I think you would easier find combos with Mikeaus than Trike being just one of the handful of possible undying pay offs.
I thankfully I guess rarely see that one these days but I guess that sentiment is double edged because people just stopped trying to win with 2 6 mana cards.
I just don't understand all of you posters saying you refuse to play combos. I mean... I never liked combos, but I like recursion, and this often leads to infinite combos. But if your combos takes 4 cards that otherwise do a lot of fun things in your deck.... are you really going to cut out those cards?
Yes. I will find a piece and cut it. For example:
2 card combos, especially those enabled by the commander (but tutoring the pieces or by being one of the two cards), are really boring. But if my Ayli, Eternal Pilgrim + Pitiless Plunderer + Sun Titan + Gift of Immortality infinite life combo is something my opponents have a problem with I think it is laughable. It is 4 pieces for infinite life. Easy to disrupt. Are you cutting Sun Titan if this is your deck? Even though it is fits Ayli so well?
If I had these 4 cards in my deck, I would likely end up cutting Pitiless Plunderer or Gift of Immortality. Sun Titan is too good to cut compare to the others, but I don't want infinite combos in my decks.
Do people have problems with my using Karametra's Acolyte, Temur Sabertooth, 6 devotion worth of green permanents, a haste enabler, and a Soul of the Harvest to draw my deck and find a way to win the game? If this was your deck, what would you cut?
I would easily cut the Acolyte.
When you have 4-5 card combos, they come up so rarely... like most of the time you were going to win the game anyway.
And they are disruptable.
This is not like people who play Food Chain combos where you really need enchantment removal or you're dead.
I would personally refuse to play any of those combos in my decks because I don't like them.
You do bring up a good point though and I think it is worthwhile to address the overarching idea here. The combo in question, and the pieces necessary to make it work, certainly change the "feel bad" (I can't think of a better term) moment when the combo goes off. If it is 2 pieces that come out together on one turn and just end the game: those suck and they suck to play against. However, if it takes multiple pieces that all come out one at a time: I can be a bit more forgiving on as they do have a lot of moving pieces and can be disrupted (though it still sucks).
The main thing I can think of regarding being against those though is that other players in the game don't actually know they are pieces to an infinite combo. For example, in your first scenario, you could just have Ayli and Plunderer on the board. As soon as you drop in Sun Titan, the game is over. Or, at least, you have a ridiculous amount of life which makes winning pretty difficult (outside of Commander Damage). It is tough to warrant expending removal, or casting a wrath, just for those two cards, so it is still "out of nowhere" to some extent.
The second example is less egregious but, again, the pieces themselves are so innocuous that it is hard to say that one would actually be holding up removal for any of the pieces at the time it goes off.
So, I do dislike infinite combos no matter the fragility of said combo because they generally still require someone to have an answer right then and there. I prefer not having to play where I need to blow up someone's Acolyte or Sabertooth (though the Sabertooth is a good target anyway) just because of the potential of some game winning combo.
Now, the reason I would say I would be a bit more forgiving of these is in the situations where these combos are a known entity. If I sat down with you, week after week, and I knew you had these in your deck, I would of course ensure that I spend removal on each piece as needed no matter how unassuming they look because I know what they can lead to. My statements above come more from a place of just sitting down with a person and now knowing their deck at all.
To be clear, I have no hard feelings towards the players themselves who choose to use infinite combos (regardless of the number of pieces or how disruptable it is). Though, if all of their decks just end in a combo win every time, I would likely just stop playing with them. It is just not how I would prefer my games of EDH to end. Having a more fragile combo is easier to stomach but they still result in the question of "does anyone have an answer right now?". If the answer is no, the game ends for everyone. At least with combat, or a big fireball (or whatever), it usually means that one player is out and the rest need to (get to) scramble to not be the next victim.
Saying I don't have a problem only to follow it up with if someone keeps playing it I will probably stop playing with them doesn't really square for me.
Also the disruption/removal used to stop combo is largely no different than to stop other forms of decks. Just comes down to card type generally.
I simply meant that I had nothing against the player; that is their preferred way to play (apparently) but it is not mine. I never said I didn't have a problem with the strategy; I clearly do based on everything I stated above and if every deck that player plays is a combo deck, then I will simply find others who don't rely on infinite combos. No hard feelings either way (hopefully).
About the disruption: the point is not having it in the deck. The point is having it in hand at the moment the combo tries to go off. I would never build a deck that can't stop any of the combos being discussed and a lot of players are the same simply because the removal/disruption is, as you said, useful in a lot of situations. To me it was simply a mark against a combo deck. Not having the removal against another deck may mean I lose but the others can still play on; not having it against an infinite combo means the game is done. The end game isn't much different than just having every player alpha striked with Craterhoof and an army of creatures, but the build up is different and that makes the difference for me.
Infinite combos just get us to the next game quicker, which is good for the people who are having bad luck in a game, they get another chance sooner in the next one. It also gets us out of a long slog of unending attrition and scales well when you sometimes have as many as 6 people playing in one game, which happens sometimes. My playgroup doesn't have any issue with them (and I'm not the only one who runs them), as long as it doesn't involve 30 minutes of looping extra turns or something annoying like that.
I tried to build a Maelstrom Wanderer deck that didn't do infinite combos, and by sheer luck in the majority of games I ever win with it, it was because it accidentally went infinite somehow anyway. I actually tried to leave out infinite combos, and discovered it had others in it I didn't even know about. Since then I just decided since it is so determined to go infinite anyway, I'll build it to be able to do it both intentionally and accidentally instead of fighting what these colors want to do.
This is a weird area to discuss and I like the question. It’s fraught with areas of controversy so if my answer offends it wasn’t meant to.
I’m not a huge fan of combos, that being said there’s combos and combos. Storming into Aetherflux reservoir, well it’s easy enough to do. I could go my whole life without seeing another lab man go off and be happy. A 4-5 card jank combo that may or may not come together once in a blue moon? Yeah I’ll give someone props for putting that together and making it happen.
Mostly I just don't understand how people could have fun following the inverted mantra. The reason the EDH mantra works is that competition is FUN. Trying your best to win at a game is a pastime that's provided enjoyment for humans since time immemorial. And as long as everyone is playing toned-down decks that don't have easy "I win" buttons, it's a good, satisfying game.
Holding back can be fun because it makes you analyze the game from layers you wouldn't and find alternative roads to victory that playing competitively with bad cards just doesn't give.
I generally won't avoid including cards that have natural good synergy outside of comboing off but I will avoid executing infinite loops. As an example I have had Kiki + conscripts in the same mono red deck where both were useful cards for the deck and I would just avoid playing them both out at the same time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
I always had this preconception that people in general dislike playing against combo. In fact, the first build of my current deck didn’t even had an unfair wincon. What I found later on while actually playing is that my playgroup didn’t mind combos as much and I found myself losing everygame because I purposefully held back during deckbuilding. (Not saying you need combo to win, but that particular deck of mine did.)
IMO there cases where those 2-3 pieces “easy” combos like mykhaeus or hulk are actually positive:
1) To give hard control/Stax decks a quick kill after they established the lock. Often times these decks drag the game for too long. Having a “i win” button is actually an act of mercy.
2) To keep up with your playgroup’s power level. Many builds doesn’t have the natural strength to play against fine tuned commanders. Adding a few powerful combos can level the competition. This, of course, so long the combo serves your deck and not the other way around.
3) To punish non interactive decks. This seems odd to say because the common conception is that combo decks are also linear and non interactive. But people tend to forget that ramp->ramp->fattie->kill or ritual->ritual->razaketh is also linear and boring. Of course you have to be careful otherwise you will also become linear and non interactive.Still, running a few combos that can win mid game if undisrupted is an ok way to punishing people that only cares about developing their own gameplan.
In the end, it all comes to how is you playgroup power level and what you like and don’t like to play against.
This thread really puts a fine point on what it is to be a commander player. Players don't like combo because they can't interact with it. Players don't like MLD because they don't want their ramp interacted with. This is actually the best argument for just saying screw it and playing to win.
EDIT: At this very moment, the thread where ramp players don't want opponents interacting with their ramp and the thread where ramp players feel entitled to interact with combos are back to back.
The two things are extremely tied together, people not seeing incremental advantage and saving removal or disruption for the big play tend to hosed by that more preparedness and advantage.
I will counter or disrupt the thing that comes out of this is largely a fools errand and if people want to combat this stuff. This doesn't mean play stuff like Dispel or move into those realms necessarily it just means not to treat the early turns as meaningless or disconnected from the later ones.
I just don't understand all of you posters saying you refuse to play combos. I mean... I never liked combos, but I like recursion, and this often leads to infinite combos. But if your combos takes 4 cards that otherwise do a lot of fun things in your deck.... are you really going to cut out those cards?
Good luck assembling it without tutors.
I have a 4 card combo in one of my deck and the number of time i was able to use it was exactly 1 in 5 years of playing that deck
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How i feel about competitive players and casual players in EDH: The competitive are german tourists, the casual are italian tourists, both in a italian beach. The italians asking themselves "why are the germans here?" make a legitimate question, the answer is because the beach is beautiful, no matter the country you came from. The italians wanting to ban the germans are dumb, because if the germans pay for their stay and follow the rules like everyone else, they have the right to be in the beach. Hovewer, if the germans started to ask themselves "why are the italians here?"... they would be dumb as hell.
So (1) bring multiple decks and (2) communicate before you sit down.
If I found out I'd won a game because someone else was sitting at the table with a win in hand and didn't play it, I'd feel like my win was tainted and I'd never want to play with them again.
Same as above. Bring multiple decks. Communicate. Or just bring a sideboard to take in/out the combo stuff.
MJ isn't a good comparison because that's an innate ability. You aren't intrinsically bound to your deck. If MJ had a magic feather that made him good, and without it he'd be roughly equivalent to your skill, wouldn't you rather he just ditched the magic feather and tried his heart out, rather than kept it but played like crap on purpose?
Ah, but we did communicate - in fact what we presented to you is what came out of the communication, which is why I said it's a matter of perspective - there's no right or wrong, but the majority of the core group in my LGS agreed to this "inverse mantra". You could argue that perhaps intrinsically we are compromising and I won't deny that, but the "inverse mantra" was decided taking into account on how we would react to different newcomers to the LGS (not necessarily new players to the game/format overall, could be walk-in experienced player).
Using the MJ and his magic feather example, I would tell you that we wouldn't want him to ditch his magic feather so just we could have a "equal" match - it would be disrespectful to the fact he has the Magic Feather and we know he does. Just like you think us playing our 75% decks and lowering ourselves to 50% to match casual to disrespectful, we think if you could improve your deck with cards you have but you didn't because you outright wanted to "match" a lower tier, to us is no different from putting it into your deck and not playing it out - in my meta, deckbuilding criticism (the good kind) is no different from questioning move decisions in-game as well - "why you didn't play out the game-winning combo" is an equal question to "why didn't you put this fitting combo we know you own into your deck" and the same answer of "I didn't want to win too easily" is met with equal lack-of-approval.
Perhaps saying "Build competitively, play casually" as the inverse mantra is not correct - the correct order is "play casually, build competitively". Our roots lie in managing the way we play so that it doesn't cause players to outright have to divide their decks (or even worse, only have 1 deck (especially newer players) and effectively have to sit out games) into distinct competitive and/or casual decks, we seek to improve all our decks over time still. Building is primarily individualistic process (even if we do give out criticism to assist), but the playing style is a whole lot interweaved between all active players of the group. Telling a player to build a whole another deck of a different tier is a whole lot less productive than telling them our playstyle and have them try to adapt to it. Sure both require change, but we have enough proof over the years to see which one has a better retaining rate.
because someone else is almost always doing the same thing.
the best experiences have been playing decks with a good mix of combo/answers to combo
the worst experiences have been sitting down to a bunch of do nothing battlecruiser decks that gripe about combo. the game lasts forever, no one interacts with each other, and eventually someone oopses into a combo or lethal combat damage. its boring and worst of all not interactive at all.
i've seen a lot of people gripe about how combo isn't interactive unless you run answers to those combos... and thats just it. you need to run answers to those combos. its not too difficult. run disruption, run answers. a deck with combos isn't oppressive if you can actually stop those combos, it is when you don't run enough ways to do so. it really sucks to be the 'i hate combo so i don't run them' guy who sits down at a pod with 3 other decks that run even one. its okay to let games end.
The sort of combos you are talking about, I think those not just fine, but actively cool. I mean, if you can win with Gift of Immortality, cool. Beats the hell out of Mike/Trike. The sorts of combos you cite are almost unavoidable in decks built with a fair bit of synergy, and they pretty much have to develop over the course of the game, vs. being tutored for game after game. Much different from Food Chain combo or things like that.
I just don't understand all of you posters saying you refuse to play combos. I mean... I never liked combos, but I like recursion, and this often leads to infinite combos. But if your combos takes 4 cards that otherwise do a lot of fun things in your deck.... are you really going to cut out those cards?
Yes. I will find a piece and cut it. For example:
2 card combos, especially those enabled by the commander (but tutoring the pieces or by being one of the two cards), are really boring. But if my Ayli, Eternal Pilgrim + Pitiless Plunderer + Sun Titan + Gift of Immortality infinite life combo is something my opponents have a problem with I think it is laughable. It is 4 pieces for infinite life. Easy to disrupt. Are you cutting Sun Titan if this is your deck? Even though it is fits Ayli so well?
If I had these 4 cards in my deck, I would likely end up cutting Pitiless Plunderer or Gift of Immortality. Sun Titan is too good to cut compare to the others, but I don't want infinite combos in my decks.
Do people have problems with my using Karametra's Acolyte, Temur Sabertooth, 6 devotion worth of green permanents, a haste enabler, and a Soul of the Harvest to draw my deck and find a way to win the game? If this was your deck, what would you cut?
I would easily cut the Acolyte.
When you have 4-5 card combos, they come up so rarely... like most of the time you were going to win the game anyway.
And they are disruptable.
This is not like people who play Food Chain combos where you really need enchantment removal or you're dead.
I would personally refuse to play any of those combos in my decks because I don't like them.
You do bring up a good point though and I think it is worthwhile to address the overarching idea here. The combo in question, and the pieces necessary to make it work, certainly change the "feel bad" (I can't think of a better term) moment when the combo goes off. If it is 2 pieces that come out together on one turn and just end the game: those suck and they suck to play against. However, if it takes multiple pieces that all come out one at a time: I can be a bit more forgiving on as they do have a lot of moving pieces and can be disrupted (though it still sucks).
The main thing I can think of regarding being against those though is that other players in the game don't actually know they are pieces to an infinite combo. For example, in your first scenario, you could just have Ayli and Plunderer on the board. As soon as you drop in Sun Titan, the game is over. Or, at least, you have a ridiculous amount of life which makes winning pretty difficult (outside of Commander Damage). It is tough to warrant expending removal, or casting a wrath, just for those two cards, so it is still "out of nowhere" to some extent.
The second example is less egregious but, again, the pieces themselves are so innocuous that it is hard to say that one would actually be holding up removal for any of the pieces at the time it goes off.
So, I do dislike infinite combos no matter the fragility of said combo because they generally still require someone to have an answer right then and there. I prefer not having to play where I need to blow up someone's Acolyte or Sabertooth (though the Sabertooth is a good target anyway) just because of the potential of some game winning combo.
Now, the reason I would say I would be a bit more forgiving of these is in the situations where these combos are a known entity. If I sat down with you, week after week, and I knew you had these in your deck, I would of course ensure that I spend removal on each piece as needed no matter how unassuming they look because I know what they can lead to. My statements above come more from a place of just sitting down with a person and now knowing their deck at all.
To be clear, I have no hard feelings towards the players themselves who choose to use infinite combos (regardless of the number of pieces or how disruptable it is). Though, if all of their decks just end in a combo win every time, I would likely just stop playing with them. It is just not how I would prefer my games of EDH to end. Having a more fragile combo is easier to stomach but they still result in the question of "does anyone have an answer right now?". If the answer is no, the game ends for everyone. At least with combat, or a big fireball (or whatever), it usually means that one player is out and the rest need to (get to) scramble to not be the next victim.
I just loved how these two responses to my post were so different. Goes to show you how different commander players can be.
I try to have my decks do innovative and complex things. Sometimes, they assemble complicated combos. Sometimes they assemble complicated locks. Mostly I aim for high synergy. Every once in a while I have a game that 'feels bad' when I win... last time was Sage of Hours. I am pretty sure I couldn't go infinite, but I could take two extra turns... and my opponents scooped assuming I could go infinite.
I really think that many people just tire of losing to the same kind of combos (or Craterhoofs and Triumph of the Hordes).
Regarding cutting the cards from my Ayli deck to avoid combos - Each of the cards does a lot of work individually in the deck. I have Pitiless Plunderer, Sifter of Skulls and Pawn of Ulamog because I like how they make Ayli mana neutral for her first activated ability. Gift of Immortality is one of my favourite cards... same for Sun Titan. They let me recur creatures turn after turn. Together they go infinite... It's like Reveillark and Karmic Guide - both are fun cards that I want to play... but if you get both of them out you tend to go infinite. To me, it is just so hard in some cases to avoid combos that I decide to play with the cards I like and if they go infinite, so be it.
I can respect that you hate combo though, and that if my opponents communicate that they don't want infinite combos, I will change to a more appropriate deck.
I just don't understand all of you posters saying you refuse to play combos. I mean... I never liked combos, but I like recursion, and this often leads to infinite combos. But if your combos takes 4 cards that otherwise do a lot of fun things in your deck.... are you really going to cut out those cards?
Good luck assembling it without tutors.
I have a 4 card combo in one of my deck and the number of time i was able to use it was exactly 1 in 5 years of playing that deck
I think you hit the nail on the head. I hate tutors. I like EDH because I hate games playing out the same way over and over again.
My only decks that run a lot of tutors are trying to do crazy things... like assemble Tainted Aether + Night of Soul's Betrayal + Forbidden Orchard.
If I were to make a house rule for an EDH group, it would probably be to ban a lot of the tutors.
Holding back can be fun because it makes you analyze the game from layers you wouldn't and find alternative roads to victory that playing competitively with bad cards just doesn't give.
I might be misinterpreting what you said because it's a little hard to parse, but your first sentence makes it sound like you think you only have 2 options: play a powerful deck with combos (and then choose not to play them) or play one with a cheap manabase. Which doesn't follow at all. Whether or not you put combos in your deck (or how powerful you make your deck on the whole) is a completely separate decision from how much you sink into your manabase. You can play duals and fetches in an otherwise jank deck. No one's going to call the cops, I promise.
I also don't follow the second sentence either. What layers are you analyzing that you couldn't analyze without having the combo at all? No one said you had to run bad cards. Do you want to win with diregraf colossus and gravecrawler beats? Great, run those cards. Are you not playing phyrexian altar despite having it? Then don't run it. The only "layer" I'm seeing that's only available by running a combo you don't play is the layer of knowing you could win and then not winning. Which is not a very interesting layer imo.
Ah, but we did communicate - in fact what we presented to you is what came out of the communication, which is why I said it's a matter of perspective - there's no right or wrong, but the majority of the core group in my LGS agreed to this "inverse mantra". You could argue that perhaps intrinsically we are compromising and I won't deny that, but the "inverse mantra" was decided taking into account on how we would react to different newcomers to the LGS (not necessarily new players to the game/format overall, could be walk-in experienced player).
Using the MJ and his magic feather example, I would tell you that we wouldn't want him to ditch his magic feather so just we could have a "equal" match - it would be disrespectful to the fact he has the Magic Feather and we know he does. Just like you think us playing our 75% decks and lowering ourselves to 50% to match casual to disrespectful, we think if you could improve your deck with cards you have but you didn't because you outright wanted to "match" a lower tier, to us is no different from putting it into your deck and not playing it out - in my meta, deckbuilding criticism (the good kind) is no different from questioning move decisions in-game as well - "why you didn't play out the game-winning combo" is an equal question to "why didn't you put this fitting combo we know you own into your deck" and the same answer of "I didn't want to win too easily" is met with equal lack-of-approval.
Perhaps saying "Build competitively, play casually" as the inverse mantra is not correct - the correct order is "play casually, build competitively". Our roots lie in managing the way we play so that it doesn't cause players to outright have to divide their decks (or even worse, only have 1 deck (especially newer players) and effectively have to sit out games) into distinct competitive and/or casual decks, we seek to improve all our decks over time still. Building is primarily individualistic process (even if we do give out criticism to assist), but the playing style is a whole lot interweaved between all active players of the group. Telling a player to build a whole another deck of a different tier is a whole lot less productive than telling them our playstyle and have them try to adapt to it. Sure both require change, but we have enough proof over the years to see which one has a better retaining rate.
If you enjoy playing combo, I'd say just play combo. I don't have a problem with people playing combo decks against each other if that's what they like to do. If you want to have a house rule that says "no combos until turn 6" or something, that also seems fine to me. Then people can play their best within that constraint.
In the metaphor, this is roughly letting everyone have a magic feather. That way it's a fair, fun game. You say you don't want him to lose the feather, but if someone sits down with a combo deck you're effectively asking them to play like they don't have one. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be less disrespectful. Personally I'd rather not play at all, than be told I'm supposed to play my deck incorrectly.
As far as people having to sit out, I'm not sure what you're trying to avoid. If most of you have multiple decks, than whatever a newcomer shows up with, you'll be prepared for it. If there are multiple players with only one deck and one has a powerful deck and one has a weak deck...well, that game was always going to suck.
But if you wanted it to NOT suck, the better solution would be to run ANSWERS to the more powerful deck, so that you can dole out an appropriate amount of hate to bring the powerful deck down to the same level as the weaker one. Not pile on to the problem by having multiple combo decks racing to the finish line while the weaker deck has no chance at all.
As far as deckbuilding being the same as playing, I wonder if you're willing to follow that line of thought to its natural conclusion. If someone had all the cards available to them, would you be disapproving if they DIDN'T build FCT or some similarly degenerate, win-on-turn-3 deck? They'd be holding back and you'd feel your win wasn't earned if they built anything less? Why can't people brew for the sake of brewing? I don't put combos in my deck because I want to try to win in other, more interesting ways. Deckbuilding is an experiment, and forgive me if I don't want to experiment with the same cards that have been done to death already. Also it sounds like you're holding back during play (by mutual agreement) anyway, so I'm not sure where this disapproval is coming from. Seems like everyone should just be fine with either, rather than disapproving of both.
If you enjoy playing combo, I'd say just play combo. I don't have a problem with people playing combo decks against each other if that's what they like to do. If you want to have a house rule that says "no combos until turn 6" or something, that also seems fine to me. Then people can play their best within that constraint.
In the metaphor, this is roughly letting everyone have a magic feather. That way it's a fair, fun game. You say you don't want him to lose the feather, but if someone sits down with a combo deck you're effectively asking them to play like they don't have one. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be less disrespectful. Personally I'd rather not play at all, than be told I'm supposed to play my deck incorrectly.
As far as people having to sit out, I'm not sure what you're trying to avoid. If most of you have multiple decks, than whatever a newcomer shows up with, you'll be prepared for it. If there are multiple players with only one deck and one has a powerful deck and one has a weak deck...well, that game was always going to suck.
But if you wanted it to NOT suck, the better solution would be to run ANSWERS to the more powerful deck, so that you can dole out an appropriate amount of hate to bring the powerful deck down to the same level as the weaker one. Not pile on to the problem by having multiple combo decks racing to the finish line while the weaker deck has no chance at all.
As far as deckbuilding being the same as playing, I wonder if you're willing to follow that line of thought to its natural conclusion. If someone had all the cards available to them, would you be disapproving if they DIDN'T build FCT or some similarly degenerate, win-on-turn-3 deck? They'd be holding back and you'd feel your win wasn't earned if they built anything less? Why can't people brew for the sake of brewing? I don't put combos in my deck because I want to try to win in other, more interesting ways. Deckbuilding is an experiment, and forgive me if I don't want to experiment with the same cards that have been done to death already. Also it sounds like you're holding back during play (by mutual agreement) anyway, so I'm not sure where this disapproval is coming from. Seems like everyone should just be fine with either, rather than disapproving of both.
This is not a matter of "If you enjoy combo, play combo. If you don't enjoy combo, don't bother at all". This is our solution to "what happens if your primary plan of the brewed deck fails?" Perhaps your solution is "I'll concede and move on to the next game", but to us that is disrespectful, not letting people who still have a chance of executing their primary plan to continue doing so - what fun is there if the game ends abruptly because the first person in the pod decided to concede because he or she couldn't assemble the primary win-con? Scrambling for boring combo last-minute isn't as efficient as just T1 tutoring into it and will take time, time in which participants still on their first plan can continue to do so, whereas people who "conceded" aren't reduced to mere puppet and/or kingmaking positions.
I said this was built and agreed upon by our circumstances - you say this lets everyone have a Magic Feather... and that is true - the core group consists of pretty much experienced players with years of experience and collections, perhaps not to the extreme (although there are a few semi-active players who does bling out their cEDh in OG foils and beta duals). The primary decks we build are all very near-competitive from the get-go and the "inverse mantra" keeps it from being outright cEDH. Again, this is not a matter of "If we enjoy playing cEDH, just play cEDH", we will do that when we feel like it - what we're doing and enjoying is "creating decks that can stretch to meet both ends of cEDh and casual in the same deck" instead of creating purely cEDH and casual decks, because we don't enjoy that.
Perhaps I've phrased my wordings really badly to make sound hypocritical in terms of combo - if you want to play combo, go ahead, we'll definitely have the answers to stop you from doing so. The only mentality I think we're really on opposite ends is that (I think that) you think "as long as you have a combo in the deck, you should always tutor for it as fast as possible and give it your "best"... and leave combos out of your other decks trying to win in other interesting ways", whereas from our own experiences it becomes "your other interesting winning way should have back-up combo so that you would have something to strive for when the plan fails instead of ruining the actual play experience by outright conceding/kingmaking afterwards".
The "interesting way first, combo backup" formula doesn't seem to gel with you because it feels like you're emphasizing on "as long as you have a combo, you should always combo first, otherwise it feels like you're not trying to win" whereas it gels with us because it's a formula that works in pretty much any scenario - casual, competitive and itself as well. If the point of contention is that it feels like we're "holding back" when playing casually, all you have to do is tell us and you'll face the cEDH side of the same decks. If the point of contention to that is that we don't have a purely "casual" deck, then yes, that's the whole point this whole thing was for - because we don't enjoy building "purely casual" decks with no backup, because once the plan fails, it becomes a miserable experience altogether - conceding outright is considered worse than striving for a combo-backup and kingmaking is even worse.
Actually, I think we're just agreeing to disagree here - you pointed here our "holding back" is a mutual agreement, but my whole point of contention is that I had to say that because right before that post your suggestion was to communicate, which implies you thought we didn't (apologies if you didn't mean it that way, but I had to infer with what I have), hence the whole post there. Likewise, this recent post citing answers being important - trust me, we definitely know how important answers are, considering we originate from cEDH or at least very close to it in terms of power.
I guess my "problem" with combos is when you deliberately build your deck to tutor for said combo - and the easier and more seen the combo, the less likely it will create a 'what a play of the game' kind of feel.
It's one thing to have combo pieces in your deck, it's wholly another to purposefully search for said combo for your primary game plan.
As far as combo as a backup option goes, I tend to instead overthink my decks and figure out what shuts down my deck the worst... and figure a few thematic answers. I might not draw them every game, but those few Negate variants I put in my deck because wraths can really hamper my game plan... well, they're going to find some use anyway. Or that Heroic Intervention. Or Rapid Decay in my mill deck for those Eldrazi. Answers to the things that answer my decks, basically. Usually they're at least somewhat useful cards otherwise, anyway.
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
This is not a matter of "If you enjoy combo, play combo. If you don't enjoy combo, don't bother at all". This is our solution to "what happens if your primary plan of the brewed deck fails?" Perhaps your solution is "I'll concede and move on to the next game", but to us that is disrespectful, not letting people who still have a chance of executing their primary plan to continue doing so - what fun is there if the game ends abruptly because the first person in the pod decided to concede because he or she couldn't assemble the primary win-con? Scrambling for boring combo last-minute isn't as efficient as just T1 tutoring into it and will take time, time in which participants still on their first plan can continue to do so, whereas people who "conceded" aren't reduced to mere puppet and/or kingmaking positions.
I said this was built and agreed upon by our circumstances - you say this lets everyone have a Magic Feather... and that is true - the core group consists of pretty much experienced players with years of experience and collections, perhaps not to the extreme (although there are a few semi-active players who does bling out their cEDh in OG foils and beta duals). The primary decks we build are all very near-competitive from the get-go and the "inverse mantra" keeps it from being outright cEDH. Again, this is not a matter of "If we enjoy playing cEDH, just play cEDH", we will do that when we feel like it - what we're doing and enjoying is "creating decks that can stretch to meet both ends of cEDh and casual in the same deck" instead of creating purely cEDH and casual decks, because we don't enjoy that.
Perhaps I've phrased my wordings really badly to make sound hypocritical in terms of combo - if you want to play combo, go ahead, we'll definitely have the answers to stop you from doing so. The only mentality I think we're really on opposite ends is that (I think that) you think "as long as you have a combo in the deck, you should always tutor for it as fast as possible and give it your "best"... and leave combos out of your other decks trying to win in other interesting ways", whereas from our own experiences it becomes "your other interesting winning way should have back-up combo so that you would have something to strive for when the plan fails instead of ruining the actual play experience by outright conceding/kingmaking afterwards".
The "interesting way first, combo backup" formula doesn't seem to gel with you because it feels like you're emphasizing on "as long as you have a combo, you should always combo first, otherwise it feels like you're not trying to win" whereas it gels with us because it's a formula that works in pretty much any scenario - casual, competitive and itself as well. If the point of contention is that it feels like we're "holding back" when playing casually, all you have to do is tell us and you'll face the cEDH side of the same decks. If the point of contention to that is that we don't have a purely "casual" deck, then yes, that's the whole point this whole thing was for - because we don't enjoy building "purely casual" decks with no backup, because once the plan fails, it becomes a miserable experience altogether - conceding outright is considered worse than striving for a combo-backup and kingmaking is even worse.
Actually, I think we're just agreeing to disagree here - you pointed here our "holding back" is a mutual agreement, but my whole point of contention is that I had to say that because right before that post your suggestion was to communicate, which implies you thought we didn't (apologies if you didn't mean it that way, but I had to infer with what I have), hence the whole post there. Likewise, this recent post citing answers being important - trust me, we definitely know how important answers are, considering we originate from cEDH or at least very close to it in terms of power.
Having a backup plan is all well and good, but I feel like you've got it backwards. The primary plan is the primary plan because it's the best one, the one with the best chance of winning. The backup plan is the next best chance of winning. And so forth. You switch to the backup plan when the chances of the first plan succeeding become lower than the backup. All these decisions are predicated on trying to win the actual game, though, and playing your best. If you've got your better plan as your secondary, then there's no logic to when you switch plans - because logically you should switch the moment the game begins.
Maybe I'm too much of a min-maxer to make any logical sense out of what you're saying, but it sounds like the best deck in your meta would be one with a primary plan that falls apart like tissue paper, to give you the fastest excuse to start playing towards a robust combo plan that's your "backup".
I don't follow this "when your plan falls apart" scenario though. A combo can fall apart, sure, because it's dependent on specific cards which could be removed, but if your plan is, say, "beat face with zombies" or whatever, then unless someone strips all the zombies out of your deck I'm not sure at which point you'd be incapable of acting on your plan.
Decks without combos can, of course, have backup plans, and they don't have to be bad decks, either. People in this thread keep acting like the only alternative to including a combo is having a precon-grade deck that falls apart against a stiff breeze, when that's obviously not the case. A good deck should either have a very robust plan, or multiple backups if the primary plan becomes untenable, but there are myriad ways to do that which don't need to include a combo.
Not that this is even specifically about combo - it's about building a deck that plays the way you want to play it, whether that's combo or something else. If you build a deck trying to do X but with backup plan Y that turns out to be stronger...then you've made a Y deck with an X backup plan, not the other way around. If you can't find a way to make your X plan the most viable part of your deck and still make your deck perform decently, then I'd say that's a failure of deckbuilding.
As far as having answers, then I think it sort of begs the question - if you're so worried about being plan-less and having your primary wincon dismantled, then what exactly do you do if your backup combo gets answered? I would think if your goal was to avoid being stuck without a way to win, you'd want the most durable backup plan possible, not something that will presumably fall apart if a single card in answered. Which, strangely enough, is how many decks in competitive play in other formats work - fragile but powerful primary plan, with a weaker but more durable backup.
Good luck assembling it without tutors.
I have a 4 card combo in one of my deck and the number of time i was able to use it was exactly 1 in 5 years of playing that deck
It's funny you mention that....
Last night at league I was playing my aforementioned Karador deck which runs Protean Hulk. It also runs all the combo pieces because they are individually just good value. About a half hour into the game, around turn 6, I draw Hulk. At this point I have a sac outlet 9n board and the mana to cast Hulk. I didn't do that and win on the spot, we were all having a very interactive game (even the one player who was getting color screwed because he didn't draw a single Mountain), and there is a 2 point dookie against infinite combos (I still would have netted points, so it wasn't that much of a deterrent). But it was mostly the former, so I just kept it in my hand and ended up discarding it to an opponent's effect. Fast forward another half hour or 45 mintutes. Everyone was still in the game, we were all hitting each other hard, and I knew we were going to go to time soon. By this point I had drawn at least a third of my deck. Mike and Grey Merchant was in my yard, Viscera Seer was in play, Reveillark was in my hand. I'm plotting how to get back Hulk to win. The store calls time so we go to turns... and I draw Karmic Guide. Hard cast both her and Llark, and combo out with a five card combo I drew naturally.
Now, it isn't as satisfying of a win, but at that point when we are forced to end the game then I'll take it. But personally, I would rather get a win like that which I fought for rather than one which I tutored into (I guess I should reassess what Hulk does for the deck). Like I said earlier, I don't take issue with other players running combo if that's what the want to do. I may not find the game particularly enjoyable if they sit in a corner doing nothing in the game until they combo out from nowhere, but it is what it is.
Having a backup plan is all well and good, but I feel like you've got it backwards. The primary plan is the primary plan because it's the best one, the one with the best chance of winning. The backup plan is the next best chance of winning. And so forth. You switch to the backup plan when the chances of the first plan succeeding become lower than the backup. All these decisions are predicated on trying to win the actual game, though, and playing your best. If you've got your better plan as your secondary, then there's no logic to when you switch plans - because logically you should switch the moment the game begins.
Maybe I'm too much of a min-maxer to make any logical sense out of what you're saying, but it sounds like the best deck in your meta would be one with a primary plan that falls apart like tissue paper, to give you the fastest excuse to start playing towards a robust combo plan that's your "backup".
I don't follow this "when your plan falls apart" scenario though. A combo can fall apart, sure, because it's dependent on specific cards which could be removed, but if your plan is, say, "beat face with zombies" or whatever, then unless someone strips all the zombies out of your deck I'm not sure at which point you'd be incapable of acting on your plan.
Decks without combos can, of course, have backup plans, and they don't have to be bad decks, either. People in this thread keep acting like the only alternative to including a combo is having a precon-grade deck that falls apart against a stiff breeze, when that's obviously not the case. A good deck should either have a very robust plan, or multiple backups if the primary plan becomes untenable, but there are myriad ways to do that which don't need to include a combo.
Not that this is even specifically about combo - it's about building a deck that plays the way you want to play it, whether that's combo or something else. If you build a deck trying to do X but with backup plan Y that turns out to be stronger...then you've made a Y deck with an X backup plan, not the other way around. If you can't find a way to make your X plan the most viable part of your deck and still make your deck perform decently, then I'd say that's a failure of deckbuilding.
As far as having answers, then I think it sort of begs the question - if you're so worried about being plan-less and having your primary wincon dismantled, then what exactly do you do if your backup combo gets answered? I would think if your goal was to avoid being stuck without a way to win, you'd want the most durable backup plan possible, not something that will presumably fall apart if a single card in answered. Which, strangely enough, is how many decks in competitive play in other formats work - fragile but powerful primary plan, with a weaker but more durable backup.
I can tell where you're coming from and how my structure feels like it's going against some sequence of logic. Let's start with this: "The primary plan is primary plan because its the best one." There we have our first disagreement - the primary plan is the way you hope to win with, the janky brew idea(s) you intended as the deck's base and not necessarily the "best" one. The "Combo" is the backup because its the one that needs the least components in order to technically win, but if you win with said combo you are actually just "closing the game proper" than actually "winning", because you've failed to win via the primary objective.
Yes, at the start of any given game, the backup "combo" is inherently more powerful because you can tutor for it straightaway and win, but as I said, closing the game without accomplishing your primary objective is "pointless" so to speak. Doing so while your primary objective pieces have not been disposed of is doubly insulting to the deck's brewing purpose. Of course, this is only within context of decks of equal or lower calibre - if plunged into complete cEDH, it becomes your typical logic of "best plan = primary plan... or rather, given the prevalence of removal... the decoy plan."
I can already feel your potential cringe of the start being like that - I'm spending resources (draw, tutors) building on a weaker plan, but at the same time I'm also forced to spend the same resources on removal and the like to deal with threats (and combos if combos are someone's primary plan). By the time the primary plan is worn down to be impossible, not only do I lack the resources to promptly just summon the backup, part of several combos might have already been spent since it's important to make sure your combos aren't just "two cards stuck into the deck", each and every piece must also have synergy with the primary weaker plan.
Let's use the zombie plan as an example (since I actually have one) - My primary plan is to beatdown with as many zombie (preferably the 2/2 tokens I collect) as possible. I do have my share of counterspells to stop wipes, but the secondary plan against wipes is to sacrifice them and let Plague Belcher/Vengeful Dead do the job (likewise, against pillowfort and the like, Shepherd of Rot is also a secondary plan). The kicker comes in when I know I have run out of resources to reliably ensure I can muster enough zombie (tokens) for either plan against the opponents' plans and/or life totals in time - now I need to use whatever resources I have (usually draw, not tutor) to find Gravecrawler and Phyrexian Altar (or Rooftop Storm and some sac outlet) and I'm potentially still screwed if either Belcher or Vengeful is completely out of the realm of recovery.
If we're playing cEDH within the closer group and/or the new player outright declares cEDH and/or tells us to play our best, gravecrawler, altar and plague belcher might be out as early as first to third turns (depending on draw/tutors) and it would still be answered safely. In such games, the "backup" plan becomes the "decoy" plan because you expect it to fail and it's actual purpose is simply to exhaust the opponent's resources. The primary plan usually still retains because we're spending each other's removals on each other's "decoys" (hence the actual need for several backups/decoys in some decks). If I walked into a casual game doing that it would be a three-turn game at most that doesn't even accomplish the decks' primary goal because the decoy won... so it's a decoy victory and essentially as worthless as a backup/closer one (which is why they're the same).
If I removed the teeth of the decoy/backup plans, all I'm left is the midrange grindfest that honestly makes the primary plan itself boring (especially since the combos are also interweaved into the theme - Gravecrawler is equally useful in sac-lose-life plan even when not infinite and Altar is great ramp for the deck regardless, I could replace Altar with Ashnod's instead, but it falls to the Magic Feather argument - I have the Phyrexian which is better why "cripple" myself during deckbuilding instead of when playing? Sure in theory I could swap Altars depending on the players, but in practice I usually play with people of the same caliber and my resources are already split across multiple decks of around the same level (so they can form an apocalypse constructed cube), so that means having to double unsleeve and double-sleeve the altars (and bringing said decks with each other all the time, I'm not cherry-picking cards from several other decks to form a sideboard).
As for the "fragile part" - we're in multiplayer edh, with me tilting towards the competitive end... nothing is durable, there are answers for everything by anyone on the table (even for protective measures). The value of a decoy/closer is in how many pieces it requires to assemble so it can either outspeed removal (in cEDH), dispose of removal for the future at a low cost (decoy function) or assemble successfully in the window of opportunity that both draw and removal resources were halted by the primary plan doing well enough to demand all the attention in order cripple it down (backup/closer function). Yes, there are bad times where everything just fails and you just sit there twiddling your thumbs, but the whole design philosophy is to minimize such cases from happening, without decoys/backups, it a whole lot more common than one would imagine.
2/4 of my commander decks have infinite combos they are all 3 or more cards and don't involve my commanders. I also try to avoid having a stack of tutors.
Most of the time I put them together it feels like more of a mercy killing for a game that has gone on too long and game has to end and sometimes you get stuck in a long stalemate and having that infinite combo end goal feels good when otherwise you would kind of check out of a game where you don't feel you can put together the critical mass of damage to win normally.
You can play duals and fetches in an otherwise jank deck. No one's going to call the cops, I promise.
Wrong. I've lost count of the playgroups I've played in where your deck was called cutthroat even if it was all dumb french vanilla creatures just because you happened to have a Bayou.
Casual can't be defined. What's casual and fun to me is finding suboptimal ways to win even if I have access to better plays. Wheter or not that's casual to you isn't very relevant because we don't play each other.
The primary plan is the primary plan because it's the best one, the one with the best chance of winning. The backup plan is the next best chance of winning. And so forth. You switch to the backup plan when the chances of the first plan succeeding become lower than the backup. All these decisions are predicated on trying to win the actual game, though, and playing your best. If you've got your better plan as your secondary, then there's no logic to when you switch plans - because logically you should switch the moment the game begins.
This is I think the source of all this dissonance of opinion: You appear to believe people are usually strictly logical beings. We are not, hence why the study of modern economics (founded on realtively simple logical principles) is rarely practical and often only theoretically applicable.
Very often we place what we want over what might be "optimal" because we simply prefer it. Therefore, telling us that our in-game reasoning is stupid in an idiosyncratic, unsanctioned game mode where social settings influence the rules (and their supporting logic) is only a stone's roll away from "My fun = best fun" or "everyone should play like I do", and I know you know those are fallacies.
I can tell where you're coming from and how my structure feels like it's going against some sequence of logic. Let's start with this: "The primary plan is primary plan because its the best one." There we have our first disagreement - the primary plan is the way you hope to win with, the janky brew idea(s) you intended as the deck's base and not necessarily the "best" one. The "Combo" is the backup because its the one that needs the least components in order to technically win, but if you win with said combo you are actually just "closing the game proper" than actually "winning", because you've failed to win via the primary objective.
Yes, at the start of any given game, the backup "combo" is inherently more powerful because you can tutor for it straightaway and win, but as I said, closing the game without accomplishing your primary objective is "pointless" so to speak. Doing so while your primary objective pieces have not been disposed of is doubly insulting to the deck's brewing purpose. Of course, this is only within context of decks of equal or lower calibre - if plunged into complete cEDH, it becomes your typical logic of "best plan = primary plan... or rather, given the prevalence of removal... the decoy plan."
I can already feel your potential cringe of the start being like that - I'm spending resources (draw, tutors) building on a weaker plan, but at the same time I'm also forced to spend the same resources on removal and the like to deal with threats (and combos if combos are someone's primary plan). By the time the primary plan is worn down to be impossible, not only do I lack the resources to promptly just summon the backup, part of several combos might have already been spent since it's important to make sure your combos aren't just "two cards stuck into the deck", each and every piece must also have synergy with the primary weaker plan.
Let's use the zombie plan as an example (since I actually have one) - My primary plan is to beatdown with as many zombie (preferably the 2/2 tokens I collect) as possible. I do have my share of counterspells to stop wipes, but the secondary plan against wipes is to sacrifice them and let Plague Belcher/Vengeful Dead do the job (likewise, against pillowfort and the like, Shepherd of Rot is also a secondary plan). The kicker comes in when I know I have run out of resources to reliably ensure I can muster enough zombie (tokens) for either plan against the opponents' plans and/or life totals in time - now I need to use whatever resources I have (usually draw, not tutor) to find Gravecrawler and Phyrexian Altar (or Rooftop Storm and some sac outlet) and I'm potentially still screwed if either Belcher or Vengeful is completely out of the realm of recovery.
If we're playing cEDH within the closer group and/or the new player outright declares cEDH and/or tells us to play our best, gravecrawler, altar and plague belcher might be out as early as first to third turns (depending on draw/tutors) and it would still be answered safely. In such games, the "backup" plan becomes the "decoy" plan because you expect it to fail and it's actual purpose is simply to exhaust the opponent's resources. The primary plan usually still retains because we're spending each other's removals on each other's "decoys" (hence the actual need for several backups/decoys in some decks). If I walked into a casual game doing that it would be a three-turn game at most that doesn't even accomplish the decks' primary goal because the decoy won... so it's a decoy victory and essentially as worthless as a backup/closer one (which is why they're the same).
If I removed the teeth of the decoy/backup plans, all I'm left is the midrange grindfest that honestly makes the primary plan itself boring (especially since the combos are also interweaved into the theme - Gravecrawler is equally useful in sac-lose-life plan even when not infinite and Altar is great ramp for the deck regardless, I could replace Altar with Ashnod's instead, but it falls to the Magic Feather argument - I have the Phyrexian which is better why "cripple" myself during deckbuilding instead of when playing? Sure in theory I could swap Altars depending on the players, but in practice I usually play with people of the same caliber and my resources are already split across multiple decks of around the same level (so they can form an apocalypse constructed cube), so that means having to double unsleeve and double-sleeve the altars (and bringing said decks with each other all the time, I'm not cherry-picking cards from several other decks to form a sideboard).
As for the "fragile part" - we're in multiplayer edh, with me tilting towards the competitive end... nothing is durable, there are answers for everything by anyone on the table (even for protective measures). The value of a decoy/closer is in how many pieces it requires to assemble so it can either outspeed removal (in cEDH), dispose of removal for the future at a low cost (decoy function) or assemble successfully in the window of opportunity that both draw and removal resources were halted by the primary plan doing well enough to demand all the attention in order cripple it down (backup/closer function). Yes, there are bad times where everything just fails and you just sit there twiddling your thumbs, but the whole design philosophy is to minimize such cases from happening, without decoys/backups, it a whole lot more common than one would imagine.
See, if it were me, I think there are loads of things you could do to prevent the main plan from running out of gas. There are quite a few mass reanimation spells, in case of a board wipe. There's big and/or recurring draw to reload if you're low on gas. There's your own board wipes and hand wipes in case your opponents are getting ahead of you on board or hand, to bring them down to your level. Granted, you'd have to draw them for it to be relevant, but the same is true for a combo. And at least each of those pieces is effective on their own. Phyrexian altar is a pretty weak topdeck if you've got no board. There's also plenty of cards that are reasonable standalone wincons - geth, lord of the vault comes to mind. Razaketh. Sheoldred. Necropotence. If you're building your deck well, I think it should be pretty unlikely you'll ever be totally out of the game.
But ignoring the specifics of your deck, one thing you've mentioned a couple times that I disagree strongly with is the idea of being relegated to a "kingmaker" because you've run out of gas. In any reasonably-balanced game, every player should have some impact on who wins the game, even though obviously most of them won't win it for themselves.
Take, for example, a game I played the other day. I'd been missing a lot of land drops over a long game, so my 2 remaining opponents (rakdos and nikya) were sitting on 10+ lands each while I only had 6. All of us were at relatively low life. I knew I couldn't win a 1v1 against either of them, so my goal became to prolong the game. Rakdos player attacks the nikya player for 5, and since I left it up (myself being at 9) and having nothing else to use it on, I used kor haven to prevent the damage, because I deduced that my best chance to win the game was in prolonging their conflict, so that they might exhaust each others resources and give me a fighting chance against the victor. Well, rakdos didn't like this tactic and so targeted me with rakdos's return for 8, putting me to 1 with no cards in hand. On the next turn, nikya killed him with a card he had in hand.
Now, if I'd not been there rakdos definitely would have won, he had the damage and the ability to strip his opponents hand. But he played badly, targeting me because I annoyed him rather than targeting the real threat. Does that make me a kingmaker? Well, if I'd been targeting the rakdos player with the goal of helping nikya win, then yes. But I would argue that, so long as you're acting with the goal of maximizing your own chance to win the game, you can't be a kingmaker. If you're in topdeck mode hoping to draw into one of the cards I mentioned before, and someone overextends attacking you and gets killed by another player, that doesn't make you a kingmaker either. The only time someone is kingmaking is if they intentionally help another player win. And nothing about being on the ropes forces you to do that.
Now, at the end of the day, having fun is the only real goal of commander. Playing to win is merely a path to that goal. If your group really enjoys playing this way, then go nuts - nothing I say can change that, if it's what you really truly prefer. I still suspect that you might have more fun if you all built decks that were maximally fun when played to win, rather than decks that need to be misplayed to be fun, but I really have no way to prove or disprove that conjecture. What's more important is that everyone is on the same page. Even if that page is WRONG.
Wrong. I've lost count of the playgroups I've played in where your deck was called cutthroat even if it was all dumb french vanilla creatures just because you happened to have a Bayou.
Casual can't be defined. What's casual and fun to me is finding suboptimal ways to win even if I have access to better plays. Wheter or not that's casual to you isn't very relevant because we don't play each other.
I've been playing dual-lands in commander decks in many different groups (hell, in multiple countries) for years, and no one has batted an eye. I'm not even sure if anyone even hardly noticed, or at least they didn't say anything. You can certainly make a decent manabase (at least for 2-3 color) without them, though, especially duals. I can't exactly refute your experiences, but I also find it hard to believe you'd need to have a combo backup plan in a group where people are losing their minds over a slightly blinged-out manabase.
I have no idea why having better ways to win that you don't use would make anything more fun, but ok. At the end of the day, as long as everyone is having fun, that is what counts. For me, I find playing to win at all costs, provided the deck is constructed properly, creates difficult puzzles, interesting interactions, and an overall satisfying experience, win or lose.
But maybe you have more fun if you know you could win in the back of your head. Make sure to let your playgroup know about it next time. Then you can find out if their definition of fun is the same as yours.
This is I think the source of all this dissonance of opinion: You appear to believe people are usually strictly logical beings. We are not, hence why the study of modern economics (founded on realtively simple logical principles) is rarely practical and often only theoretically applicable.
Very often we place what we want over what might be "optimal" because we simply prefer it. Therefore, telling us that our in-game reasoning is stupid in an idiosyncratic, unsanctioned game mode where social settings influence the rules (and their supporting logic) is only a stone's roll away from "My fun = best fun" or "everyone should play like I do", and I know you know those are fallacies.
I don't think logic really factors into this at all. Logically there's no real reason to play commander in the first place, except fun, which is of course subjective. My assertions are based on my experience that the most satisfying and fun way to play commander - or any format - is to play to win, because it takes all the nonsense that happens during the game and turns it into an adventure of discovery. When you terminate your own creature to prevent your opponent gaining life off a hexproof lifelink creature, and then kill them on the next turn - that's fun because you're discovering strange things about the game, like sometimes killing your own creature can be the right play. If you terminated your own creature just "for the lulz" then you really haven't discovered anything. And multiplayer commander amps this up tenfold - realizing that giving your opponent back a counterspell with shieldmage advocate is a way to stop a tooth and nail is an interesting new dimension, a whole new direction to explore that doesn't exist in the 1v1 game of magic. If you're not playing to win, then none of this is interesting anymore because it loses its context. Stopping the tooth and nail isn't important because letting it resolve isn't a problem, if your goal isn't to win.
BUT, that's just what I find fun about the game. Maybe you find something else - like holding back on a superior plan because it would result in an unsatisfying game, while still keeping that plan in the deck because you can't (for some reason) balance that deck without it - to be more fun. There's nothing objectively wrong about your position. But, as with the other posters, I'd recommend you share your perspective with your opponents, and let them know you may well have a way to win that you aren't using. If they also agree with your method of achieving fun, then mazel tov, it's a match. But don't expect me to want to play with you.
EDIT: having thought about it some more, I think a lot of the enjoyment I get from magic is from viewing it as a puzzle, where the goal is to find the best plays in order to win. I think it could be also fun to have some other goal that you're trying to puzzle towards, but you'd probably best make sure the rest of your group is cool with it.
This is probably why I don't enjoy tabletop RPGs - they're less about trying to solve a puzzle, and solving them in the same way one tries to solve magic is generally viewed as metagaming and frowned upon.
I thankfully I guess rarely see that one these days but I guess that sentiment is double edged because people just stopped trying to win with 2 6 mana cards.
If I had these 4 cards in my deck, I would likely end up cutting Pitiless Plunderer or Gift of Immortality. Sun Titan is too good to cut compare to the others, but I don't want infinite combos in my decks.
I would easily cut the Acolyte.
I would personally refuse to play any of those combos in my decks because I don't like them.
You do bring up a good point though and I think it is worthwhile to address the overarching idea here. The combo in question, and the pieces necessary to make it work, certainly change the "feel bad" (I can't think of a better term) moment when the combo goes off. If it is 2 pieces that come out together on one turn and just end the game: those suck and they suck to play against. However, if it takes multiple pieces that all come out one at a time: I can be a bit more forgiving on as they do have a lot of moving pieces and can be disrupted (though it still sucks).
The main thing I can think of regarding being against those though is that other players in the game don't actually know they are pieces to an infinite combo. For example, in your first scenario, you could just have Ayli and Plunderer on the board. As soon as you drop in Sun Titan, the game is over. Or, at least, you have a ridiculous amount of life which makes winning pretty difficult (outside of Commander Damage). It is tough to warrant expending removal, or casting a wrath, just for those two cards, so it is still "out of nowhere" to some extent.
The second example is less egregious but, again, the pieces themselves are so innocuous that it is hard to say that one would actually be holding up removal for any of the pieces at the time it goes off.
So, I do dislike infinite combos no matter the fragility of said combo because they generally still require someone to have an answer right then and there. I prefer not having to play where I need to blow up someone's Acolyte or Sabertooth (though the Sabertooth is a good target anyway) just because of the potential of some game winning combo.
Now, the reason I would say I would be a bit more forgiving of these is in the situations where these combos are a known entity. If I sat down with you, week after week, and I knew you had these in your deck, I would of course ensure that I spend removal on each piece as needed no matter how unassuming they look because I know what they can lead to. My statements above come more from a place of just sitting down with a person and now knowing their deck at all.
To be clear, I have no hard feelings towards the players themselves who choose to use infinite combos (regardless of the number of pieces or how disruptable it is). Though, if all of their decks just end in a combo win every time, I would likely just stop playing with them. It is just not how I would prefer my games of EDH to end. Having a more fragile combo is easier to stomach but they still result in the question of "does anyone have an answer right now?". If the answer is no, the game ends for everyone. At least with combat, or a big fireball (or whatever), it usually means that one player is out and the rest need to (get to) scramble to not be the next victim.
Also the disruption/removal used to stop combo is largely no different than to stop other forms of decks. Just comes down to card type generally.
About the disruption: the point is not having it in the deck. The point is having it in hand at the moment the combo tries to go off. I would never build a deck that can't stop any of the combos being discussed and a lot of players are the same simply because the removal/disruption is, as you said, useful in a lot of situations. To me it was simply a mark against a combo deck. Not having the removal against another deck may mean I lose but the others can still play on; not having it against an infinite combo means the game is done. The end game isn't much different than just having every player alpha striked with Craterhoof and an army of creatures, but the build up is different and that makes the difference for me.
I tried to build a Maelstrom Wanderer deck that didn't do infinite combos, and by sheer luck in the majority of games I ever win with it, it was because it accidentally went infinite somehow anyway. I actually tried to leave out infinite combos, and discovered it had others in it I didn't even know about. Since then I just decided since it is so determined to go infinite anyway, I'll build it to be able to do it both intentionally and accidentally instead of fighting what these colors want to do.
I’m not a huge fan of combos, that being said there’s combos and combos. Storming into Aetherflux reservoir, well it’s easy enough to do. I could go my whole life without seeing another lab man go off and be happy. A 4-5 card jank combo that may or may not come together once in a blue moon? Yeah I’ll give someone props for putting that together and making it happen.
Holding back can be fun because it makes you analyze the game from layers you wouldn't and find alternative roads to victory that playing competitively with bad cards just doesn't give.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
IMO there cases where those 2-3 pieces “easy” combos like mykhaeus or hulk are actually positive:
1) To give hard control/Stax decks a quick kill after they established the lock. Often times these decks drag the game for too long. Having a “i win” button is actually an act of mercy.
2) To keep up with your playgroup’s power level. Many builds doesn’t have the natural strength to play against fine tuned commanders. Adding a few powerful combos can level the competition. This, of course, so long the combo serves your deck and not the other way around.
3) To punish non interactive decks. This seems odd to say because the common conception is that combo decks are also linear and non interactive. But people tend to forget that ramp->ramp->fattie->kill or ritual->ritual->razaketh is also linear and boring. Of course you have to be careful otherwise you will also become linear and non interactive.Still, running a few combos that can win mid game if undisrupted is an ok way to punishing people that only cares about developing their own gameplan.
In the end, it all comes to how is you playgroup power level and what you like and don’t like to play against.
EDIT: At this very moment, the thread where ramp players don't want opponents interacting with their ramp and the thread where ramp players feel entitled to interact with combos are back to back.
I will counter or disrupt the thing that comes out of this is largely a fools errand and if people want to combat this stuff. This doesn't mean play stuff like Dispel or move into those realms necessarily it just means not to treat the early turns as meaningless or disconnected from the later ones.
Good luck assembling it without tutors.
I have a 4 card combo in one of my deck and the number of time i was able to use it was exactly 1 in 5 years of playing that deck
Ah, but we did communicate - in fact what we presented to you is what came out of the communication, which is why I said it's a matter of perspective - there's no right or wrong, but the majority of the core group in my LGS agreed to this "inverse mantra". You could argue that perhaps intrinsically we are compromising and I won't deny that, but the "inverse mantra" was decided taking into account on how we would react to different newcomers to the LGS (not necessarily new players to the game/format overall, could be walk-in experienced player).
Using the MJ and his magic feather example, I would tell you that we wouldn't want him to ditch his magic feather so just we could have a "equal" match - it would be disrespectful to the fact he has the Magic Feather and we know he does. Just like you think us playing our 75% decks and lowering ourselves to 50% to match casual to disrespectful, we think if you could improve your deck with cards you have but you didn't because you outright wanted to "match" a lower tier, to us is no different from putting it into your deck and not playing it out - in my meta, deckbuilding criticism (the good kind) is no different from questioning move decisions in-game as well - "why you didn't play out the game-winning combo" is an equal question to "why didn't you put this fitting combo we know you own into your deck" and the same answer of "I didn't want to win too easily" is met with equal lack-of-approval.
Perhaps saying "Build competitively, play casually" as the inverse mantra is not correct - the correct order is "play casually, build competitively". Our roots lie in managing the way we play so that it doesn't cause players to outright have to divide their decks (or even worse, only have 1 deck (especially newer players) and effectively have to sit out games) into distinct competitive and/or casual decks, we seek to improve all our decks over time still. Building is primarily individualistic process (even if we do give out criticism to assist), but the playing style is a whole lot interweaved between all active players of the group. Telling a player to build a whole another deck of a different tier is a whole lot less productive than telling them our playstyle and have them try to adapt to it. Sure both require change, but we have enough proof over the years to see which one has a better retaining rate.
because someone else is almost always doing the same thing.
the best experiences have been playing decks with a good mix of combo/answers to combo
the worst experiences have been sitting down to a bunch of do nothing battlecruiser decks that gripe about combo. the game lasts forever, no one interacts with each other, and eventually someone oopses into a combo or lethal combat damage. its boring and worst of all not interactive at all.
i've seen a lot of people gripe about how combo isn't interactive unless you run answers to those combos... and thats just it. you need to run answers to those combos. its not too difficult. run disruption, run answers. a deck with combos isn't oppressive if you can actually stop those combos, it is when you don't run enough ways to do so. it really sucks to be the 'i hate combo so i don't run them' guy who sits down at a pod with 3 other decks that run even one. its okay to let games end.
I just loved how these two responses to my post were so different. Goes to show you how different commander players can be.
I try to have my decks do innovative and complex things. Sometimes, they assemble complicated combos. Sometimes they assemble complicated locks. Mostly I aim for high synergy. Every once in a while I have a game that 'feels bad' when I win... last time was Sage of Hours. I am pretty sure I couldn't go infinite, but I could take two extra turns... and my opponents scooped assuming I could go infinite.
I really think that many people just tire of losing to the same kind of combos (or Craterhoofs and Triumph of the Hordes).
Regarding cutting the cards from my Ayli deck to avoid combos - Each of the cards does a lot of work individually in the deck. I have Pitiless Plunderer, Sifter of Skulls and Pawn of Ulamog because I like how they make Ayli mana neutral for her first activated ability. Gift of Immortality is one of my favourite cards... same for Sun Titan. They let me recur creatures turn after turn. Together they go infinite... It's like Reveillark and Karmic Guide - both are fun cards that I want to play... but if you get both of them out you tend to go infinite. To me, it is just so hard in some cases to avoid combos that I decide to play with the cards I like and if they go infinite, so be it.
I can respect that you hate combo though, and that if my opponents communicate that they don't want infinite combos, I will change to a more appropriate deck.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I hate tutors. I like EDH because I hate games playing out the same way over and over again.
My only decks that run a lot of tutors are trying to do crazy things... like assemble Tainted Aether + Night of Soul's Betrayal + Forbidden Orchard.
If I were to make a house rule for an EDH group, it would probably be to ban a lot of the tutors.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
I also don't follow the second sentence either. What layers are you analyzing that you couldn't analyze without having the combo at all? No one said you had to run bad cards. Do you want to win with diregraf colossus and gravecrawler beats? Great, run those cards. Are you not playing phyrexian altar despite having it? Then don't run it. The only "layer" I'm seeing that's only available by running a combo you don't play is the layer of knowing you could win and then not winning. Which is not a very interesting layer imo.
If you enjoy playing combo, I'd say just play combo. I don't have a problem with people playing combo decks against each other if that's what they like to do. If you want to have a house rule that says "no combos until turn 6" or something, that also seems fine to me. Then people can play their best within that constraint.
In the metaphor, this is roughly letting everyone have a magic feather. That way it's a fair, fun game. You say you don't want him to lose the feather, but if someone sits down with a combo deck you're effectively asking them to play like they don't have one. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be less disrespectful. Personally I'd rather not play at all, than be told I'm supposed to play my deck incorrectly.
As far as people having to sit out, I'm not sure what you're trying to avoid. If most of you have multiple decks, than whatever a newcomer shows up with, you'll be prepared for it. If there are multiple players with only one deck and one has a powerful deck and one has a weak deck...well, that game was always going to suck.
But if you wanted it to NOT suck, the better solution would be to run ANSWERS to the more powerful deck, so that you can dole out an appropriate amount of hate to bring the powerful deck down to the same level as the weaker one. Not pile on to the problem by having multiple combo decks racing to the finish line while the weaker deck has no chance at all.
As far as deckbuilding being the same as playing, I wonder if you're willing to follow that line of thought to its natural conclusion. If someone had all the cards available to them, would you be disapproving if they DIDN'T build FCT or some similarly degenerate, win-on-turn-3 deck? They'd be holding back and you'd feel your win wasn't earned if they built anything less? Why can't people brew for the sake of brewing? I don't put combos in my deck because I want to try to win in other, more interesting ways. Deckbuilding is an experiment, and forgive me if I don't want to experiment with the same cards that have been done to death already. Also it sounds like you're holding back during play (by mutual agreement) anyway, so I'm not sure where this disapproval is coming from. Seems like everyone should just be fine with either, rather than disapproving of both.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
This is not a matter of "If you enjoy combo, play combo. If you don't enjoy combo, don't bother at all". This is our solution to "what happens if your primary plan of the brewed deck fails?" Perhaps your solution is "I'll concede and move on to the next game", but to us that is disrespectful, not letting people who still have a chance of executing their primary plan to continue doing so - what fun is there if the game ends abruptly because the first person in the pod decided to concede because he or she couldn't assemble the primary win-con? Scrambling for boring combo last-minute isn't as efficient as just T1 tutoring into it and will take time, time in which participants still on their first plan can continue to do so, whereas people who "conceded" aren't reduced to mere puppet and/or kingmaking positions.
I said this was built and agreed upon by our circumstances - you say this lets everyone have a Magic Feather... and that is true - the core group consists of pretty much experienced players with years of experience and collections, perhaps not to the extreme (although there are a few semi-active players who does bling out their cEDh in OG foils and beta duals). The primary decks we build are all very near-competitive from the get-go and the "inverse mantra" keeps it from being outright cEDH. Again, this is not a matter of "If we enjoy playing cEDH, just play cEDH", we will do that when we feel like it - what we're doing and enjoying is "creating decks that can stretch to meet both ends of cEDh and casual in the same deck" instead of creating purely cEDH and casual decks, because we don't enjoy that.
Perhaps I've phrased my wordings really badly to make sound hypocritical in terms of combo - if you want to play combo, go ahead, we'll definitely have the answers to stop you from doing so. The only mentality I think we're really on opposite ends is that (I think that) you think "as long as you have a combo in the deck, you should always tutor for it as fast as possible and give it your "best"... and leave combos out of your other decks trying to win in other interesting ways", whereas from our own experiences it becomes "your other interesting winning way should have back-up combo so that you would have something to strive for when the plan fails instead of ruining the actual play experience by outright conceding/kingmaking afterwards".
The "interesting way first, combo backup" formula doesn't seem to gel with you because it feels like you're emphasizing on "as long as you have a combo, you should always combo first, otherwise it feels like you're not trying to win" whereas it gels with us because it's a formula that works in pretty much any scenario - casual, competitive and itself as well. If the point of contention is that it feels like we're "holding back" when playing casually, all you have to do is tell us and you'll face the cEDH side of the same decks. If the point of contention to that is that we don't have a purely "casual" deck, then yes, that's the whole point this whole thing was for - because we don't enjoy building "purely casual" decks with no backup, because once the plan fails, it becomes a miserable experience altogether - conceding outright is considered worse than striving for a combo-backup and kingmaking is even worse.
Actually, I think we're just agreeing to disagree here - you pointed here our "holding back" is a mutual agreement, but my whole point of contention is that I had to say that because right before that post your suggestion was to communicate, which implies you thought we didn't (apologies if you didn't mean it that way, but I had to infer with what I have), hence the whole post there. Likewise, this recent post citing answers being important - trust me, we definitely know how important answers are, considering we originate from cEDH or at least very close to it in terms of power.
It's one thing to have combo pieces in your deck, it's wholly another to purposefully search for said combo for your primary game plan.
As far as combo as a backup option goes, I tend to instead overthink my decks and figure out what shuts down my deck the worst... and figure a few thematic answers. I might not draw them every game, but those few Negate variants I put in my deck because wraths can really hamper my game plan... well, they're going to find some use anyway. Or that Heroic Intervention. Or Rapid Decay in my mill deck for those Eldrazi. Answers to the things that answer my decks, basically. Usually they're at least somewhat useful cards otherwise, anyway.
Maybe I'm too much of a min-maxer to make any logical sense out of what you're saying, but it sounds like the best deck in your meta would be one with a primary plan that falls apart like tissue paper, to give you the fastest excuse to start playing towards a robust combo plan that's your "backup".
I don't follow this "when your plan falls apart" scenario though. A combo can fall apart, sure, because it's dependent on specific cards which could be removed, but if your plan is, say, "beat face with zombies" or whatever, then unless someone strips all the zombies out of your deck I'm not sure at which point you'd be incapable of acting on your plan.
Decks without combos can, of course, have backup plans, and they don't have to be bad decks, either. People in this thread keep acting like the only alternative to including a combo is having a precon-grade deck that falls apart against a stiff breeze, when that's obviously not the case. A good deck should either have a very robust plan, or multiple backups if the primary plan becomes untenable, but there are myriad ways to do that which don't need to include a combo.
Not that this is even specifically about combo - it's about building a deck that plays the way you want to play it, whether that's combo or something else. If you build a deck trying to do X but with backup plan Y that turns out to be stronger...then you've made a Y deck with an X backup plan, not the other way around. If you can't find a way to make your X plan the most viable part of your deck and still make your deck perform decently, then I'd say that's a failure of deckbuilding.
As far as having answers, then I think it sort of begs the question - if you're so worried about being plan-less and having your primary wincon dismantled, then what exactly do you do if your backup combo gets answered? I would think if your goal was to avoid being stuck without a way to win, you'd want the most durable backup plan possible, not something that will presumably fall apart if a single card in answered. Which, strangely enough, is how many decks in competitive play in other formats work - fragile but powerful primary plan, with a weaker but more durable backup.
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
It's funny you mention that....
Last night at league I was playing my aforementioned Karador deck which runs Protean Hulk. It also runs all the combo pieces because they are individually just good value. About a half hour into the game, around turn 6, I draw Hulk. At this point I have a sac outlet 9n board and the mana to cast Hulk. I didn't do that and win on the spot, we were all having a very interactive game (even the one player who was getting color screwed because he didn't draw a single Mountain), and there is a 2 point dookie against infinite combos (I still would have netted points, so it wasn't that much of a deterrent). But it was mostly the former, so I just kept it in my hand and ended up discarding it to an opponent's effect. Fast forward another half hour or 45 mintutes. Everyone was still in the game, we were all hitting each other hard, and I knew we were going to go to time soon. By this point I had drawn at least a third of my deck. Mike and Grey Merchant was in my yard, Viscera Seer was in play, Reveillark was in my hand. I'm plotting how to get back Hulk to win. The store calls time so we go to turns... and I draw Karmic Guide. Hard cast both her and Llark, and combo out with a five card combo I drew naturally.
Now, it isn't as satisfying of a win, but at that point when we are forced to end the game then I'll take it. But personally, I would rather get a win like that which I fought for rather than one which I tutored into (I guess I should reassess what Hulk does for the deck). Like I said earlier, I don't take issue with other players running combo if that's what the want to do. I may not find the game particularly enjoyable if they sit in a corner doing nothing in the game until they combo out from nowhere, but it is what it is.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I can tell where you're coming from and how my structure feels like it's going against some sequence of logic. Let's start with this: "The primary plan is primary plan because its the best one." There we have our first disagreement - the primary plan is the way you hope to win with, the janky brew idea(s) you intended as the deck's base and not necessarily the "best" one. The "Combo" is the backup because its the one that needs the least components in order to technically win, but if you win with said combo you are actually just "closing the game proper" than actually "winning", because you've failed to win via the primary objective.
Yes, at the start of any given game, the backup "combo" is inherently more powerful because you can tutor for it straightaway and win, but as I said, closing the game without accomplishing your primary objective is "pointless" so to speak. Doing so while your primary objective pieces have not been disposed of is doubly insulting to the deck's brewing purpose. Of course, this is only within context of decks of equal or lower calibre - if plunged into complete cEDH, it becomes your typical logic of "best plan = primary plan... or rather, given the prevalence of removal... the decoy plan."
I can already feel your potential cringe of the start being like that - I'm spending resources (draw, tutors) building on a weaker plan, but at the same time I'm also forced to spend the same resources on removal and the like to deal with threats (and combos if combos are someone's primary plan). By the time the primary plan is worn down to be impossible, not only do I lack the resources to promptly just summon the backup, part of several combos might have already been spent since it's important to make sure your combos aren't just "two cards stuck into the deck", each and every piece must also have synergy with the primary weaker plan.
Let's use the zombie plan as an example (since I actually have one) - My primary plan is to beatdown with as many zombie (preferably the 2/2 tokens I collect) as possible. I do have my share of counterspells to stop wipes, but the secondary plan against wipes is to sacrifice them and let Plague Belcher/Vengeful Dead do the job (likewise, against pillowfort and the like, Shepherd of Rot is also a secondary plan). The kicker comes in when I know I have run out of resources to reliably ensure I can muster enough zombie (tokens) for either plan against the opponents' plans and/or life totals in time - now I need to use whatever resources I have (usually draw, not tutor) to find Gravecrawler and Phyrexian Altar (or Rooftop Storm and some sac outlet) and I'm potentially still screwed if either Belcher or Vengeful is completely out of the realm of recovery.
If we're playing cEDH within the closer group and/or the new player outright declares cEDH and/or tells us to play our best, gravecrawler, altar and plague belcher might be out as early as first to third turns (depending on draw/tutors) and it would still be answered safely. In such games, the "backup" plan becomes the "decoy" plan because you expect it to fail and it's actual purpose is simply to exhaust the opponent's resources. The primary plan usually still retains because we're spending each other's removals on each other's "decoys" (hence the actual need for several backups/decoys in some decks). If I walked into a casual game doing that it would be a three-turn game at most that doesn't even accomplish the decks' primary goal because the decoy won... so it's a decoy victory and essentially as worthless as a backup/closer one (which is why they're the same).
If I removed the teeth of the decoy/backup plans, all I'm left is the midrange grindfest that honestly makes the primary plan itself boring (especially since the combos are also interweaved into the theme - Gravecrawler is equally useful in sac-lose-life plan even when not infinite and Altar is great ramp for the deck regardless, I could replace Altar with Ashnod's instead, but it falls to the Magic Feather argument - I have the Phyrexian which is better why "cripple" myself during deckbuilding instead of when playing? Sure in theory I could swap Altars depending on the players, but in practice I usually play with people of the same caliber and my resources are already split across multiple decks of around the same level (so they can form an apocalypse constructed cube), so that means having to double unsleeve and double-sleeve the altars (and bringing said decks with each other all the time, I'm not cherry-picking cards from several other decks to form a sideboard).
As for the "fragile part" - we're in multiplayer edh, with me tilting towards the competitive end... nothing is durable, there are answers for everything by anyone on the table (even for protective measures). The value of a decoy/closer is in how many pieces it requires to assemble so it can either outspeed removal (in cEDH), dispose of removal for the future at a low cost (decoy function) or assemble successfully in the window of opportunity that both draw and removal resources were halted by the primary plan doing well enough to demand all the attention in order cripple it down (backup/closer function). Yes, there are bad times where everything just fails and you just sit there twiddling your thumbs, but the whole design philosophy is to minimize such cases from happening, without decoys/backups, it a whole lot more common than one would imagine.
EDIT: Spelling
Most of the time I put them together it feels like more of a mercy killing for a game that has gone on too long and game has to end and sometimes you get stuck in a long stalemate and having that infinite combo end goal feels good when otherwise you would kind of check out of a game where you don't feel you can put together the critical mass of damage to win normally.
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
Casual can't be defined. What's casual and fun to me is finding suboptimal ways to win even if I have access to better plays. Wheter or not that's casual to you isn't very relevant because we don't play each other.
This is I think the source of all this dissonance of opinion: You appear to believe people are usually strictly logical beings. We are not, hence why the study of modern economics (founded on realtively simple logical principles) is rarely practical and often only theoretically applicable.
Very often we place what we want over what might be "optimal" because we simply prefer it. Therefore, telling us that our in-game reasoning is stupid in an idiosyncratic, unsanctioned game mode where social settings influence the rules (and their supporting logic) is only a stone's roll away from "My fun = best fun" or "everyone should play like I do", and I know you know those are fallacies.
But ignoring the specifics of your deck, one thing you've mentioned a couple times that I disagree strongly with is the idea of being relegated to a "kingmaker" because you've run out of gas. In any reasonably-balanced game, every player should have some impact on who wins the game, even though obviously most of them won't win it for themselves.
Take, for example, a game I played the other day. I'd been missing a lot of land drops over a long game, so my 2 remaining opponents (rakdos and nikya) were sitting on 10+ lands each while I only had 6. All of us were at relatively low life. I knew I couldn't win a 1v1 against either of them, so my goal became to prolong the game. Rakdos player attacks the nikya player for 5, and since I left it up (myself being at 9) and having nothing else to use it on, I used kor haven to prevent the damage, because I deduced that my best chance to win the game was in prolonging their conflict, so that they might exhaust each others resources and give me a fighting chance against the victor. Well, rakdos didn't like this tactic and so targeted me with rakdos's return for 8, putting me to 1 with no cards in hand. On the next turn, nikya killed him with a card he had in hand.
Now, if I'd not been there rakdos definitely would have won, he had the damage and the ability to strip his opponents hand. But he played badly, targeting me because I annoyed him rather than targeting the real threat. Does that make me a kingmaker? Well, if I'd been targeting the rakdos player with the goal of helping nikya win, then yes. But I would argue that, so long as you're acting with the goal of maximizing your own chance to win the game, you can't be a kingmaker. If you're in topdeck mode hoping to draw into one of the cards I mentioned before, and someone overextends attacking you and gets killed by another player, that doesn't make you a kingmaker either. The only time someone is kingmaking is if they intentionally help another player win. And nothing about being on the ropes forces you to do that.
Now, at the end of the day, having fun is the only real goal of commander. Playing to win is merely a path to that goal. If your group really enjoys playing this way, then go nuts - nothing I say can change that, if it's what you really truly prefer. I still suspect that you might have more fun if you all built decks that were maximally fun when played to win, rather than decks that need to be misplayed to be fun, but I really have no way to prove or disprove that conjecture. What's more important is that everyone is on the same page. Even if that page is WRONG. I've been playing dual-lands in commander decks in many different groups (hell, in multiple countries) for years, and no one has batted an eye. I'm not even sure if anyone even hardly noticed, or at least they didn't say anything. You can certainly make a decent manabase (at least for 2-3 color) without them, though, especially duals. I can't exactly refute your experiences, but I also find it hard to believe you'd need to have a combo backup plan in a group where people are losing their minds over a slightly blinged-out manabase.
I have no idea why having better ways to win that you don't use would make anything more fun, but ok. At the end of the day, as long as everyone is having fun, that is what counts. For me, I find playing to win at all costs, provided the deck is constructed properly, creates difficult puzzles, interesting interactions, and an overall satisfying experience, win or lose.
But maybe you have more fun if you know you could win in the back of your head. Make sure to let your playgroup know about it next time. Then you can find out if their definition of fun is the same as yours. I don't think logic really factors into this at all. Logically there's no real reason to play commander in the first place, except fun, which is of course subjective. My assertions are based on my experience that the most satisfying and fun way to play commander - or any format - is to play to win, because it takes all the nonsense that happens during the game and turns it into an adventure of discovery. When you terminate your own creature to prevent your opponent gaining life off a hexproof lifelink creature, and then kill them on the next turn - that's fun because you're discovering strange things about the game, like sometimes killing your own creature can be the right play. If you terminated your own creature just "for the lulz" then you really haven't discovered anything. And multiplayer commander amps this up tenfold - realizing that giving your opponent back a counterspell with shieldmage advocate is a way to stop a tooth and nail is an interesting new dimension, a whole new direction to explore that doesn't exist in the 1v1 game of magic. If you're not playing to win, then none of this is interesting anymore because it loses its context. Stopping the tooth and nail isn't important because letting it resolve isn't a problem, if your goal isn't to win.
BUT, that's just what I find fun about the game. Maybe you find something else - like holding back on a superior plan because it would result in an unsatisfying game, while still keeping that plan in the deck because you can't (for some reason) balance that deck without it - to be more fun. There's nothing objectively wrong about your position. But, as with the other posters, I'd recommend you share your perspective with your opponents, and let them know you may well have a way to win that you aren't using. If they also agree with your method of achieving fun, then mazel tov, it's a match. But don't expect me to want to play with you.
EDIT: having thought about it some more, I think a lot of the enjoyment I get from magic is from viewing it as a puzzle, where the goal is to find the best plays in order to win. I think it could be also fun to have some other goal that you're trying to puzzle towards, but you'd probably best make sure the rest of your group is cool with it.
This is probably why I don't enjoy tabletop RPGs - they're less about trying to solve a puzzle, and solving them in the same way one tries to solve magic is generally viewed as metagaming and frowned upon.
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