for.
Simply put, combo decks take the fun out of magic.
This kind of attitude is what is killing this game, or at the LEAST holding back the potential of modern/standard to be completely honest.
When I played Modern Death and Taxes the other day against Living End, what exactly was I DOING when I:
-Played a Thalia, taxing his Daemonic Dread and Living End by 1 CMC each so that he could not combo for 3 mana?
-Used Ghost Quarter to keep him off colors of mana?
-Sideboarded in Ethersworn Canonist to prevent his cascade combo?
I was INTERACTING WITH MY OPPONENT, that's what I was fricken doing.
This type of player/attitude is the real root of the problem here.. people with this defeatist attitude who see things they don't like, like counterspells/combo/discard/LD, and get all put out and go, "Gee, well I guess I can't do anything about it.. no point in thinking or changing my deck lets just complain every game.. "
Reminds me of the people back in the day who would get all put out when I countered a spell and go, "Well I guess I won't play spells because you'll just counter them all, waaaaaaahhhhh"
Which was hilarious because , A: I was bluffing countermagic more than half the time after the first one, and B: They weren't running their threats out, baiting counterspells and just allowing me to draw into more counters/removal/draw effects.
I hate to sound mean or like I'm scapegoating you in particular because I'm not trying to, but I have to say it:
The options exist in spades for you interact with virtually every ( for the sake of argument, modern legal ) combo that exists at this moment. Find them, play them, test them. Find out why they work, what effects are similar, which ones are optimal and suboptimal, and which are redundant so that you can figure out which work best for your decks/sideboard.
It's this kind of "I can't beat it, therefore it cannot be beat" attitude that is holding us back from having a really sweet Modern format,
one that to me would ideally resemble old Extended - minus absurdly broken/tedious combos/cards (Dark Depths, Hypergenesis for the former, Eggs and Sensei's Diving Top for the latter.) THOSE I would agree, are overbearing cards/combo decks. But the rest are completely fair, especially creature based ones.
Then it's just solitaire plus an opponent flipping a coin to see if you are allowed to win or not.
UUUAzami, Lady of ScrollsUUU
Mizzix of the Izmagnus
Vorel of the Hull Clade
Lazav, Dimir Mastermind
WUBSharuum the HegemonWUB
GWURafiq of the ManyGWU
Jhoira of the Ghitu
Combo decks being a problem is very dependant on what you are playing, what your opponent is playing, and if you are playing within a format or in a multiplayer game. Without specific situations we are all probably thinking in different directions.
I assume his friend's are playing casual creature based decks in a multiplayer format. In this type of meta it is likely for there to be lots of removal and the group should be able to stop an aggro deck that is getting out of control most of the time. Counterspells (and black hand disruption) are horrible in multiplayer. Combo's two weaknesses are going to be missing from a multiplayer game. If the combo deck revolves around 2 or more artifacts/enchantments it may fit the meta. Most multiplayer meta's should be able to deal with those permanents. Busting out a turn 2-6 combo deck (that often goes off) in a creature based meta is kinda douche. I have indulged in blowing away 4 people before they even get a chance, and then I put the deck away.
I've played dredge in legacy, I love how some people are so scared when they find out you are playing combo. I also love crushing combo with cards like Hymn to Tourach, Thoughtseize, Sadistic Sacrament, and Extirpate.
The key is when to know to play combo. If your group of friends love combo decks then fill yer boots. If you are going to a new playgroup for the first time you should bring more than one style of deck.
You should never hear serious players actually groan about combo within a format. Learning how to deal with these decks are part of the format and the game.
Solitaire doesn't give you the enjoyment of making someone else lose.
My Buying Thread
this is still what i consider to be the best post on this thread.
And you dont derive enjoyment from winning?
FFS there are too many ******* on here. Its basic human nature to "enjoy success"
Absolutely. But it does get boring if I don't lose once in a while to keep the engine hot.
My Buying Thread
I was arguably exaggerating a little bit... certainly I'm not saying that you introduce magic as "ooh, look at the pretty pictures on the cards! and this one is a dragon, RRAWR!!!" or anything like that. But I do think that the first card type you teach people about is creatures, and the first games you play with them are creature-oriented games.
Let's put it this way.... you're going on a road trip with a friend of yours who you think might enjoy learning to play magic, and you can only pack 2 decks to bring along, and you have two creature-oriented midrange decks, Eggs, and Storm. Which two decks do you bring with you?
You're responding to a point I wasn't making. If people don't enjoy a format, then they don't enjoy that format, and they will play it less. No one is blaming anyone for anything, but if they play the format less, then that's bad for the format and for the health of the game. If attendance starts dropping at Standard tournaments, and sales of packs drop, and WotC does some research and determines it's because players hate X, then it makes sense for WotC to address that by reducing the amount of X, or the power of X, or changing how X works. Certainly, it's WotC's responsibility as a capitalistic entity to do SOMETHING. And you may have a truly convincing argument about how players SHOULD enjoy X, because YOU enjoy X, and if they don't enjoy X then it's their fault, and why is everyone blaming X. And it doesn't matter how airtight your arguments are, WotC should STILL do something.
Actually, the first card type I introduce to the new player is Lands.
Without land you can't do anything, unless you're in Manaless-Dredge... A combo deck...
Lands are the source of mana to cast spells and summon creatures. Usually, I end on creature cards to come full circle to the goals of the game, to lower your opponent's life total to zero.
I taught a new player to play the game a while back using the lands first-creatures last philosophy.
And you know what happened? That new player went and built STORM to play their first game... I was like "You don't want creatures?" and they said "Nah, creatures swinging is boring, this is much more exciting!"
This is why I don't subscribe to the "All new players hate combo" arguments that some people throw around, it just isn't true.
[W]FREE STONEFORGE MYSTIC and JACE THE MINDSCULPTOR[/W]
Please Visit my Alterations Page!
My Alters Sales Thread
Want a FREE Playset of Foil Baneslayer Angels?!?:
I'd like to chime in here. First of all, I don't think it's fair to limit our choices to certain decks.
So let me answer the question this way. If I was going to teach somebody the game of Magic, I'd bring 3 decks with me.
1. Aggro
2. Control
3. Combo
I'd want him to see each end of the spectrum so that he could make a relatively informed decision on what he'd like to play.
Now, if you were to ask me for 3 specific decks out of the above archetypes, this is what I'd bring.
Goblins
MUC
UR Storm (grapeshot, EtW)
These aren't necessarily the best decks but I think they're the purest in their respective archetypes.
This way, the person could clearly see the vast difference between each way of playing and then make an informed decision on what he prefers. I know most players that I've known over the years prefer either aggro or control with the leaning towards aggro. And that's fine. But at least give them every option.
Had I not introduced myself to each archetype I would have missed out on so much since I started playing during Revised. If nothing else, I can't say I feel cheated one little bit in regard to my Magic experience.
Shouldn't everybody have that same option to at least say, "Ugh...I hate this combo deck. How can anybody play this and enjoy it or enjoy playing against it?"
So many players are poisoned against certain decks because their friends or people at forums are constantly bad mouthing them.
How do you think we learn most of our prejudices?
When my friend Eric plays TES against me, I relish figuring out how to beat him when I'm not playing a control deck. It's damn hard, but it doesn't frustrate me. It doesn't make me want to tell him to not play that deck anymore because I don't happen to like playing against it, which I do. I love playing against that deck. It's a challenge.
Too much of Magic is NOT a challenge on BOTH sides of the table.
When I'm playing control and I lose in 3 turns to a nut draw Naya Blitz deck, that's no challenge. That's just the aggro player playing solitaire while I'm trying to find something to stop him. That's just stupid top deck luck.
Or am I supposed to ship back a hand with 3 lands, 2 draw spells, a 4 mana planeswalker and a soft counter?
That's a perfectly reasonable hand to keep. Well if I do and don't draw any sort of removal, I'm pretty much dead in 4 turns.
So what am I supposed to do when I play against aggro? Mull until I have a board wipe or at least a spot removal in my opening hand? If you ask me, that's a pretty stupid way to play Magic.
Sometimes you just sit there with nothing to do because there is nothing to do. Not every game in Magic is a back and forth affair. Some are totally one sided.
When it's the aggro that's the one side, it's okay.
When it's the combo that's the one side, it's not okay.
I mean that's really what it comes down to and if you ask me, that's just bull cookies.
But whatever. When I sit down to play somebody casually, I ask them before we even begin if there is any kind of deck they'd rather not play against. If they say "Anything but control" I don't take out a control deck. If they say anything but storm, I don't take out a storm deck. If they specifically say, "Got an aggro deck?" I'll take one out.
I have no problem accommodating my opponent if it's just for fun.
But if I'm sitting across the table from you and there are packs or boxes of cards on the line, understand that I'm going to bring my best and won't apologize if I storm out on turn 1.
• It's not fun to play against, as it's entirely non-interactive.
• It tends to abuse "unfair" mechanics (not derogatory, simply descriptive).
• It tends to win on T2-4.
I'm not saying people should stop playing it, as it's important in the checks and balances of things (especially in tournament settings, where sideboarding comes into play), but it's obv inappropriate to play a degenerate combo deck that involves 15 minutes of masturbation in a one-game casual setting.
Legacy Gobbyboogers R
This thread isn't for teaching people to play magic, I was just using that as a point that not all new players dislike combo.
BTW, I even got him to play with my affinity deck vs. my Storm deck... and I won using Storm. He was still excited to play the deck though. He didn't much like playing affinity either. Even though he picked up the synergy in 5 minutes.
[W]FREE STONEFORGE MYSTIC and JACE THE MINDSCULPTOR[/W]
Please Visit my Alterations Page!
My Alters Sales Thread
Want a FREE Playset of Foil Baneslayer Angels?!?:
It seems like every time a thread like this comes along that's exactly what a lot of us end up doing.
I don't know where the 'new players don't like combo' **** came from, because in my experience it's completely false. You ever see a newbie watch a game where someone's playing Dredge for the first time? They have no idea what is going on and are immediately intrigued. The first time I saw Dragonstorm I was intrigued, and then frustrated, then starting playing decks to kill Dragonstorm and by association combo decks.
It's just another dynamic magic that I think people need to learn. The way WotC is dumbing down Magic by trying to destroy this fundamental aspect of the game is disheartening and it concerns me greatly when I try and foresee what the game will look like in the future once this concept is completely eliminated.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Unfortunately, that future is already here. Fast ritual cards are almost gone. You will never see anything like a Dark Ritual, Rite of Flame or Seething Song again.
Combos may be "possible" in the future but they will be "mistake" combos and most likely turn 5 or 6 at best, at least as far as Standard goes.
So there is no waiting. We are already there. The only question remaining is how long the eternal formats will last in order to be able to play classic combo like ANT, TES, Belcher, etc.
Future? There is no Magic future for this archetype.
Here: I liked cawblade. Reprint JTMS, SFM, equipment!
As a general rule which can be seen from the kinds of decks people like to play, combo is a niche deck with a low proportion of the population. Whereas, control/aggro/tempo, are all highly championed archetypes.
Rules Advisor: 9/5/11
Old, sparsely updated because of above: Trade with me!
Weirdly, standard has been BAD since JTMS was banned, it hasn't been fun, nor healthy since.
Why though? If you need (absolutely need) a removal spell to survive, then it is okay to ship a reasonable hand to a less reasonable hand that might have a removal spell or two.
If you're playing against, say, storm, and your best defense against it is leyline of sanctity, wouldn't you consider shipping a 'reasonable hand' to one that might have a leyline to survive?
The first time I saw a Dredge player, he comboed off on turn 3 in a casual game while his opponent sat there for 15 minutes with a glazed over look on his face. I thought it was bull****, and was glad I was just a casual player so I could refuse to ever play against competitive players (who at the time, I believed were ALL obviously complete jerks).
The first time my best friend saw a Dredge player combo off, he thought the deck was the greatest thing ever and proceeded to devote a year of his life to mastering it.
Differences of opinion, they happen, nothing wrong with it.
Avatar by Numotflame96 of Maelstrom Graphics
Sig banner thanks to DarkNightCavalier of Heroes of the Plane Studios!
I gotta say, I think that's a bit weird... so as far as I can tell, in every possible matchup between those three decks, it is literally impossible for any creature ever to block any other creature? I mean, I realize that in legacy tournaments there isn't much blocking, but the vast vast vast majority of all magic that's ever played (casual, edh, limited, standard, even modern) involves LOTS of blocking. You've also, intentionally or not, chosen three decks which are a classic rock-paper-scissors. Goblins beats MUC beats combo beats goblins, with fairly little "interaction" (hey, there's that word again!).
Remember, your objective here is not "take someone and mold them into someone with a comprehensive knowledge of the magic metagame as a whole", it's "get this guy interested in the game so he'll have fun and play games with me and we'll have a fun time on the road trip". There's another group of people whose objective it is to get people interested in playing magic... namely, WotC. And they have done a lot of thinking and research about how to teach people to play and get them hooked, and they print intro decks of various sorts, pretty much all of which are centered around creatures. I think there's a reason for that.
Fair point
A brand new player had already decided that attacking with creatures was boring and wanted to play storm instead? I'm sure that happens, but I also think it's quite unusual.
All sentences involving the word "all" are false.
Like I said in my previous post, there's a group of people who have spent WAY more time thinking about how to teach people to play magic and get them interested than either you or I, a group of people who are knowledgeable and passionate on the topic, and who produce various products, ranging from intro decks through Duels of the Planeswalkers, precisely to accomplish that end, because that end is what they need in order to keep their jobs. And the vast, vast, vast majority of those products have centered around creatures (I'm tempted to say every single one of them, but I don't know that that's actually true). What's more likely, that those people are all wrong and short sighted and actually people learn magic just as well from storm decks and eggs? Or that MOST people learn magic best, and get interested most quickly and dependably, from creature decks, and your friend mentioned above is the exception?
(Admittedly, this is all a bit of a departure from the original topic of this thread.)
Can you introduce a new player to combo at this stage? Why not? Temple Bell + Mind over Matter. It won't melt their brains like Storm or Eggs would. Both cards have only one line of text. Simple to understand.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
One imagines it comes from Wotc/Hasbro's well funded market research team.......
Depends what you mean by new players... are we talking about people who have played zero games and are in the process of being taught? Or people who have played for a few weeks?
My claim is that while you are teaching someone to play, and thus presumably want to get them interested in the game in the first place, creature-based decks are far and away the best choice.
I also think people in this thread are underestimating the diversity of game experiences you can have just with creature-based decks. People like to somewhat snobbishly talk about just turning creatures sideways, but look at a deck like The Aristocrats. That's a deck that's full of interesting interactions and choices, and someone who started out playing a "plain" creature deck while initially learning and then got bored of it could easily start playing any of hundreds of other decks and start to see the huge variety that's available... and that includes creature-based decks of all shapes and sizes in addition to combo decks, control decks, etc.
Magic is a blood sport. To have fun, it demands player interaction, aka aggro and control. At least with beatdown and control decks, players can either make mistakes or be outplayed. These interactions are what makes magic the fun game that it is known for.
Simply put, combo decks take the fun out of magic.
Commander: *Five Color Fun-Stuff *Grixis Artifacts *Beast Tribal
Brawl: To Be Decided At Eldraine Release!
This kind of attitude is what is killing this game, or at the LEAST holding back the potential of modern/standard to be completely honest.
When I played Modern Death and Taxes the other day against Living End, what exactly was I DOING when I:
-Played a Thalia, taxing his Daemonic Dread and Living End by 1 CMC each so that he could not combo for 3 mana?
-Used Ghost Quarter to keep him off colors of mana?
-Sideboarded in Ethersworn Canonist to prevent his cascade combo?
I was INTERACTING WITH MY OPPONENT, that's what I was fricken doing.
This type of player/attitude is the real root of the problem here.. people with this defeatist attitude who see things they don't like, like counterspells/combo/discard/LD, and get all put out and go, "Gee, well I guess I can't do anything about it.. no point in thinking or changing my deck lets just complain every game.. "
Reminds me of the people back in the day who would get all put out when I countered a spell and go, "Well I guess I won't play spells because you'll just counter them all, waaaaaaahhhhh"
Which was hilarious because , A: I was bluffing countermagic more than half the time after the first one, and B: They weren't running their threats out, baiting counterspells and just allowing me to draw into more counters/removal/draw effects.
I hate to sound mean or like I'm scapegoating you in particular because I'm not trying to, but I have to say it:
The options exist in spades for you interact with virtually every ( for the sake of argument, modern legal ) combo that exists at this moment. Find them, play them, test them. Find out why they work, what effects are similar, which ones are optimal and suboptimal, and which are redundant so that you can figure out which work best for your decks/sideboard.
It's this kind of "I can't beat it, therefore it cannot be beat" attitude that is holding us back from having a really sweet Modern format,
one that to me would ideally resemble old Extended - minus absurdly broken/tedious combos/cards (Dark Depths, Hypergenesis for the former, Eggs and Sensei's Diving Top for the latter.) THOSE I would agree, are overbearing cards/combo decks. But the rest are completely fair, especially creature based ones.