I love people who say "nothing that happened mattered because of the combo." It really betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the nuances of the game. If you want to just play creatures and attack, I'm pretty sure pokemon is a better option.
You sound like exactly the type of player I would play against once and then avoid for the rest of my life.
You aren't clever for having figured out that combo is a good way to win at multiplayer, or for realizing that the opponent casting removal spells on non-combo pieces leaves them with fewer for combo pieces.
I generally avoid playing with people that start frothing at the mouth when I don't play by their special rules, so that's perfectly fine with me.
I love people who say "nothing that happened mattered because of the combo." It really betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the nuances of the game.
I agree with this but I'm sympathetic to that mindset. It can be demoralizing to build up a board state and then lose to a combo because you can't interact with it if you're not prepared for it. The fundamental problem isn't that infinite combos exist, it's that there exist different levels of power in deck power and player skill. You don't bring a nuke to a knife fight.
Infinite combos are fine in my book. Game has to end somehow. The only problem I have with them is if they take a long time to execute like storm or multiple turns. They're fun to pilot but tedious to watch after the third or fourth time. I have limited play time and I prefer to be engaged in a game rather than voyeurism.
The only people I see consistently complaining about combos are, in fact, the ones least willing to play any interaction. Seriously, as long as power levels are consistent then combo can exist just fine with other archetypes.
"Just run more interaction" as if people don't run protection for combos or can wait for the table to be tapped out.
"I skillfully waited for everyone to cast their non-combo threats then cast my combo while they were tapped out, I am a great player" no you are not
"I skillfully waited for people to cast their removal on non-combo threats then cast my combo, I am a great player" no you are not
"My opponents are playing cards like balefire dragon while I play cards like tooth and nail, I am a great player" no you are not
Combo obsoletes the other archetypes. When it's 40 life multiplayer, you either play fast combo or slow combo, aggro ceases to exist as a decktype. You don't understand the game well at all if you think that aggro was designed to scale to deal with 3 opponents with 40 life.
I love people who say "nothing that happened mattered because of the combo." It really betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the nuances of the game. If you want to just play creatures and attack, I'm pretty sure pokemon is a better option.
You sound like exactly the type of player I would play against once and then avoid for the rest of my life.
You aren't clever for having figured out that combo is a good way to win at multiplayer, or for realizing that the opponent casting removal spells on non-combo pieces leaves them with fewer for combo pieces.
I generally avoid playing with people that start frothing at the mouth when I don't play by their special rules, so that's perfectly fine with me.
I love people who say "nothing that happened mattered because of the combo." It really betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the nuances of the game.
I agree with this but I'm sympathetic to that mindset. It can be demoralizing to build up a board state and then lose to a combo because you can't interact with it if you're not prepared for it. The fundamental problem isn't that infinite combos exist, it's that there exist different levels of power in deck power and player skill. You don't bring a nuke to a knife fight.
Infinite combos are fine in my book. Game has to end somehow. The only problem I have with them is if they take a long time to execute like storm or multiple turns. They're fun to pilot but tedious to watch after the third or fourth time. I have limited play time and I prefer to be engaged in a game rather than voyeurism.
The only people I see consistently complaining about combos are, in fact, the ones least willing to play any interaction. Seriously, as long as power levels are consistent then combo can exist just fine with other archetypes.
"Just run more interaction" as if people don't run protection for combos or can wait for the table to be tapped out.
"I skillfully waited for everyone to cast their non-combo threats then cast my combo while they were tapped out, I am a great player" no you are not
"I skillfully waited for people to cast their removal on non-combo threats then cast my combo, I am a great player" no you are not
"My opponents are playing cards like balefire dragon while I play cards like tooth and nail, I am a great player" no you are not
Combo obsoletes the other archetypes. When it's 40 life multiplayer, you either play fast combo or slow combo, aggro ceases to exist as a decktype. You don't understand the game well at all if you think that aggro was designed to scale to deal with 3 opponents with 40 life.
Again, you putting everyone in your sandbox to make your self superior. Are you a good player for playing nice by playing aggro, no you are not.
You choose to play that deck. There are 5 colors for a reason. You run counter control to stop combos as you would to stop huge attacking creatures. The game is a battle for being the surviving wizard, not fair fight. Luck of draw, quality of cards, and skill determine the winners. Nothing is fair about that. Playing jank decks just makes the winnings better.
Again, you putting everyone in your sandbox to make your self superior. Are you a good player for playing nice by playing aggro, no you are not.
You choose to play that deck. There are 5 colors for a reason. You run counter control to stop combos as you would to stop huge attacking creatures. The game is a battle for being the surviving wizard, not fair fight. Luck of draw, quality of cards, and skill determine the winners. Nothing is fair about that. Playing jank decks just makes the winnings better.
I consider the players who bring deliberately weaker decks to be more considerate players in general, who have a much better mindset for playing a fun game of edh.
Players who build decks to win games do not care for the quality of gameplay, and, not surprisingly, the gameplay is miserable when playing with strong decks.
Just because a legal combination of cards creates a strong deck, does not mean that deck makes for fun games.
The best games I've played have all been with and against high-powered decks. Throwing bulk rares around because they have large numbers in the upper and lower right corners is bad Magic - where's the interaction? This format's card pool is better than legacy's; the decks should be powered appropriately.
Again, you putting everyone in your sandbox to make your self superior. Are you a good player for playing nice by playing aggro, no you are not.
You choose to play that deck. There are 5 colors for a reason. You run counter control to stop combos as you would to stop huge attacking creatures. The game is a battle for being the surviving wizard, not fair fight. Luck of draw, quality of cards, and skill determine the winners. Nothing is fair about that. Playing jank decks just makes the winnings better.
I consider the players who bring deliberately weaker decks to be more considerate players in general, who have a much better mindset for playing a fun game of edh.
Players who build decks to win games do not care for the quality of gameplay, and, not surprisingly, the gameplay is miserable when playing with strong decks.
Just because a legal combination of cards creates a strong deck, does not mean that deck makes for fun games.
More fun cards in a deck generally means jank. If I pay at a shop to play, I am bringing my best skill and deck to win. If you show up to play with jank and complain, why are you there detracting from competitive fun.
In casual, I play different decks that have less power for fun. In competitive money paid games, I am fighting for a win.
Seems like this thread has collected all the butt hurt players that can't understand competitive play and cards.
In the world of casual or training new players, I agree with you. When I train, I let them barrow my top decks to understand competitive play and cards. They understand fast what real magic is.
The title of the thread is basically "why people dislike infinite combos?". Obviously, people who dislike infinite combos will come here and share their reasons. It might be because they appreciate a type of game of magic that simply can't happen if you bring combo decks to the table. That is their personal preference and they came here to voice it, that is perfectly fine. Combo and competitive players should respect that.
However, these other players should also understand that, because you don't like that particular kind of game (trying to stop someone else from comboing), that doesn't mean that is a 'lame' style of play or that it is 'mindless' or 'easy', as I've seen thrown around here. Just respect people that like to use combos, even if you don't enjoy it in particular.
The OP's question later became 'why people that play combos don't like it when I play them?'. There are multiple answers to this question, the easiest one being: hypocrisy. Maybe your combo deck is better tuned and can combo more easily, so the opponents lose more and get angry. However, there are other possible explanations: maybe you made a deck with too high a density of combos that the table is not comfortable playing with, maybe your combos feel more oppressive or less interactive or out of the blue, and the opponents also don't like that. Heck, maybe it is just because, for some reason, their decks aren't properly equipped to deal with your particular strain of combo, and they feel as if that is ruining the experience. My advice is: talk to your playgroup, find out what is wrong and try to fix it. Communication is key. And mutual respect too.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
.
Would you like to read Commander stories? Check my latest stories, coming from Lorwyn and Innistrad: Ghoulcaller Gisa and Doran, The Siege Tower! If you like my writing, ask me to write something for your commander as well!
The best games I've played have all been with and against high-powered decks. Throwing bulk rares around because they have large numbers in the upper and lower right corners is bad Magic - where's the interaction? This format's card pool is better than legacy's; the decks should be powered appropriately.
I think that this represents a huge misconception about "casual" players. We aren't throwing around bulk rares and a rarely playing "bad Magic". It's just different. This is a format where Cyclonic Rift, Consecrated Sphinx, and Doubling Season are all potentially awesome (hardly "bulk rares"), but they would be unplayable in Legacy. However if we wanted to play Legacy, then we would play Legacy and we could have a format that is appropriately balanced by the presence of four Force of Will in almost every deck. Insisting that everyone who plays EDH should be playing 100-card Legacy Highlander is just extremely narrow-minded.
And yes, I know there are other people who insist that people who play hyper-competitively are "doing it wrong" but that is just as narrow-minded. Deriding how other people play EDH makes no sense to me. I say "to each their own", go find like-minded people, and have fun.
I enjoy playing my uber broken strategies, but there's a time and place for them.
If people don't want fast infinites, then I don't bring them. I usually don't bring them anyway to my usual group, but sometimes when I visit other groups they are okay with them.
A lot of players don't play enough instant-speed removal. Take Food Chain Prossh. Once you have infinite mana, just cast Comet Storm, Earthquake, Hurricane, Pestilence, Exsanguinate...Or use the infinite tokens with Blood Artist. Or use Coat of Arms and something that grants haste. That takes all of one turn.
So, essentially, when dealing with some infinite combos, no matter what color you're in, you're playing blue. (In that your removal spells are more like counterspells.) It's gotten so bad that I make a rule not to consider sorcery-speed removal "removal".
Fortunately, you have a few options. You can use instant-speed removal or counters, or you can (the other thing a lot of new players gripe about) play Stax, setting up answers to infinite combos (Taxing is pretty effective, though you need to make Prossh cost at least 6 more, and most taxes only tax noncreature spells because creturz mattur.) before they're played. But I say ¿por qué no los dos?
Earthquake and hurricane, you are killing yourself.
But i get what you are saying.
Some Elfball variants use Hurricane with Wellwisher. Basically use of x-cost spells that damage everyone equally is acceptable as long as you have more life than any other player, and you're in one color that can gain life, one color that can damage more efficiently than anyone else, and one color that does a bit of both.
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Again, you putting everyone in your sandbox to make your self superior. Are you a good player for playing nice by playing aggro, no you are not.
You choose to play that deck. There are 5 colors for a reason. You run counter control to stop combos as you would to stop huge attacking creatures. The game is a battle for being the surviving wizard, not fair fight. Luck of draw, quality of cards, and skill determine the winners. Nothing is fair about that. Playing jank decks just makes the winnings better.
I consider the players who bring deliberately weaker decks to be more considerate players in general, who have a much better mindset for playing a fun game of edh.
Players who build decks to win games do not care for the quality of gameplay, and, not surprisingly, the gameplay is miserable when playing with strong decks.
Just because a legal combination of cards creates a strong deck, does not mean that deck makes for fun games.
More fun cards in a deck generally means jank. If I pay at a shop to play, I am bringing my best skill and deck to win. If you show up to play with jank and complain, why are you there detracting from competitive fun.
In casual, I play different decks that have less power for fun. In competitive money paid games, I am fighting for a win.
Seems like this thread has collected all the butt hurt players that can't understand competitive play and cards.
In the world of casual or training new players, I agree with you. When I train, I let them barrow my top decks to understand competitive play and cards. They understand fast what real magic is.
I fully understand the competitive version of the game. I think it is the worst gameplay magic has to offer. It's not fun at all to play.
Where plays are mostly trying to end the game on the spot, set up a way to end the game on the spot, or stop a play trying to end the game on the spot.
I think that leads to some of the lamest decision trees in magic, with nothing but forced plays. The idea of incremental advantages for example doesn't really exist when your opponents are trying to set up doomsday piles, deterministic paradox engine tutor chains, or food chain infinites. You either answer it or take a gamble that the players who come after you will answer it, the game is not fun when it can come down to coin flip decisions like that. It's much better when you can flip multiple coins within a single game and build incremental advantage through making the right call frequently, not putting it all on the line every time. Competitive magic is like going all in poker every hand, where casual magic has pot size limits.
I'm not saying you shouldn't play competitive decks against others who also want to play competitive decks.
I am saying I find them awful even if I myself am playing competitively, and why.
Guys, its fine to have this discussion. Please make sure to not make things personal and refrain from trolling and flaming each other. There is no right answer to a question like this and we do want to let everyone speak their mind. We have already received several reports from this thread though so please... keep things on discussion and stop attacking each other.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
There's so much deriding in this thread it's not even funny.
What is it with people and the concept that their opinion of what's 'fun' in the game is the golden rule? The standard that must followed? 'Play my way or you're not doing right!' Why must there be so much contention something so subjective???
I'm going to be a little frank here:
There is no one, right way to play EDH. Get over it.
There is only your preferences and how you go about them. Guess what: not everyone out there is gonna share those preferences. It's just something that you have to factor in. That doesn't make you 'wrong' or them 'right'. Or the opposite. What that simply means is that not everyone is compatible with each other. Sad but true.
The truly sad part is that this...'debate'...of casual vs. competitive has bogged down the thread. Maybe this thread should just be closed?
The truly sad part is that this...'debate'...of casual vs. competitive has bogged down the thread. Maybe this thread should just be closed?
Combos != Competitive
You can play casual combos too. Making your combos as streamlined, fast, and non interactive as possible makes them competitive. The basic question here does not need to be a casual vs competitive question. You can also play a competitive deck that is not a combo deck. In most regards combo is just more efficient here because of the high life totals and multiple players.
I don't necessarily hate combo, I personally just like to know where we are setting the bar before the game starts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
The truly sad part is that this...'debate'...of casual vs. competitive has bogged down the thread. Maybe this thread should just be closed?
Combos != Competitive
You can play casual combos too. Making your combos as streamlined, fast, and non interactive as possible makes them competitive. The basic question here does not need to be a casual vs competitive question. You can also play a competitive deck that is not a combo deck. In most regards combo is just more efficient here because of the high life totals and multiple players.
I don't necessarily hate combo, I personally just like to know where we are setting the bar before the game starts.
Oh, I agree! I was just referring to all the personal attacks going on this thread, which seem to be taking it in the wrong direction. Things are getting a little hot around here, is all.
I have many more EDH decks then I mention in my sig. I think most of us do. I have silly nonsense, like 5-Color Angels and Samurai Tribal lead by Johan. I also have a VERY solid Chainer deck, and Arcum combo.
I recently joined a new playgroup. My first game with them, I used Chainer, and won via Mike/Trike. No one seemed thrilled with me. Next week, I brought my Samurai, and got stomped up and down the block. I then had a pretty good idea of the power level of most of the decks, so I now bring my mid-range stuff, like Zirilan or BW vampires. I do still bring Arcum, because we get one guy that tends to pack Niv-Mizzit combo, but I digress.
If you are gonna socialize, then socialize. Ask people what kind of game they would like to play, and no one will get upset. I don't want to be known as the guy that has the best deck and wins all the time. I want to be seen as the fun person to play with. Now, if everyone wants to bring their A game, I'm all for it, but make sure everyone knows what sort of game they are playing. Otherwise its like 3 people sat down to play Dungeons and Dragons and one sat down to Warhammer 40k, and he declares his Space Marines killed the level 2 adventuring party.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks:
Modern: Jund
Legacy: Pox
EDH: Chainer Reanimation and The Dragon Show, with Zirilan of the Claw
Well, let me ask this then in general. I have an enchantment prison deck. It's slow, easily to be disrupted if you want it to be. If you let me just keep dropping one enchantment after another.
I have a combo I love doing, which is Replenish - Tunnel Vision usually naming replenish or something else if I already have it in hand. Dumping my entire deck pretty much at once. I have no clue what will happen with everything out there. But it'll happen either the turn I cast it or one turn later.
How do you feel about that? It's not infinite, but it's brutal.
Well, let me ask this then in general. I have an enchantment prison deck. It's slow, easily to be disrupted if you want it to be. If you let me just keep dropping one enchantment after another.
I have a combo I love doing, which is Replenish - Tunnel Vision usually naming replenish or something else if I already have it in hand. Dumping my entire deck pretty much at once. I have no clue what will happen with everything out there. But it'll happen either the turn I cast it or one turn later.
How do you feel about that? It's not infinite, but it's brutal.
I used to do something similar in a "fair" Sharrum deck I built once. To be fair, it honestly depends on what your deck can do from there. If the next person can just Austere Command you back off the table then its not that big of a deal but if you doing that always wins the game right then and there... it becomes a question of how reliable it is to go off.
Questions like that are always going to be answered with an answer that it depends on what the meta is and how likely they can interact with it. When you start involving less and less interaction in wincons is generally when people start getting more and more annoyed by it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
I don't think it is the infinite combos themselves that people get distraught about, but when somebody plays that same linear plan to get that infinite combo every game, like a guy in my play group has one Commander Deck, it is Meren and the only way he ever wins is Mike and Trike. Every game he ever plays is based around stalling till he gets that combo and then just killing everyone so it just is dull to play against repeatedly.
I love people who say "nothing that happened mattered because of the combo." It really betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the nuances of the game. If you want to just play creatures and attack, I'm pretty sure pokemon is a better option.
I love people who make a strawman argument and assume that boring creature aggro is the only preferred way to play by people who dislike game-ending infinite combos. It really betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the four main player/deck types and of the nuances of social interaction. And it's especially great when they decide to throw out Pokémon insults, as if that's original.
To be fair, I'm only assuming you lumped me into that comment because your reply was right after mine and practically quoted me when I said:
Just like that, the game was over. Nothing anyone had done mattered. No prior damage mattered; no spells anyone had played. All invalidated in one boring display that amounted to "let's shuffle up and start from scratch again."
But you fundamentally and deliberately took it out of context, given that I quite specifically stated just one sentence before that that we were building up boards with more than just creatures.
See, there are many different ways to build and play - aggro (which you seem to despise), control, combo, vorthos, and any combination of the three.
I'm the first to admit that combo is a legitimate strategy for winning. But even combo can be played a variety of ways. There's value combo, control combo, lethal aggro combo, and infinite combo. I love games where people play combos throughout the game; I even love a good game-ending combo after the game has been going a while, after a great tug-of-war of interactivity, where it looks like one player is going to win, then another, then it swings back to the first player's favor. What I hate is someone ignoring the rest of the table, playing solitaire, and then expecting that we enjoyed their masterbatory display as much as they did. That I find boring.
As I stated in my previous post, I play Magic to interact with people, to be social. I don't play it to ignore them.
If you paid to play EDH at the LGS, by all means do what it takes to win. I don't think most will dispute that. I don't know how people will view casual games, but my version of casual is one where it's between your regular playgroup, or people you're familiar with and just seek to have a good time all round. And it's free. No prizes, nothing.
I can only assume the OP is describing the above or similar. If he/she is, I definitely don't think combo is the place to be. If the entire group plays cutthroat EDH, then sure by all means go ahead and do your thing. However I did warn that these groups rarely play or the turnover rate is high. But it's the player's choice at the end.
As to why combo players get bitter over another's, that's usually a sign of fracture and eventual exit from the group. Your friend or yourself (or whoever)might be ill-suited to a multiplayer game. He/she might have a better time doing competitive 1v1 tourney magic, and that's not dissing the person. If there's isn't one available your region, try to do something about it.
One thing I like to address is that "weaker" cards doesn't mean the player is casual (aka low aptitude). It's a question of choice. For example, I played competitive magic in my early years, I've played fast mana, time magic decks, combo decks, stax. But I've come to settle for a lower power, and have been with my playgroup for the longest time as a magic player. You just don't play the most powerful cards available at the expense of your friends' time.
If fun equals you winning, I don't think one gets multiplayer magic. There're paid formats for that.
The question was why people don't like infinite combos, not whose opinion is better... but hey, it's the internet right?
I think the most important point that's been made about infinite combos is they tend to disregard two of the rules that make commander unique, namely the 40 starting life and multiplayer aspect. This makes infinite combos by far the most efficient way to win a game of commander. There is nothing inherently wrong with playing combos, but they tend to fundamentally change how the game is played especially when built competitively. This is problematic if you have players who don't want to play that way, as they essentially cannot play how they want. Combos completely invalidate them and their deck. This isn't a matter of who's better at magic... it's a philosophical difference that can't coexist at it's extremes. There are exceptions of course and casual or accidental combos that an anti-combo playgroup may find perfectly acceptable. Just talk and make sure everyone is on the same page. If the other players don't play with infinite combos you shouldn't either. They have intentionally handicapped themselves to create a certain type of gameplay (which matches the founding principles of the format) and you will have an unfair advantage and ruin the type of game they want if you do. If the consensus is that combos are fine then more power to you, there is no better way, just a difference in philosophies.
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
The question was why people don't like infinite combos, not whose opinion is better... but hey, it's the internet right?
Honestly I think in a lot of cases its when someone suddenly pushes for a win from nowhere that is the concern. You could make arguments that the issue is with haymaker wincons in general. What if my commander is an attacking commander and I just chain say 3-4 turns in a row without using any sort of loops? I can easily attack and kill 1-2 players with that much time with some commanders.
I think the issue most people have with combos is that you can go from nothing but lands in play to declaring victory. People want the build up of the game to matter and some combo strategies just drop their land / ramp and wait until they can mash the win button.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
I love people who say "nothing that happened mattered because of the combo." It really betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the nuances of the game. If you want to just play creatures and attack, I'm pretty sure pokemon is a better option.
I love people who make a strawman argument and assume that boring creature aggro is the only preferred way to play by people who dislike game-ending infinite combos. It really betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the four main player/deck types and of the nuances of social interaction. And it's especially great when they decide to throw out Pokémon insults, as if that's original.
To be fair, I'm only assuming you lumped me into that comment because your reply was right after mine and practically quoted me when I said:
Just like that, the game was over. Nothing anyone had done mattered. No prior damage mattered; no spells anyone had played. All invalidated in one boring display that amounted to "let's shuffle up and start from scratch again."
But you fundamentally and deliberately took it out of context, given that I quite specifically stated just one sentence before that that we were building up boards with more than just creatures.
See, there are many different ways to build and play - aggro (which you seem to despise), control, combo, vorthos, and any combination of the three.
I'm the first to admit that combo is a legitimate strategy for winning. But even combo can be played a variety of ways. There's value combo, control combo, lethal aggro combo, and infinite combo. I love games where people play combos throughout the game; I even love a good game-ending combo after the game has been going a while, after a great tug-of-war of interactivity, where it looks like one player is going to win, then another, then it swings back to the first player's favor. What I hate is someone ignoring the rest of the table, playing solitaire, and then expecting that we enjoyed their masterbatory display as much as they did. That I find boring.
As I stated in my previous post, I play Magic to interact with people, to be social. I don't play it to ignore them.
It wasn't directed only at you. Here are some of the comments prior to mine:
But he forgot one part: The interaction.
When I lose to combat damage that usually means I've been on the losing side for 5-6 turns.
It means I did a lot of things but the opponent did better things or my actions just weren't good enough.
It also means the opponent gives me an entire turn (and sometimes even more) to get a response.
...
That is why people don't like it. Why bother playing the deck when the opponent just ignores all of it and combo's out?
I enjoy having giant creatures to beat people to death with. I find that combo decks are often quite non interactive and linear which is not what I play EDH for.
Combo obsoletes the other archetypes. When it's 40 life multiplayer, you either play fast combo or slow combo, aggro ceases to exist as a decktype. You don't understand the game well at all if you think that aggro was designed to scale to deal with 3 opponents with 40 life.
It is quite clear that the primary detractors of combo in this thread are behind the "smash face" approach to magic. I play all different types of decks. In fact, a lot of my decks are built to specifically avoid having combos in them (Marath and Maelstrom Wanderer are really easy to accidentally combo), but my issue is not with one playstyle being better than the other. My issue is that the primary detractors of combos, including the clunky 5+ card ones, have the mindsets of scrubs - they have their own rules on how the game must be played and everyone else is "cheap" or "not a real player." Don't just label an opposing argument as a strawman because you don't like it.
I especially take issue with the idea that "nothing that happened previously mattered" because it is untrue in any game with interaction. Sometimes that Sire of Stagnation eats your combo pieces, sometimes your opponent has a Blood Artist that is preventing your combo for long enough to allow someone else to win, or sometimes you've had your face beaten in hard enough that Ad Nauseam will kill you before you hit a critical mass of cards. so that statement is only true if you look at the game in a very linear fashion (incidentally, I've played pokemon and it is very much like this). There exists a dimension of the game beyond what is on the battlefield and in graveyards.
The question was why people don't like infinite combos, not whose opinion is better... but hey, it's the internet right?
Honestly I think in a lot of cases its when someone suddenly pushes for a win from nowhere that is the concern. You could make arguments that the issue is with haymaker wincons in general. What if my commander is an attacking commander and I just chain say 3-4 turns in a row without using any sort of loops? I can easily attack and kill 1-2 players with that much time with some commanders.
I think the issue most people have with combos is that you can go from nothing but lands in play to declaring victory. People want the build up of the game to matter and some combo strategies just drop their land / ramp and wait until they can mash the win button.
It is sort of the same difference either way. I think it's more of a meta call at that point where people draw the line. Generally speaking, if you are chaining combats or turns together that probably took you a lot more setup than the most efficient infinite combos that just take one or two cards so it's not as frowned upon (at least in my experience). My Kresh deck is designed to just go off in one or two turns when it's ready and even though it's usually winning through combat damage, it's still a sudden win that people can either answer or they're dead. It does require multiple cards and intimate knowledge of the deck and it's paths to victory so it is far from as simple as casting Tooth and Nail or Doomsday. I have one playgroup that has no issue with it whatsoever and another play group that I wouldn't even dare take it out of the box against as they'd be screaming bloody murder.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"Just run more interaction" as if people don't run protection for combos or can wait for the table to be tapped out.
"I skillfully waited for everyone to cast their non-combo threats then cast my combo while they were tapped out, I am a great player" no you are not
"I skillfully waited for people to cast their removal on non-combo threats then cast my combo, I am a great player" no you are not
"My opponents are playing cards like balefire dragon while I play cards like tooth and nail, I am a great player" no you are not
Combo obsoletes the other archetypes. When it's 40 life multiplayer, you either play fast combo or slow combo, aggro ceases to exist as a decktype. You don't understand the game well at all if you think that aggro was designed to scale to deal with 3 opponents with 40 life.
Again, you putting everyone in your sandbox to make your self superior. Are you a good player for playing nice by playing aggro, no you are not.
You choose to play that deck. There are 5 colors for a reason. You run counter control to stop combos as you would to stop huge attacking creatures. The game is a battle for being the surviving wizard, not fair fight. Luck of draw, quality of cards, and skill determine the winners. Nothing is fair about that. Playing jank decks just makes the winnings better.
Multiplayer Decks- Memnarch - Animar, Soul of Elements - Zur, the Enchanter - Atraxa, Praetors' Voice - Food Chain Tazri - Teysa Karlov
Modern BUMill and Bant Spirits.
Thank you Xenphire for the signature!
I consider the players who bring deliberately weaker decks to be more considerate players in general, who have a much better mindset for playing a fun game of edh.
Players who build decks to win games do not care for the quality of gameplay, and, not surprisingly, the gameplay is miserable when playing with strong decks.
Just because a legal combination of cards creates a strong deck, does not mean that deck makes for fun games.
Check out my competitive Ezuri, Claw of Progress primer!
More fun cards in a deck generally means jank. If I pay at a shop to play, I am bringing my best skill and deck to win. If you show up to play with jank and complain, why are you there detracting from competitive fun.
In casual, I play different decks that have less power for fun. In competitive money paid games, I am fighting for a win.
Seems like this thread has collected all the butt hurt players that can't understand competitive play and cards.
In the world of casual or training new players, I agree with you. When I train, I let them barrow my top decks to understand competitive play and cards. They understand fast what real magic is.
Multiplayer Decks- Memnarch - Animar, Soul of Elements - Zur, the Enchanter - Atraxa, Praetors' Voice - Food Chain Tazri - Teysa Karlov
Modern BUMill and Bant Spirits.
Thank you Xenphire for the signature!
The title of the thread is basically "why people dislike infinite combos?". Obviously, people who dislike infinite combos will come here and share their reasons. It might be because they appreciate a type of game of magic that simply can't happen if you bring combo decks to the table. That is their personal preference and they came here to voice it, that is perfectly fine. Combo and competitive players should respect that.
However, these other players should also understand that, because you don't like that particular kind of game (trying to stop someone else from comboing), that doesn't mean that is a 'lame' style of play or that it is 'mindless' or 'easy', as I've seen thrown around here. Just respect people that like to use combos, even if you don't enjoy it in particular.
The OP's question later became 'why people that play combos don't like it when I play them?'. There are multiple answers to this question, the easiest one being: hypocrisy. Maybe your combo deck is better tuned and can combo more easily, so the opponents lose more and get angry. However, there are other possible explanations: maybe you made a deck with too high a density of combos that the table is not comfortable playing with, maybe your combos feel more oppressive or less interactive or out of the blue, and the opponents also don't like that. Heck, maybe it is just because, for some reason, their decks aren't properly equipped to deal with your particular strain of combo, and they feel as if that is ruining the experience. My advice is: talk to your playgroup, find out what is wrong and try to fix it. Communication is key. And mutual respect too.
Read my other stories as well (some ongoing):
Reaper King (a horror story), Kaalia of the Vast (an origin story), Sequels for Innistrad (Alternative sequels for Inn), Grey Areas (Odric's fanfic), Royal Succession (goblins),The Tracker's Message (eldrazi on Innistrad) and Ugin and his Eye (the end of OGW).
I think that this represents a huge misconception about "casual" players. We aren't throwing around bulk rares and a rarely playing "bad Magic". It's just different. This is a format where Cyclonic Rift, Consecrated Sphinx, and Doubling Season are all potentially awesome (hardly "bulk rares"), but they would be unplayable in Legacy. However if we wanted to play Legacy, then we would play Legacy and we could have a format that is appropriately balanced by the presence of four Force of Will in almost every deck. Insisting that everyone who plays EDH should be playing 100-card Legacy Highlander is just extremely narrow-minded.
And yes, I know there are other people who insist that people who play hyper-competitively are "doing it wrong" but that is just as narrow-minded. Deriding how other people play EDH makes no sense to me. I say "to each their own", go find like-minded people, and have fun.
Jalira, Master Polymorphist | Endrek Sahr, Master Breeder | Bosh, Iron Golem | Ezuri, Renegade Leader
Brago, King Eternal | Oona, Queen of the Fae | Wort, Boggart Auntie | Wort, the Raidmother
Captain Sisay | Rhys, the Redeemed | Trostani, Selesnya's Voice | Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight | Obzedat, Ghost Council | Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind | Vorel of the Hull Clade
Uril, the Miststalker | Prossh, Skyraider of Kher | Nicol Bolas | Progenitus
Ghave, Guru of Spores | Zedruu the Greathearted | Damia, Sage of Stone | Riku of Two Reflections
If people don't want fast infinites, then I don't bring them. I usually don't bring them anyway to my usual group, but sometimes when I visit other groups they are okay with them.
The Unidentified Fantastic Flying Girl.
EDH
Xenagos, the God of Stompy
The Gitrog Monster: Oppressive Value.
Marchesa, Marionette Master - Undying Robots
Yuriko, the Hydra Omnivore
I make dolls as a hobby.
Some Elfball variants use Hurricane with Wellwisher. Basically use of x-cost spells that damage everyone equally is acceptable as long as you have more life than any other player, and you're in one color that can gain life, one color that can damage more efficiently than anyone else, and one color that does a bit of both.
The other way Prossh wins is storm, which in Jund colors, would be Tendrils of Corruption, Grapeshot, Empty the Warrens, or Dragonstorm or Pack Hunt. And that's just one quick infinite combo. You need instant-speed answers, or pre-answers: Rule of Law, for instance, stops most (but not all) combo decks.
On phasing:
I fully understand the competitive version of the game. I think it is the worst gameplay magic has to offer. It's not fun at all to play.
Where plays are mostly trying to end the game on the spot, set up a way to end the game on the spot, or stop a play trying to end the game on the spot.
I think that leads to some of the lamest decision trees in magic, with nothing but forced plays. The idea of incremental advantages for example doesn't really exist when your opponents are trying to set up doomsday piles, deterministic paradox engine tutor chains, or food chain infinites. You either answer it or take a gamble that the players who come after you will answer it, the game is not fun when it can come down to coin flip decisions like that. It's much better when you can flip multiple coins within a single game and build incremental advantage through making the right call frequently, not putting it all on the line every time. Competitive magic is like going all in poker every hand, where casual magic has pot size limits.
I'm not saying you shouldn't play competitive decks against others who also want to play competitive decks.
I am saying I find them awful even if I myself am playing competitively, and why.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
There's so much deriding in this thread it's not even funny.
What is it with people and the concept that their opinion of what's 'fun' in the game is the golden rule? The standard that must followed? 'Play my way or you're not doing right!' Why must there be so much contention something so subjective???
I'm going to be a little frank here:
There is only your preferences and how you go about them. Guess what: not everyone out there is gonna share those preferences. It's just something that you have to factor in. That doesn't make you 'wrong' or them 'right'. Or the opposite. What that simply means is that not everyone is compatible with each other. Sad but true.
The truly sad part is that this...'debate'...of casual vs. competitive has bogged down the thread. Maybe this thread should just be closed?
BK'rrik Goodstuff
GWSythis Enchantress
URYusri Coin Flip
BRGKorvold Tokens
BGUYarok Lands Matter
WUBRaffine Looter
Combos != Competitive
You can play casual combos too. Making your combos as streamlined, fast, and non interactive as possible makes them competitive. The basic question here does not need to be a casual vs competitive question. You can also play a competitive deck that is not a combo deck. In most regards combo is just more efficient here because of the high life totals and multiple players.
I don't necessarily hate combo, I personally just like to know where we are setting the bar before the game starts.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
Oh, I agree! I was just referring to all the personal attacks going on this thread, which seem to be taking it in the wrong direction. Things are getting a little hot around here, is all.
BK'rrik Goodstuff
GWSythis Enchantress
URYusri Coin Flip
BRGKorvold Tokens
BGUYarok Lands Matter
WUBRaffine Looter
I recently joined a new playgroup. My first game with them, I used Chainer, and won via Mike/Trike. No one seemed thrilled with me. Next week, I brought my Samurai, and got stomped up and down the block. I then had a pretty good idea of the power level of most of the decks, so I now bring my mid-range stuff, like Zirilan or BW vampires. I do still bring Arcum, because we get one guy that tends to pack Niv-Mizzit combo, but I digress.
If you are gonna socialize, then socialize. Ask people what kind of game they would like to play, and no one will get upset. I don't want to be known as the guy that has the best deck and wins all the time. I want to be seen as the fun person to play with. Now, if everyone wants to bring their A game, I'm all for it, but make sure everyone knows what sort of game they are playing. Otherwise its like 3 people sat down to play Dungeons and Dragons and one sat down to Warhammer 40k, and he declares his Space Marines killed the level 2 adventuring party.
Modern: Jund
Legacy: Pox
EDH: Chainer Reanimation and The Dragon Show, with Zirilan of the Claw
I have a combo I love doing, which is Replenish - Tunnel Vision usually naming replenish or something else if I already have it in hand. Dumping my entire deck pretty much at once. I have no clue what will happen with everything out there. But it'll happen either the turn I cast it or one turn later.
How do you feel about that? It's not infinite, but it's brutal.
I used to do something similar in a "fair" Sharrum deck I built once. To be fair, it honestly depends on what your deck can do from there. If the next person can just Austere Command you back off the table then its not that big of a deal but if you doing that always wins the game right then and there... it becomes a question of how reliable it is to go off.
Questions like that are always going to be answered with an answer that it depends on what the meta is and how likely they can interact with it. When you start involving less and less interaction in wincons is generally when people start getting more and more annoyed by it.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
Dragons of Legend, Lead by Scion of the UR-Dragon
The Gitrog Monster
Gonti, Lord of Luxury
Shogun Saskia
Hive World
Atraxa hates fun
Abzan
To be fair, I'm only assuming you lumped me into that comment because your reply was right after mine and practically quoted me when I said: But you fundamentally and deliberately took it out of context, given that I quite specifically stated just one sentence before that that we were building up boards with more than just creatures.
See, there are many different ways to build and play - aggro (which you seem to despise), control, combo, vorthos, and any combination of the three.
I'm the first to admit that combo is a legitimate strategy for winning. But even combo can be played a variety of ways. There's value combo, control combo, lethal aggro combo, and infinite combo. I love games where people play combos throughout the game; I even love a good game-ending combo after the game has been going a while, after a great tug-of-war of interactivity, where it looks like one player is going to win, then another, then it swings back to the first player's favor. What I hate is someone ignoring the rest of the table, playing solitaire, and then expecting that we enjoyed their masterbatory display as much as they did. That I find boring.
As I stated in my previous post, I play Magic to interact with people, to be social. I don't play it to ignore them.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
I can only assume the OP is describing the above or similar. If he/she is, I definitely don't think combo is the place to be. If the entire group plays cutthroat EDH, then sure by all means go ahead and do your thing. However I did warn that these groups rarely play or the turnover rate is high. But it's the player's choice at the end.
As to why combo players get bitter over another's, that's usually a sign of fracture and eventual exit from the group. Your friend or yourself (or whoever)might be ill-suited to a multiplayer game. He/she might have a better time doing competitive 1v1 tourney magic, and that's not dissing the person. If there's isn't one available your region, try to do something about it.
One thing I like to address is that "weaker" cards doesn't mean the player is casual (aka low aptitude). It's a question of choice. For example, I played competitive magic in my early years, I've played fast mana, time magic decks, combo decks, stax. But I've come to settle for a lower power, and have been with my playgroup for the longest time as a magic player. You just don't play the most powerful cards available at the expense of your friends' time.
If fun equals you winning, I don't think one gets multiplayer magic. There're paid formats for that.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
I think the most important point that's been made about infinite combos is they tend to disregard two of the rules that make commander unique, namely the 40 starting life and multiplayer aspect. This makes infinite combos by far the most efficient way to win a game of commander. There is nothing inherently wrong with playing combos, but they tend to fundamentally change how the game is played especially when built competitively. This is problematic if you have players who don't want to play that way, as they essentially cannot play how they want. Combos completely invalidate them and their deck. This isn't a matter of who's better at magic... it's a philosophical difference that can't coexist at it's extremes. There are exceptions of course and casual or accidental combos that an anti-combo playgroup may find perfectly acceptable. Just talk and make sure everyone is on the same page. If the other players don't play with infinite combos you shouldn't either. They have intentionally handicapped themselves to create a certain type of gameplay (which matches the founding principles of the format) and you will have an unfair advantage and ruin the type of game they want if you do. If the consensus is that combos are fine then more power to you, there is no better way, just a difference in philosophies.
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
Honestly I think in a lot of cases its when someone suddenly pushes for a win from nowhere that is the concern. You could make arguments that the issue is with haymaker wincons in general. What if my commander is an attacking commander and I just chain say 3-4 turns in a row without using any sort of loops? I can easily attack and kill 1-2 players with that much time with some commanders.
I think the issue most people have with combos is that you can go from nothing but lands in play to declaring victory. People want the build up of the game to matter and some combo strategies just drop their land / ramp and wait until they can mash the win button.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
It wasn't directed only at you. Here are some of the comments prior to mine:
It is quite clear that the primary detractors of combo in this thread are behind the "smash face" approach to magic. I play all different types of decks. In fact, a lot of my decks are built to specifically avoid having combos in them (Marath and Maelstrom Wanderer are really easy to accidentally combo), but my issue is not with one playstyle being better than the other. My issue is that the primary detractors of combos, including the clunky 5+ card ones, have the mindsets of scrubs - they have their own rules on how the game must be played and everyone else is "cheap" or "not a real player." Don't just label an opposing argument as a strawman because you don't like it.
I especially take issue with the idea that "nothing that happened previously mattered" because it is untrue in any game with interaction. Sometimes that Sire of Stagnation eats your combo pieces, sometimes your opponent has a Blood Artist that is preventing your combo for long enough to allow someone else to win, or sometimes you've had your face beaten in hard enough that Ad Nauseam will kill you before you hit a critical mass of cards. so that statement is only true if you look at the game in a very linear fashion (incidentally, I've played pokemon and it is very much like this). There exists a dimension of the game beyond what is on the battlefield and in graveyards.
It is sort of the same difference either way. I think it's more of a meta call at that point where people draw the line. Generally speaking, if you are chaining combats or turns together that probably took you a lot more setup than the most efficient infinite combos that just take one or two cards so it's not as frowned upon (at least in my experience). My Kresh deck is designed to just go off in one or two turns when it's ready and even though it's usually winning through combat damage, it's still a sudden win that people can either answer or they're dead. It does require multiple cards and intimate knowledge of the deck and it's paths to victory so it is far from as simple as casting Tooth and Nail or Doomsday. I have one playgroup that has no issue with it whatsoever and another play group that I wouldn't even dare take it out of the box against as they'd be screaming bloody murder.