Playing competitive is what I prefer. Short games are more favorable than long ones cause I don’t time to sit there for hours. If your commander has life link and you attack with hatred; people might say that a dirty combo. What’s the difference between might of oaks on a double strike commander killing an opponent off? I have noticed players are either getting more competitive like me or others are becoming more whiney. Some players just want to not be controlled or acknowledge control exists. They look at players like me as the bully. WTH?
When they loose, the throw the biggest fits to near 12 year old tantrum status. Know a player that does group hug and when counter or destroy a group positive affect, he looses his mind. I fear combo as well but I play it to win. Balance folks. Infinite combos are fine cause I have infinite colorless and had nothing to use it on.
If the deck is built to combo, then no, I do not like combo. If the deck is built to function without comboing, but has the ability to, then sure, as long as the goal of the game isn't to assemble the monster.
Another point, can't stand the "needs more removal" argument. This is basically a 100-card singleton format. You sacrifice the creativity that EDH allows you to have if you have to constantly defend against combos being the only way games are decided. The absolute worst feeling is losing to a combo because you countered/destroyed/exiled/discarded a different card on the opponents board, and don't start on me with "threat assessment". And, personally, I've seen more "hissy fits" thrown by combo players than any other, specifically when their combo gets stopped because of the aforementioned removal. Losing to combo is a snooze-fest. We recently played a 3hr game the other day, 6 players. We had 3 separate instances of players almost dying before recovering in some spectacular fashion. One player just kind of lurked around with his Mardu deck(It was Oros, the Avenger, but he never played it, which is another pet-peeve of mine), removed a few threats, played some utility dudes, then KarmicLark'd a victory out of nowhere after the table tapped out for some pretty epic plays. Nobody was happy. It was almost a waste of time, guy sits and watches just to find the best time to combo. :Yawn:. We asked him if he also eats the creme filling of Oreos and puts the rest back in the package, as in, only in it for the good stuff.
If you have a combo to win, why would you not assemble it to win at the right moment?
If you had the win condition but needed politics to lock down the opponents to get it, why would not sit and wait?
If your commander is over 5 cmc, why would you play it immediately without some way of protecting it?
If you are looking for interactions with all opponents, why do players pick fights with each, each are active, and ignore the player silently building up?
Is it the infinite combos you hate or different style of play, politics, and builds that matter?
Spikes get so much hate.
If you have a combo to win, why would you not assemble it to win at the right moment?
If you had the win condition but needed politics to lock down the opponents to get it, why would not sit and wait?
If your commander is over 5 cmc, why would you play it immediately without some way of protecting it?
If you are looking for interactions with all opponents, why do players pick fights with each, each are active, and ignore the player silently building up?
Is it the infinite combos you hate or different style of play, politics, and builds that matter?
Spikes get so much hate.
Are you replying to me? If so, I think I answered all of your questions had you of read the post rather than defend yourself from a non-existent attack.
A few questions of my own-
Why even sit down at the table?
Why isn't this coherent?
Why play Commander if you have no intentions of, you know, playing your Commander?
The rest just doesn't make sense and the first question I asked covers it, did you read the post?
Yes, I hate people who sit down at a table of 4+ people where their only objective is to win. It's obnoxious.
You did, however, answer one of my questions. YOU must be the one eating all the creme filling...
I don't really think calling one side or the other "whiny" really helps anything.
Basically all problems can be resolved by briefly asking to determine the competitiveness/comboness of peoples' decks before the game starts. No reasonable person wants to play a game where they're playing a high-powered combo deck and everyone else is playing draft-chaff-dinos.
I'll briefly throw in that I think it's an interesting challenge to try to build decks that can handle combo and other high-power decks without totally trampling weak decks. Personally I've had the most success with political control decks, though I've been having fun recently playing kaervek the merciless, though he's a little more middle-of-the-road powerwise, in that he's not great against combo and he's a little tramply of weak decks - thought not TOO weak or TOO tramply.
What bothers me most about combo is when people think it's acceptable to bring their decks to low-powered tables because the deck isn't hyper competitive. I've seen guests to my playgroup:
- People who insist that their deck isn't a combo deck, proceed to play nothing but lands and defensive cards like Propaganda and evacuation, then when everybody's tapped out draw their entire deck and win the game on the spot.
- People who insist that combo wins aren't the focus of the deck and it's not really all that strong of a combo deck, then proceed to chain three tutors together to win by turn six (again, once everybody's tapped out)
- People who say "this is my pet deck, it's not that strong but I really like it", then proceed to start off with the trifecta of turn one mana rocks and wipe the table before anybody else makes their fourth land drop.
Our playgroup tends to be low-powered because people prefer it like that. Having an environment where new players can join and be relevant, people without the time or energy to build their own decks can simply buy precons, and where everybody can feel like they're contributing to the game, even if they start off with a *****ty hand, it's what attracts people to our playgroup. Quite often however, outsiders tend to either miss the intended power level target, or intentionally misunderstand it, and create problems. Usually with combo.
I don't really think calling one side or the other "whiny" really helps anything.
Basically all problems can be resolved by briefly asking to determine the competitiveness/comboness of peoples' decks before the game starts. No reasonable person wants to play a game where they're playing a high-powered combo deck and everyone else is playing draft-chaff-dinos.
I'll briefly throw in that I think it's an interesting challenge to try to build decks that can handle combo and other high-power decks without totally trampling weak decks. Personally I've had the most success with political control decks, though I've been having fun recently playing kaervek the merciless, though he's a little more middle-of-the-road powerwise, in that he's not great against combo and he's a little tramply of weak decks - thought not TOO weak or TOO tramply.
I fear that deck. It’s good if you build it right.
When I face a bunch of strong combo decks, it’s fun to play jund hate or gruul FU deck of land destruction and burn. Burning tree shaman, harsher mentor, and ruric thar hoses my memnarch deck bad.
Biggest fear.....boil. I have survived this spell only once.
I used to build decks that troll really hard in standard to win. So...when someone builds a deck to troll my memnarch or atraxa deck, I feel honered.
I'd say my Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge is kinda under that category. It was built around exiling key cards from my opponent's decks and controlling the field until everyone either decks out or loses to their own stolen spells. It was not a strong deck by any stretch of the imagination but it was naturally a bane to all combo. However, people really hated it for literally sucking the fun out of their decks, prompting me to not play it anymore so I guess it kinda doesn't meet that challenge?
I sometimes use them and I sometimes don't like them.
It isn't the act of infinte comboing itself that is the issue. It is how the deck is built around it. If your deck is just an engine for a combo, if all your general does is combo, if you do it fast and reliably then its a problem. Because playing a game of EDH isn't about just winning the game (although we are all trying to do it) it is about playing a game. If you are skipping the playing of the game and going straight to winning the game that is an issue. That isn't an issue at high level high power play groups because they have the tools to play the game even against someone with a deck built to combo and protect thier combo. But it is an issue if you are playing more causally, even my semi casual level of well built decks with powerful cards cannot fight hard combo decks without vintage level tools.
The otherside of the coin is when a game can draw on, when players are exhausted, the game needs to end but players are evenly matched and the game just lacks direction. Having a combo you can push towards keeps you interested in the game, when you are otherwise out of resources. Having it remains a threat, some trick you can pull out to win. Otherwise, the game is lost you might as well scoop.
I run a long complicated combo in my Glissa the traitor deck involving Ashnod's altar and nim deathmantle and Reviellark + Karmic Guide in Deveri. Both are slow and easily distrupted and I rarely tutor for them.
I have two metas. We have Thursday Night Magic where EDH is highly competetive. Anything goes. That means people run Turns, Land Destruction, Infinite Combos, Stax, etc. Games last about half an hour tops. Then there's EDH at FNM. Most people play precon decks and then complain when after 1 hour long poo-slinging matches of bashing one big head against the other and making up tenuous alliances, they are bored and scoop or get smashed by homebrews with better value.
Most of the people I hear who complain about combo decks run literally zero answers to anything. If you're not going to outrace your combo opponents, then you need to build to disrupt. There is disruption in ever colour, all the pairs. If your game plan is to sit back until you have 9 mana to play a Demon of Death's Gate only for it to be Ousted, then you don't really have a right to complain. I run a highly competitve U/R commander deck for TNM, our games are fun (for us) and we get to play commander at least four or five times a night, or play multiple formats because of the speed. I have twenty answers to combos in my decks. I also run a mid-level Goblins deck for fun, and a super casual Minotaur R/B list. But I also have about 10-20 "answer" cards in both lists. If you don't strap hexproof to your Omnath, Locus of Rage commander and I have a Go For the Throat in hand, I'm going to kill it.
People complain about combos because they can't interact with them, but the reality is a lot of people are just too lazy and self centred to build their lists so they're better able to "interact" with combos. They're so focused on buidling their list for themselves, they forget that magic is all about interaction and answers. If you're not willing to build to interact, you don't have the right to complain imo. Whenever I play at FNM and people complain that they got beat by a combo on turn 5 or whatever, I'll ask for their deck colours and offer them a dozen answers within their colour pairs to better deal with it. If they're not willing to listen and buy $0.20 cards to help improve their decks then they've given up their right to moan. If you encourage everyone in your pod to run answer cards, then everyone can disrupt that one problem player, and each other.
One thing I see a lot of people saying that annoys the piss out of me is the whole "I play an infinite combo but I don't use it unless whatever whatever whatever." I loathe this line of thinking. Don't misplay on purpose, it's disrespectful to your opponents and it ruins the fabric that holds the game together. The fun of a game comes from competition. If you're not competing, you're not playing a game. If you want to challenge yourself by not winning with a combo, that's a great idea, how about don't include the combo in the first place? And if you say "well then what if I play someone else who has a combo?" - well, first of all, I don't know how you'd know that until the game was over, second of all, just have another different deck if you're so worried about it, and play the powerful one against powerful opponents, and have a non-combo one for lower-powered games. Don't turn the game into a farce because you're petrified of losing but don't want to be "the bad guy".
Scourge + rite is a combo I guess.. but yeah I would not necessarily call a deck that plays those a combo deck, cause those are just 2 good cards in a Dragon deck imo... Also the damage is dependent on how many dragons are already in play... just Scourge + rites doesn't net 150 damage I believe.. ^^
6 x 6 = 36 damage... ^^ (that is with just Scourge in play and 1 Rite kicked.. the first 6 are the number of dragons that deal damage, the second is the amount of damage based on how many dragons are in play when they deal damage..)
It is 180 damage. Each scourge sees each other scourge etb. So for each scourge, it sees 5 dragons etb (including itself for all the non-original dragons) and it sees 6 dragons on the field, so 5 triggers x 6 dragons = 30 damage, and that's for EACH scourge of valkas. Since there are 6 scourges after RoR finishes, that's 30 x 6 = 180 damage.
@ DirkGently - Yeah I saw I made a mistake in my calculation...
Also I get your point about including or not including combo's... I mostly play a combo in there, to have something to win the game in a stalemate.. I get you find that annoying or don't like that train of thought, but to each his/her own...
We all play the way we want to play the game, if that is not allowed, why play at all?
It's not that I don't have respect or anything like that mind you.. But I get that it does come across as such...
Wil play more cutt-throught again I guess... The (competitive) player in me mostly can't make a deck without a combo in it.. there are so many incidental combo's that can be in a deck, that it's almost impossible not to have something in your deck that combo's with something else... or at least not in a deck that plays mostly the best options you have in your colors...
(forgot I do have a few synergistic decks that don't run combo... - Cat's doesn't run combo, nor does my vamp deck)
That is what I feel at least, but I feel this discussion is mostly leading us nowhere...
Dislike me for how I play, but I personally feel I play more honorable than most other EDH players, at least here where I play..
If you need a way to win in a stalemate, why not something like a massive comet storm, teleportal, or going for mill with Ambassador Laquatus, even if you're ignoring obvious boring stuff like craterhood behemoth and exsanguinate. You could run out planeswalkers and try to ult them if people aren't getting into the red zone. I don't see how you could possibly get into a stalemate where no one can make profitable moves towards winning in a format with such powerful and swingy cards unless everyone is playing nothing but counters and removal (in which case I don't see a combo getting anywhere either).
If you play a combo (or anything else powerful for that matter), that's fine, just use it as effectively as possible - if that means you do it early, do it early. Don't wait around to play it because you're letting people "have their fun" or whatever patronizing crap (not necessarily saying you do this, btw, but I know there are people who do). If playing your deck optimally results in unfun games, then congrats! You've made an unfun deck! No big deal, just try modifying it (maybe lower the power level and remove combos, if those are the problems) and see if you can find a way to build it that still does what you want to do, while being fun for the rest of the table too. And if you can't, then maybe try building a different deck.
By the same token - if having a combo in your deck results in fun games for everyone, then go nuts. There's nothing inherently wrong about combos if your group enjoys them.
The 2 things that are wrong and ruin the integrity of the game, imo, are (1) repeatedly playing a deck that results in unfun games for your group when played optimally (most likely because it's too powerful for your group), and (2) playing suboptimally on purpose in order to avoid #1.
I can certainly sympathize with people who don't wanting to be playing against a dedicated combo-centric competitive deck - while I do enjoy cEDH, such decks should only really be played against other decks designed for the same level in play.
However, when it comes to a complete aversion to any kind of infinite combo, I don't really get it. Why is losing to Sanguine Bond and Exquisite Blood somehow worse than getting your face punched in by 40 powers worth of dragon? It's not like the enchantments are coming out of nowhere - it's either taking two turns or 10 mana on a single turn, the former of which gives you time to react, the latter of which should be a pretty good sign they're planning on doing something to win and you should be doing something about that - whether it's killing them, hitting their mana, or just keeping up answers. Plus the player's likely been drawing cards and tutoring, both of which are again clear signs that they're a threat - developing your hand is no different from developing your board. (as an aside, this applies to most cEDH combo decks too - every now and then they might luck out into having all their combo pieces in their opener, but usually, even if they're going off turn 3, they've spent the previous two turns doing a hell of a lot of preparation for the combo, in the form of ramp, tutoring and draw)
Then of course there's plenty of non-infinite-combo ways of suddenly winning. I mean, would people really object to my spirit tribal deck playing Mortal Combat and Iname, Death Aspect? It wins if I resolve those two spells and no-one can interact with me before my upkeep, hardly any different from the black enchantment combo I mentioned above. But it's a Kamigawa spirit and frikkin' Mortal Combat. How more janky casual can you get? My Titania, Protector of Argoth deck meanwhile has no way of going infinite and no alternative wincons, yet I've regularly gone from having nothing by my general and 7-8 lands in play to killing everyone on the same turn. Is this banned?
I'm all for playgroups setting the overall power level of the decks they play and complaining if people bring decks that are significantly stronger - if you like having 10 turns games, someone who consistently wins on turn 4 really shouldn't be there. But within that power level, I don't really see why some ways of winning are OK and others aren't - if we've had a good 10 turn game, why does it matter if you died to a 8 different wurms versus infinite goats?
@ Kolayhe, good points made there.. I don't 100% agree that long games are boring... There can be strong decks all around and the game can get long due to that also.. Doesn't mean it's all weak decks if a game takes long.. Mostly decks with more answers and better players tend to take longer than those with newer players with barely answers. Reason why is, one person tries to combo, gets stopped.. another person tries to beat face with aggro, gets stopped by wrath and other such effects... overall I think in our meta most players run quite a few answers, but even then you can run out of answers (even if packed with more than 20 in a deck), it's still a 100 card singleton format..
But yeah, having enough answers in a deck is one of the first things to think about, next to your draw cards and mana acceleration options... Lands are also important.. the more optimized the mana base, the overall better the deck runs..
I would say that the number of answers I run in my decks differs from one deck to another, depending on what I am trying to do.. the more aggro decks have less answers (due to less wrath's, etc), cause I am trying to rush the opponent.. thus more threats is more important for such a deck overal...
Control decks for me run a lot more answers...
I agree that everybody shouldn't play 20 answers and all run blue for counters. That makes for a rather stale format. But if everyone in a pod was running valuetown answers in their colours, then the game would hold a lot more tempo. White player runs wrath effects, red player breaks artifacts, blue player counters a combo piece or redirects a turns card to themselves, green player smashes the pillow fort players enchantments and Stax artifacts, and the black player makes everybody sac their precious creatures. Another key element you mentioned is mana acceleration and mana bases. I see far too many people not running Mind Stone, Fellwar Stone, Sol Ring etc. So many people don't understand the value of mana rocks, and then complain when they're quickly outpaced. I know everybody can't afford Grim Monolith, but there are rocks out there that feel like staples in every EDH deck because they're bargain bin prices and instantly improve deck's base power immediately.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is a lot of people complain about EDH decks being too competitive, but they aren't willing to improve their decks to increase their odds. They claim it's unfair, but they're not willing to put in any time and effort to better themselves, even with cheap deck additions and taking a fresh approach. At a local GP a month or so ago, the EDH tables were terrible. If I had joined I would have crushed every single player with a goblin deck - every single person on each table was literally playing their own game, only focused on their own board state and completely uninterested in anybody else. It feels like a lot of people build EDH decks for some vanity purposes, then get mad when their total lack of gameplan has them stuck way behind.
I suppose it goes back to the old adage of find a meta that suits you I suppose.
I dont play any because I dont like using them. There is certainly a time and place where they are needed but especially in decks that have no wincon outside of a combo I find to be quite boring. having said this, like basically everything in EDH, people enjoy different things so find other people that have the same ideas as you.
I'm a Johnny player at heart, I like my decks to have strategies that enables a win outside of turning them sideways during the combat phase. However, I don't like running combos in the deck just for the sake of comboing off, especially when they are totally not in theme with the deck at all. Which is why I don't really like good stuff decks, imo those decks don't have much personality except being a collection of the best/top tier cards for the format.
Hence it is always a struggle for me to build decks, like I refuse to run Craterhoof Behemoth in my elf/tribal decks cuz "It is not an elf", nor run Tooth and Nail/Omniscience as they are too 'good stuffy'. Why bother to count mana in combo enchantress when Omniscience makes everything free? It totally conflicts with the philosophy and joy of piloting the deck which is get enough mana by having Derevi untap lands enchanted with land auras. Aetherflux reservoir is also dropped from all my storm-styled decks cuz they aren't life based.
Have something to say those who advocate no-combos/no-infinite combos in their meta. MTG is a game with multiple phases, combat phase isn't the only phase where you can win the game, it is just one of the 5 phases. It will be a waste not to utilise the rest of the phases to do things and win. Some players just like the game due to the various interactions and synergy between cards.
Also: Its hard to say where combo beginns and where it end.
Soulscour (9 Mana Destroy all nonartifact permanents) regulary wins my breya the game, since I'm the only one left with my (artifact) lands. Is this a combo? Primal Surge Vomits the entire sliver deck to the field for 10 mana, winning the game if it wasn't heavily milled Armageddon Or basicly, any kind of MLD is a win for Kaalia, as is Kaalia + Master of Cruelitys or [You can't play color X] Angel on some occasions
Rest in Peace is a Card that just outright kills some decks, especialy if you have a b or B/U deck that has a hard time getting rid of this (a reason why I play all the 7 colorless exile / destroy a permanent in my mono-b Shirei) Craterhoof BehemothPathbreaker ItaxStampedeand the likes also win games when played in "combo" with small tookens. As does Beastmaster Ascencion(Proosh +BA? Have fun!) Mind over Matter Basicly reads: If you have ANYTHING that taps for a card you have a infinite combo - so this card, too, would have to be banned OR you must not play any tap carddraw in your deck.
Is Shirei, Shizos Cartaker with Lightning Coils a sac outlet and some 1/x creatures a combo, since it can easily lead to 40+ 3/1 haste tookens on your turn?
If you make a tooken of Mirrormad Phantasm, Shuffle that tooken into your libary, and flashback dread return a Laboratory maniac => Play a cantrip to win, thats a win combo. grey merchant of asphodel and some recursion can easily win the game on mobo-b. (My favorite mono-b commander, Shirei, may resurect him if you set his atk to 0 or 1, each turn - is this a infinite combo?)
Whats up with cards that grant you alternative win conditions? are those "infinite combos"?
Where does Synergy end, and combo start? And whats the difference in results between between "Win combo" and "infinite combo"?
Is a wheel deck a combo deck, if it goes "Take 1 Damage for each card drawn" => "Wheel" => "Wheel" => "wheel" => win? (My playgroup found this quite annoying, since at some time I was the only one playing the game. Wheel decks are a blast for me, but I can't play them anymore^^)
I don't think it's that hard to define.
If it requires an instant speed answer or it wins the game from an empty or nearly nothing board, it qualifies. Mana cost is mostly irrelevant until you get to something like 15+ mana needed, because of how broken edh mana generation is. I don't think "it's a 7 mana spell, it should win!" is a good excuse in a format with almost every form of broken mana generation ever printed.
Examples include playing a threat then armageddon, getting 40 power worth of creatures with haste from nothing, getting infinite mana then casting an X spell, a laboratory maniac doomsday pile, hermit druid milling your whole deck, deterministic paradox engine chains and other such plays.
I believe multiplayer magic is not capable of having these plays and being a good game at the same time, so I refuse to play with or against them.
I can't imagine any sense in which I can agree with that statement.
For low-powered play, ending with an infinite combo is repetitive and puts fairly stringent requirements on deckbuilding - including the combo deck itself, since it becomes much harder to run any tutors without it becoming always being correct to tutor for the combo, and thus make games linear and unfun for the group.
For high-powered play, there are plenty of competitive archetypes besides combo, shoehorning one just because you "should" is asinine.
There are tens of thousands of cards in the format. Find more creative ways to win.
The one thing every deck needs though is interaction. Be it counters, removal, discard etc, interacting with your opponents is one of the reasons that make magic a great game.
Amen, brother. Removal and proper threat recognition are the ultimate keys to multiplayer game progression.
I only have infinite combo in a deck if its thematic. For example in my ZOmbie tribal deck with Gisa and Geralf. Rooftop Storm and Gravecrawler is an infinite combo but theya re ind eck because of tribal reasons, going infinite is not the deck main win condition but it can be a win con if needed. They individually still works for the decks theme. I also have Mikaeus, the Unhallowed in the deck because hes a zombie lord in a sense but i don't have Triskelion because it doesn't fit the deck's theme.
Ofcourse my zombie deck is casual and if someone brings ana ctuall combo deck ill be forced to sue something more competitive. Evens till i won't use a deck focused in throwing infinite combos elft and right because thats not fun for me or for my commander group.
Depends of the group if the marjority lieks infinite combos or not i gave my opion and my groups opinion of it. Its jsut isn't fun when a deck is focused on it.
I don't play with them, but it's mostly because they're not even on my radar when I build my decks - I prefer to build incremental snowball synergies or decks based around the commander so much more that intentionally building a combo in basically does not happen. If I have a combo in a deck, it's 100% incidental and I'll realize it when I have both cards in my hand. Then cackle madly, possibly win with it and then probably remove one part of the combo off the deck because that's not my idea of fun in the long run.
If I play against infinite combo, depending on the amount of solitaire required to get there, my reaction is somewhere between 'oh, okay, can we play more?' and 'yawning while I look up from the fic I started reading ten minutes ago'.
It's probably the 'unknown combo' that's the most annoying; when playing against a deck that you have no idea is a dedicated combo deck and thus not dedicating every piece of removal against it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
X Hope of Ghirapur Swordpile W Ghosty Blinky Anafenza U Nezahal- Big, Blue and HERE! B Gonti Can Afford It R Etali, Primal 'Whatjusthappened?' G Polukranos Wants More Mana WU The Exalted Vizier Temmet WB Home, Athreos WR Basandra, Recursive Aggression WG Karametra, Momma of Lands UB Wrexial Eats Your Brains UR Arjun, the Mad Flame UG The Fable of Prime Speaker BR Hellbent, Malfegor Style BG Jarad, Death is Served RG Running Thromok WUB Varina and ALL the Zombies WUBYennett, the Odd Pain-Train WUR Zedruu the Furyhearted WUG Arcades' Strategy, Shmategy, Sausage and Spam WBR A Case of Mathas' Persistent F*ckery WBRLicia's League of Legendary Lifegain Layabouts WBG The Karador Advantage PackageWRG Gahiji Rattlesnake Collection UBR Jeleva... does... things UBG Damia's Just Deserts URG Yasova's Has More Power Than Sense BRG Wasitora, Bad Kitty WUBRBreya, Eggs, Breya'd Eggs WUBG Tymna and Kydele, Extended Borrowing WURG Kynaios and Tiro, Landfall Impersonations WBRG Saskia Pet Card EnchantressUBRG Yidris of the Chi-Ting Corporation WUBRG Tazri's Amazing Allies
Do you have everyone locked down and do you use it to secure the win instead of pinging them for 20 turns? Fine, I can live with that.
If you have a meta that is all about combo I wouldn't mind too.
But yesterday I had a game with my Edgar Markov vs some Mono-Black control and other decks.
The MBC was at 2 life, Edgar was at 65 and had an army out.
So what did MBC do? Tutor for a Staff of Domination to combo with the Magus of the Coffers he had on the board.
That was just annoying and I am still pissed at it.
Games have to end, its a valid strategy just like aggro.
Guy recently started coming to our events, he has a huge problem with combo. He'll target the combo player first, and always, regardless of board state., and he'll gripe about anything done to him over the combo player. He'll even assume the Combo player is playing combo if they change decks and continue to focus that person. This has been my experience far more often than not when it comes to people who hate combo, people who think its cheap.
Its also been my experience that these same people hate stax, control, land destruction, being interacted with at all, and most of all... losing.
I would go so far as to argue the large majority of combo haters actually just hate not being in control. Most often ive experienced this coming from people who change playgroups. Theyre top dog in one group, and join another where they just cant compete because they wont change to fit that meta.
But its easier to blame the five card combo that went undisrupted for the three turns it took to assemble.
Games have to end, its a valid strategy just like aggro.
Guy recently started coming to our events, he has a huge problem with combo. He'll target the combo player first, and always, regardless of board state., and he'll gripe about anything done to him over the combo player. He'll even assume the Combo player is playing combo if they change decks and continue to focus that person. This has been my experience far more often than not when it comes to people who hate combo, people who think its cheap.
Its also been my experience that these same people hate stax, control, land destruction, being interacted with at all, and most of all... losing.
I would go so far as to argue the large majority of combo haters actually just hate not being in control. Most often ive experienced this coming from people who change playgroups. Theyre top dog in one group, and join another where they just cant compete because they wont change to fit that meta.
But its easier to blame the five card combo that went undisrupted for the three turns it took to assemble.
I believe it's almost always correct archenemy a combo player down if no one else is playing combo. The combo player is the one who is going to win the game out of no where from 0 board if given the chance, so their board is in a perpetual state of "He can win with what he has showing".
This is why combos are so bad for multiplayer.
Yes, it's a valid legal strategy. That doesn't make it a fun game.
Then people playing combo sit a top their ivory towers, "look at this guy, he doesn't like that I play with legal magic cards, what an ********" as they proceed to turn multiplayer EDH into a non-game where every non-combo strategy can't win.
When they loose, the throw the biggest fits to near 12 year old tantrum status. Know a player that does group hug and when counter or destroy a group positive affect, he looses his mind. I fear combo as well but I play it to win. Balance folks. Infinite combos are fine cause I have infinite colorless and had nothing to use it on.
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!
Another point, can't stand the "needs more removal" argument. This is basically a 100-card singleton format. You sacrifice the creativity that EDH allows you to have if you have to constantly defend against combos being the only way games are decided. The absolute worst feeling is losing to a combo because you countered/destroyed/exiled/discarded a different card on the opponents board, and don't start on me with "threat assessment". And, personally, I've seen more "hissy fits" thrown by combo players than any other, specifically when their combo gets stopped because of the aforementioned removal. Losing to combo is a snooze-fest. We recently played a 3hr game the other day, 6 players. We had 3 separate instances of players almost dying before recovering in some spectacular fashion. One player just kind of lurked around with his Mardu deck(It was Oros, the Avenger, but he never played it, which is another pet-peeve of mine), removed a few threats, played some utility dudes, then KarmicLark'd a victory out of nowhere after the table tapped out for some pretty epic plays. Nobody was happy. It was almost a waste of time, guy sits and watches just to find the best time to combo. :Yawn:. We asked him if he also eats the creme filling of Oreos and puts the rest back in the package, as in, only in it for the good stuff.
If you had the win condition but needed politics to lock down the opponents to get it, why would not sit and wait?
If your commander is over 5 cmc, why would you play it immediately without some way of protecting it?
If you are looking for interactions with all opponents, why do players pick fights with each, each are active, and ignore the player silently building up?
Is it the infinite combos you hate or different style of play, politics, and builds that matter?
Spikes get so much hate.
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!
Are you replying to me? If so, I think I answered all of your questions had you of read the post rather than defend yourself from a non-existent attack.
A few questions of my own-
Why even sit down at the table?
Why isn't this coherent?
Why play Commander if you have no intentions of, you know, playing your Commander?
The rest just doesn't make sense and the first question I asked covers it, did you read the post?
Yes, I hate people who sit down at a table of 4+ people where their only objective is to win. It's obnoxious.
You did, however, answer one of my questions. YOU must be the one eating all the creme filling...
Basically all problems can be resolved by briefly asking to determine the competitiveness/comboness of peoples' decks before the game starts. No reasonable person wants to play a game where they're playing a high-powered combo deck and everyone else is playing draft-chaff-dinos.
I'll briefly throw in that I think it's an interesting challenge to try to build decks that can handle combo and other high-power decks without totally trampling weak decks. Personally I've had the most success with political control decks, though I've been having fun recently playing kaervek the merciless, though he's a little more middle-of-the-road powerwise, in that he's not great against combo and he's a little tramply of weak decks - thought not TOO weak or TOO tramply.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
- People who insist that their deck isn't a combo deck, proceed to play nothing but lands and defensive cards like Propaganda and evacuation, then when everybody's tapped out draw their entire deck and win the game on the spot.
- People who insist that combo wins aren't the focus of the deck and it's not really all that strong of a combo deck, then proceed to chain three tutors together to win by turn six (again, once everybody's tapped out)
- People who say "this is my pet deck, it's not that strong but I really like it", then proceed to start off with the trifecta of turn one mana rocks and wipe the table before anybody else makes their fourth land drop.
Our playgroup tends to be low-powered because people prefer it like that. Having an environment where new players can join and be relevant, people without the time or energy to build their own decks can simply buy precons, and where everybody can feel like they're contributing to the game, even if they start off with a *****ty hand, it's what attracts people to our playgroup. Quite often however, outsiders tend to either miss the intended power level target, or intentionally misunderstand it, and create problems. Usually with combo.
I fear that deck. It’s good if you build it right.
When I face a bunch of strong combo decks, it’s fun to play jund hate or gruul FU deck of land destruction and burn. Burning tree shaman, harsher mentor, and ruric thar hoses my memnarch deck bad.
Biggest fear.....boil. I have survived this spell only once.
I used to build decks that troll really hard in standard to win. So...when someone builds a deck to troll my memnarch or atraxa deck, I feel honered.
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!
It isn't the act of infinte comboing itself that is the issue. It is how the deck is built around it. If your deck is just an engine for a combo, if all your general does is combo, if you do it fast and reliably then its a problem. Because playing a game of EDH isn't about just winning the game (although we are all trying to do it) it is about playing a game. If you are skipping the playing of the game and going straight to winning the game that is an issue. That isn't an issue at high level high power play groups because they have the tools to play the game even against someone with a deck built to combo and protect thier combo. But it is an issue if you are playing more causally, even my semi casual level of well built decks with powerful cards cannot fight hard combo decks without vintage level tools.
The otherside of the coin is when a game can draw on, when players are exhausted, the game needs to end but players are evenly matched and the game just lacks direction. Having a combo you can push towards keeps you interested in the game, when you are otherwise out of resources. Having it remains a threat, some trick you can pull out to win. Otherwise, the game is lost you might as well scoop.
I run a long complicated combo in my Glissa the traitor deck involving Ashnod's altar and nim deathmantle and Reviellark + Karmic Guide in Deveri. Both are slow and easily distrupted and I rarely tutor for them.
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own
Most of the people I hear who complain about combo decks run literally zero answers to anything. If you're not going to outrace your combo opponents, then you need to build to disrupt. There is disruption in ever colour, all the pairs. If your game plan is to sit back until you have 9 mana to play a Demon of Death's Gate only for it to be Ousted, then you don't really have a right to complain. I run a highly competitve U/R commander deck for TNM, our games are fun (for us) and we get to play commander at least four or five times a night, or play multiple formats because of the speed. I have twenty answers to combos in my decks. I also run a mid-level Goblins deck for fun, and a super casual Minotaur R/B list. But I also have about 10-20 "answer" cards in both lists. If you don't strap hexproof to your Omnath, Locus of Rage commander and I have a Go For the Throat in hand, I'm going to kill it.
People complain about combos because they can't interact with them, but the reality is a lot of people are just too lazy and self centred to build their lists so they're better able to "interact" with combos. They're so focused on buidling their list for themselves, they forget that magic is all about interaction and answers. If you're not willing to build to interact, you don't have the right to complain imo. Whenever I play at FNM and people complain that they got beat by a combo on turn 5 or whatever, I'll ask for their deck colours and offer them a dozen answers within their colour pairs to better deal with it. If they're not willing to listen and buy $0.20 cards to help improve their decks then they've given up their right to moan. If you encourage everyone in your pod to run answer cards, then everyone can disrupt that one problem player, and each other.
Modern:R 8Whack R|W White Knights W
It is 180 damage. Each scourge sees each other scourge etb. So for each scourge, it sees 5 dragons etb (including itself for all the non-original dragons) and it sees 6 dragons on the field, so 5 triggers x 6 dragons = 30 damage, and that's for EACH scourge of valkas. Since there are 6 scourges after RoR finishes, that's 30 x 6 = 180 damage.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
If you play a combo (or anything else powerful for that matter), that's fine, just use it as effectively as possible - if that means you do it early, do it early. Don't wait around to play it because you're letting people "have their fun" or whatever patronizing crap (not necessarily saying you do this, btw, but I know there are people who do). If playing your deck optimally results in unfun games, then congrats! You've made an unfun deck! No big deal, just try modifying it (maybe lower the power level and remove combos, if those are the problems) and see if you can find a way to build it that still does what you want to do, while being fun for the rest of the table too. And if you can't, then maybe try building a different deck.
By the same token - if having a combo in your deck results in fun games for everyone, then go nuts. There's nothing inherently wrong about combos if your group enjoys them.
The 2 things that are wrong and ruin the integrity of the game, imo, are (1) repeatedly playing a deck that results in unfun games for your group when played optimally (most likely because it's too powerful for your group), and (2) playing suboptimally on purpose in order to avoid #1.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
However, when it comes to a complete aversion to any kind of infinite combo, I don't really get it. Why is losing to Sanguine Bond and Exquisite Blood somehow worse than getting your face punched in by 40 powers worth of dragon? It's not like the enchantments are coming out of nowhere - it's either taking two turns or 10 mana on a single turn, the former of which gives you time to react, the latter of which should be a pretty good sign they're planning on doing something to win and you should be doing something about that - whether it's killing them, hitting their mana, or just keeping up answers. Plus the player's likely been drawing cards and tutoring, both of which are again clear signs that they're a threat - developing your hand is no different from developing your board. (as an aside, this applies to most cEDH combo decks too - every now and then they might luck out into having all their combo pieces in their opener, but usually, even if they're going off turn 3, they've spent the previous two turns doing a hell of a lot of preparation for the combo, in the form of ramp, tutoring and draw)
Then of course there's plenty of non-infinite-combo ways of suddenly winning. I mean, would people really object to my spirit tribal deck playing Mortal Combat and Iname, Death Aspect? It wins if I resolve those two spells and no-one can interact with me before my upkeep, hardly any different from the black enchantment combo I mentioned above. But it's a Kamigawa spirit and frikkin' Mortal Combat. How more janky casual can you get? My Titania, Protector of Argoth deck meanwhile has no way of going infinite and no alternative wincons, yet I've regularly gone from having nothing by my general and 7-8 lands in play to killing everyone on the same turn. Is this banned?
I'm all for playgroups setting the overall power level of the decks they play and complaining if people bring decks that are significantly stronger - if you like having 10 turns games, someone who consistently wins on turn 4 really shouldn't be there. But within that power level, I don't really see why some ways of winning are OK and others aren't - if we've had a good 10 turn game, why does it matter if you died to a 8 different wurms versus infinite goats?
I agree that everybody shouldn't play 20 answers and all run blue for counters. That makes for a rather stale format. But if everyone in a pod was running valuetown answers in their colours, then the game would hold a lot more tempo. White player runs wrath effects, red player breaks artifacts, blue player counters a combo piece or redirects a turns card to themselves, green player smashes the pillow fort players enchantments and Stax artifacts, and the black player makes everybody sac their precious creatures. Another key element you mentioned is mana acceleration and mana bases. I see far too many people not running Mind Stone, Fellwar Stone, Sol Ring etc. So many people don't understand the value of mana rocks, and then complain when they're quickly outpaced. I know everybody can't afford Grim Monolith, but there are rocks out there that feel like staples in every EDH deck because they're bargain bin prices and instantly improve deck's base power immediately.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is a lot of people complain about EDH decks being too competitive, but they aren't willing to improve their decks to increase their odds. They claim it's unfair, but they're not willing to put in any time and effort to better themselves, even with cheap deck additions and taking a fresh approach. At a local GP a month or so ago, the EDH tables were terrible. If I had joined I would have crushed every single player with a goblin deck - every single person on each table was literally playing their own game, only focused on their own board state and completely uninterested in anybody else. It feels like a lot of people build EDH decks for some vanity purposes, then get mad when their total lack of gameplan has them stuck way behind.
I suppose it goes back to the old adage of find a meta that suits you I suppose.
Modern:R 8Whack R|W White Knights W
BRGKresh the BloodbraidedBRG, A box of lands and ideas.
Modern:
RG Titanshift. A deck made of cards too stupid for EDH.
Retired: Lots. More than I feel you should suffer through or I should type out.
Hence it is always a struggle for me to build decks, like I refuse to run Craterhoof Behemoth in my elf/tribal decks cuz "It is not an elf", nor run Tooth and Nail/Omniscience as they are too 'good stuffy'. Why bother to count mana in combo enchantress when Omniscience makes everything free? It totally conflicts with the philosophy and joy of piloting the deck which is get enough mana by having Derevi untap lands enchanted with land auras. Aetherflux reservoir is also dropped from all my storm-styled decks cuz they aren't life based.
Have something to say those who advocate no-combos/no-infinite combos in their meta. MTG is a game with multiple phases, combat phase isn't the only phase where you can win the game, it is just one of the 5 phases. It will be a waste not to utilise the rest of the phases to do things and win. Some players just like the game due to the various interactions and synergy between cards.
WUBRG Reaper King - Elf Tribal WUBRG | Tribal Fun
WRG Gishath, Sun's Avatar - Dinosaur Tribal WRG | Rawr!!!
WUG Derevi, Empyrial Tactician - Enchantress Tactics WUG | Enchantments Focused
GBG The Gitrog Monster - Land Shenanigans GBG | Lands/Mill Focused
WBW Kambal, Consul of Life Allocation Matters WBW | Life Gain/Loss focused
UBR Kess, Dissident Mage of the Lotus UBR | Spellslinger
BGB Hapatra, Vizier of Poisons - Counters & Tokens BGB | -1/-1 counters focused
I don't think it's that hard to define.
If it requires an instant speed answer or it wins the game from an empty or nearly nothing board, it qualifies. Mana cost is mostly irrelevant until you get to something like 15+ mana needed, because of how broken edh mana generation is. I don't think "it's a 7 mana spell, it should win!" is a good excuse in a format with almost every form of broken mana generation ever printed.
Examples include playing a threat then armageddon, getting 40 power worth of creatures with haste from nothing, getting infinite mana then casting an X spell, a laboratory maniac doomsday pile, hermit druid milling your whole deck, deterministic paradox engine chains and other such plays.
I believe multiplayer magic is not capable of having these plays and being a good game at the same time, so I refuse to play with or against them.
For low-powered play, ending with an infinite combo is repetitive and puts fairly stringent requirements on deckbuilding - including the combo deck itself, since it becomes much harder to run any tutors without it becoming always being correct to tutor for the combo, and thus make games linear and unfun for the group.
For high-powered play, there are plenty of competitive archetypes besides combo, shoehorning one just because you "should" is asinine.
There are tens of thousands of cards in the format. Find more creative ways to win.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Amen, brother. Removal and proper threat recognition are the ultimate keys to multiplayer game progression.
Ofcourse my zombie deck is casual and if someone brings ana ctuall combo deck ill be forced to sue something more competitive. Evens till i won't use a deck focused in throwing infinite combos elft and right because thats not fun for me or for my commander group.
Depends of the group if the marjority lieks infinite combos or not i gave my opion and my groups opinion of it. Its jsut isn't fun when a deck is focused on it.
If I play against infinite combo, depending on the amount of solitaire required to get there, my reaction is somewhere between 'oh, okay, can we play more?' and 'yawning while I look up from the fic I started reading ten minutes ago'.
It's probably the 'unknown combo' that's the most annoying; when playing against a deck that you have no idea is a dedicated combo deck and thus not dedicating every piece of removal against it.
Do you have everyone locked down and do you use it to secure the win instead of pinging them for 20 turns? Fine, I can live with that.
If you have a meta that is all about combo I wouldn't mind too.
But yesterday I had a game with my Edgar Markov vs some Mono-Black control and other decks.
The MBC was at 2 life, Edgar was at 65 and had an army out.
So what did MBC do? Tutor for a Staff of Domination to combo with the Magus of the Coffers he had on the board.
That was just annoying and I am still pissed at it.
Guy recently started coming to our events, he has a huge problem with combo. He'll target the combo player first, and always, regardless of board state., and he'll gripe about anything done to him over the combo player. He'll even assume the Combo player is playing combo if they change decks and continue to focus that person. This has been my experience far more often than not when it comes to people who hate combo, people who think its cheap.
Its also been my experience that these same people hate stax, control, land destruction, being interacted with at all, and most of all... losing.
I would go so far as to argue the large majority of combo haters actually just hate not being in control. Most often ive experienced this coming from people who change playgroups. Theyre top dog in one group, and join another where they just cant compete because they wont change to fit that meta.
But its easier to blame the five card combo that went undisrupted for the three turns it took to assemble.
I believe it's almost always correct archenemy a combo player down if no one else is playing combo. The combo player is the one who is going to win the game out of no where from 0 board if given the chance, so their board is in a perpetual state of "He can win with what he has showing".
This is why combos are so bad for multiplayer.
Yes, it's a valid legal strategy. That doesn't make it a fun game.
Then people playing combo sit a top their ivory towers, "look at this guy, he doesn't like that I play with legal magic cards, what an ********" as they proceed to turn multiplayer EDH into a non-game where every non-combo strategy can't win.