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.
Just to be clear, this is not true. As a six-year player of a rather highly tuned, combo-enabled, labor-of-love Niv-Mizzet deck, I can tell you that the Niv combos hardly ever are the actual win. It's usually something like a Winds of Change with Consecrated Sphinx on board that wins.
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.
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.
And you just used a variation of the argument I attributed to Carthage : having an answer available (in hand or library) is not always sufficient to stop the combo player, so combo is bad (weak version)/unstoppable (strong version). Your argument is actually making an even bigger, broader, bolder claim than his. Way to double down, I guess.
Magic is a game partially characterized by randomness. This randomness means that sometimes you have or don't have an answer to your opponent's play, whether that's a combo, a massive army, or just a single permanent that neuter a your whole deck. That's just the game, and it is a very poor line of argument indeed to hold that against combo specifically.
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.
I actually used it in the context my sister described to me when she was going to school. It was like an official thing according to her. She mentioned the implementation of safe spaces well before Milo started pointing them out. So I don't know what you are talking about with Bannon and stuff.
Ahhhh... So finally to the real crux. What is Casual? What is fun for me? For you? For him and her? Who's fun is more important? The epic debate.
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.
I actually used it in the context my sister described to me when she was going to school. It was like an official thing according to her. She mentioned the implementation of safe spaces well before Milo started pointing them out. So I don't know what you are talking about with Bannon and stuff.
Ahhhh... So finally to the real crux. What is Casual? What is fun for me? For you? For him and her? Who's fun is more important? The epic debate.
There isn't a good answer there. I play at seven different shops during the week, depending on where my job takes me. One of them the average turn to kill is 5, and every player in that group has hyper-competitive lists. One of them has mostly new players playing slightly modified precons. One of them has mostly cheaper lists with one or two ultra-tuned lists that everyone gangs up on. One of them has a very diverse group coming in, and you rarely see the same player twice.
The point I'm making is that if you find combo killing the board as soon as possible as your route to fun, who am I to say no. But don't be surprised when you aren't asked to play again. As one of this forum's members famously said: "Commander is a game you play WITH people, not necessarily AGAINST them."
If this was supposed to be a cutthroat, kill or be killed format, the Rules Committee would have designed it as such.
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.
As one of this forum's members famously said: "Commander is a game you play WITH people, not necessarily AGAINST them."
If this was supposed to be a cutthroat, kill or be killed format, the Rules Committee would have designed it as such.
They did. Commander/EDH is a zero-sum game; there can only be one winner, and all other players (barring variants like Two-Headed Giant) are your opponents. Definitionally, you are playing against them, so that quotation's nonsense that doesn't even rise to the level of a deepity. The RC could have introduced rules that allow for multiple victors or a ranking system, but they did not.
As one of this forum's members famously said: "Commander is a game you play WITH people, not necessarily AGAINST them."
If this was supposed to be a cutthroat, kill or be killed format, the Rules Committee would have designed it as such.
They did. Commander/EDH is a zero-sum game; there can only be one winner, and all other players (barring variants like Two-Headed Giant) are your opponents. Definitionally, you are playing against them, so that quotation's nonsense that doesn't even rise to the level of a deepity. The RC could have introduced rules that allow for multiple victors or a ranking system, but they did not.
The Rules Committee who created Commander disagree whole-heartedly with that. And it is their format. They view the games as an experience shared by the players that happens to end at some point. Hence why the most degenerate cards in the format (fast mana, cheap tutors, combo pieces) are not banned. They view the player that would abuse those as an outlier for their game. If you have a problem with how they manage the format, the RC often post in Commander Rules Discussion area.
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.
They did. Commander/EDH is a zero-sum game; there can only be one winner, and all other players (barring variants like Two-Headed Giant) are your opponents. Definitionally, you are playing against them, so that quotation's nonsense that doesn't even rise to the level of a deepity. The RC could have introduced rules that allow for multiple victors or a ranking system, but they did not.
Except they literally say the opposite. It's not about winning.
And they do have Victory Point-systems, Sheldon even uses them himself and talks about it. They are just not official.
The problem is that they cannot ban everything.
You cannot make a 300 card banlist to prevent every combo-interaction in Magic.
And in the end the winning-obsessed player will still be the same person and will find a way.
When I play Legacy I know I need blue for my 4 counter-spells.
I know I need black or white for my removal.
But in EDH I would love to play a mono-R deck. And I don't want to play against T4-combo decks.
The problem with this entire ****ed up discussion is that some people act as if I am a noob.
They talk down to me, tell me my deck sucks and that I am a bad player.. And why? Because I simply don't like to play like that when I'm not in a legacy tournament.
Perhaps it's just better if mods closed down any discussion on the subject, because this will never stop and in this thread I've read quite some aggressive posts.
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 crybaby liberal cuck snowflake who needs a participation trophy and safe space and whatever else Steve Bannon is telling me to say this week.
The opposite side of this is the way the "never combo" crowd assumes every combo is in a deck 100% dedicated to getting out that combo on turn 5.
The point I'm making is that if you find combo killing the board as soon as possible as your route to fun, who am I to say no. But don't be surprised when you aren't asked to play again.
This is about the most passive aggressive buttflustered way I could imagine to tell someone you don't like how they have fun.
Combo only really feels oppressive when the majority of the table is running it imo. When you have 50-75% of players in the game running a win con that ends the game on the spot is it really surprising that that's what wins the game most of the time? It's hard to be playing a 'fair' deck in that environment because you most likely have to fight through 80-120 life while thwarting two or three players' win conditions simultaneously, while they have essentially no pressure to do the same, except to interact lightly with each others' setup.
When you instead have a diverse selection of strategies at the table, as long as the players piloting them are skillful and making good calls on threat assessment, this becomes greatly alleviated. Instead of you struggling against three players to do the impossible and outrace all of them, it's them struggling to keep up with three players' threats while fighting through all of their answers to get their 'unfair' win. Just pack interaction for the things that give you trouble, let people play what they want and ask them to change up their decks regularly so you get some variety at the table. Everything sorts itself out pretty quickly.
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.
I actually used it in the context my sister described to me when she was going to school. It was like an official thing according to her. She mentioned the implementation of safe spaces well before Milo started pointing them out. So I don't know what you are talking about with Bannon and stuff.
Ahhhh... So finally to the real crux. What is Casual? What is fun for me? For you? For him and her? Who's fun is more important? The epic debate.
There isn't a good answer there. I play at seven different shops during the week, depending on where my job takes me. One of them the average turn to kill is 5, and every player in that group has hyper-competitive lists. One of them has mostly new players playing slightly modified precons. One of them has mostly cheaper lists with one or two ultra-tuned lists that everyone gangs up on. One of them has a very diverse group coming in, and you rarely see the same player twice.
The point I'm making is that if you find combo killing the board as soon as possible as your route to fun, who am I to say no. But don't be surprised when you aren't asked to play again. As one of this forum's members famously said: "Commander is a game you play WITH people, not necessarily AGAINST them."
If this was supposed to be a cutthroat, kill or be killed format, the Rules Committee would have designed it as such.
Honestly, if we really wanna get to the root of these issues, I blame the implementation of a tournament structure to the game. Forget the Commander rules committee, the creator of the game himself never intended a tournament structure. You could argue, and I often do, that things like sanctioned tournaments, prize structures, eliminations, prize tiers, entry fees, etc, etc, is ALL an abomination to the game and should have never been introduced in the first place.
I mean, just look at the pro scene. Its a cess pool of cheaters. Fun stuff.
Because there is no buildup, no grind, no politics and no battle.
Suddenly, he tutor out the combo piece. He wins. Do you have blue in your color? Oh no, too bad, he wins then. (Krosan grip is so important!)
I don't remember a single GREAT game moment comes from an infinite combo player.... I mean, I could imagine if he top decks in the last turn of his life and win, but that would be a great moment regardless of the type of deck
Just tell people if your deck is good before you begin and the people who choose to intentionally pilot trash will be spared the butthurt that comes from getting combo'd out by better builders. Like if you want to shuffle up a turd, go right ahead, but don't think for a second that I'm "playing the format wrong" because I put in the time and effort to improve my decks. The format is only as casual as you choose for it to be.
Public Mod Note
(Wildfire393):
Warning for flaming/trolling
It's been long since I'm back at mtgsalvation and back to MTG. Quit MTG a year+ back mainly due to reasons like "players getting mad at combo players". Sometimes it just seems that no matter what I do, as long as it doesn't conform to what the "vocal whiners" deem as "fair game", sparks will fly. Even when the combo isn't infinite and is telegraphed, people will still complain about it, like the one last combo which made me stopped playing due to complains.
Amulet of Vigor, Retreat to Hagra, Putrid Imp in battlefield -> float all mana, Scapeshift -> Regrowth Scapeshift -> bin Kozilek via Putrid Imp, shuffle gy to library -> float all mana -> Scapeshift -> E.Witness Scapeshift -> Entomb Kozilek, shuffle gy to Library -> Scapeshift.
This is what I get:
"Hey, we are trying to play Magic here, waste of our time playing with you."
I just think that for some personalities, they will complain and rule out anything that isn't perceived as fun to them. Fun only on their own terms, sigh.
Just tell people if your deck is good before you begin and the people who choose to intentionally pilot trash will be spared the butthurt that comes from getting combo'd out by better builders. Like if you want to shuffle up a turd, go right ahead, but don't think for a second that I'm "playing the format wrong" because I put in the time and effort to improve my decks. The format is only as casual as you choose for it to be.
Wow, that's incredibly rude and disrespectful. Your post is like an AVP player looking down his nose at someone playing a family pick-up game on the beach, and when asked to play starts spiking the volleyball into Granny Jones repeatedly. Not every game and format has to be turned into uber-competitive deathmatches.
C'mon man, I get you think your style of Magic is superior, and you might be a very good player and even a great guy outside of the game, but based on your rude and dismissive tone I wouldn't play with you. My group's been piloting turds (by your standards) for over twenty years and we thoroughly enjoy trying to kill each other as skillfully as we can with our non-optimal decks.
I honestly believe that's part of the issue on this thread. Everyone is arguing their position from essentially two diametrically opposed camps. But you don't have to insult the other side.
If you are about to join a game with an unknown group, the others might be playing their own combo decks/efficient stax or control decks ("competitive decks") or casual battle-cruiser decks ("casual decks") and you would be unaware of this fact. In many cases, however, steamrolling other players or being steamrolled by others is boring/unfun, even if it can be educational (outside of settings where you PAY to play and/or there is a prize for winning, in which case everything is fair game).
In this unknown setting, is there any reason why we can't just say "So you guys know, my deck trying to win on turn 3". When you put it like that, you aren't insulting the players of casual decks and you are giving them a chance to respond to that deck (such as advising you to take out another one) before the game starts. I mean, this just seems like common courtesy when dealing with unknown groups.
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.
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.
I cannot think of a more pure example of "adapting to the meta".
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.
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.
I cannot think of a more pure example of "adapting to the meta".
I agree with the above that spite and petty bull***** is a poor answer to anything in a game of Magic, people who for example cast an All is Dust or what have you before scooping are some of the most annoying people.
Seems to be this thread boils down to this.
What is allowed to finish a game?
When is a game allowed to finish?
Who is allowed to finish a game?
Why was that victory condition not stopped?
How was that victory assembled?
Combos aren't, imo, much worse than other non-infinite ways of winning in a "burst". i.e. end of turn white sun's zenith into craterhoof behemoth lethal is kind of roughly the same thing. There's a few reasons these things suck.
1) they tell a crappy story. A good game should ultimately tell an interesting story - one filled with power struggles, betrayals, back and forths, real game-of-thrones *****. A bad game is like a bad story - someone just comes in and wins out of nowhere. That's my favorite, most concise way of putting it.
2) it's the easiest way to win. The inherent difficulty of multiplayer is that anyone who pulls ahead gets pulled back to earth by the rest of the table. If you've got a huge army of zombies, best expect that the rest of the table will probably do something to curb your advantage. It's difficult to react to an advantage in the hand, though, short of discard and counterspells, both of which are usually a card-disadvantageous proposition in magic. And especially in a mixed meta, it's hard to know if you've got a full grip because you're setting up for a 1-turn-combo-out-of-nowhere, or because you're just playing carefully and not overcommitting or whatever (obviously repeat games will alleviate this problem). The bottom line is - it's very easy to win in a single turn, because you don't have to expose your power and risk getting targeted. You get to play a very introspective game where the only things your opponents are doing that matters is "are they going to kill me" and "are they going to disrupt me". Whereas the guy who slowly wins the game via board control and card advantage and politics, one player at a time, has to consider every creature, every effect, every card in hands and graveyards, all of it, and carefully play around it to find a path to victory. The hardest, most impressive victory to pull off is the one that everyone could see and anyone could have stopped. combo is usually the easiest, least impressive way to win.
What is allowed to finish a game?
When is a game allowed to finish?
Who is allowed to finish a game?
Why was that victory condition not stopped?
How was that victory assembled?
I'd go a little further and say it comes down to this:
What unofficial code of conduct is someone trying to hold you/me/anyone else to?
Part of it is people are generally against disrupting ramp which is what fuels generally the "out of nowhere" or "kept it all in hand" stuff. If someone cast 4 spells that gives them a bunch more access to mana than the table and then they win with that extra mana the win wasn't "out of nowhere".
What is allowed to finish a game?
When is a game allowed to finish?
Who is allowed to finish a game?
Why was that victory condition not stopped?
How was that victory assembled?
I'd go a little further and say it comes down to this:
What unofficial code of conduct is someone trying to hold you/me/anyone else to?
A lot of peoples answer to this will be an ancient document from a website that isn't posted along with Official Commander product that I would wager most people who play the game have never read or heard of.
Part of it is people are generally against disrupting ramp which is what fuels generally the "out of nowhere" or "kept it all in hand" stuff. If someone cast 4 spells that gives them a bunch more access to mana than the table and then they win with that extra mana the win wasn't "out of nowhere".
how exactly would you propose one disrupt (land) ramp? targeted LD is awful (outside of something like azusa + crucible + strip) and mass LD is going to basically seal up the game in one direction or another too, which also makes the game feel aborted.
There's a few cards like keldon firebombers and natural balance but that's about it in the "rein ramp in but don't end the game" camp as far as I can think of. Or just, like, kill that player.
Part of it is people are generally against disrupting ramp which is what fuels generally the "out of nowhere" or "kept it all in hand" stuff. If someone cast 4 spells that gives them a bunch more access to mana than the table and then they win with that extra mana the win wasn't "out of nowhere".
This sums up a lot of the problems with EDH. But people also flip their ***** when you play things like Pox.
I have multiple decks of different levels of play. For the most part I have janky fun multiplayer decks like Fumiko and Gonti. However, when someone sits down with their hardcore combo deck, I'm going to switch to a Simic control deck or some such and just stop them from comboing while the rest of the game continues. Some people get salty about it, but there's only so many combo wins our group tolerates from things like food chain, doomsday, etc. I don't like a 3 hour game, but I also don't like a 2-3 turn game. I don't even ask them to switch decks, I just let them play and have answers for just about anything.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig/Avatar by DarkNightCavalier
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just to be clear, this is not true. As a six-year player of a rather highly tuned, combo-enabled, labor-of-love Niv-Mizzet deck, I can tell you that the Niv combos hardly ever are the actual win. It's usually something like a Winds of Change with Consecrated Sphinx on board that wins.
And you just used a variation of the argument I attributed to Carthage : having an answer available (in hand or library) is not always sufficient to stop the combo player, so combo is bad (weak version)/unstoppable (strong version). Your argument is actually making an even bigger, broader, bolder claim than his. Way to double down, I guess.
Magic is a game partially characterized by randomness. This randomness means that sometimes you have or don't have an answer to your opponent's play, whether that's a combo, a massive army, or just a single permanent that neuter a your whole deck. That's just the game, and it is a very poor line of argument indeed to hold that against combo specifically.
I actually used it in the context my sister described to me when she was going to school. It was like an official thing according to her. She mentioned the implementation of safe spaces well before Milo started pointing them out. So I don't know what you are talking about with Bannon and stuff.
Ahhhh... So finally to the real crux. What is Casual? What is fun for me? For you? For him and her? Who's fun is more important? The epic debate.
There isn't a good answer there. I play at seven different shops during the week, depending on where my job takes me. One of them the average turn to kill is 5, and every player in that group has hyper-competitive lists. One of them has mostly new players playing slightly modified precons. One of them has mostly cheaper lists with one or two ultra-tuned lists that everyone gangs up on. One of them has a very diverse group coming in, and you rarely see the same player twice.
The point I'm making is that if you find combo killing the board as soon as possible as your route to fun, who am I to say no. But don't be surprised when you aren't asked to play again. As one of this forum's members famously said: "Commander is a game you play WITH people, not necessarily AGAINST them."
If this was supposed to be a cutthroat, kill or be killed format, the Rules Committee would have designed it as such.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
They did. Commander/EDH is a zero-sum game; there can only be one winner, and all other players (barring variants like Two-Headed Giant) are your opponents. Definitionally, you are playing against them, so that quotation's nonsense that doesn't even rise to the level of a deepity. The RC could have introduced rules that allow for multiple victors or a ranking system, but they did not.
The Rules Committee who created Commander disagree whole-heartedly with that. And it is their format. They view the games as an experience shared by the players that happens to end at some point. Hence why the most degenerate cards in the format (fast mana, cheap tutors, combo pieces) are not banned. They view the player that would abuse those as an outlier for their game. If you have a problem with how they manage the format, the RC often post in Commander Rules Discussion area.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
Except they literally say the opposite. It's not about winning.
And they do have Victory Point-systems, Sheldon even uses them himself and talks about it. They are just not official.
The problem is that they cannot ban everything.
You cannot make a 300 card banlist to prevent every combo-interaction in Magic.
And in the end the winning-obsessed player will still be the same person and will find a way.
When I play Legacy I know I need blue for my 4 counter-spells.
I know I need black or white for my removal.
But in EDH I would love to play a mono-R deck. And I don't want to play against T4-combo decks.
The problem with this entire ****ed up discussion is that some people act as if I am a noob.
They talk down to me, tell me my deck sucks and that I am a bad player.. And why? Because I simply don't like to play like that when I'm not in a legacy tournament.
Perhaps it's just better if mods closed down any discussion on the subject, because this will never stop and in this thread I've read quite some aggressive posts.
The opposite side of this is the way the "never combo" crowd assumes every combo is in a deck 100% dedicated to getting out that combo on turn 5.
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
This is about the most passive aggressive buttflustered way I could imagine to tell someone you don't like how they have fun.
Combo only really feels oppressive when the majority of the table is running it imo. When you have 50-75% of players in the game running a win con that ends the game on the spot is it really surprising that that's what wins the game most of the time? It's hard to be playing a 'fair' deck in that environment because you most likely have to fight through 80-120 life while thwarting two or three players' win conditions simultaneously, while they have essentially no pressure to do the same, except to interact lightly with each others' setup.
When you instead have a diverse selection of strategies at the table, as long as the players piloting them are skillful and making good calls on threat assessment, this becomes greatly alleviated. Instead of you struggling against three players to do the impossible and outrace all of them, it's them struggling to keep up with three players' threats while fighting through all of their answers to get their 'unfair' win. Just pack interaction for the things that give you trouble, let people play what they want and ask them to change up their decks regularly so you get some variety at the table. Everything sorts itself out pretty quickly.
Honestly, if we really wanna get to the root of these issues, I blame the implementation of a tournament structure to the game. Forget the Commander rules committee, the creator of the game himself never intended a tournament structure. You could argue, and I often do, that things like sanctioned tournaments, prize structures, eliminations, prize tiers, entry fees, etc, etc, is ALL an abomination to the game and should have never been introduced in the first place.
I mean, just look at the pro scene. Its a cess pool of cheaters. Fun stuff.
Suddenly, he tutor out the combo piece. He wins. Do you have blue in your color? Oh no, too bad, he wins then. (Krosan grip is so important!)
I don't remember a single GREAT game moment comes from an infinite combo player.... I mean, I could imagine if he top decks in the last turn of his life and win, but that would be a great moment regardless of the type of deck
Check out my competitive Ezuri, Claw of Progress primer!
Amulet of Vigor, Retreat to Hagra, Putrid Imp in battlefield -> float all mana, Scapeshift -> Regrowth Scapeshift -> bin Kozilek via Putrid Imp, shuffle gy to library -> float all mana -> Scapeshift -> E.Witness Scapeshift -> Entomb Kozilek, shuffle gy to Library -> Scapeshift.
This is what I get:
I just think that for some personalities, they will complain and rule out anything that isn't perceived as fun to them. Fun only on their own terms, sigh.
WUBRG Reaper King - Elf Tribal WUBRG | Tribal Fun
WRG Gishath, Sun's Avatar - Dinosaur Tribal WRG | Rawr!!!
WUG Derevi, Empyrial Tactician - Enchantress Tactics WUG | Enchantments Focused
GBG The Gitrog Monster - Land Shenanigans GBG | Lands/Mill Focused
WBW Kambal, Consul of Life Allocation Matters WBW | Life Gain/Loss focused
UBR Kess, Dissident Mage of the Lotus UBR | Spellslinger
BGB Hapatra, Vizier of Poisons - Counters & Tokens BGB | -1/-1 counters focused
C'mon man, I get you think your style of Magic is superior, and you might be a very good player and even a great guy outside of the game, but based on your rude and dismissive tone I wouldn't play with you. My group's been piloting turds (by your standards) for over twenty years and we thoroughly enjoy trying to kill each other as skillfully as we can with our non-optimal decks.
I honestly believe that's part of the issue on this thread. Everyone is arguing their position from essentially two diametrically opposed camps. But you don't have to insult the other side.
If you are about to join a game with an unknown group, the others might be playing their own combo decks/efficient stax or control decks ("competitive decks") or casual battle-cruiser decks ("casual decks") and you would be unaware of this fact. In many cases, however, steamrolling other players or being steamrolled by others is boring/unfun, even if it can be educational (outside of settings where you PAY to play and/or there is a prize for winning, in which case everything is fair game).
In this unknown setting, is there any reason why we can't just say "So you guys know, my deck trying to win on turn 3". When you put it like that, you aren't insulting the players of casual decks and you are giving them a chance to respond to that deck (such as advising you to take out another one) before the game starts. I mean, this just seems like common courtesy when dealing with unknown groups.
I cannot think of a more pure example of "adapting to the meta".
The point is that it is a race to the bottom
Seems to be this thread boils down to this.
What is allowed to finish a game?
When is a game allowed to finish?
Who is allowed to finish a game?
Why was that victory condition not stopped?
How was that victory assembled?
1) they tell a crappy story. A good game should ultimately tell an interesting story - one filled with power struggles, betrayals, back and forths, real game-of-thrones *****. A bad game is like a bad story - someone just comes in and wins out of nowhere. That's my favorite, most concise way of putting it.
2) it's the easiest way to win. The inherent difficulty of multiplayer is that anyone who pulls ahead gets pulled back to earth by the rest of the table. If you've got a huge army of zombies, best expect that the rest of the table will probably do something to curb your advantage. It's difficult to react to an advantage in the hand, though, short of discard and counterspells, both of which are usually a card-disadvantageous proposition in magic. And especially in a mixed meta, it's hard to know if you've got a full grip because you're setting up for a 1-turn-combo-out-of-nowhere, or because you're just playing carefully and not overcommitting or whatever (obviously repeat games will alleviate this problem). The bottom line is - it's very easy to win in a single turn, because you don't have to expose your power and risk getting targeted. You get to play a very introspective game where the only things your opponents are doing that matters is "are they going to kill me" and "are they going to disrupt me". Whereas the guy who slowly wins the game via board control and card advantage and politics, one player at a time, has to consider every creature, every effect, every card in hands and graveyards, all of it, and carefully play around it to find a path to victory. The hardest, most impressive victory to pull off is the one that everyone could see and anyone could have stopped. combo is usually the easiest, least impressive way to win.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I'd go a little further and say it comes down to this:
What unofficial code of conduct is someone trying to hold you/me/anyone else to?
BK'rrik Goodstuff
GWSythis Enchantress
URYusri Coin Flip
BRGKorvold Tokens
BGUYarok Lands Matter
WUBRaffine Looter
A lot of peoples answer to this will be an ancient document from a website that isn't posted along with Official Commander product that I would wager most people who play the game have never read or heard of.
There's a few cards like keldon firebombers and natural balance but that's about it in the "rein ramp in but don't end the game" camp as far as I can think of. Or just, like, kill that player.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
This sums up a lot of the problems with EDH. But people also flip their ***** when you play things like Pox.