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.
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 also refuse to put infinite combos or insta-win cards in my decks. I have had a couple decks in the past that had some infinite combos due to the cards being highly synergistic to the deck as a whole and they just happened to go infinite with one another. In a couple cases, I did what you did and cut one of the pieces.
It is my least favorite way of winning a game (or losing a game for that matter).
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.
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.
It is my least favorite way of winning a game (or losing a game for that matter).