I could care less about infinite combos, but if someone in your playgroup always plays with a broken, infinite combo deck, do the following.
1. Build a blue deck with nothing but counters, bounces, and annoying crap.
2. Next time you play with them, just counter everything they have, every single play.
3. If you play a familiar playgroup, no one is going to target you because they know you are keeping them safe from infinite counter person.
4. Watch them get triggered
5. Watch them build a new deck, or play a different one.
Fire with Fire
Fight violence with stronger violence
This is exactly what we would do in one of my older playgroups. Works like a charm.
Exactly, sometimes the goal is not to win, but to piss of someone to the point where they alter their behavior for the overall good of the group.
I could care less about infinite combos, but if someone in your playgroup always plays with a broken, infinite combo deck, do the following.
1. Build a blue deck with nothing but counters, bounces, and annoying crap.
2. Next time you play with them, just counter everything they have, every single play.
3. If you play a familiar playgroup, no one is going to target you because they know you are keeping them safe from infinite counter person.
4. Watch them get triggered
5. Watch them build a new deck, or play a different one.
Fire with Fire
Fight violence with stronger violence
This is exactly what we would do in one of my older playgroups. Works like a charm.
Exactly, sometimes the goal is not to win, but to piss of someone to the point where they alter their behavior for the overall good of the group.
There does seem to be this shifting, sorta divide between players that I noticed. I see this catchphrase being tossed around: "Sometimes its better to enjoy the journey", which, to me, as an older player, translates to: Slow down and let me construct a ridiculous board state. To me and others I know, fighting through intense adversity in order to achieve a board state IS the journey. So when people complain about infinite and oppressive combos hitting the table, my first thought is: What were you and the other two people doing while this combo was being set up... In a Singleton environment? Seems like these days people don't bother adjusting with the meta. At least not in my experience. I'll switch out 20% of my deck for the meta if that is what is needed.
I think it feels bad when you are ahead on board, winning the game, and your opponent casts a single card that wins the game on the spot. I'm used to it, and I've adapted to it, but the need to do so is definitely the thing I hate the most in competitive EDH.
I could care less about infinite combos, but if someone in your playgroup always plays with a broken, infinite combo deck, do the following.
1. Build a blue deck with nothing but counters, bounces, and annoying crap.
2. Next time you play with them, just counter everything they have, every single play.
3. If you play a familiar playgroup, no one is going to target you because they know you are keeping them safe from infinite counter person.
4. Watch them get triggered
5. Watch them build a new deck, or play a different one.
Fire with Fire
Fight violence with stronger violence
This is exactly what we would do in one of my older playgroups. Works like a charm.
Exactly, sometimes the goal is not to win, but to piss of someone to the point where they alter their behavior for the overall good of the group.
There does seem to be this shifting, sorta divide between players that I noticed. I see this catchphrase being tossed around: "Sometimes its better to enjoy the journey", which, to me, as an older player, translates to: Slow down and let me construct a ridiculous board state. To me and others I know, fighting through intense adversity in order to achieve a board state IS the journey. So when people complain about infinite and oppressive combos hitting the table, my first thought is: What were you and the other two people doing while this combo was being set up... In a Singleton environment? Seems like these days people don't bother adjusting with the meta. At least not in my experience. I'll switch out 20% of my deck for the meta if that is what is needed.
It's a singleton format where every tutor under the sun is legal.
Every form of fast mana is also legal
And you have so much life you can shrug off pretty much any attempt to win through combat damage.
I could care less about infinite combos, but if someone in your playgroup always plays with a broken, infinite combo deck, do the following.
1. Build a blue deck with nothing but counters, bounces, and annoying crap.
2. Next time you play with them, just counter everything they have, every single play.
3. If you play a familiar playgroup, no one is going to target you because they know you are keeping them safe from infinite counter person.
4. Watch them get triggered
5. Watch them build a new deck, or play a different one.
Fire with Fire
Fight violence with stronger violence
This is exactly what we would do in one of my older playgroups. Works like a charm.
Exactly, sometimes the goal is not to win, but to piss of someone to the point where they alter their behavior for the overall good of the group.
There does seem to be this shifting, sorta divide between players that I noticed. I see this catchphrase being tossed around: "Sometimes its better to enjoy the journey", which, to me, as an older player, translates to: Slow down and let me construct a ridiculous board state. To me and others I know, fighting through intense adversity in order to achieve a board state IS the journey. So when people complain about infinite and oppressive combos hitting the table, my first thought is: What were you and the other two people doing while this combo was being set up... In a Singleton environment? Seems like these days people don't bother adjusting with the meta. At least not in my experience. I'll switch out 20% of my deck for the meta if that is what is needed.
It's a singleton format where every tutor under the sun is legal.
Every form of fast mana is also legal
And you have so much life you can shrug off pretty much any attempt to win through combat damage.
Setting up a combo is trivial.
Ya. And stopping it with three people is even more trivial. If three people can't figure a way to disrupt a combo and meta against it, then what is the point of competing?
Ever see the movie Dodgeball? There is a team that competes that has no intention of actually winning. They just went there to dance. That's how these " Embrace the Journey" people functioned at the LGS I used to frequent. Weren't there to win, literally took a spot to do nothing but show off their cards and deck. To me, that is more rude than a guy playing infinite combo.
This is exactly what we would do in one of my older playgroups. Works like a charm.
Exactly, sometimes the goal is not to win, but to piss of someone to the point where they alter their behavior for the overall good of the group.
There does seem to be this shifting, sorta divide between players that I noticed. I see this catchphrase being tossed around: "Sometimes its better to enjoy the journey", which, to me, as an older player, translates to: Slow down and let me construct a ridiculous board state. To me and others I know, fighting through intense adversity in order to achieve a board state IS the journey. So when people complain about infinite and oppressive combos hitting the table, my first thought is: What were you and the other two people doing while this combo was being set up... In a Singleton environment? Seems like these days people don't bother adjusting with the meta. At least not in my experience. I'll switch out 20% of my deck for the meta if that is what is needed.
It's a singleton format where every tutor under the sun is legal.
Every form of fast mana is also legal
And you have so much life you can shrug off pretty much any attempt to win through combat damage.
Setting up a combo is trivial.
Ya. And stopping it with three people is even more trivial. If three people can't figure a way to disrupt a combo and meta against it, then what is the point of competing?
Ever see the movie Dodgeball? There is a team that competes that has no intention of actually winning. They just went there to dance. That's how these " Embrace the Journey" people functioned at the LGS I used to frequent. Weren't there to win, literally took a spot to do nothing but show off their cards and deck. To me, that is more rude than a guy playing infinite combo.
No, it is not trivial. They can run protection, they can hold back on their combo until most players are tapped out, they can just go off playing the probability game where you just didn't draw the right removal for the combo.
If it were so trivial to stop combos, they wouldn't be a good 1v1 deck type. But combo decks are plenty good in 1v1, even with an opponent devoting all of their attention to racing and disrupting it. A chaotic free for all situation just makes it even harder to be ready to answer a combo.
Combos are just so much better than other ways to win in commander due to the format rules that it becomes the only way to compete, and that makes the gameplay really miserable.
Exactly, sometimes the goal is not to win, but to piss of someone to the point where they alter their behavior for the overall good of the group.
There does seem to be this shifting, sorta divide between players that I noticed. I see this catchphrase being tossed around: "Sometimes its better to enjoy the journey", which, to me, as an older player, translates to: Slow down and let me construct a ridiculous board state. To me and others I know, fighting through intense adversity in order to achieve a board state IS the journey. So when people complain about infinite and oppressive combos hitting the table, my first thought is: What were you and the other two people doing while this combo was being set up... In a Singleton environment? Seems like these days people don't bother adjusting with the meta. At least not in my experience. I'll switch out 20% of my deck for the meta if that is what is needed.
It's a singleton format where every tutor under the sun is legal.
Every form of fast mana is also legal
And you have so much life you can shrug off pretty much any attempt to win through combat damage.
Setting up a combo is trivial.
Ya. And stopping it with three people is even more trivial. If three people can't figure a way to disrupt a combo and meta against it, then what is the point of competing?
Ever see the movie Dodgeball? There is a team that competes that has no intention of actually winning. They just went there to dance. That's how these " Embrace the Journey" people functioned at the LGS I used to frequent. Weren't there to win, literally took a spot to do nothing but show off their cards and deck. To me, that is more rude than a guy playing infinite combo.
No, it is not trivial. They can run protection, they can hold back on their combo until most players are tapped out, they can just go off playing the probability game where you just didn't draw the right removal for the combo.
If it were so trivial to stop combos, they wouldn't be a good 1v1 deck type. But combo decks are plenty good in 1v1, even with an opponent devoting all of their attention to racing and disrupting it. A chaotic free for all situation just makes it even harder to be ready to answer a combo.
Combos are just so much better than other ways to win in commander due to the format rules that it becomes the only way to compete, and that makes the gameplay really miserable.
So what are you telling me? Are you saying that combos are so degenerate, so unstoppable that they literally have no challenge in the format? If you want a healthy format and tutors are the main problem (as you inferred), then ban the obvious broken ones that will never be reprinted. I saw a thread to ban islands. Lol. Could you imagine the combo hell in that playgroup?
Forgive me if I seem obtuse on this subject but honestly, I had no idea combo was this lethal in EDH. Been playing various formats since Invasion block and have seen many many degenerate things come and go. If I didn't know any better I might think we have a full blown ComboWinter crisis in EDH from reading this thread. If combo is this OP in the format then that's the format, love it or hate it. More fun to actually figure a way to beat it in my experience, but I used to run into the same sort of discussions at my old LGS regarding degenerate decks and my opinion was never popular. I always advocated for allowing whatever was legal to be allowed even though I generally stick to more casually slanted builds myself. My belief was and is that for a healthy, balanced environment you must allow the format to evolve and adapt organically around the playgroup. Heavy hands and shaming accomplishes nothing.
I used to have a Primal Surge Kruphix deck where all of the other cards are permanents, the goal being to win with Lab Maniac. I found I loved the deck-building challenge of only using permanents, and the slow-buildup playstyle that Kruphix represents. In the end though Primal Surge was the only card that really mattered at all so I took it apart.
And that more or less sums up my opinion of combo. I'm planning to put it back together as a dedicated hand-size-matters deck instead with silly things like Scent of Ivy, Descendant of Soramaro, and various Maro cards.
Naturally if you're playing to win, like at a tournament or just a particularly cutthroat playgroup, then combo away. My gripe is with people who seem to think that casual players somehow don't understand combo or its weaknesses or else they just don't know how to counter it, or the sorts who say that combo is actually a difficult archetype to play as though literally everyone who has been playing Magic for at least four months or so hasn't played combo before. I fully understand combo and its weaknesses, I fully understand that there are answers to combo, and I fully understand that PrimalSurge.dec is not unbeatable or even a particularly strong strategy.
The problem is that, in a casual setting, none of the answers to combo are fun.
So what are you telling me? Are you saying that combos are so degenerate, so unstoppable that they literally have no challenge in the format? If you want a healthy format and tutors are the main problem (as you inferred), then ban the obvious broken ones that will never be reprinted. I saw a thread to ban islands. Lol. Could you imagine the combo hell in that playgroup?
No, Carthage is just setting up a (suppressed) unreasonable standard that disruption doesn't work unless it works 100% of the time. (You might be familiar with similar arguments in other areas where someone demands "absolute certainty". They pop up all the time in debates about religion.)
It leads to a weird, anti-bootstrap argument. Like, if a combo player can have a response to disruption, then that means (a) the combo player always has that response, so (b) disruption never works, and (c) combo is unstoppable.
So what are you telling me? Are you saying that combos are so degenerate, so unstoppable that they literally have no challenge in the format? If you want a healthy format and tutors are the main problem (as you inferred), then ban the obvious broken ones that will never be reprinted. I saw a thread to ban islands. Lol. Could you imagine the combo hell in that playgroup?
No, Carthage is just setting up a (suppressed) unreasonable standard that disruption doesn't work unless it works 100% of the time. (You might be familiar with similar arguments in other areas where someone demands "absolute certainty". They pop up all the time in debates about religion.)
It leads to a weird, anti-bootstrap argument. Like, if a combo player can have a response to disruption, then that means (a) the combo player always has that response, so (b) disruption never works, and (c) combo is unstoppable.
Ohhhh. I got you. Kinda like the 'Dies to Terror' thing. Thanks. I was wondering... Duress>>>Cabal Therapy... When did that go out the window? And that's some old school, budget disruption.
I have read through this post, and would like to weigh in on the matter.
I have been playing since Theros, and I mostly play Commander. I get to play once every month or every other month on average due to my work schedule. I have 7 Commander decks, and it typically takes me about 2 months to think of an idea, put the cards together, then goldfish it to get an idea of how it works. I also like to get a nice deck box, matching color sleeves, and a playmat that reflects the commander or colors I am using, as well as a dice set. I think my decks usually cost around $400 on average.
So I put this time and effort into building a deck, learning how it works, and then show up at my local shop to play. Its a 20 minute drive for me, and I arrive on time to sign up and get into a pod. Last time I went to play, I ended up with this guy who did an Infinite Combo on turn 5. To that point, it was mostly a game of untap, draw a card, play a land for turn, cast a spell, and say go. Then, he takes like 25 minutes to work out this combo on his 5th turn, and then apologizes for it at the end of the game. He then admits that it was something that he always wanted to do, and he took the opportunity to do this on us, and that was after we all checked in with one another prior to the start of the game to make sure we were all there to have fun, and that the decks we were choosing were on a casual power level.
So if thats my experience for my time, money, and investment, and then I get to drive home after that and wait another month before I get to do it again, why play at all?
Now, if you are upfront about disclosing that you have crazy infinite combos in your deck, and you plan on going off early in the game with a 25 minute turn, then I can either choose to not play with you, or I can prepare a land / hand destruction deck, and never let your deck do anything that its built to do. How fun would that be for you?
With so many options in our format, people can do all kinds of crazy things. However, just because you can, doesnt always mean you should. If you disclose to other players that your deck has stuff like infinite combos and you plan on running them as soon as possible, then you give them the option to play with you or not, which I think is respectful. Each deck most likely has the ability to do something broken, however, when your deck puts you so far out of reach of your opponents, then the game drags on while people just sit there and watch you play, I know I dont appreciate those strategies, and I choose not to employ them against other players myself.
Now, if you are upfront about disclosing that you have crazy infinite combos in your deck, and you plan on going off early in the game with a 25 minute turn, then I can either choose to not play with you, or I can prepare a land / hand destruction deck, and never let your deck do anything that its built to do. How fun would that be for you?
A lot, if I'm not the ONLY combo threat at the table. Some of my favorite games have been wrestling the control player and the other combo player for opportunity in a pod while everyone else is constantly shifting the gamestate and threatening their own win conditions. The tension involved in baiting the table, looking for shots to stick pieces and protect them, finding the one window where I can lock-in, I really enjoy all of that. Timing and awareness of the gamestate become very important at a table that accepts combo and understands how to combat it, and I enjoy engaging those specific MTG skills almost as much as idle brewing.
That being said, an advantage in playing mostly on 'Trice and with proxies in person is I can brew dozens of decks and keep a huge selection of different power-level decks to match the pod.
There is not a single answer to this question, but multiple.
Most have been touched upon by the discussion however, the arguments back and forth are mostly about game balance, and the necessity to win the game at one point over the metagame where one player simply snowballs to victory.
I am opposed to infinite combos off multiple reasons.
First is how an inf combo deck will either end the game, or have no impact.
- This creates gameplay where either i am happy and did my thing. Or i did nothing. Or i am waiting to be able to do my thing, and everything else happening is irrelevant.
If one player at a table is playing like this it is usually fine, but if everyone is, then I personally do not like the way the games play out. My playgroup seems to agree with me and we frown upon infinite combos, but they are not outright banned.
Second is how it narrows down the approach towards deck building
- say i build a Niv mizzet deck, i could run a lot of different win cons and strategies. But if i include curiosity, it will always be the most effective way to win. Therefore, no matter how i build the deck, seeing as magic is competitive it will always be a deck with "primary" win con to combo off.
Third is how inf combos disregard (for the most part) the boardstate and life totals of other players. In a meta where everyone runs infinites, combat, tempo, and to some degree card advantage. All important aspects of other formats does not matter, as you are just as safe at 3 life and 1000000000 life. Having 20 power on the board does not matter, and having your deck in hand does not matter if it does not contain a way to stop the combo.
- I often hear people comparing Kiki-pestermite with Jarad, golgari lich lord + Lord of extinction in these kind of discussions because both are two card win conditions that kill all opponents at once.
However for the latter, life totals will matter, it requires a lot more setup than just those two cards to win on turn 1-3 (even 3-6), And quite often combos like this will be more mana intensive.
I dont mind infinite combos, but they create gameplay where one draw you "just had it", and combo killed the table turn 3. Even if your deck isn't buildt exclusivly for the combo.
God hands become much more god hands. Due to the nature of the singleton format, if the'res only 2-3 cards that effectivly deal with the combo it is very unlikely that your opponent has it in their starter etc, where it is much easier to sideboard against particular combo strategies in other formats.
To summarize, i dislike infinites, not because of balance purpouses. But because games and deck building is a lot more enjoyable for me without them.
edit: Both as the one playing them, and as the opponent.
I enjoy wars of attrition. The back-and-forth rising tension of increasingly convoluted boardstate, creating synergistic snowballs of doom, that's my turf of choice.
My reaction to combo win is usually along the lines of "Awesome. Can we play a game now?"
Depending heavily on the kind of combo win, mind you. If you tooth and nail a two-card combo everyone knows with just the card names mentioned, you're probably not getting applause for originality. However, if you win with 5-card jankpile where one card was Threatened from an opponent, it's far more likely to get laughter out of the table in my experience. Perceived originality and convolutedness of a combo has a fair bit to do with just how palatable it is to see (at least for the first time).
Casual silly duggery is my thing in Magic. Combo sort of flies at the face of that for many reasons stated in this thread.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
X Hope of Ghirapur Swordpile W Ghosty Blinky Anafenza U Nezahal- Big, Blue and HERE! B Gonti Can Afford It R Etali, Primal 'Whatjusthappened?' G Polukranos Wants More Mana WU The Exalted Vizier Temmet WB Home, Athreos WR Basandra, Recursive Aggression WG Karametra, Momma of Lands UB Wrexial Eats Your Brains UR Arjun, the Mad Flame UG The Fable of Prime Speaker BR Hellbent, Malfegor Style BG Jarad, Death is Served RG Running Thromok WUB Varina and ALL the Zombies WUBYennett, the Odd Pain-Train WUR Zedruu the Furyhearted WUG Arcades' Strategy, Shmategy, Sausage and Spam WBR A Case of Mathas' Persistent F*ckery WBRLicia's League of Legendary Lifegain Layabouts WBG The Karador Advantage PackageWRG Gahiji Rattlesnake Collection UBR Jeleva... does... things UBG Damia's Just Deserts URG Yasova's Has More Power Than Sense BRG Wasitora, Bad Kitty WUBRBreya, Eggs, Breya'd Eggs WUBG Tymna and Kydele, Extended Borrowing WURG Kynaios and Tiro, Landfall Impersonations WBRG Saskia Pet Card EnchantressUBRG Yidris of the Chi-Ting Corporation WUBRG Tazri's Amazing Allies
So what are you telling me? Are you saying that combos are so degenerate, so unstoppable that they literally have no challenge in the format? If you want a healthy format and tutors are the main problem (as you inferred), then ban the obvious broken ones that will never be reprinted. I saw a thread to ban islands. Lol. Could you imagine the combo hell in that playgroup?
No, Carthage is just setting up a (suppressed) unreasonable standard that disruption doesn't work unless it works 100% of the time. (You might be familiar with similar arguments in other areas where someone demands "absolute certainty". They pop up all the time in debates about religion.)
It leads to a weird, anti-bootstrap argument. Like, if a combo player can have a response to disruption, then that means (a) the combo player always has that response, so (b) disruption never works, and (c) combo is unstoppable.
You're intentionally misrepresenting his argument.
The argument is that combo is easily the most effective way to win a multiplayer game. Aggro takes too long, Control doesn't have enough counters to stop everyone, and Prison is worse when three are trying to break out.
Therefore, the most tuned and competitive way to win a game of multiplayer commander is to run every possible tutor, and end the game with the combo ASAP.
Secondly, there is a limit to how much disruption you can run in your own deck before the table is warped around the combo player. For every copy of Pithing Needle, Duress, and Cabal Therapy, which do nothing to further your own victory, merely prevent the combo player from winning, that's a card that isn't making your deck go round. Especially if the combo player is in blue, and can easily tutor for Pact of Negation/Force of Will/Daze. That's the major issue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
I could care less about infinite combos, but if someone in your playgroup always plays with a broken, infinite combo deck, do the following.
1. Build a blue deck with nothing but counters, bounces, and annoying crap.
2. Next time you play with them, just counter everything they have, every single play.
3. If you play a familiar playgroup, no one is going to target you because they know you are keeping them safe from infinite counter person.
4. Watch them get triggered
5. Watch them build a new deck, or play a different one.
Fire with Fire
Fight violence with stronger violence
This is exactly what we would do in one of my older playgroups. Works like a charm.
Exactly, sometimes the goal is not to win, but to piss of someone to the point where they alter their behavior for the overall good of the group.
I disagree.
If your whole point for sitting down with other humans to play a children's card game is to piss another human being off to the point that they don't want to play anymore, then you need to re-evaluate what you are doing with your time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
So what are you telling me? Are you saying that combos are so degenerate, so unstoppable that they literally have no challenge in the format? If you want a healthy format and tutors are the main problem (as you inferred), then ban the obvious broken ones that will never be reprinted. I saw a thread to ban islands. Lol. Could you imagine the combo hell in that playgroup?
No, Carthage is just setting up a (suppressed) unreasonable standard that disruption doesn't work unless it works 100% of the time. (You might be familiar with similar arguments in other areas where someone demands "absolute certainty". They pop up all the time in debates about religion.)
It leads to a weird, anti-bootstrap argument. Like, if a combo player can have a response to disruption, then that means (a) the combo player always has that response, so (b) disruption never works, and (c) combo is unstoppable.
You're intentionally misrepresenting his argument.
The argument is that combo is easily the most effective way to win a multiplayer game. Aggro takes too long, Control doesn't have enough counters to stop everyone, and Prison is worse when three are trying to break out.
Therefore, the most tuned and competitive way to win a game of multiplayer commander is to run every possible tutor, and end the game with the combo ASAP.
Secondly, there is a limit to how much disruption you can run in your own deck before the table is warped around the combo player. For every copy of Pithing Needle, Duress, and Cabal Therapy, which do nothing to further your own victory, merely prevent the combo player from winning, that's a card that isn't making your deck go round. Especially if the combo player is in blue, and can easily tutor for Pact of Negation/Force of Will/Daze. That's the major issue.
No. Actually he wasn't misrepresenting. I read the entire thread. It just sounds like certain people need a safe space to play Magic so they can ignore silly things that win games like counters and disruption and other peoples strategies. That way any cards that don't specifically make your deck go around can be completely eliminated. Sounds awesome.
So what are you telling me? Are you saying that combos are so degenerate, so unstoppable that they literally have no challenge in the format? If you want a healthy format and tutors are the main problem (as you inferred), then ban the obvious broken ones that will never be reprinted. I saw a thread to ban islands. Lol. Could you imagine the combo hell in that playgroup?
No, Carthage is just setting up a (suppressed) unreasonable standard that disruption doesn't work unless it works 100% of the time. (You might be familiar with similar arguments in other areas where someone demands "absolute certainty". They pop up all the time in debates about religion.)
It leads to a weird, anti-bootstrap argument. Like, if a combo player can have a response to disruption, then that means (a) the combo player always has that response, so (b) disruption never works, and (c) combo is unstoppable.
You're intentionally misrepresenting his argument.
The argument is that combo is easily the most effective way to win a multiplayer game. Aggro takes too long, Control doesn't have enough counters to stop everyone, and Prison is worse when three are trying to break out.
Therefore, the most tuned and competitive way to win a game of multiplayer commander is to run every possible tutor, and end the game with the combo ASAP.
Secondly, there is a limit to how much disruption you can run in your own deck before the table is warped around the combo player. For every copy of Pithing Needle, Duress, and Cabal Therapy, which do nothing to further your own victory, merely prevent the combo player from winning, that's a card that isn't making your deck go round. Especially if the combo player is in blue, and can easily tutor for Pact of Negation/Force of Will/Daze. That's the major issue.
No. Actually he wasn't misrepresenting. I read the entire thread. It just sounds like certain people need a safe space to play Magic so they can ignore silly things that win games like counters and disruption other peoples strategies. That way any cards that don't specifically make your deck go around can be completely eliminated. Sounds awesome.
Ah yes, the argument that everyone that doesn't like a game ending on Turn 5 from hyper-tuned combo player must not be running any form of removal or counters whatsoever, and is obviously a <snip> who needs a participation trophy and safe space and whatever else Steve Bannon is telling me to say this week.
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
This thread is the perfect example of why Limited truly is the best format: no infinite combos for the poor players to rely on; the purest test of skill in the game.
Well, a hyper-tuned player is gonna likely annoy you whether they are playing combo or elves. So best bet is ignore the deck and focus on the player.
Edit... Steve Bannon? Uh wut?
The term "Safe Space" as an insult was first started by Brietbart, and it's lead editor, Steve Bannon. Popularized by Brietbart's most popular writer, Milo Youlinopolis. Two people I INTENSELY disagree with.
The issue you're missing is that just because you are running counters and removal does not mean you are going to have it when that infinite hits the board and ends the game. Especially with an unknown playgroup, which a large percentage of players use. Not everyone has a set group where they know everyone's deck and what their win cons are.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Well, a hyper-tuned player is gonna likely annoy you whether they are playing combo or elves. So best bet is ignore the deck and focus on the player.
Edit... Steve Bannon? Uh wut?
The term "Safe Space" as an insult was first started by Brietbart, and it's lead editor, Steve Bannon. Popularized by Brietbart's most popular writer, Milo Youlinopolis. Two people I INTENSELY disagree with.
The issue you're missing is that just because you are running counters and removal does not mean you are going to have it when that infinite hits the board and ends the game. Especially with an unknown playgroup, which a large percentage of players use. Not everyone has a set group where they know everyone's deck and what their win cons are.
I know not everyone has a set group. That's the point. To build a balanced deck. Not to build a deck stacked for a specific known pool. How is that fun? Sounds more like you want some sort of scripted experience where you can express your creation undistracted. Well, that's fine but it also isn't Magic. Sounds more like some sort of Commander RPG... Which sounds awesome by the way. But if you are going to jump into a public forum, you must expect the worst. That will never change.
Oh... And the term 'safe space' is an insult now? I honestly can't keep up with all the new things people find insulting.
Well, a hyper-tuned player is gonna likely annoy you whether they are playing combo or elves. So best bet is ignore the deck and focus on the player.
Edit... Steve Bannon? Uh wut?
The term "Safe Space" as an insult was first started by Brietbart, and it's lead editor, Steve Bannon. Popularized by Brietbart's most popular writer, Milo Youlinopolis. Two people I INTENSELY disagree with.
The issue you're missing is that just because you are running counters and removal does not mean you are going to have it when that infinite hits the board and ends the game. Especially with an unknown playgroup, which a large percentage of players use. Not everyone has a set group where they know everyone's deck and what their win cons are.
I know not everyone has a set group. That's the point. To build a balanced deck. Not to build a deck stacked for a specific known pool. How is that fun? Sounds more like you want some sort of scripted experience where you can express your creation undistracted. Well, that's fine but it also isn't Magic. Sounds more like some sort of Commander RPG... Which sounds awesome by the way. But if you are going to jump into a public forum, you must expect the worst. That will never change.
Oh... And the term 'safe space' is an insult now? I honestly can't keep up with all the new things people find insulting.
I find it hard to believe you didn't know "safe space" was an insult, given the context by which you used it.
As for me, I run plenty of removal in all my decks. Off the top of my head, my most used deck has Swords, Path, Return to Dust, Utter End, Anguished Unmaking, Condemn, Unmake, Mortify, and Slaughter Pact. My commander herself has instant speed creature removal. None of which will make a difference if I don't have them in hand, or only one in hand when the player going infinite has counters up for their infinite. That's the part you aren't grasping, and why infinites out of nowhere irritate people. The people complaining aren't just 99 creature battlecruiser decks. But in a CASUAL FORMAT (and I cannot stress that enough), people are irritated to deal with instant kills out of nowhere.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Exactly, sometimes the goal is not to win, but to piss of someone to the point where they alter their behavior for the overall good of the group.
There does seem to be this shifting, sorta divide between players that I noticed. I see this catchphrase being tossed around: "Sometimes its better to enjoy the journey", which, to me, as an older player, translates to: Slow down and let me construct a ridiculous board state. To me and others I know, fighting through intense adversity in order to achieve a board state IS the journey. So when people complain about infinite and oppressive combos hitting the table, my first thought is: What were you and the other two people doing while this combo was being set up... In a Singleton environment? Seems like these days people don't bother adjusting with the meta. At least not in my experience. I'll switch out 20% of my deck for the meta if that is what is needed.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
It's a singleton format where every tutor under the sun is legal.
Every form of fast mana is also legal
And you have so much life you can shrug off pretty much any attempt to win through combat damage.
Setting up a combo is trivial.
Ya. And stopping it with three people is even more trivial. If three people can't figure a way to disrupt a combo and meta against it, then what is the point of competing?
Ever see the movie Dodgeball? There is a team that competes that has no intention of actually winning. They just went there to dance. That's how these " Embrace the Journey" people functioned at the LGS I used to frequent. Weren't there to win, literally took a spot to do nothing but show off their cards and deck. To me, that is more rude than a guy playing infinite combo.
No, it is not trivial. They can run protection, they can hold back on their combo until most players are tapped out, they can just go off playing the probability game where you just didn't draw the right removal for the combo.
If it were so trivial to stop combos, they wouldn't be a good 1v1 deck type. But combo decks are plenty good in 1v1, even with an opponent devoting all of their attention to racing and disrupting it. A chaotic free for all situation just makes it even harder to be ready to answer a combo.
Combos are just so much better than other ways to win in commander due to the format rules that it becomes the only way to compete, and that makes the gameplay really miserable.
So what are you telling me? Are you saying that combos are so degenerate, so unstoppable that they literally have no challenge in the format? If you want a healthy format and tutors are the main problem (as you inferred), then ban the obvious broken ones that will never be reprinted. I saw a thread to ban islands. Lol. Could you imagine the combo hell in that playgroup?
And that more or less sums up my opinion of combo. I'm planning to put it back together as a dedicated hand-size-matters deck instead with silly things like Scent of Ivy, Descendant of Soramaro, and various Maro cards.
Naturally if you're playing to win, like at a tournament or just a particularly cutthroat playgroup, then combo away. My gripe is with people who seem to think that casual players somehow don't understand combo or its weaknesses or else they just don't know how to counter it, or the sorts who say that combo is actually a difficult archetype to play as though literally everyone who has been playing Magic for at least four months or so hasn't played combo before. I fully understand combo and its weaknesses, I fully understand that there are answers to combo, and I fully understand that PrimalSurge.dec is not unbeatable or even a particularly strong strategy.
The problem is that, in a casual setting, none of the answers to combo are fun.
- Rabid Wombat
No, Carthage is just setting up a (suppressed) unreasonable standard that disruption doesn't work unless it works 100% of the time. (You might be familiar with similar arguments in other areas where someone demands "absolute certainty". They pop up all the time in debates about religion.)
It leads to a weird, anti-bootstrap argument. Like, if a combo player can have a response to disruption, then that means (a) the combo player always has that response, so (b) disruption never works, and (c) combo is unstoppable.
Ohhhh. I got you. Kinda like the 'Dies to Terror' thing. Thanks. I was wondering... Duress>>>Cabal Therapy... When did that go out the window? And that's some old school, budget disruption.
I have been playing since Theros, and I mostly play Commander. I get to play once every month or every other month on average due to my work schedule. I have 7 Commander decks, and it typically takes me about 2 months to think of an idea, put the cards together, then goldfish it to get an idea of how it works. I also like to get a nice deck box, matching color sleeves, and a playmat that reflects the commander or colors I am using, as well as a dice set. I think my decks usually cost around $400 on average.
So I put this time and effort into building a deck, learning how it works, and then show up at my local shop to play. Its a 20 minute drive for me, and I arrive on time to sign up and get into a pod. Last time I went to play, I ended up with this guy who did an Infinite Combo on turn 5. To that point, it was mostly a game of untap, draw a card, play a land for turn, cast a spell, and say go. Then, he takes like 25 minutes to work out this combo on his 5th turn, and then apologizes for it at the end of the game. He then admits that it was something that he always wanted to do, and he took the opportunity to do this on us, and that was after we all checked in with one another prior to the start of the game to make sure we were all there to have fun, and that the decks we were choosing were on a casual power level.
So if thats my experience for my time, money, and investment, and then I get to drive home after that and wait another month before I get to do it again, why play at all?
Now, if you are upfront about disclosing that you have crazy infinite combos in your deck, and you plan on going off early in the game with a 25 minute turn, then I can either choose to not play with you, or I can prepare a land / hand destruction deck, and never let your deck do anything that its built to do. How fun would that be for you?
With so many options in our format, people can do all kinds of crazy things. However, just because you can, doesnt always mean you should. If you disclose to other players that your deck has stuff like infinite combos and you plan on running them as soon as possible, then you give them the option to play with you or not, which I think is respectful. Each deck most likely has the ability to do something broken, however, when your deck puts you so far out of reach of your opponents, then the game drags on while people just sit there and watch you play, I know I dont appreciate those strategies, and I choose not to employ them against other players myself.
A lot, if I'm not the ONLY combo threat at the table. Some of my favorite games have been wrestling the control player and the other combo player for opportunity in a pod while everyone else is constantly shifting the gamestate and threatening their own win conditions. The tension involved in baiting the table, looking for shots to stick pieces and protect them, finding the one window where I can lock-in, I really enjoy all of that. Timing and awareness of the gamestate become very important at a table that accepts combo and understands how to combat it, and I enjoy engaging those specific MTG skills almost as much as idle brewing.
That being said, an advantage in playing mostly on 'Trice and with proxies in person is I can brew dozens of decks and keep a huge selection of different power-level decks to match the pod.
Most Used (of many dozens) EDH Decks:
Brago, King Eternal - Stax
Grenzo, Dungeon Warden - Aggro Combo
Wort, the Raidmother - Spellslinger Swarm Control
Animar, Soul of Elements - Tempo Combo
Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder - Spellslinger
Exodia the Forbidden One:
Oona, Queen of the Fae - Combowins.dec
Most have been touched upon by the discussion however, the arguments back and forth are mostly about game balance, and the necessity to win the game at one point over the metagame where one player simply snowballs to victory.
I am opposed to infinite combos off multiple reasons.
First is how an inf combo deck will either end the game, or have no impact.
- This creates gameplay where either i am happy and did my thing. Or i did nothing. Or i am waiting to be able to do my thing, and everything else happening is irrelevant.
If one player at a table is playing like this it is usually fine, but if everyone is, then I personally do not like the way the games play out. My playgroup seems to agree with me and we frown upon infinite combos, but they are not outright banned.
Second is how it narrows down the approach towards deck building
- say i build a Niv mizzet deck, i could run a lot of different win cons and strategies. But if i include curiosity, it will always be the most effective way to win. Therefore, no matter how i build the deck, seeing as magic is competitive it will always be a deck with "primary" win con to combo off.
Third is how inf combos disregard (for the most part) the boardstate and life totals of other players. In a meta where everyone runs infinites, combat, tempo, and to some degree card advantage. All important aspects of other formats does not matter, as you are just as safe at 3 life and 1000000000 life. Having 20 power on the board does not matter, and having your deck in hand does not matter if it does not contain a way to stop the combo.
- I often hear people comparing Kiki-pestermite with Jarad, golgari lich lord + Lord of extinction in these kind of discussions because both are two card win conditions that kill all opponents at once.
However for the latter, life totals will matter, it requires a lot more setup than just those two cards to win on turn 1-3 (even 3-6), And quite often combos like this will be more mana intensive.
I dont mind infinite combos, but they create gameplay where one draw you "just had it", and combo killed the table turn 3. Even if your deck isn't buildt exclusivly for the combo.
God hands become much more god hands. Due to the nature of the singleton format, if the'res only 2-3 cards that effectivly deal with the combo it is very unlikely that your opponent has it in their starter etc, where it is much easier to sideboard against particular combo strategies in other formats.
To summarize, i dislike infinites, not because of balance purpouses. But because games and deck building is a lot more enjoyable for me without them.
edit: Both as the one playing them, and as the opponent.
RWU Narset, jeskai burn
RUB Marchesa the black rose
R Daretti, reanimator goodstuff
BU Vela, ninja assasin
UG Ezuri, woodland critters.
My reaction to combo win is usually along the lines of "Awesome. Can we play a game now?"
Depending heavily on the kind of combo win, mind you. If you tooth and nail a two-card combo everyone knows with just the card names mentioned, you're probably not getting applause for originality. However, if you win with 5-card jankpile where one card was Threatened from an opponent, it's far more likely to get laughter out of the table in my experience. Perceived originality and convolutedness of a combo has a fair bit to do with just how palatable it is to see (at least for the first time).
Casual silly duggery is my thing in Magic. Combo sort of flies at the face of that for many reasons stated in this thread.
You're intentionally misrepresenting his argument.
The argument is that combo is easily the most effective way to win a multiplayer game. Aggro takes too long, Control doesn't have enough counters to stop everyone, and Prison is worse when three are trying to break out.
Therefore, the most tuned and competitive way to win a game of multiplayer commander is to run every possible tutor, and end the game with the combo ASAP.
Secondly, there is a limit to how much disruption you can run in your own deck before the table is warped around the combo player. For every copy of Pithing Needle, Duress, and Cabal Therapy, which do nothing to further your own victory, merely prevent the combo player from winning, that's a card that isn't making your deck go round. Especially if the combo player is in blue, and can easily tutor for Pact of Negation/Force of Will/Daze. That's the major issue.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
I disagree.
If your whole point for sitting down with other humans to play a children's card game is to piss another human being off to the point that they don't want to play anymore, then you need to re-evaluate what you are doing with your time.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
No. Actually he wasn't misrepresenting. I read the entire thread. It just sounds like certain people need a safe space to play Magic so they can ignore silly things that win games like counters and disruption and other peoples strategies. That way any cards that don't specifically make your deck go around can be completely eliminated. Sounds awesome.
Ah yes, the argument that everyone that doesn't like a game ending on Turn 5 from hyper-tuned combo player must not be running any form of removal or counters whatsoever, and is obviously a <snip> who needs a participation trophy and safe space and whatever else Steve Bannon is telling me to say this week.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
Edit... Steve Bannon? Uh wut?
The term "Safe Space" as an insult was first started by Brietbart, and it's lead editor, Steve Bannon. Popularized by Brietbart's most popular writer, Milo Youlinopolis. Two people I INTENSELY disagree with.
The issue you're missing is that just because you are running counters and removal does not mean you are going to have it when that infinite hits the board and ends the game. Especially with an unknown playgroup, which a large percentage of players use. Not everyone has a set group where they know everyone's deck and what their win cons are.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
I know not everyone has a set group. That's the point. To build a balanced deck. Not to build a deck stacked for a specific known pool. How is that fun? Sounds more like you want some sort of scripted experience where you can express your creation undistracted. Well, that's fine but it also isn't Magic. Sounds more like some sort of Commander RPG... Which sounds awesome by the way. But if you are going to jump into a public forum, you must expect the worst. That will never change.
Oh... And the term 'safe space' is an insult now? I honestly can't keep up with all the new things people find insulting.
I find it hard to believe you didn't know "safe space" was an insult, given the context by which you used it.
As for me, I run plenty of removal in all my decks. Off the top of my head, my most used deck has Swords, Path, Return to Dust, Utter End, Anguished Unmaking, Condemn, Unmake, Mortify, and Slaughter Pact. My commander herself has instant speed creature removal. None of which will make a difference if I don't have them in hand, or only one in hand when the player going infinite has counters up for their infinite. That's the part you aren't grasping, and why infinites out of nowhere irritate people. The people complaining aren't just 99 creature battlecruiser decks. But in a CASUAL FORMAT (and I cannot stress that enough), people are irritated to deal with instant kills out of nowhere.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."