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...
You answered a single question and responded like a scum player in mafia.
Why would eat the nasty cracker of an Oreo? It messes with teeth. The filling us the best and the true goal of the snack.
1. To challenge myself to game of commander where I test my skills to win.
2. I don’t know why said anything about coherrant other than to act like....maybe lay off the pot?
3. I play my commander when I can protect it and win. If I don’t, your deck did require my commander to beat you. Resource allocation....try it.
I did read the post but you were begging the question of skill versus stuidity. Also, most of the complainers on are attacking the guy who wins a lot cause they are playing jank and expecting others to roll over to another rocket man. Sorry we don’t care.
If you hate people who play to win, which is the goal of the game, why don’t you just gray some tequila and play beer pong. Way more fun if that’s what your looking for.
Also, i eat the whole cookie and leave nothing behind to be as eficient as possible. I play magic the same style.
The dude who ate all the filling was the group hug player. Takes the filling and leaves you the cookie like it’s a favor.
Are you really annoyed a mono black player beat your mardu deck with a bad combo?
But he didn't beat me, he won the match. There's a difference between those two things.
The top definition of beating someone is to be better, but he wasn't. He just topdecked a combo-piece and "stole the win".
And actions like that is exactly what many people hate in combo.
It's like playing a game of chess, flipping the table and declare you are the winner.
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.
The concept of fun is subjective and differs from player to player though. Just like how some say that people playing combo are sitting on top of their ivory towers, those very same people too are doing that too, by enforcing what they themselves deemed as correct onto others. Again, fun is subjective, not everyone likes to turn their creatures sideways to win.
Just like there are ways to stop an aggro player from winning there are also ways to stop the combo player from winning too. A swords to plowshares can protect the player from an attacking for lethal creature can also be used to stop combos such as MikeTrisk or Kiki/Resto. We just need to know when to use it or pack more of it so that the combo players can't assemble their winning card combination that easily.
But he didn't beat me, he won the match. There's a difference between those two things.
The top definition of beating someone is to be better, but he wasn't. He just topdecked a combo-piece and "stole the win".
And actions like that is exactly what many people hate in combo.
It's like playing a game of chess, flipping the table and declare you are the winner.
Bad analogy. Chess is deterministic with no unknown information, and it is theoretically soluble from known information. Magic is none of those things, and to hold that against one's opponent is nonsensical. One might as well be angry at a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season.
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.
The concept of fun is subjective and differs from player to player though. Just like how some say that people playing combo are sitting on top of their ivory towers, those very same people too are doing that too, by enforcing what they themselves deemed as correct onto others. Again, fun is subjective, not everyone likes to turn their creatures sideways to win.
Just like there are ways to stop an aggro player from winning there are also ways to stop the combo player from winning too. A swords to plowshares can protect the player from an attacking for lethal creature can also be used to stop combos such as MikeTrisk or Kiki/Resto. We just need to know when to use it or pack more of it so that the combo players can't assemble their winning card combination that easily.
Combo is just the better way to win.
Aggro doesn't actually exist as a viable edh archetype if combo is legal. There is only varying speeds of combo deck.
Aggro doesn't actually exist as a viable edh archetype if combo is legal. There is only varying speeds of combo deck.
It reduces gameplay variety tremendously.
Do agree that aggro strategies have a way harder time to win in a multiplayer setting, as the cards and rules themselves are originally designed as for a 1 vs 1 rather than 1 vs all.
What kind of gameplay variety are you talking about if combo doesn't exist? Players take turns to cast a bigger fatty then swing into each other and determine whose pumped up fatty wins?
Aggro doesn't actually exist as a viable edh archetype if combo is legal. There is only varying speeds of combo deck.
It reduces gameplay variety tremendously.
Do agree that aggro strategies have a way harder time to win in a multiplayer setting, as the cards and rules themselves are originally designed as for a 1 vs 1 rather than 1 vs all.
What kind of gameplay variety are you talking about if combo doesn't exist? Players take turns to cast a bigger fatty then swing into each other and determine whose pumped up fatty wins?
Voltron, tokens, board control, pillow fort, blink value, big mana etc all tend to play very differently in comparison. They take longer to win and so the gameplay noticeably changes. Combo, because it ends the game on the spot, all feels the same, on top of making other archetypes obsolete with its raw power given multiplayer edh game rules.
Voltron, tokens, board control, pillow fort, blink value, big mana etc all tend to play very differently in comparison. They take longer to win and so the gameplay noticeably changes. Combo, because it ends the game on the spot, all feels the same, on top of making other archetypes obsolete with its raw power given multiplayer edh game rules.
Wouldn't all strategies feel the same like combos as they do the same thing to win? Voltron is always about pumping 1 creature (commander or other creature) to swing for the win every single game. Tokens amass large numbers of creatures every single game so on and forth?
To me playing in an EDH multiplayer game is like having different nations fighting against each other. Each nation by itself has a different kind of agenda in which it will devote its resources into in order to win the game. Combo wise is like assembling a doomsday weapon that will wipe out everything once it is done, and other nations will have to devote some resources to thwart each other from assembling their own version of doomsday weapon while at the same time pushing forward their own agenda.
Just like an actual war between nations, there are various strategies which they can employ. This includes hitting on enemy nation's resource lines (hitting on artifact and land resources), imposing more liabilities on enemies's troops (stax and tax) and such. But then for some who abide to a "certain code of honor", they only want fighting to be conducted at a certain place somewhere under their own rules. This greatly limits the number of strategies that are available to the game.
In short, playing a subset of the game (no combos, no resource hitting etc) greatly limits the number of archetypes available to play. Aggro (voltron or swarm) are still viable in multiplayer EDH, it needs the resource hitting strategy also to make it more efficient. Similarly to big mana strategies, if the strategy is to cast spells with big effects, you have to find ways to prevent opponents from stopping you casting those big spells that you love.
"Oh, he won with a strategy I don't like, so he didn't win at all."
What a childish, toxic attitude. Even If I hated infinite comboes, I sit down with other people because I want to play with them, and respect what they want to play.
I feel so sorry for you if you get stressed so much over how the other player won.
Want to know what is truly toxic? Putting words in other people's mouth.
Don't even dare to use the word respect after that *****ty attitude you just displayed.
If you don't want to hear how others feel about infinite combo you shouldn't open a thread called "do people like infinite combos".
And no. Using infinite combo to "steal" the win is toxic, petty, and has no place in a game that I play.
Combos are fine by me. I just am the kind of player that likes disruption/removal, so no matter what I choose to play, I choose to have disruption in my deck. Honestly, I only see this as the alleged dilemma versus combo decks. For whatever reason many edh players in my experience just don't play a lot of removal/countermagic etc and wonder why they lose. Or they waste disruption on something silly. I know, a lot of players just wanna jam what they want and win without considering the opposition, and in edh that's just not gonna work well UNLESS your specific playgroup doesn't play combos, maybe. Just tailor your playgroup to what everyone wants collectively, it makes life much easier and enjoyable.
Voltron, tokens, board control, pillow fort, blink value, big mana etc all tend to play very differently in comparison. They take longer to win and so the gameplay noticeably changes. Combo, because it ends the game on the spot, all feels the same, on top of making other archetypes obsolete with its raw power given multiplayer edh game rules.
Wouldn't all strategies feel the same like combos as they do the same thing to win? Voltron is always about pumping 1 creature (commander or other creature) to swing for the win every single game. Tokens amass large numbers of creatures every single game so on and forth?
To me playing in an EDH multiplayer game is like having different nations fighting against each other. Each nation by itself has a different kind of agenda in which it will devote its resources into in order to win the game. Combo wise is like assembling a doomsday weapon that will wipe out everything once it is done, and other nations will have to devote some resources to thwart each other from assembling their own version of doomsday weapon while at the same time pushing forward their own agenda.
Just like an actual war between nations, there are various strategies which they can employ. This includes hitting on enemy nation's resource lines (hitting on artifact and land resources), imposing more liabilities on enemies's troops (stax and tax) and such. But then for some who abide to a "certain code of honor", they only want fighting to be conducted at a certain place somewhere under their own rules. This greatly limits the number of strategies that are available to the game.
In short, playing a subset of the game (no combos, no resource hitting etc) greatly limits the number of archetypes available to play. Aggro (voltron or swarm) are still viable in multiplayer EDH, it needs the resource hitting strategy also to make it more efficient. Similarly to big mana strategies, if the strategy is to cast spells with big effects, you have to find ways to prevent opponents from stopping you casting those big spells that you love.
There is competitive edh.
Look at the top tier competitive edh strategies(http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/list-multiplayer-edh-generals-by-tier/):
Food chain tazri - Cheap interaction, broken fast mana, the best ways to find your combo(food chain), and then combo off with food chain + tazri
Jeleva slim - Cheap interaction, broken fast mana, the best ways to find your combo, and then combo off
Kess Grixis twin - Cheap interaction, broken fast mana, the best ways to find your combo, and then combo off
Food chain prossh - Cheap interaction, broken fast mana, the best ways to find your combo, and then combo off
Chain veil teferi - Cheap interaction, broken fast mana, the best ways to find your combo, and then combo off
and it goes on like this.
This is where making everything legal and playing to win leads. Every deck plays extremely similarly. There is only really one archetype, every other archetype won't win as many games, if any, because of how fast these combos can end the game.
The assumption that making every card and every strategy legal improves gameplay variety can and has been false at many times in magics history in just about every format ever. That's why formats have ban lists in the first place. The strategy can be legal yet totally useless because it is outclassed, such as how combo completely eclipses every other way to win in edh by ignoring the increased life totals and multiple opponents.
But edh is a bit special where it isn't really designed to be a competitive format, and they have a different ban list philosophy that heavily involves the player making the deck, saying "make a deck that is suitable to your playgroup".
So I believe it is up to the players and deckbuilders to restrain themselves to create a better game, something that is actually really hard. One of the easiest ruiles that can improve the gameplay tremendously to me is not winning the game from an empty board.
Look at the top tier competitive edh strategies(http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/list-multiplayer-edh-generals-by-tier/):
Food chain tazri - Cheap interaction, broken fast mana, the best ways to find your combo(food chain), and then combo off with food chain + tazri
Jeleva slim - Cheap interaction, broken fast mana, the best ways to find your combo, and then combo off
Kess Grixis twin - Cheap interaction, broken fast mana, the best ways to find your combo, and then combo off
Food chain prossh - Cheap interaction, broken fast mana, the best ways to find your combo, and then combo off
Chain veil teferi - Cheap interaction, broken fast mana, the best ways to find your combo, and then combo off
and it goes on like this.
This is where making everything legal and playing to win leads. Every deck plays extremely similarly. There is only really one archetype, every other archetype won't win as many games, if any, because of how fast these combos can end the game.
The assumption that making every card and every strategy legal improves gameplay variety can and has been false at many times in magics history in just about every format ever. That's why formats have ban lists in the first place. The strategy can be legal yet totally useless because it is outclassed, such as how combo completely eclipses every other way to win in edh by ignoring the increased life totals and multiple opponents.
But edh is a bit special where it isn't really designed to be a competitive format, and they have a different ban list philosophy that heavily involves the player making the deck, saying "make a deck that is suitable to your playgroup".
So I believe it is up to the players and deckbuilders to restrain themselves to create a better game, something that is actually really hard. One of the easiest ruiles that can improve the gameplay tremendously to me is not winning the game from an empty board.
The thing which makes all these competitive edh combo decks go so fast are the brokenly fast, cheap mana rocks like mana crypt, sol ring, mana vault, grim monolith and ilk. Many of these decks are totally gimped with just 1x Null Rod, Rule of Law or a resolved Jester's Cap. But sadly, such 'hosers' are also frowned upon by the casual EDH circles, although they are excellent counters to the said combo decks.
If the meta encourages strategies from all angles, one will less likely to see combo decks win as much. I've seen combo decks get completely outclassed by aggro decks as they can't fight the amount of hosers those aggro decks run. Do try a Balan based equipment aggro deck that runs Stony Silence/Null Rod, limits opponents searching with Aven Mindcensor, and having protection of own permanents by tapping down opponents' resources with cards like mana web, Kismet and Winter Orb.
Then again, not all combo decks run like how the competitive decks run. There are specially themed combo decks that run combos which are janky and totally can't fit into the cEDH meta at all. It is kind of unrealistic to condemn all combos just because a few of them outclass all the others. There are so many synergies available which are really awesome to pull off but are too janky in cEDH terms. A good example is the Mirrodin Station artifact combo, it is an infinite loop but requires all 4 stations present and another artifact to start the loop, so janky that only in EDH it can be pulled off.
Combo is not bad, whatsoever. Like every other strategy, it has it's weaknesses.
1. Namely, that once people know how the combos work they become very easy to target and stop. The combo deck running a combo that the playgroup has never seen before is much more dangerous than the deck running a combo that is known in the meta. Thus, the effective time for a combo is the first time it's ever used in the meta.
2. Disruption/Removal is must. Personally, I believe that you should always run some in a deck based on the fact that your opponents can always have something to mess with your own plans. Playing an aggro token strategy? Well something like Urabrask or Authority of the Consuls would ruin your day until you get rid of them. There's also the fact that the deck that plays no disruption/removal is a sitting duck to the combo deck and just feeding into the combo strategy.
The thing which makes all these competitive edh combo decks go so fast are the brokenly fast, cheap mana rocks like mana crypt, sol ring, mana vault, grim monolith and ilk. Many of these decks are totally gimped with just 1x Null Rod, Rule of Law or a resolved Jester's Cap. But sadly, such 'hosers' are also frowned upon by the casual EDH circles, although they are excellent counters to the said combo decks.
If the meta encourages strategies from all angles, one will less likely to see combo decks win as much. I've seen combo decks get completely outclassed by aggro decks as they can't fight the amount of hosers those aggro decks run. Do try a Balan based equipment aggro deck that runs Stony Silence/Null Rod, limits opponents searching with Aven Mindcensor, and having protection of own permanents by tapping down opponents' resources with cards like mana web, Kismet and Winter Orb.
Then again, not all combo decks run like how the competitive decks run. There are specially themed combo decks that run combos which are janky and totally can't fit into the cEDH meta at all. It is kind of unrealistic to condemn all combos just because a few of them outclass all the others. There are so many synergies available which are really awesome to pull off but are too janky in cEDH terms. A good example is the Mirrodin Station artifact combo, it is an infinite loop but requires all 4 stations present and another artifact to start the loop, so janky that only in EDH it can be pulled off.
Combo decks can run all the same hate cards if they want, their way of winning the game is just faster.
If your win takes 6 turns to happen when you find it, and my win takes 1 turn to win when I find it, I'm obviously sticking with my method. I just need to include a few cards to take care of hate spells, which the decks I posted already do with cards like chain of vapor. Every strategy has answers, but when they aren't answered, which is fastest? Are the combos any less resilient than the other methods? I don't think so.
I do mention that it's winning the game from an empty board that's the real problem, not necessarily combos themselves. If the strategy takes buildup that is reasonable to interact with(I don't consider, for example, removing purphoros, god of the forge to be reasonable), it's almost certainly fine. But because EDH mana is so plentiful, where it is almost trivial to reach 10+ mana, almost any combo people would want to run can be fully cast in one turn and win the game, even the slower ones, so it's best to just say don't run them.
Infinite combo is fine, the kind of deck that plays infinite combo is what sucks. If a deck is designed to actually play the game and happens to go infinite or has the ability to search for an infinite combo at some point in later turns to end the game that is cool, and the players who you routinely play with should expect that and anticipate when you will try and "go off" and hold up mana for removal, grave hate etc. What super sucks is when a deck is designed to do the exact same infinite combo on turns 2-4, and no one got to play or have a chance to defend themselves. Even in cut throat CEDH groups, you can kid yourselves all day by calling it your fun but in reality a deck that goes infinite on turns 2-4 are so lopsided it isn't really competitve so it doesn't justify your infinite combos in those kinds of Ad Nauseum Hermit Druid combo decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"People are the worst. The worst thing about music is that people play it." - Mike Patton
You should feel sorry for yourself.
OG even specifically acknowledged his opponent won the match.
If you're cool with your opponents ignoring everything you've done all game long and just saying "I win, because i drew a tutor" that's fine. But calling other people childish and toxic for having another opinion is actually much more toxic.
The acknowledgement is worth ***** when in his words he "stole" the game and wasn't "better" than him and ipso facto didn't "beat" him.
Literally in the example given it's completely ignored that there's been a magus of the coffer sticking to the board. The topdeck wasn't the reason he won but because the magus didn't meet opposition and he lived long enough to have enough swamps to go off. All with a deck completely hamstrung by being mono coloured.
Nothing wrong with calling out a *****ty attitude
I've got to agree. The fact that there has to be a distinction of between being "beaten" vs a player who simply "won the match", rubs me wrong. It sounds like an excuse, almost, if I'm being honest.
A win is a win. A loss is a loss. Whether it happens by inches or miles. The fact is that Magus of the Coffers was allowed to sit on the field was the error. That error became a mistake when the mono-B assembled their combo and went off. It could have been stopped but it wasn't.
And it's about playing the game.
Which is why "stealing the win" is lame and toxic behaviour.
It shows your opponents that you don't care about having a good time, it shows that for you it's only about winning.
You might have a hard time believing it, but for some people that is exactly the reason why they hate combo.
And isn't that what this thread is all about: Talking about infinite combo's and the reason for liking or disliking them?
Your response, while just 5 words long, is quite destructive to the entire thread.
You cannot ask people if they like infinite combo, then respond with "It's a game, dude. Relax!" when they calmly explain why they hate it.
Do you want a discussion or not?
And it's about playing the game.
Which is why "stealing the win" is lame and toxic behaviour.
Define "steal." Would it have been any different if they had topdecked Exsanguinate and cast it at X = 40? Miracle topdecks happen regardless of combo or not. It's not toxic behavior to make the right play.
It shows your opponents that you don't care about having a good time, it shows that for you it's only about winning.
Are you sure you're not the one who cares way too much about winning? Because your entire complaint in this thread has been focused on someone "stealing" a win from you as if you deserved it or something.
You might have a hard time believing it, but for some people that is exactly the reason why they hate combo.
I don't have a hard time believing anything for which proof exists, I just have a hard time taking many of them seriously. Personally, I dislike playing combo in casual circles, but I don't mind if others play it. I don't mind stax, MLD, or really any way to win as long as it's done with the intent to win (eg, don't Armageddon and then scoop).
You cannot ask people if they like infinite combo, then respond with "It's a game, dude. Relax!" when they calmly explain why they hate it.
a) I didn't start the thread and b) I don't think a single post you've made in this thread has been "calm" honestly
And it's about playing the game.
Which is why "stealing the win" is lame and toxic behaviour.
It shows your opponents that you don't care about having a good time, it shows that for you it's only about winning.
You might have a hard time believing it, but for some people that is exactly the reason why they hate combo.
And isn't that what this thread is all about: Talking about infinite combo's and the reason for liking or disliking them?
Your response, while just 5 words long, is quite destructive to the entire thread.
You cannot ask people if they like infinite combo, then respond with "It's a game, dude. Relax!" when they calmly explain why they hate it.
Do you want a discussion or not?
Why? Why is it a "steal"? Because you had lead in life points while mono-B while almost dead? I didn't know that the circumstances entitled you to a win.
Why is making the move that wins the game toxic? Because you don't like the method? Because the other player should have died instead of pulling off that combo? Why was the Magus allowed to stay on the field? Yeah, cuz the guy who produces more mana based on your # of swamps for in a mono-B deck? That could not possibly go wrong, right?
Honestly, your entire complaint boils down to the fact that your opponent did not win in a way you like, so therefore it must be toxic.
Also, funny how you complain about people only caring about winning when all you've done is try to downplay yourself losing that game, speak on the evils of combo and act like the other player is a bad person/player for winning with a combo.
Why is making the move that wins the game toxic? Because you don't like the method?
Yes, that is exactly what it comes down to.
Honestly, your entire complaint boils down to the fact that your opponent did not win in a way you like, so therefore it must be toxic.
You act as if you uncovered some deeply hidden truth. But yeah, that is exactly what it comes down to: We do not like it. We do not want to play against that.
Sorry, if some of us don't see it like you do.
That is perfectly fine.
But that's no reason for you, or at least your side, to talk so condescending and insulting towards people that DO find it a toxic move.
Why is making the move that wins the game toxic? Because you don't like the method?
Yes, that is exactly what it comes down to.
Honestly, your entire complaint boils down to the fact that your opponent did not win in a way you like, so therefore it must be toxic.
You act as if you uncovered some deeply hidden truth. But yeah, that is exactly what it comes down to: We do not like it. We do not want to play against that.
Sorry, if some of us don't see it like you do.
That is perfectly fine.
But that's no reason for you, or at least your side, to talk so condescending and insulting towards people that DO find it a toxic move.
Oh, so you get to call something a certain way and that's fine but when someone calls you on it, it's not?
You call it toxic but did you sit down and talk to this player before you all played? Did you let your feelings be known beforehand? Did they act like a jerk? Did they rub they're victory in your face?
There's no such thing as a toxic play. Just toxic behavior.
Topdecking Exsanguinate would take me to 52 HP..
We're not talking about strong spells, we are talking about tutoring a combo.
You're missing the point. In this particular instance, what is the functional difference between a strong spell killing you and a combo doing so? How is one stealing and the other isn't? This isn't striking you as intellectually unsound yet? Your complaint is entirely about losing. The how is completely irrelevant.
Yes, people that steal a win by tutoring an insta-win combo don't deserve it.
You've yet to even attempt to define "stealing."
If you don't want to take others serious then online fora might not be the ideal place for you to hang around.
You answered a single question and responded like a scum player in mafia.
Why would eat the nasty cracker of an Oreo? It messes with teeth. The filling us the best and the true goal of the snack.
1. To challenge myself to game of commander where I test my skills to win.
2. I don’t know why said anything about coherrant other than to act like....maybe lay off the pot?
3. I play my commander when I can protect it and win. If I don’t, your deck did require my commander to beat you. Resource allocation....try it.
I did read the post but you were begging the question of skill versus stuidity. Also, most of the complainers on are attacking the guy who wins a lot cause they are playing jank and expecting others to roll over to another rocket man. Sorry we don’t care.
If you hate people who play to win, which is the goal of the game, why don’t you just gray some tequila and play beer pong. Way more fun if that’s what your looking for.
Also, i eat the whole cookie and leave nothing behind to be as eficient as possible. I play magic the same style.
The dude who ate all the filling was the group hug player. Takes the filling and leaves you the cookie like it’s a favor.
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!
But he didn't beat me, he won the match. There's a difference between those two things.
The top definition of beating someone is to be better, but he wasn't. He just topdecked a combo-piece and "stole the win".
And actions like that is exactly what many people hate in combo.
It's like playing a game of chess, flipping the table and declare you are the winner.
The concept of fun is subjective and differs from player to player though. Just like how some say that people playing combo are sitting on top of their ivory towers, those very same people too are doing that too, by enforcing what they themselves deemed as correct onto others. Again, fun is subjective, not everyone likes to turn their creatures sideways to win.
Just like there are ways to stop an aggro player from winning there are also ways to stop the combo player from winning too. A swords to plowshares can protect the player from an attacking for lethal creature can also be used to stop combos such as MikeTrisk or Kiki/Resto. We just need to know when to use it or pack more of it so that the combo players can't assemble their winning card combination that easily.
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
It's okay when you do it to others, but not when they do it to you.
"Nothing tears up a group of friends faster than a session of Mario Party." ~ ForsakenM~
Extra Info:
EDH, Modern, Anything with Planechase
Cockatrice Name: ForsakenM
Bad analogy. Chess is deterministic with no unknown information, and it is theoretically soluble from known information. Magic is none of those things, and to hold that against one's opponent is nonsensical. One might as well be angry at a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season.
Combo is just the better way to win.
Aggro doesn't actually exist as a viable edh archetype if combo is legal. There is only varying speeds of combo deck.
It reduces gameplay variety tremendously.
Do agree that aggro strategies have a way harder time to win in a multiplayer setting, as the cards and rules themselves are originally designed as for a 1 vs 1 rather than 1 vs all.
What kind of gameplay variety are you talking about if combo doesn't exist? Players take turns to cast a bigger fatty then swing into each other and determine whose pumped up fatty wins?
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
Voltron, tokens, board control, pillow fort, blink value, big mana etc all tend to play very differently in comparison. They take longer to win and so the gameplay noticeably changes. Combo, because it ends the game on the spot, all feels the same, on top of making other archetypes obsolete with its raw power given multiplayer edh game rules.
Wouldn't all strategies feel the same like combos as they do the same thing to win? Voltron is always about pumping 1 creature (commander or other creature) to swing for the win every single game. Tokens amass large numbers of creatures every single game so on and forth?
To me playing in an EDH multiplayer game is like having different nations fighting against each other. Each nation by itself has a different kind of agenda in which it will devote its resources into in order to win the game. Combo wise is like assembling a doomsday weapon that will wipe out everything once it is done, and other nations will have to devote some resources to thwart each other from assembling their own version of doomsday weapon while at the same time pushing forward their own agenda.
Just like an actual war between nations, there are various strategies which they can employ. This includes hitting on enemy nation's resource lines (hitting on artifact and land resources), imposing more liabilities on enemies's troops (stax and tax) and such. But then for some who abide to a "certain code of honor", they only want fighting to be conducted at a certain place somewhere under their own rules. This greatly limits the number of strategies that are available to the game.
In short, playing a subset of the game (no combos, no resource hitting etc) greatly limits the number of archetypes available to play. Aggro (voltron or swarm) are still viable in multiplayer EDH, it needs the resource hitting strategy also to make it more efficient. Similarly to big mana strategies, if the strategy is to cast spells with big effects, you have to find ways to prevent opponents from stopping you casting those big spells that you love.
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
Want to know what is truly toxic? Putting words in other people's mouth.
Don't even dare to use the word respect after that *****ty attitude you just displayed.
If you don't want to hear how others feel about infinite combo you shouldn't open a thread called "do people like infinite combos".
And no. Using infinite combo to "steal" the win is toxic, petty, and has no place in a game that I play.
There is competitive edh.
Look at the top tier competitive edh strategies(http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/list-multiplayer-edh-generals-by-tier/):
Food chain tazri - Cheap interaction, broken fast mana, the best ways to find your combo(food chain), and then combo off with food chain + tazri
Jeleva slim - Cheap interaction, broken fast mana, the best ways to find your combo, and then combo off
Kess Grixis twin - Cheap interaction, broken fast mana, the best ways to find your combo, and then combo off
Food chain prossh - Cheap interaction, broken fast mana, the best ways to find your combo, and then combo off
Chain veil teferi - Cheap interaction, broken fast mana, the best ways to find your combo, and then combo off
and it goes on like this.
This is where making everything legal and playing to win leads. Every deck plays extremely similarly. There is only really one archetype, every other archetype won't win as many games, if any, because of how fast these combos can end the game.
The assumption that making every card and every strategy legal improves gameplay variety can and has been false at many times in magics history in just about every format ever. That's why formats have ban lists in the first place. The strategy can be legal yet totally useless because it is outclassed, such as how combo completely eclipses every other way to win in edh by ignoring the increased life totals and multiple opponents.
But edh is a bit special where it isn't really designed to be a competitive format, and they have a different ban list philosophy that heavily involves the player making the deck, saying "make a deck that is suitable to your playgroup".
So I believe it is up to the players and deckbuilders to restrain themselves to create a better game, something that is actually really hard. One of the easiest ruiles that can improve the gameplay tremendously to me is not winning the game from an empty board.
The thing which makes all these competitive edh combo decks go so fast are the brokenly fast, cheap mana rocks like mana crypt, sol ring, mana vault, grim monolith and ilk. Many of these decks are totally gimped with just 1x Null Rod, Rule of Law or a resolved Jester's Cap. But sadly, such 'hosers' are also frowned upon by the casual EDH circles, although they are excellent counters to the said combo decks.
If the meta encourages strategies from all angles, one will less likely to see combo decks win as much. I've seen combo decks get completely outclassed by aggro decks as they can't fight the amount of hosers those aggro decks run. Do try a Balan based equipment aggro deck that runs Stony Silence/Null Rod, limits opponents searching with Aven Mindcensor, and having protection of own permanents by tapping down opponents' resources with cards like mana web, Kismet and Winter Orb.
Then again, not all combo decks run like how the competitive decks run. There are specially themed combo decks that run combos which are janky and totally can't fit into the cEDH meta at all. It is kind of unrealistic to condemn all combos just because a few of them outclass all the others. There are so many synergies available which are really awesome to pull off but are too janky in cEDH terms. A good example is the Mirrodin Station artifact combo, it is an infinite loop but requires all 4 stations present and another artifact to start the loop, so janky that only in EDH it can be pulled off.
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
1. Namely, that once people know how the combos work they become very easy to target and stop. The combo deck running a combo that the playgroup has never seen before is much more dangerous than the deck running a combo that is known in the meta. Thus, the effective time for a combo is the first time it's ever used in the meta.
2. Disruption/Removal is must. Personally, I believe that you should always run some in a deck based on the fact that your opponents can always have something to mess with your own plans. Playing an aggro token strategy? Well something like Urabrask or Authority of the Consuls would ruin your day until you get rid of them. There's also the fact that the deck that plays no disruption/removal is a sitting duck to the combo deck and just feeding into the combo strategy.
The fact is combo is a linear strategy that can become very predictable once you know how it functions. Deadeye Navigator in an Animar, Soul of Elements deck? Get rid of it. Disciple of the Vault with a Sharuum the Hegemon? It's gotta go! The examples go on and on...
BK'rrik Goodstuff
GWSythis Enchantress
URYusri Coin Flip
BRGKorvold Tokens
BGUYarok Lands Matter
WUBRaffine Looter
Combo decks can run all the same hate cards if they want, their way of winning the game is just faster.
If your win takes 6 turns to happen when you find it, and my win takes 1 turn to win when I find it, I'm obviously sticking with my method. I just need to include a few cards to take care of hate spells, which the decks I posted already do with cards like chain of vapor. Every strategy has answers, but when they aren't answered, which is fastest? Are the combos any less resilient than the other methods? I don't think so.
I do mention that it's winning the game from an empty board that's the real problem, not necessarily combos themselves. If the strategy takes buildup that is reasonable to interact with(I don't consider, for example, removing purphoros, god of the forge to be reasonable), it's almost certainly fine. But because EDH mana is so plentiful, where it is almost trivial to reach 10+ mana, almost any combo people would want to run can be fully cast in one turn and win the game, even the slower ones, so it's best to just say don't run them.
It's a game, dude. Relax.
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
I've got to agree. The fact that there has to be a distinction of between being "beaten" vs a player who simply "won the match", rubs me wrong. It sounds like an excuse, almost, if I'm being honest.
A win is a win. A loss is a loss. Whether it happens by inches or miles. The fact is that Magus of the Coffers was allowed to sit on the field was the error. That error became a mistake when the mono-B assembled their combo and went off. It could have been stopped but it wasn't.
BK'rrik Goodstuff
GWSythis Enchantress
URYusri Coin Flip
BRGKorvold Tokens
BGUYarok Lands Matter
WUBRaffine Looter
And it's about playing the game.
Which is why "stealing the win" is lame and toxic behaviour.
It shows your opponents that you don't care about having a good time, it shows that for you it's only about winning.
You might have a hard time believing it, but for some people that is exactly the reason why they hate combo.
And isn't that what this thread is all about: Talking about infinite combo's and the reason for liking or disliking them?
Your response, while just 5 words long, is quite destructive to the entire thread.
You cannot ask people if they like infinite combo, then respond with "It's a game, dude. Relax!" when they calmly explain why they hate it.
Do you want a discussion or not?
Are you sure you're not the one who cares way too much about winning? Because your entire complaint in this thread has been focused on someone "stealing" a win from you as if you deserved it or something.
I don't have a hard time believing anything for which proof exists, I just have a hard time taking many of them seriously. Personally, I dislike playing combo in casual circles, but I don't mind if others play it. I don't mind stax, MLD, or really any way to win as long as it's done with the intent to win (eg, don't Armageddon and then scoop).
a) I didn't start the thread and b) I don't think a single post you've made in this thread has been "calm" honestly
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
Topdecking Exsanguinate would take me to 52 HP..
We're not talking about strong spells, we are talking about tutoring a combo.
Yes, people that steal a win by tutoring an insta-win combo don't deserve it.
You might disagree with that, fine, it's a free country!
If you don't want to take others serious then online fora might not be the ideal place for you to hang around.
Why? Why is it a "steal"? Because you had lead in life points while mono-B while almost dead? I didn't know that the circumstances entitled you to a win.
Why is making the move that wins the game toxic? Because you don't like the method? Because the other player should have died instead of pulling off that combo? Why was the Magus allowed to stay on the field? Yeah, cuz the guy who produces more mana based on your # of swamps for in a mono-B deck? That could not possibly go wrong, right?
Honestly, your entire complaint boils down to the fact that your opponent did not win in a way you like, so therefore it must be toxic.
Also, funny how you complain about people only caring about winning when all you've done is try to downplay yourself losing that game, speak on the evils of combo and act like the other player is a bad person/player for winning with a combo.
Sorry, if some of us don't see it like you do.
BK'rrik Goodstuff
GWSythis Enchantress
URYusri Coin Flip
BRGKorvold Tokens
BGUYarok Lands Matter
WUBRaffine Looter
You act as if you uncovered some deeply hidden truth. But yeah, that is exactly what it comes down to: We do not like it. We do not want to play against that.
That is perfectly fine.
But that's no reason for you, or at least your side, to talk so condescending and insulting towards people that DO find it a toxic move.
Oh, so you get to call something a certain way and that's fine but when someone calls you on it, it's not?
You call it toxic but did you sit down and talk to this player before you all played? Did you let your feelings be known beforehand? Did they act like a jerk? Did they rub they're victory in your face?
There's no such thing as a toxic play. Just toxic behavior.
BK'rrik Goodstuff
GWSythis Enchantress
URYusri Coin Flip
BRGKorvold Tokens
BGUYarok Lands Matter
WUBRaffine Looter
You're missing the point. In this particular instance, what is the functional difference between a strong spell killing you and a combo doing so? How is one stealing and the other isn't? This isn't striking you as intellectually unsound yet? Your complaint is entirely about losing. The how is completely irrelevant.
You've yet to even attempt to define "stealing."
Not all opinions are created equal.
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK