There is no such thing as "oops I win". If your opponent wins, you weren't interacting enough. I've had people say counterspells aren't interactive. Those people do not understand the meaning of the word. Counterspells only exist to interact. LD is purely interactive.
Playing a game with a functioning human being is inherently interacting. Saying "that isn't interactive enough" or changing your definition so that what you do is cool and what everyone else does is bad makes you terrible at games.
Yeah there is and no it's about as uninteractive as possible (that's the whole point). Just saying something is interactive does not make it so and people playing these strategies try to prevent you from interacting with them. There's a reason Silence effects are great in combo decks, it's because they prevent interaction. I typically choose Obliterate over Jokulhaups, again because I'm trying to prevent my opponent from interacting (and I'm playing mass LD to try and prevent them from interacting with me further in the first place!). Counterspells only interact with the game in a very small window so I'd make the argument they are not very interactive as well. Do you have something to back up your claims other than just saying that's the way things are because you said so?
If I target my opponent I am interacting. The very nature of attempting to limit interaction inherently requires that I interact first. If I want to counter a spell I need to play around my opponent and hold up mana, respecting that they will cast things and I need to deal with them. That is interactive.
I physically cannot "not" interact during a game of magic. I can attempt to limit future interaction, but I am always playing with and around my opponent unless I'm winning on turn 0.
I gotta agree with Jivan. There is no difference between any "I make two card combo that wins game" and Azuna going "I play Avenger of Zendikar followed by Craterhoof Behemoth". I would say neither is more interactive than the other. The problem is the stuff people run. Playing against my decks, a simple Deflection is more likely to interact with me on any turn than a creature would. Except some idiots refuse to add anything like counters or removal into their decks. They are then forced to watch as you assemble something they can't stop and call you out for being uninteractive. You know, I've got like 3~4 creatureless decks. Putting creatures in your decks is uninteractive to me.
There is no such thing as "oops I win". If your opponent wins, you weren't interacting enough. I've had people say counterspells aren't interactive. Those people do not understand the meaning of the word. Counterspells only exist to interact. LD is purely interactive.
Playing a game with a functioning human being is inherently interacting. Saying "that isn't interactive enough" or changing your definition so that what you do is cool and what everyone else does is bad makes you terrible at games.
Yeah there is and no it's about as uninteractive as possible (that's the whole point). Just saying something is interactive does not make it so and people playing these strategies try to prevent you from interacting with them. There's a reason Silence effects are great in combo decks, it's because they prevent interaction. I typically choose Obliterate over Jokulhaups, again because I'm trying to prevent my opponent from interacting (and I'm playing mass LD to try and prevent them from interacting with me further in the first place!). Counterspells only interact with the game in a very small window so I'd make the argument they are not very interactive as well. Do you have something to back up your claims other than just saying that's the way things are because you said so?
The timing restriction of counterspells is a non sequitur. The targeting restrictions of aura spells don't make them less interactive. It's all interactive, sometimes it's just interacting on a level or an axis for which you are ill-prepared.
Next time you up the stakes with Troll Ascetic instead of Hill Giant because it can't die to Lightning Bolt. I start playing Wrath of God to kill your Troll Ascetic. You play Stone Rain to keep me off Wrath of God. I pack Counterspell to stop your Stone Rain. By next-leveling the opponents' plays and invalidating their answers, we are attempting to limit their ability to interact with my Hill Giant of choice. Maybe my Hill Giant costs 3BB, 30 life, has haste, and has power equal to the number of mediocre ritual spells in my deck.
Sometimes it isn't as simple as upgrading a card choice, though. Maybe the way to answer what your opponent is doing is to lower your mana curve, or play more conservatively. And hey, sometimes no matter what you do, the opponents' strategy is just better positioned to beat yours. I think a lot of players get frustrated because they either don't know these things or they don't accept them as reasonable answers, and the latter can only be solved on a playgroup level. Going back to my food analogy, if you are vegan, you should ask your friends where they are going to eat lunch before you just hop in the car with them, rather than complain after you arrive at the steakhouse.
I know you don't need convincing; you have a very down to earth view of this format and are one of the more reasonable posters on this forum. It's just that, IMO, a player cannot play anything with shroud, hexproof, indestructible, or unblockable and then complain that the opponent is doing something uninteractive.
A big part of playing answers to combo (or anything really), is knowing enough about the game (and your meta) to pack the right answers. And the only way get that info is to play, get hit by the surprises, and learn how to anticipate them in future games. Some people still get upset about things like stax, mass LD, and unexpected early-turn victories where I play, but for the most part their bark is worse than their bite and the playgroup as a whole has matured to a point where people know what kinds of effects precipitate game-ending plays, and they actively make the decision whether or not they're going to use their turn preparing to stop it, or try to go off first. In the end no matter what happens, we have only ourselves to blame.
Even with new players, so long as you let them know what's liable to happen, they're usually pretty okay with things. If their decks are a little on the underpowered side, they can borrow something a bit more potent.
It sounds like a lot of these groups are working towards this kind of social contract, and things aren't quite there yet. With time and card/meta knowledge though, they will get there.
The timing restriction of counterspells is a non sequitur. The targeting restrictions of aura spells don't make them less interactive. It's all interactive, sometimes it's just interacting on a level or an axis for which you are ill-prepared.
Next time you up the stakes with Troll Ascetic instead of Hill Giant because it can't die to Lightning Bolt. I start playing Wrath of God to kill your Troll Ascetic. You play Stone Rain to keep me off Wrath of God. I pack Counterspell to stop your Stone Rain. By next-leveling the opponents' plays and invalidating their answers, we are attempting to limit their ability to interact with my Hill Giant of choice. Maybe my Hill Giant costs 3BB, 30 life, has haste, and has power equal to the number of mediocre ritual spells in my deck.
The window of time in which players can react and the cards they can use to interact with is very important to many people's enjoyment of the game. Creatures are often regarded as the easiest card type to deal with. This isn't just because they die to a ton of stuff but also because attacking with dudes, especially in this format, is a heavily played strategy so if you were going to an unknown meta game it's pretty reasonable that they're will be people attacking with creatures and you should have some way of dealing with them. Now they may have difficult creatures to deal with and you're not expected to kill Aetherling 5 times every game but dudes with hexproof, protections and even indestructible are things you should be able to answer. Obviously they could be playing different strategies but red zone strategies are what this format caters to. With creature based strategies you often have a wide variety of answers as well as a large window to answer those creatures.
When you compare this with prison, mass LD and combo you're now requiring them to diversify their answers to a large degree and for strategies that this format actively frowns upon so I do not think it's as reasonable for people to be as prepared for random metagames that involve these strategies. Even worse some answers that work for some of these strategies don't work for others. You simply need different tools to deal with Hermit Druid than you do with Storm combo and different tools still to deal with Stasis locks and other nonsense.
Now if this is an established meta where everyone knows what everyone else runs it's more reasonable for them to pack SOME answers but I don't think it's reasonable for them to fill their deck with them. In a creature based meta a player can simply adjust their removal to compensate. Maybe there's a lot of hexproof, maybe Blightsteel Colossus is a thing or there's a lot of token decks or whatever but they can have answers that will answer a large portion of the creatures that get played. In this case they could run Terminus, Cyclonic Rift, Toxic Deluge, Constant Mists + tutors to get what they need or whatever else they wanted but can still be expected to be able to answer most things (some people suck and can't do this but I don't think that's what this discussion is about).
Now contrast that with the hated strategies in the format. When you're requiring people to have answers for Obliterate, Stasis lock and storm combo the effective answers they have at their disposal are much lower. Even worse some of the answer are narrow as well. My meta is pretty diverse and in particular I tend to play a wide range of decks which makes metagaming very difficult. You want to beat Edric go ahead, the cards that beat that deck do nothing to Angus. No answer to Voltron backed with Mass LD and you'll lose to Uril. Can't beat tokens then Rhys is a bad matchup and so on. In this situation I don't think "running more answers" is a good solution because there are simply too many angles of attack you have to stop. Running a handful of more universal answers while making sure your deck can kill people in a reasonable time is the way to go and a great many players do not want to build there deck in this manner. Remove oops I win strategies and they don't have to. This is why many people hate them I think. It's also a real feel bad situation on MTGO where you could be faced off against a pile of crap or a $3,000.00 kill you turn 4 deck and preparation becomes even more difficult but MTGO isn't a great place to play in the first place.
Quote from d0su »
Sometimes it isn't as simple as upgrading a card choice, though. Maybe the way to answer what your opponent is doing is to lower your mana curve, or play more conservatively. And hey, sometimes no matter what you do, the opponents' strategy is just better positioned to beat yours. I think a lot of players get frustrated because they either don't know these things or they don't accept them as reasonable answers, and the latter can only be solved on a playgroup level. Going back to my food analogy, if you are vegan, you should ask your friends where they are going to eat lunch before you just hop in the car with them, rather than complain after you arrive at the steakhouse.
I know you don't need convincing; you have a very down to earth view of this format and are one of the more reasonable posters on this forum. It's just that, IMO, a player cannot play anything with shroud, hexproof, indestructible, or unblockable and then complain that the opponent is doing something uninteractive.
It's always a pleasure to have these discussions with you but in this case I would argue that you and I are the vegans and the redzone players are the ones going to the steakhouse.
Obviously they could be playing different strategies but red zone strategies are what this format caters to.
...
When you compare this with prison, mass LD and combo you're now requiring them to diversify their answers to a large degree and for strategies that this format actively frowns upon so I do not think it's as reasonable for people to be as prepared for random metagames that involve these strategies.
I think there's a separation between the format and the RC. The format is the banlist and the rules, whereas the RC is a group of people with a philosophy on how to play Magic in a social way. The format definitely caters to combo, and not red zone stragies. The RC on the other hand, actively frowns upon them. It's this disconnect that I think creates a false expectation for us as players and the schism between those who play combo and those who lose to it.
We really need to stop using the word "interactive" to discuss archetypes in Magic. Interaction is what makes magic a game. Even Eggs was interactive. Interactivity is not power-level, consistency, or resilience; which are the real issues that ban lists need to address. Combos have their place in magic. Losing combo would be detrimental to magic. The game is much more interesting when there is a dynamic between combo-aggro-control as well as the hybrids.
While I am not currently running any combo decks in EDH, I really dislike playing decks that are built around the combat step, so I very seldom build those unless there is a win on the spot option like infinite tokens or Craterhoof shenanigans.
I think there's a separation between the format and the RC. The format is the banlist and the rules, whereas the RC is a group of people with a philosophy on how to play Magic in a social way. The format definitely caters to combo, and not red zone stragies. The RC on the other hand, actively frowns upon them. It's this disconnect that I think creates a false expectation for us as players and the schism between those who play combo and those who lose to it.
I would assume you are saying the format caters to combo because it does not attempt to restrict tutors or 2 card combos (no issue with that, just making the connection). Regardless of the ban list I think the majority of players (not just the RC) frown on combo, that's an assumption based on nothing but comments on forums and my own playing experience. If that is accurate the false expectation is with fellow players, and laying it at the feet of the RC seems pretty disingenuous. And the schism you refer to is between people who enjoy playing combo and those who do not. Losing to it does not define if you enjoy it or not, plenty of people complain about losing to combo while actively playing it.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
I would assume you are saying the format caters to combo because it does not attempt to restrict tutors or 2 card combos (no issue with that, just making the connection). Regardless of the ban list I think the majority of players (not just the RC) frown on combo, that's an assumption based on nothing but comments on forums and my own playing experience. If that is accurate the false expectation is with fellow players, and laying it at the feet of the RC seems pretty disingenuous.
In my experience as well, you're correct. Most players frown upon combo it would seem, but I just wonder if that thought was planted there (inception style) by the RC. It begs the question: if the RC had a philosophy based on friendly competition instead of social contract, would the majority of Commander players still feel that way? We may never know.
And the schism you refer to is between people who enjoy playing combo and those who do not. Losing to it does not define if you enjoy it or not, plenty of people complain about losing to combo while actively playing it.
Hypocrisy exists on either side of the fence, and is unacceptable behavior. On a related note, I would say that the players who dislike combo have in fact lost to it, whether they played it at some point or not. I can guarantee just about anyone who dislikes a strategy or claims to find it boring has lost to that strategy. The easy route is just calling it unfun or unfair and not having to play against it anymore. But I took the road less traveled by, and that has made all the difference
And the schism you refer to is between people who enjoy playing combo and those who do not. Losing to it does not define if you enjoy it or not, plenty of people complain about losing to combo while actively playing it.
Hypocrisy exists on either side of the fence, and is unacceptable behavior. On a related note, I would say that the players who dislike combo have in fact lost to it, whether they played it at some point or not. I can guarantee just about anyone who dislikes a strategy or claims to find it boring has lost to that strategy. The easy route is just calling it unfun or unfair and not having to play against it anymore. But I took the road less traveled by, and that has made all the difference
To be fair, I've lost to a great number of strategies at this point. I just think that Mind over Matter is boring to play against after the first few times, and even worse to play with as a personal preference. Just because I dislike it and find it boring, isn't based on losing to it and I'm sure there are plenty of people like that for every single strategy that it exists. You can find something incredibly boring without complaining about losing to it.
The same Azami player who runs Mind over Matter has a Muzzio combo deck that I think is much more interesting. It still has its combos, but it isn't always using the same couple of cards (MoM, Palinchron, etc.) to try to win every game.
To be fair, I've lost to a great number of strategies at this point. I just think that Mind over Matter is boring to play against after the first few times, and even worse to play with as a personal preference. Just because I dislike it and find it boring, isn't based on losing to it and I'm sure there are plenty of people like that for every single strategy that it exists. You can find something incredibly boring without complaining about losing to it.
The same Azami player who runs Mind over Matter has a Muzzio combo deck that I think is much more interesting. It still has its combos, but it isn't always using the same couple of cards (MoM, Palinchron, etc.) to try to win every game.
Now I didn't say that all people find strategies boring because they lost to them. I just said that people who dislike strategies also lost to them at some point, which is kind of obvious so it wasn't really even worth me saying. I find some decks boring too. I used to be pretty board with Tooth and Nail into 2-card combo out of nowhere, which is why I instead chose to play the funnest combo deck ever (shameless plug). Everyone appreciates creativity
But for me, and many others I'm sure, I care about the journey more than the destination, which is why some people understandably don't like combo. It cuts their journey short. I felt that way too, until I realized that if you actually want to play combo and not just blindly race for it hoping no one can stop you, you have to play around everything imaginable. Once you've reached that realization, it kind of turns the interactivity argument on it's head. Now I view playing against combo-control to be more like chess, outwitting your opponent and holding back answers (or bluffing that you have them), rather than just Gruul-ing combat math. Different strokes for different folks I suppose!
Now I didn't say that all people find strategies boring because they lost to them. I just said that people who dislike strategies also lost to them at some point, which is kind of obvious so it wasn't really even worth me saying. I find some decks boring too. I used to be pretty board with Tooth and Nail into 2-card combo out of nowhere, which is why I instead chose to play the funnest combo deck ever (shameless plug). Everyone appreciates creativity
But for me, and many others I'm sure, I care about the journey more than the destination, which is why some people understandably don't like combo. It cuts their journey short. I felt that way too, until I realized that if you actually want to play combo and not just blindly race for it hoping no one can stop you, you have to play around everything imaginable. Once you've reached that realization, it kind of turns the interactivity argument on it's head. Now I view playing against combo-control to be more like chess, outwitting your opponent and holding back answers (or bluffing that you have them), rather than just Gruul-ing combat math. Different strokes for different folks I suppose!
Hey, don't you hate on my guild. Even if it is for a pun.
I prefer combat, because I'd rather see different cards each game. It's why I love Marath, I have so many options for winning, and not all of them actually involve combat. But I've never viewed outmaneuvering a combo player as some kind of epic achievement. After the first few games, I know what's coming, and to me it seems almost binary. Now that said, I'm incredibly biased. There are a lot of days where I can't get out and go play with a group, and it's just myself and the boyfriend playing 1v1 matches. He prefers combo decks, so I see those cards just as often as the ones I own (reasons why I own so many decks...). But I'm also a lousy control player, so my tactic is to brutally kill the combo player before they (hopefully) get around the other control players in my play group who typically run slower combos themselves.
I don't view combo as any less interactive as anything else here, but if I have to play against it, I'd rather see a deck that uses a variety of win conditions. Going back to my example of Muzzio, I love that his activation makes it more random. It makes each game somewhat unique, and I enjoy playing against that kind of combo. You'll never get me to play my own combo deck for longer than two or three months at the most though, I've never felt the thrill of beating people with those combos or falling flat on my face, it just happens until the deck is pulled apart.
Not you DF, but I don't care for the attitude that a lot of combo players have: 'If you were better at Magic, combo would be fine' and/or 'The better players are prepared for combo'. I don't think packing in a bunch of narrow answers that are useless is 90% of games makes you a pro.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Not you DF, but I don't care for the attitude that a lot of combo players have: 'If you were better at Magic, combo would be fine' and/or 'The better players are prepared for combo'. I don't think packing in a bunch of narrow answers that are useless is 90% of games makes you a pro.
Never been fond of that argument. Obviously there are answers to almost anything in Magic, but it doesn't mean I have them in my hand. Sometimes there is just too small of a window and too little cards to interact.
@Airithne, it's good that not everyone likes combo. Diversity ftw!
I'm not sure how some see combo as interactive when the attitude is "care about myself". It becomes centralizing.
Wizards aren't stupid (even though we keep calling them that). The cards we see in recent years reflect the feedback we've given them. The lack of combo, ritual effects, cantrips, tutors. Do we see all these? We have to be realistic that these are few and far in between.
The cards we see today reflect what the majority wants. Combo is certainly frown upon, whether combo players like it or not.
I care about the journey more than the destination
I guess it varies depending on what combos you're trying to do, but often times I find that putting something together can be quite the journey when you've got two to however many other players at least concerned.
I'm not sure how some see combo as interactive when the attitude is "care about myself". It becomes centralizing.
I think this is very wrong. When I'm playing a combo, even something very very degenerate, I'm very concerned about the other side of the table.
I'm not going to comment on interactiveness; that's a different can of worms and any arguement I'd make has already been made, but I really don't think you're playing combo right if you're only concerned about yourself. I mean, if you're playing those "uninteractive" cards like Silence, discard and counterspells then you're concerned about your opponents. If you're waiting for the right time to pop then you're concerned about your opponents.
This topic seems to have veered in extremely strange directions. I feel like people are missing a major point in the argument. (I may have missed someone already pointing this out, but please, bear with me, I just read almost every post on this topic at 4 am, and am a bit fried.) One of the main reasons people have gripes against combo, is not because interaction, or the lack there of. It's because of the kind of interaction that takes place. Another thing I don't think people understand, is what is generally meant by interaction. It is the interaction between players, in a social manner, and not their cards being cast/played.
Taken from the official Commander website: "Commander is the modern name for EDH, a Magic:The Gathering variant format which emphasises social interactions, interesting games, and creative deckbuilding. It can be played 1-on-1 but is usually multiplayer."
Now I did some fancy editing. Let's talk about that bolded bit first. There is an emphasis on social interaction. That should mean you are generally sitting down at the table to have fun and (maybe?) make friends. That is one aspect that got me into Commander. I liked that it was built to be enjoyable.
Now for the italicized bit. Combo decks are interesting. There, I said it. It's true. Anyone who can sit down and play one and combo out on turn 3 or 4 consistently impresses me, because they've taken the time (how little or how much, I may never know) to learn and consistently create this combo. That being said, the same combo/same turn 4/5 win gets really old really fast.
The underlined part ties into the italicized part. Combo decks are, at least when they are originally conceived, very creative. But so is, in my opinion, (for instance) a Korona, False God Voltron/Pillowfort, where you politic your opponents to death.
My main problems with combo decks seems to be that I can't bring myself to enjoy it. It may be my playgroup. When I was new to the game, I had like 3 spikes who would take turns beating me down, and hide behind the excuse "Oh, this will help make you a good player." I had just made a deck I liked, and I felt it was good. Then I got turn 3 Grapeshotted. Game after game after game. And my hatred for combo carried over to EDH, where another guy would run a monoblack Erebos deck with three or four infinite life drain combos that he would always tutor for.
But in general, I feel that Combo is good for the game. We need to have options as a community. I don't want anyone to be locked into a deck where they 'have' to play creatures. I don't want win conditions to only be "turn enough stuff sideways" or "Cast enough Lightning Bolt". But I also don't necessarily agree with people saying that combo isn't detrimental to the social aspect of the format. Once again, it could be my playgroup, and I would love to play against some of the people on this forum, I believe it was @DigitalFire who was talking about that really complex Animar deck?
eh. Sorry for rambling. My .02
(No hate intended for anyone. Just contributing. Good day all.)
I'm a straight-up Johnny, I build and play decks for creative expression. While most of my decks have combos in them, I'd only call one of them (Gisela) a combo deck. It has a lot of pieces that can combine to make an instant-win combo (e.g., Gisela, Blade of Goldnight + Heartless Hidetsugu or Mogg Maniac + Boros Charm + Guilty Conscience). Even so, I chose to take out Sunforger and eschew other tutors because I don't want to spend every game putting a combo together.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander DecksUB Sygg - Stream of Answers UBGWU Phelddagrif - Hugs and Handshakes GWURW Gisela - Firebender RWB Endrek - Correct! 6,000 Thrulls BBU Wrexial - Wrist Deep In Your Graveyard BUGW Trostani - My Wife's Deck GWBR Lyzolda - Chaos Hug BR
WUBRG Reaper King - The Trouble With Tribals WUBRG
To all the people taking the stance that 'Combo isn't fun', I have to ask 'Is it really any less fun than playing a four hour game were no one does anything?' because in my group, no one plays combo and that's how it is. Long, grueling games were you put out a bunch of creatures and then someone wipes the board and you do it all over again and again and again until someone actually manages to get enough crap out to kill everyone. It's awful. It's boring. I hate it. We've got one guy that tries to play Aggro decks, but aggro doesn't work in multiplayer. If you attack, you leave yourself open to getting hit back. You also fall to board wipes. He very rarely wins games and if anyone gets knocked out early besides me, it's him. Then there's me, who tries to play Aggro/Control but it doesn't really work because I've got everyone at the table trying to take me out first. Why? Because I'm the only one that actively tries to end the game within a reasonable timeframe and I often leave myself open in my attempt to do it. I go after one of the Control players when he's open and I try to get everyone else to help me, but no one does. I'm left open, so the other players all take me out instead. I then get to sit there for two or three hours watching everyone else play. Everyone else plays straight up Control and are perfectly content to counter people's spells and blow up people's stuff and wipe the board over and over and over hour upon hour upon hour until, finally, people start getting picked off. I don't know if they're having fun, but I'm sure as hell not so, I'm looking into degenerate Combo decks now. I had always avoided them before, but I'm at my wit's end. I just don't know what else to do. Combo ends games and I'd much rather play four one hour games than one four hour game. If I step my game up and bring a ferocious beast of a deck to the table, then everyone else will be forced to do the same and then we can get some fun and exciting games going instead of the long, grueling slogs.
My playgroup has a house rule. Once a player is eliminated then the remaining players have five turns each to settle things before the game ends. That way no one has to sit around for hours on end. Five turns each can still take a while with a four or five player game, but at least it provides some kind of limit.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Some people like to win MtG matches in the Red Zone. I prefer to win the way God intended: on the stack.
I may have posted this same thought in this thread previously, but just in case I didn't, allow me to say: MTGO is probably the greatest antidote to combo that EDH has to offer. First of all, games are timed. Oh, so you have to generate 500 mana with your Palinchron combo to draw your deck and then deck everyone with Counterspell backup!? If you have less than 15 minutes on your clock you're probably going to die. Second, the fact that opponents often won't scoop to an on-board infi combo is a huge deterrent. Do you want to spend 15 minutes casting and re-casting Pali? I don't. I would rather update my time sheets from work than go through that nonsense. Also, people will occasionally boot you from games for going off. It's kind of lame, but it happens and it's pretty frustrating to bust out your broken combo deck because you have "just lost too much today playing fair," only to get booted when you try to go off!
Not you DF, but I don't care for the attitude that a lot of combo players have: 'If you were better at Magic, combo would be fine' and/or 'The better players are prepared for combo'. I don't think packing in a bunch of narrow answers that are useless is 90% of games makes you a pro.
What answers to combo are you thinking of, that are useless in 90% of games?
Not you DF, but I don't care for the attitude that a lot of combo players have: 'If you were better at Magic, combo would be fine' and/or 'The better players are prepared for combo'. I don't think packing in a bunch of narrow answers that are useless is 90% of games makes you a pro.
Never been fond of that argument. Obviously there are answers to almost anything in Magic, but it doesn't mean I have them in my hand. Sometimes there is just too small of a window and too little cards to interact.
@Airithne, it's good that not everyone likes combo. Diversity ftw!
And thus sometimes, you lose. The argument presented seems a lot like "I lose to it, therefore it oughtn't be allowed" to compete at all, one must run answers, sometimes one won't draw such, and thus sometimes they'll lose. I don't see a problem there.
I'm not sure how some see combo as interactive when the attitude is "care about myself". It becomes centralizing.
Wizards aren't stupid (even though we keep calling them that). The cards we see in recent years reflect the feedback we've given them. The lack of combo, ritual effects, cantrips, tutors. Do we see all these? We have to be realistic that these are few and far in between.
The cards we see today reflect what the majority wants. Combo is certainly frown upon, whether combo players like it or not.
I find it a bit annoying when people don't understand that the culture of EDH varies wildly from playgroup to playgroup. I also find it annoying when people conflate all audiences of magic, or conflate all card development.
I may have posted this same thought in this thread previously, but just in case I didn't, allow me to say: MTGO is probably the greatest antidote to combo that EDH has to offer. First of all, games are timed. Oh, so you have to generate 500 mana with your Palinchron combo to draw your deck and then deck everyone with Counterspell backup!? If you have less than 15 minutes on your clock you're probably going to die. Second, the fact that opponents often won't scoop to an on-board infi combo is a huge deterrent. Do you want to spend 15 minutes casting and re-casting Pali? I don't. I would rather update my time sheets from work than go through that nonsense. Also, people will occasionally boot you from games for going off. It's kind of lame, but it happens and it's pretty frustrating to bust out your broken combo deck because you have "just lost too much today playing fair," only to get booted when you try to go off!
Why do we need an antidote to combo? Do we no longer have tongues? Can we no longer communicate with one another?
STATISTICS.
All of these "Let's eliminate bad cards" crusades are simply ignorant. And when they start to devolve into "WotC is conspiring to give us crappy cards," they just become embarrassing. MATH is conspiring to give you crappy cards.
I may have posted this same thought in this thread previously, but just in case I didn't, allow me to say: MTGO is probably the greatest antidote to combo that EDH has to offer. First of all, games are timed. Oh, so you have to generate 500 mana with your Palinchron combo to draw your deck and then deck everyone with Counterspell backup!? If you have less than 15 minutes on your clock you're probably going to die. Second, the fact that opponents often won't scoop to an on-board infi combo is a huge deterrent. Do you want to spend 15 minutes casting and re-casting Pali? I don't. I would rather update my time sheets from work than go through that nonsense. Also, people will occasionally boot you from games for going off. It's kind of lame, but it happens and it's pretty frustrating to bust out your broken combo deck because you have "just lost too much today playing fair," only to get booted when you try to go off!
So the solution to a social issue is to act in an anti-social way? EDH sure is progressive. MTGO is inherently not EDH even if you're playing with the same rules. The "spirit" is dead online (unless you play with people you know obviously).
cEDH: [G(U/R) Animar] - [(U/B)(G/W) Redless Wheels] - [(G/U)(W/B) Redless Pod] - [(B/G)W Ghave Metapod]
If I target my opponent I am interacting. The very nature of attempting to limit interaction inherently requires that I interact first. If I want to counter a spell I need to play around my opponent and hold up mana, respecting that they will cast things and I need to deal with them. That is interactive.
I physically cannot "not" interact during a game of magic. I can attempt to limit future interaction, but I am always playing with and around my opponent unless I'm winning on turn 0.
The timing restriction of counterspells is a non sequitur. The targeting restrictions of aura spells don't make them less interactive. It's all interactive, sometimes it's just interacting on a level or an axis for which you are ill-prepared.
Hill Giant.
Wall of Fire to block your Brindle Boar.
Giant Growth to kill your Wall of Fire.
Lightning Bolt on your Hill Giant.
Next time you up the stakes with Troll Ascetic instead of Hill Giant because it can't die to Lightning Bolt. I start playing Wrath of God to kill your Troll Ascetic. You play Stone Rain to keep me off Wrath of God. I pack Counterspell to stop your Stone Rain. By next-leveling the opponents' plays and invalidating their answers, we are attempting to limit their ability to interact with my Hill Giant of choice. Maybe my Hill Giant costs 3BB, 30 life, has haste, and has power equal to the number of mediocre ritual spells in my deck.
Sometimes it isn't as simple as upgrading a card choice, though. Maybe the way to answer what your opponent is doing is to lower your mana curve, or play more conservatively. And hey, sometimes no matter what you do, the opponents' strategy is just better positioned to beat yours. I think a lot of players get frustrated because they either don't know these things or they don't accept them as reasonable answers, and the latter can only be solved on a playgroup level. Going back to my food analogy, if you are vegan, you should ask your friends where they are going to eat lunch before you just hop in the car with them, rather than complain after you arrive at the steakhouse.
I know you don't need convincing; you have a very down to earth view of this format and are one of the more reasonable posters on this forum. It's just that, IMO, a player cannot play anything with shroud, hexproof, indestructible, or unblockable and then complain that the opponent is doing something uninteractive.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
Even with new players, so long as you let them know what's liable to happen, they're usually pretty okay with things. If their decks are a little on the underpowered side, they can borrow something a bit more potent.
It sounds like a lot of these groups are working towards this kind of social contract, and things aren't quite there yet. With time and card/meta knowledge though, they will get there.
Oh Rider, my heart will go on...
When you compare this with prison, mass LD and combo you're now requiring them to diversify their answers to a large degree and for strategies that this format actively frowns upon so I do not think it's as reasonable for people to be as prepared for random metagames that involve these strategies. Even worse some answers that work for some of these strategies don't work for others. You simply need different tools to deal with Hermit Druid than you do with Storm combo and different tools still to deal with Stasis locks and other nonsense.
Now if this is an established meta where everyone knows what everyone else runs it's more reasonable for them to pack SOME answers but I don't think it's reasonable for them to fill their deck with them. In a creature based meta a player can simply adjust their removal to compensate. Maybe there's a lot of hexproof, maybe Blightsteel Colossus is a thing or there's a lot of token decks or whatever but they can have answers that will answer a large portion of the creatures that get played. In this case they could run Terminus, Cyclonic Rift, Toxic Deluge, Constant Mists + tutors to get what they need or whatever else they wanted but can still be expected to be able to answer most things (some people suck and can't do this but I don't think that's what this discussion is about).
Now contrast that with the hated strategies in the format. When you're requiring people to have answers for Obliterate, Stasis lock and storm combo the effective answers they have at their disposal are much lower. Even worse some of the answer are narrow as well. My meta is pretty diverse and in particular I tend to play a wide range of decks which makes metagaming very difficult. You want to beat Edric go ahead, the cards that beat that deck do nothing to Angus. No answer to Voltron backed with Mass LD and you'll lose to Uril. Can't beat tokens then Rhys is a bad matchup and so on. In this situation I don't think "running more answers" is a good solution because there are simply too many angles of attack you have to stop. Running a handful of more universal answers while making sure your deck can kill people in a reasonable time is the way to go and a great many players do not want to build there deck in this manner. Remove oops I win strategies and they don't have to. This is why many people hate them I think. It's also a real feel bad situation on MTGO where you could be faced off against a pile of crap or a $3,000.00 kill you turn 4 deck and preparation becomes even more difficult but MTGO isn't a great place to play in the first place.
It's always a pleasure to have these discussions with you but in this case I would argue that you and I are the vegans and the redzone players are the ones going to the steakhouse.
cEDH: [G(U/R) Animar] - [(U/B)(G/W) Redless Wheels] - [(G/U)(W/B) Redless Pod] - [(B/G)W Ghave Metapod]
While I am not currently running any combo decks in EDH, I really dislike playing decks that are built around the combat step, so I very seldom build those unless there is a win on the spot option like infinite tokens or Craterhoof shenanigans.
Hypocrisy exists on either side of the fence, and is unacceptable behavior. On a related note, I would say that the players who dislike combo have in fact lost to it, whether they played it at some point or not. I can guarantee just about anyone who dislikes a strategy or claims to find it boring has lost to that strategy. The easy route is just calling it unfun or unfair and not having to play against it anymore. But I took the road less traveled by, and that has made all the difference
cEDH: [G(U/R) Animar] - [(U/B)(G/W) Redless Wheels] - [(G/U)(W/B) Redless Pod] - [(B/G)W Ghave Metapod]
To be fair, I've lost to a great number of strategies at this point. I just think that Mind over Matter is boring to play against after the first few times, and even worse to play with as a personal preference. Just because I dislike it and find it boring, isn't based on losing to it and I'm sure there are plenty of people like that for every single strategy that it exists. You can find something incredibly boring without complaining about losing to it.
The same Azami player who runs Mind over Matter has a Muzzio combo deck that I think is much more interesting. It still has its combos, but it isn't always using the same couple of cards (MoM, Palinchron, etc.) to try to win every game.
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
But for me, and many others I'm sure, I care about the journey more than the destination, which is why some people understandably don't like combo. It cuts their journey short. I felt that way too, until I realized that if you actually want to play combo and not just blindly race for it hoping no one can stop you, you have to play around everything imaginable. Once you've reached that realization, it kind of turns the interactivity argument on it's head. Now I view playing against combo-control to be more like chess, outwitting your opponent and holding back answers (or bluffing that you have them), rather than just Gruul-ing combat math. Different strokes for different folks I suppose!
cEDH: [G(U/R) Animar] - [(U/B)(G/W) Redless Wheels] - [(G/U)(W/B) Redless Pod] - [(B/G)W Ghave Metapod]
Hey, don't you hate on my guild. Even if it is for a pun.
I prefer combat, because I'd rather see different cards each game. It's why I love Marath, I have so many options for winning, and not all of them actually involve combat. But I've never viewed outmaneuvering a combo player as some kind of epic achievement. After the first few games, I know what's coming, and to me it seems almost binary. Now that said, I'm incredibly biased. There are a lot of days where I can't get out and go play with a group, and it's just myself and the boyfriend playing 1v1 matches. He prefers combo decks, so I see those cards just as often as the ones I own (reasons why I own so many decks...). But I'm also a lousy control player, so my tactic is to brutally kill the combo player before they (hopefully) get around the other control players in my play group who typically run slower combos themselves.
I don't view combo as any less interactive as anything else here, but if I have to play against it, I'd rather see a deck that uses a variety of win conditions. Going back to my example of Muzzio, I love that his activation makes it more random. It makes each game somewhat unique, and I enjoy playing against that kind of combo. You'll never get me to play my own combo deck for longer than two or three months at the most though, I've never felt the thrill of beating people with those combos or falling flat on my face, it just happens until the deck is pulled apart.
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
@Airithne, it's good that not everyone likes combo. Diversity ftw!
cEDH: [G(U/R) Animar] - [(U/B)(G/W) Redless Wheels] - [(G/U)(W/B) Redless Pod] - [(B/G)W Ghave Metapod]
Wizards aren't stupid (even though we keep calling them that). The cards we see in recent years reflect the feedback we've given them. The lack of combo, ritual effects, cantrips, tutors. Do we see all these? We have to be realistic that these are few and far in between.
The cards we see today reflect what the majority wants. Combo is certainly frown upon, whether combo players like it or not.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
I guess it varies depending on what combos you're trying to do, but often times I find that putting something together can be quite the journey when you've got two to however many other players at least concerned.
I think this is very wrong. When I'm playing a combo, even something very very degenerate, I'm very concerned about the other side of the table.
I'm not going to comment on interactiveness; that's a different can of worms and any arguement I'd make has already been made, but I really don't think you're playing combo right if you're only concerned about yourself. I mean, if you're playing those "uninteractive" cards like Silence, discard and counterspells then you're concerned about your opponents. If you're waiting for the right time to pop then you're concerned about your opponents.
Taken from the official Commander website: "Commander is the modern name for EDH, a Magic:The Gathering variant format which emphasises social interactions, interesting games, and creative deckbuilding. It can be played 1-on-1 but is usually multiplayer."
Now I did some fancy editing. Let's talk about that bolded bit first. There is an emphasis on social interaction. That should mean you are generally sitting down at the table to have fun and (maybe?) make friends. That is one aspect that got me into Commander. I liked that it was built to be enjoyable.
Now for the italicized bit. Combo decks are interesting. There, I said it. It's true. Anyone who can sit down and play one and combo out on turn 3 or 4 consistently impresses me, because they've taken the time (how little or how much, I may never know) to learn and consistently create this combo. That being said, the same combo/same turn 4/5 win gets really old really fast.
The underlined part ties into the italicized part. Combo decks are, at least when they are originally conceived, very creative. But so is, in my opinion, (for instance) a Korona, False God Voltron/Pillowfort, where you politic your opponents to death.
My main problems with combo decks seems to be that I can't bring myself to enjoy it. It may be my playgroup. When I was new to the game, I had like 3 spikes who would take turns beating me down, and hide behind the excuse "Oh, this will help make you a good player." I had just made a deck I liked, and I felt it was good. Then I got turn 3 Grapeshotted. Game after game after game. And my hatred for combo carried over to EDH, where another guy would run a monoblack Erebos deck with three or four infinite life drain combos that he would always tutor for.
But in general, I feel that Combo is good for the game. We need to have options as a community. I don't want anyone to be locked into a deck where they 'have' to play creatures. I don't want win conditions to only be "turn enough stuff sideways" or "Cast enough Lightning Bolt". But I also don't necessarily agree with people saying that combo isn't detrimental to the social aspect of the format. Once again, it could be my playgroup, and I would love to play against some of the people on this forum, I believe it was @DigitalFire who was talking about that really complex Animar deck?
eh. Sorry for rambling. My .02
(No hate intended for anyone. Just contributing. Good day all.)
My playgroup has a house rule. Once a player is eliminated then the remaining players have five turns each to settle things before the game ends. That way no one has to sit around for hours on end. Five turns each can still take a while with a four or five player game, but at least it provides some kind of limit.
What answers to combo are you thinking of, that are useless in 90% of games?
And thus sometimes, you lose. The argument presented seems a lot like "I lose to it, therefore it oughtn't be allowed" to compete at all, one must run answers, sometimes one won't draw such, and thus sometimes they'll lose. I don't see a problem there.
I find it a bit annoying when people don't understand that the culture of EDH varies wildly from playgroup to playgroup. I also find it annoying when people conflate all audiences of magic, or conflate all card development.
Why do we need an antidote to combo? Do we no longer have tongues? Can we no longer communicate with one another?
So the solution to a social issue is to act in an anti-social way? EDH sure is progressive. MTGO is inherently not EDH even if you're playing with the same rules. The "spirit" is dead online (unless you play with people you know obviously).