It is never victory from nothing though. It is victory from every choice every player has made up to that point in the game. Where every piece of removal was directed, where every point of life was spent where every single mana that was tapped.
The way you treat the game at that point is up to you but to get angry at it "ending out of nowhere" is betraying the game you just played and also betraying how much you care about winning and how that game is won.
It is never victory from nothing though. It is victory from every choice every player has made up to that point in the game. Where every piece of removal was directed, where every point of life was spent where every single mana that was tapped.
The way you treat the game at that point is up to you but to get angry at it "ending out of nowhere" is betraying the game you just played and also betraying how much you care about winning and how that game is won.
When the decision tree is play archenemy to take out infinite combos, play your own infinite combos, or lose to infinite combos, you can't see why people wouldn't like them?
That isn't true though. I know you don't believe this or agree with it but it isn't true speaking as someone who plays combo. Also ignoring what is in my posts to make claims that only a select few anti combo diehards in this thread believe has gotten very tiresome.
Also making the claim that archenemy forms in Commander only due to Combo and not when 1 person in the game gets a lot of advantage or a board is disingenuous
Most infinite combos die to a counterspell or a spot removal. If people complain about an infinite combo it is quite similar to when an agro player complains about a mass removal because they have an empty hand with a poor draw engine (or a lack of it)and so on. Maybe is a bit annoying, sure, there are tons of ways to deal with them, sure too.
Yes, let me just scrap playing a deck i enjoy to build a deck full of counters.
Your argument means that we have to play lots counters and/or lots of spot removal. First we have the task of getting the card, then we have to wait to use them on the X amount of combos a deck can do. You're basically saying that the only reliable way to counter a combo deck (reliably) is to play Dimir excursively if you don;t want to be hit by X number of combos (and by X i mean that combo decks usually have many different combos using different cards).
The best example why people detest combo... Look no further than the recent Standard bannings. Combo decks actually narrow a deckbuilder's card pool. When a combo is so efficient and easy to set up there's usually no proper/viable answer. Even in EDH, people are obliged to play a "side game", needing to keep their mana open instead of progressing their own. You suddenly feel a need to play more instant-speed cards than the cool, sweet sorcery-speed spells. I'm not saying not to run answers, but if one's Plan A becomes stopping a combo player, that is totally wrong. If every game becomes archenemy it's all gone wrong.
This leaves two choices: Either you join the combo or you play elsewhere. Sorry to say but there's rarely a middleground.
Standard players were forced to make the exact same decision. To not play Standard events, or to suck it up and join the degen fest. Combo fest normally has bad consequences. Turnout becomes low, product shifting goes stale, confidence in the game shrinks. Translate it to casual multiplayer EDH, your friends stop turning up, or more disagreements/arguments ensue, feelbads, feeling marginalized, feeling of a necessary arms race, etc...
Just wanna point out that it's my belief most people that hate combo, hate it for the very fact that it's anticlimactic. Not to mention boring as well.
Most infinite combos die to a counterspell or a spot removal. If people complain about an infinite combo it is quite similar to when an agro player complains about a mass removal because they have an empty hand with a poor draw engine (or a lack of it)and so on. Maybe is a bit anoying, sure, there are tons of ways to deal with them, sure too.
No, it's not the same.
The aggro player doesn't immediately lose to a board wipe.
The aggro player has several turns to come up with an answer.
Man, why is this turning into a philosophical discussion....the real issue is that he who goes the combo route usually tries to do so in the most tuned way possible. It creates a power level disparity where the table is forced to watch an objectively much better deck goldfish. A lot of players do not want to give up playing with their pet cards and would rather boot the combo guy instead. The complaining is just a precursor to that.
Oh and there is a big difference between decks that happen to sometimes combo and those designed to combo off.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
G Azusa, Lost but Seeking G UG Tishana, Voice of Thunder GU UBW Sen Triplets WBU WUBGAtraxa, Praetors' Voice GBUW WUBRGJodah, Archmage Eternal GRBUW GWR Mayael the Anima RWG RWB Edgar Markov BWR WG Gaddok Teeg GW W Oketra the True W
--- My Decklist Folder
I've always found that the most effective time for combos (infinite or otherwise) are the first time you ever use them. After that, they become a known quantity. Players can usually see them coming and respond accordingly the first time they get the chance to. Heck, I can't tell you how many times I've cast Purphoros while playing Prossh only for that smith god get exiled, sent back to my hand or thrown back into the deck. It happens often enough that I would usually throw Purphoros out just to make my opponents waste some removal or whatever. Then they wouldn't have as many answers when I start building up my plan B.
I believe combos are not really that hard to deal with so long as:
1. No huge power mismatches.
2. You have a way to interact with an opponent (their board, their hand, their graveyard, their turn, etc.).
3. You are aware of or, at least, have an idea of, the type of combo they're going for.
4. An opponent didn't get the God Hand when everyone first drew their cards. (Sometimes, this just happens!)
If 1 and 4 are not happening and you have some way of doing 2 and 3 and you're still having issues, I truly don't know what to tell you, to be honest.
That isn't true though. I know you don't believe this or agree with it but it isn't true speaking as someone who plays combo. Also ignoring what is in my posts to make claims that only a select few anti combo diehards in this thread believe has gotten very tiresome.
Also making the claim that archenemy forms in Commander only due to Combo and not when 1 person in the game gets a lot of advantage or a board is disingenuous
Combos tend to win from empty board. You have to keep killing the combo player even when they have nothing on the board, because it's still a boardstate that they can win from. It creates really silly gameplay.
Archenemy forming when someone has an advantageous board position is completely different and you know it.
When you have a combo you can cast, you can sit back and typically ignore what's happening, because the amount of mana and turns it takes for any other strategy to win is so much higher. You can run all the same utility cards they are running, but your way of winning the game is just flat out better by a ridiculous margin due to the nature of commander. Unless your opponents are also playing win conditions that are just as strong, which are exclusively combos themselves, you have a massive advantage in the worst way. That's why everyone has to gang up and kill the combo players, and having to play like that sucks a lot of the fun out of the game.
The best example why people detest combo... Look no further than the recent Standard bannings. Combo decks actually narrow a deckbuilder's card pool. When a combo is so efficient and easy to set up there's usually no proper/viable answer. Even in EDH, people are obliged to play a "side game", needing to keep their mana open instead of progressing their own. You suddenly feel a need to play more instant-speed cards than the cool, sweet sorcery-speed spells. I'm not saying not to run answers, but if one's Plan A becomes stopping a combo player, that is totally wrong. If every game becomes archenemy it's all gone wrong.
This leaves two choices: Either you join the combo or you play elsewhere. Sorry to say but there's rarely a middleground.
Standard players were forced to make the exact same decision. To not play Standard events, or to suck it up and join the degen fest. Combo fest normally has bad consequences. Turnout becomes low, product shifting goes stale, confidence in the game shrinks. Translate it to casual multiplayer EDH, your friends stop turning up, or more disagreements/arguments ensue, feelbads, feeling marginalized, feeling of a necessary arms race, etc...
Just wanna point out that it's my belief most people that hate combo, hate it for the very fact that it's anticlimactic. Not to mention boring as well.
This is probably the most accurate assessment of why people hate combo I've heard in recent memory. I still firmly believe the reason you see it so often even among casual groups is simple: it's too easy, and the power and utility of the cards you can combo with is absurd. Competitively you have the Hermit Druids, Ad Nauseams, Doomsdays and so on, but those cards are rarely the ones causing problems amongst the mid-level "optimized casual" groups of players.
The culprits are all cards that combo very easily, but people put in decks because even without the combo they lend a ridiculous amount of power to the deck it's in. There are a class of Whether it's Mikaeus the Unhallowed saving your entire field from a wipe and giving you a bunch of fresh ETB triggers, Kiki-Jiki copying exactly the right utility dude at instant speed for you to pull off the perfect counter play, or Deadeye Navigator flickering an Elvish Visionary 9 times every end step before yours feeding you endless card draw there is an insidious, poisonous line of thought that often follows adding them to a deck.
It's so easy to take one of these and fall into the trap of throwing in a 2 card combo "just to have one" or "because other people have it" and thinking "I don't ALWAYS have to grab it..." and then a few more deck revisions later you realize your entire game plan now revolves around those two cards getting into play and wiping the table. Time spells are the worst offender of all in this, you put them into your deck thinking "I need that one crucial turn to stall and get a good board" or "it gives me so much value for one spell" and then after playing with it for awhile you realize how easy it is to just recur a Regrowth ETB dude over and over and win the game just because the time spell is in your deck.
These cards and others like them could really stand to be pruned from the format.
A multiplayer victory has to exist beyond simply beating your opponent, there has to be a mutual enjoyment of everyone involved. If you win the game and everyone else is miserable then you've still lost. What gets played is irrelevant.
It is not your opponent's responsibility to hold back. It is your responsibility as a player to stop him. If your deck is incapable of doing that on a regular basis, then your deck is fundamentally flawed or you are making play errors in managing your resources.
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.
Because repetition of gameplay is the worst and most infinite combo decks I have to deal with spend their time tutoring. It is incredibly obnoxious.
Game's gotta end at some point and infinite combos do that. Problem is one-trick pony decks because they tend to win the fastest and without caring about anyone else outside of playing around counterspells.
Now it's all stax vs combo. There is no fun, just netdecks and the same games played out over and over again.
It is not your opponent's responsibility to hold back. It is your responsibility as a player to stop him. If your deck is incapable of doing that on a regular basis, then your deck is fundamentally flawed or you are making play errors in managing your resources.
That's certainly an opinion to have.
In a competitive sense, you're absolutely correct. Not all EDH is competitive in that sense. Sure, players should always be playing to win and trying to make optimal plays, but would you consider a 75% deck flawed because it's not pushed to be as competitive as possible? If so, and you advocate playing as competitively as possible in all aspects of EDH, that seems like a narrow viewpoint to have.
Besides, games are only satisfying if the decks are on a roughly even power level. Pub stomping can be fun for a game or two but after awhile it becomes masturbatory and boring, particularly for the other players at the table.
Game's gotta end at some point and infinite combos do that. Problem is one-trick pony decks because they tend to win the fastest and without caring about anyone else outside of playing around counterspells.
One-trick ponies are the easiest ponies to interrupt. If you can predict their win condition and successfully interact with it, then you probably just won. If you're averse to running answers to the combo then I don't know what to tell you. Metagames change over time, and adaptation is part of the game. I actually rather enjoy tuning decks for particular metas.
Now it's all stax vs combo. There is no fun, just netdecks and the same games played out over and over again.
That sounds like a playgroup issue.
This thread makes me think of that quote someone had in their signature about EDH players having more fun showing each other their decks instead of actually playing.
Personally, I think the ideas that "Archenemy" occurs when there's a fast combo deck at the table and that holding mana up for instants stunts your ability to "actually play" are pretty overblown. Comboing out on an early turn with enough protection for 2 spells aimed at disrupting the combo is highly unlikely, and I think it's the table's fault if the combo player gets enough breathing room to set this up.
That said, I also agree with what Goose had to say. I think a playgroup that's mindful of everyone having a good time is the most important aspect of this format. In other words, some compromises should be made on either end of the spectrum.
The responses which presume that any deck packing sufficient answers to not lose to a competitive or combo deck must itself be a 100% tuned, flavorless competitive deck itself, constitute an implicit strawman argument. I'll illustrate a counter example.
I have a Queen Marchesa deck now, about 5 months old. It is a theme deck, built around a core of Conspiracy II cards and the Monarch mechanic. It wins via token shenanigans and crazy interactions between cards like Cathar's Crusade and Blade of Selves. Lacking even shock lands, it is not what anyone would consider a "competitive deck" by any reasonable standard.
These answers, combined with a bit of careful play (not squandering resources and tapping out every turn like some scrub) leads this deck to fear very little from the so called competitive combo decks. When they combo off, you answer by removing one of the combo pieces instantly. If you know the combo player is running substantial counterspell backup, you use two pieces of removal. Tutors facilitate this as well. Once the faster decks at the table have been hobbled and forced to revert to their slower "Plan B" win conditions, I then have room to expand my board and do the nasty shenanigans that my deck was meant to do.
As someone that avoids them in my own decks here are a few reasons.
1. They're often played in more expensive decks, involving more expensive cards, making it feel like unless you shell out alot of money you will never be able to compete, which isn't a good feeling (especially when you're a poor college student).
2. Many times they can only be stopped by counterspells (or atleast seemingly only stopped that way). This can make it feel like if you're not playing blue you just have no answer which makes your decks strategy seem pointless, which isn't a good feeling.
3. Alot of you say that letting someone get to the boardstate that allows them to play a combo is the mistake and that targeting them can prevent it but when there are so many combos that can come down in one turn, regardless of the previous boardstate (except for mana availability) how is that a fair statement? As an example a player playing Breya, Etherium Shaper only needs to be able to cast Breya and Ashnod's Altar and have Nim Deathmantle in hand to win in one turn and this is hardly the only combo like this.
Ultimately I feel like it comes down to the fact that many times they make it seem like someone just wins, not that they were winning and finally won. They didn't create a board state that hit you for 40 damage, caused you to loose 40 life, milled your deck to nothing, or built them to a I win card over a number of turns with chances for you to interact. They just waited until the right moment and said I win. That lack of interaction and/or interaction that actually matters is what can make them unfun.
I'm not a competitive player and don't play in a particularly competitive meta. I just like to cast fun spells, turn big things sideways and see crazy boardstates. I understand if you want to win, I don't even mind infinite combos, I just enjoy playing with people not playing across from someone whose really in a game of solitaire that will eventually result in my sudden death.
It is not your opponent's responsibility to hold back. It is your responsibility as a player to stop him. If your deck is incapable of doing that on a regular basis, then your deck is fundamentally flawed or you are making play errors in managing your resources.
An arms race always leads to nuclear war. Some people don't want a nuclear war.
That's why I have a couple of legacy decks, that's where power matters more than flavour or personal feelings towards a card.
You know there are answers to combo beyond countermagic, right? Some of them are even attached to creatures like Linvala, Keeper of Silence or Burning-Tree Shaman. Sometimes you just proactively slow down the combo while advancing your own win condition.
You can't always play the types of games where everyone does their own thing, then someone eventually decides to win. It doesn't have to be cut-throat turn-3 combo shenanigans, but the entire premise of magic is to meet one of the win criteria. If you're looking for something collaborative and show-off-y then I find D&D to be quite fun. But if you're sitting down to a game of magic, many players will be looking for the aspect of competition as a source of fun.
Combos can exist at every level of play. They can be turn 3-4 storm outs or a 6-card, 14-mana boros infinite turns combo (yep, I've done this). Regardless of that fact, if your group is of an even power level, then you just need to disrupt the combos until you can win, rather than counter them completely.
Our playgroup allows infinite combos, so long as they: 1) Are a secondary wincon of the deck, not something the deck is only designed to tutor for; 2) Win the game outright without slowing down the game needlessly; or 3) Occur accidentally from unexpected interactions (e.g. Mind Control an opponent's creature that happens to go infinite with something in your deck).
You know there are answers to combo beyond countermagic, right? Some of them are even attached to creatures like Linvala, Keeper of Silence or Burning-Tree Shaman. Sometimes you just proactively slow down the combo while advancing your own win condition.
Good point, one I had even forgotten to ever bring. Mainly, because it's kind of basic strategy. I assumed everyone was doing it, honestly. Then again, that's my competitive edge talking.
But, you can point out as many strategies to combat the combo, but they mean nothing if people don't exercise them. At the same time, I understand that a person may not want to change their deck or feel like you have to. I think this debate is has turned into 'I don't like combo for X/Y/Z and that's that!' vs. 'Combo is not unbeatable, stop acting helpless!'. Both sides have good points but that doesn't mean one is right and the other wrong.
Not every casual player is a scrub who needs to 'Git gud!' nor is every competitive player a win-at-all-costs jerk.
Why must this always be a touchy subject? Why cannot we agree to disagree? ...Then again, this is the internet. (Sigh)
The biggest problem with combo is that it can be relatively anti-climatic. With combat damage, usually it comes in chunks, heightening the tension of the game.
So how could combo do this? Let's say there's an infinite combo that wins the game on the spot, but takes 3 cards. If two of the cards are on the table, it can heighten tension in a good way, as players are scrambling to find an answer card to survive. However, if the same player goes infinite, then drops all 3 cards and "just wins", it's less exciting.
Wins through combat damage can be unexciting too. Splinter Twin + Deceiver Exarch in the same turn? Boring. Tooth and Nail for Avenger of Zendikar + Craterhoof? Boring.
It's more about whether the game ends out of nowhere or not, than the method used to achieve it. However, combo far more often ends the game out of nowhere than non-combo does.
I didn't get the hate for combos until I started playing decks with very little instagib potential and modest amounts of instant speed interaction. I'd work on the table for a bit with my beefed up beatsticks, maybe take a guy out, and then wham bam gg out of nowhere. Wait, that's it? Nothing I did mattered at all? Blech. Anti-climactic, as the post above mine calls it, is a dead on descriptor.
Now whenever I manage to combo out, I just scoop out and let the others at the table continue the game if they so desire.
My group decided to ban intentional Infinite Combos early in life. Partially due to decks evolving into Blue/X/X good stuff combo machine or combo counter machine decks. Quality of life, and deck range is amazing due to this. Now, obviously, sometimes we miss things, and we have also evolved to a rule of "Infinite Combos that have to be triggered infinitely can be run, with a 1 cycle per turn limit" due to some accidents. So, this way, should we accidentally miss a combo in deck building, we're forced to only cycle it once each turn. This also allowed things like me being able to run both Gravecrawler and Rooftop Storm in my Grimgrin, Corpse-Born deck, without just immediately being able to infinitely pump him and win. It allows me a consistent way to untap him once per turn, and my play group is OK with it.
I feel like this approach works for us, but, of course, everyone is different, and sometimes when we play at the local shop we come across infinite combo decks. I don't let it bother me when I lose to them, and often I will run a "sideboard" card or two in some of my decks allowing me to mod a combo into the deck should I come across a group that runs combos more often. I don't make it my main game plan, as I generally stick to a 1 - 2 tutors per deck rule, so I can't just easily assemble combos to win.
The way you treat the game at that point is up to you but to get angry at it "ending out of nowhere" is betraying the game you just played and also betraying how much you care about winning and how that game is won.
When the decision tree is play archenemy to take out infinite combos, play your own infinite combos, or lose to infinite combos, you can't see why people wouldn't like them?
Also making the claim that archenemy forms in Commander only due to Combo and not when 1 person in the game gets a lot of advantage or a board is disingenuous
Yes, let me just scrap playing a deck i enjoy to build a deck full of counters.
Your argument means that we have to play lots counters and/or lots of spot removal. First we have the task of getting the card, then we have to wait to use them on the X amount of combos a deck can do. You're basically saying that the only reliable way to counter a combo deck (reliably) is to play Dimir excursively if you don;t want to be hit by X number of combos (and by X i mean that combo decks usually have many different combos using different cards).
This leaves two choices: Either you join the combo or you play elsewhere. Sorry to say but there's rarely a middleground.
Standard players were forced to make the exact same decision. To not play Standard events, or to suck it up and join the degen fest. Combo fest normally has bad consequences. Turnout becomes low, product shifting goes stale, confidence in the game shrinks. Translate it to casual multiplayer EDH, your friends stop turning up, or more disagreements/arguments ensue, feelbads, feeling marginalized, feeling of a necessary arms race, etc...
Just wanna point out that it's my belief most people that hate combo, hate it for the very fact that it's anticlimactic. Not to mention boring as well.
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
No, it's not the same.
The aggro player doesn't immediately lose to a board wipe.
The aggro player has several turns to come up with an answer.
Oh and there is a big difference between decks that happen to sometimes combo and those designed to combo off.
UG Tishana, Voice of Thunder GU
UBW Sen Triplets WBU
WUBGAtraxa, Praetors' Voice GBUW
WUBRGJodah, Archmage Eternal GRBUW
GWR Mayael the Anima RWG
RWB Edgar Markov BWR
WG Gaddok Teeg GW
W Oketra the True W
---
My Decklist Folder
I believe combos are not really that hard to deal with so long as:
1. No huge power mismatches.
2. You have a way to interact with an opponent (their board, their hand, their graveyard, their turn, etc.).
3. You are aware of or, at least, have an idea of, the type of combo they're going for.
4. An opponent didn't get the God Hand when everyone first drew their cards. (Sometimes, this just happens!)
If 1 and 4 are not happening and you have some way of doing 2 and 3 and you're still having issues, I truly don't know what to tell you, to be honest.
BK'rrik Goodstuff
GWSythis Enchantress
URYusri Coin Flip
BRGKorvold Tokens
BGUYarok Lands Matter
WUBRaffine Looter
Combos tend to win from empty board. You have to keep killing the combo player even when they have nothing on the board, because it's still a boardstate that they can win from. It creates really silly gameplay.
Archenemy forming when someone has an advantageous board position is completely different and you know it.
When you have a combo you can cast, you can sit back and typically ignore what's happening, because the amount of mana and turns it takes for any other strategy to win is so much higher. You can run all the same utility cards they are running, but your way of winning the game is just flat out better by a ridiculous margin due to the nature of commander. Unless your opponents are also playing win conditions that are just as strong, which are exclusively combos themselves, you have a massive advantage in the worst way. That's why everyone has to gang up and kill the combo players, and having to play like that sucks a lot of the fun out of the game.
This is probably the most accurate assessment of why people hate combo I've heard in recent memory. I still firmly believe the reason you see it so often even among casual groups is simple: it's too easy, and the power and utility of the cards you can combo with is absurd. Competitively you have the Hermit Druids, Ad Nauseams, Doomsdays and so on, but those cards are rarely the ones causing problems amongst the mid-level "optimized casual" groups of players.
The culprits are all cards that combo very easily, but people put in decks because even without the combo they lend a ridiculous amount of power to the deck it's in. There are a class of Whether it's Mikaeus the Unhallowed saving your entire field from a wipe and giving you a bunch of fresh ETB triggers, Kiki-Jiki copying exactly the right utility dude at instant speed for you to pull off the perfect counter play, or Deadeye Navigator flickering an Elvish Visionary 9 times every end step before yours feeding you endless card draw there is an insidious, poisonous line of thought that often follows adding them to a deck.
It's so easy to take one of these and fall into the trap of throwing in a 2 card combo "just to have one" or "because other people have it" and thinking "I don't ALWAYS have to grab it..." and then a few more deck revisions later you realize your entire game plan now revolves around those two cards getting into play and wiping the table. Time spells are the worst offender of all in this, you put them into your deck thinking "I need that one crucial turn to stall and get a good board" or "it gives me so much value for one spell" and then after playing with it for awhile you realize how easy it is to just recur a Regrowth ETB dude over and over and win the game just because the time spell is in your deck.
These cards and others like them could really stand to be pruned from the format.
Nicol Bolas Dragon Dick
Hanna, Ship's Navigator Heart-attack Stax
Oona, Queen of the Fae Fairy Dance
Vhati Il-Dal Tree of Woe
Scion of the Ur-Dragon Durgensturm
Jolrael, Empress of Beasts Jamuraa's Army
Liliana, Heretical Healer Rise from your Graves and Proliferate
Tariel, Reckoner of Souls Angelic Judgment [
This is exactly what we would do in one of my older playgroups. Works like a charm.
Game's gotta end at some point and infinite combos do that. Problem is one-trick pony decks because they tend to win the fastest and without caring about anyone else outside of playing around counterspells.
Now it's all stax vs combo. There is no fun, just netdecks and the same games played out over and over again.
That's certainly an opinion to have.
In a competitive sense, you're absolutely correct. Not all EDH is competitive in that sense. Sure, players should always be playing to win and trying to make optimal plays, but would you consider a 75% deck flawed because it's not pushed to be as competitive as possible? If so, and you advocate playing as competitively as possible in all aspects of EDH, that seems like a narrow viewpoint to have.
Besides, games are only satisfying if the decks are on a roughly even power level. Pub stomping can be fun for a game or two but after awhile it becomes masturbatory and boring, particularly for the other players at the table.
One-trick ponies are the easiest ponies to interrupt. If you can predict their win condition and successfully interact with it, then you probably just won. If you're averse to running answers to the combo then I don't know what to tell you. Metagames change over time, and adaptation is part of the game. I actually rather enjoy tuning decks for particular metas.
That sounds like a playgroup issue.
This thread makes me think of that quote someone had in their signature about EDH players having more fun showing each other their decks instead of actually playing.
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
That said, I also agree with what Goose had to say. I think a playgroup that's mindful of everyone having a good time is the most important aspect of this format. In other words, some compromises should be made on either end of the spectrum.
I have a Queen Marchesa deck now, about 5 months old. It is a theme deck, built around a core of Conspiracy II cards and the Monarch mechanic. It wins via token shenanigans and crazy interactions between cards like Cathar's Crusade and Blade of Selves. Lacking even shock lands, it is not what anyone would consider a "competitive deck" by any reasonable standard.
It also runs 4 counterspells.
And about 13 or 14 instant-speed removal cards. Fate Forgotten, Dust to Dust, Anguished Unmaking, etcetera.
These answers, combined with a bit of careful play (not squandering resources and tapping out every turn like some scrub) leads this deck to fear very little from the so called competitive combo decks. When they combo off, you answer by removing one of the combo pieces instantly. If you know the combo player is running substantial counterspell backup, you use two pieces of removal. Tutors facilitate this as well. Once the faster decks at the table have been hobbled and forced to revert to their slower "Plan B" win conditions, I then have room to expand my board and do the nasty shenanigans that my deck was meant to do.
Nicol Bolas Dragon Dick
Hanna, Ship's Navigator Heart-attack Stax
Oona, Queen of the Fae Fairy Dance
Vhati Il-Dal Tree of Woe
Scion of the Ur-Dragon Durgensturm
Jolrael, Empress of Beasts Jamuraa's Army
Liliana, Heretical Healer Rise from your Graves and Proliferate
Tariel, Reckoner of Souls Angelic Judgment [
1. They're often played in more expensive decks, involving more expensive cards, making it feel like unless you shell out alot of money you will never be able to compete, which isn't a good feeling (especially when you're a poor college student).
2. Many times they can only be stopped by counterspells (or atleast seemingly only stopped that way). This can make it feel like if you're not playing blue you just have no answer which makes your decks strategy seem pointless, which isn't a good feeling.
3. Alot of you say that letting someone get to the boardstate that allows them to play a combo is the mistake and that targeting them can prevent it but when there are so many combos that can come down in one turn, regardless of the previous boardstate (except for mana availability) how is that a fair statement? As an example a player playing Breya, Etherium Shaper only needs to be able to cast Breya and Ashnod's Altar and have Nim Deathmantle in hand to win in one turn and this is hardly the only combo like this.
Ultimately I feel like it comes down to the fact that many times they make it seem like someone just wins, not that they were winning and finally won. They didn't create a board state that hit you for 40 damage, caused you to loose 40 life, milled your deck to nothing, or built them to a I win card over a number of turns with chances for you to interact. They just waited until the right moment and said I win. That lack of interaction and/or interaction that actually matters is what can make them unfun.
I'm not a competitive player and don't play in a particularly competitive meta. I just like to cast fun spells, turn big things sideways and see crazy boardstates. I understand if you want to win, I don't even mind infinite combos, I just enjoy playing with people not playing across from someone whose really in a game of solitaire that will eventually result in my sudden death.
An arms race always leads to nuclear war. Some people don't want a nuclear war.
That's why I have a couple of legacy decks, that's where power matters more than flavour or personal feelings towards a card.
You can't always play the types of games where everyone does their own thing, then someone eventually decides to win. It doesn't have to be cut-throat turn-3 combo shenanigans, but the entire premise of magic is to meet one of the win criteria. If you're looking for something collaborative and show-off-y then I find D&D to be quite fun. But if you're sitting down to a game of magic, many players will be looking for the aspect of competition as a source of fun.
Combos can exist at every level of play. They can be turn 3-4 storm outs or a 6-card, 14-mana boros infinite turns combo (yep, I've done this). Regardless of that fact, if your group is of an even power level, then you just need to disrupt the combos until you can win, rather than counter them completely.
Good point, one I had even forgotten to ever bring. Mainly, because it's kind of basic strategy. I assumed everyone was doing it, honestly. Then again, that's my competitive edge talking.
But, you can point out as many strategies to combat the combo, but they mean nothing if people don't exercise them. At the same time, I understand that a person may not want to change their deck or feel like you have to. I think this debate is has turned into 'I don't like combo for X/Y/Z and that's that!' vs. 'Combo is not unbeatable, stop acting helpless!'. Both sides have good points but that doesn't mean one is right and the other wrong.
Not every casual player is a scrub who needs to 'Git gud!' nor is every competitive player a win-at-all-costs jerk.
Why must this always be a touchy subject? Why cannot we agree to disagree? ...Then again, this is the internet. (Sigh)
BK'rrik Goodstuff
GWSythis Enchantress
URYusri Coin Flip
BRGKorvold Tokens
BGUYarok Lands Matter
WUBRaffine Looter
So how could combo do this? Let's say there's an infinite combo that wins the game on the spot, but takes 3 cards. If two of the cards are on the table, it can heighten tension in a good way, as players are scrambling to find an answer card to survive. However, if the same player goes infinite, then drops all 3 cards and "just wins", it's less exciting.
Wins through combat damage can be unexciting too. Splinter Twin + Deceiver Exarch in the same turn? Boring. Tooth and Nail for Avenger of Zendikar + Craterhoof? Boring.
It's more about whether the game ends out of nowhere or not, than the method used to achieve it. However, combo far more often ends the game out of nowhere than non-combo does.
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
Now whenever I manage to combo out, I just scoop out and let the others at the table continue the game if they so desire.
That isn't a problem in of itself but it is easy to see why a lot of people aren't fans.
It isn't rocket surgery.
I feel like this approach works for us, but, of course, everyone is different, and sometimes when we play at the local shop we come across infinite combo decks. I don't let it bother me when I lose to them, and often I will run a "sideboard" card or two in some of my decks allowing me to mod a combo into the deck should I come across a group that runs combos more often. I don't make it my main game plan, as I generally stick to a 1 - 2 tutors per deck rule, so I can't just easily assemble combos to win.
Legacy - GW Enchantress
Modern - U Urzatron (In construction)
Multiplayer - B ZOMBIES
Casual - B Suicide Black
Casual - WURx Krark-Clan Ironworks
Pauper - URBx Affinity
Pauper - B Pestilence
Pauper - W Steel Soldiers
EDH - W Isamaru, Hound of Konda 1V1
EDH - GRB Kresh the Bloodbraided
EDH - GW Trostani, Selesnya's Voice
EDH - UR Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind
EDH - RB Lyzolda, The Blood Witch
EDH - UW Bruna, Light of Alabaster (Reworking)
EDH - UB Grimgrin, Corpse-Born
EDH - UG Vorel of the Hull Clade
EDH - WUG Phelddagrif
EDH - BGR Prossh, Skyraider of Kher
Pauper EDH - G Garruk's Packleader
Pauper EDH - RG Bloodbraid Elf
CUBE:
500 Peasant Cube (52% Foil) Cube Tutor Page