I am curious why people play combo in commander. Not the late game, eventual maybe combo but the combo-designed deck that goes infinite by turn four to turn six (slackers, going off on turn six).
If there is prize money on the line I feel you, no explanation required. But let's say there is nothing on the line besides the W.
Why do you play combo? What are you trying to accomplish, and why is combo your preferred pathway?
actually I play a slow stax combo deck. It like to go off turn 26, but by then we've finally gotten our first 5 mana. Yeah I know I'm a terrible person. One of my groups has instigated a 3 times a round combo rule. You can only combo 3 times each round. We've discussed changed it to a maximum of 10 damage to a player, or 13 to creatures and exile combos can only be used once. It kept things a little more fun but didn't really make things to much better. If a combo went off it became somewhat stoppable. It wasn't to bad.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUG - Bant, BUW - Esper, BUR - Grixis, RGB - Jund, RGW - Naya, WGB - Necra, WUR - Raka, WBR - Dega, BUG - Ana, RUG - Ceta.
I've known them as this and always will.
I have a fast combo storm deck, I don't play it that much anymore but I built it for a few reasons:
-To test my deckbuilding capacities.
-To pop this deck out for tournaments.
-To play this deck against real sore spike-cutthroat people. (EDH is "weirdly", a place filled with arrogance. When someone claims "OMG, Prophet of Kruphix is OP", I can atleast show how the format is way more broken than that. You know, evidence to back my words.)
-Trying to break the format in different ways can be unique. (Ad nauseum and HD aren't the only fast combo boiis out there)
-Fun to pilot
I however, don't play the deck when I know I'm going to eat my opponents every time. I don't advise others to do that either.
(I get no fun out of it, except "showing off")
When someone claims "OMG, Prophet of Kruphix is OP", I can atleast show how the format is way more broken than that. You know, evidence to back my words.)
It is fun to work within the confines of the EDH rules trying to create the most busted and efficient combo decks possible. There is nothing quite as funny as the look on my friends' faces as they jokingly call me an ass for a turn-1 ad nauseam win or a turn-2 Prossh win. For many , pushing the boundaries of the game is a zesty enterprise with a lot of allure.
I'd never want to play in a group where the common play is such combo decks (at least I assume so; maybe I'd actually love it), but it is good once in a while.
My reasons are roughly with underhill. But I haven't touched my Elf or Azami combo in more than a year. Basically if someone asks me to bring them to spar, I'll bring it.
Otherwise, I don't. There's no sense of achievement if I win or pull it off because once you've been there(in my early days of EDH), I think it's enough.
My dusty Azami wins by infinite turns, or mindslave lock. My Ezuri wins by infinite damage, or infinite LD.
Combos are so good and efficient that one can afford not to tune it with the last 3 blocks of magic and it's still bonkers.
I was a competitive vintage player over a decade ago (before I left the game). I still try to have combos available - but usually don't tutor for them ASAP. But the game's gotta end sometime.
Also, combos are one of the things that magic does comparatively well. If I wanted no combos and compelling multiplayer combat action, I'd be playing Shadowfist or L5R.
If the players are using combo then I might as well. If we're playing "fair" I'll do so as well. It really depends on what kind of game we want, but we will play all kinds.
I suggest, OP, that you try making one, it changes DRAMATICALLY the feel of playing EDH. Even more so MAKING the deck.
It goes a bit like this:
Figure out the combo;
Choose the colors needed;
Find a general that has those colors;
Include the combo;
Include tutors;
Include protection;
Include the rest of the cards.
Normally, an edh deck would fill "rest" after having chosen their general/theme/wincon with things that have synergy late game. You are playing a 99 card deck, you will have very few cards in your OP compared to those you draw "late" game, specially compared to a 60/4 deck (there, each card has a 1/15 of being any given card in your op hand, in edh it's 1/99). So you include cards that'd be good topdecks. Stuff with big effects that don't rely too much on other stuff (you end up building goodstuff, or assuming you'll have synergistic cards already).
When making a fast combo, it's not the top decks that matter, it's how the cards work in your opening hand. You want stuff that helps you find your win con or your tutors or protection like cantrips. In regular edh, cantrips are seen as "bad" topdecks. In super edh, they are golden.
I avoid it most of the time because I consider combo to be an absolute snoozefest. However, out of the decks I can most recently remember:
Marchesa, the Black Rose - I run Kiki-Jiki/Zealous Conscripts, but I've yet to actually get both pieces together. Both cards are good enough in the deck on their own, and I don't intend to use the combo often.
Keranos, God of Storms - A Storm deck. It's not fast, and I've made sure that comboing off isn't super reliable. I also don't play it often.
Patron of the Moon - I liked this deck for longer than my other dedicated combo decks, because it had much wider paths to victory. I eventually took it apart out of boredom, but it was good without being too over the top which I liked.
Those are the most recent that I've built, generally if I'm going to build combo it won't be super reliable and there will usually be other ways to win, and it's not a question of if, but when the deck gets pulled apart.
I play combo because it's an archetype that I like. I works well vs ramp decks and can give resource denial decks a run before they can lock the board down. I don't really care for the UGX goodstuff decks that most people enjoy playing. I find ramp as a bad strategy overall because more often than not, yes you get a jump in the mana dept. but you end up over extending yourself and blown out by a well timed board wipe.
I'm of the opinion that every deck should have at least two different combos in some form that they can execute.
I hate board states that get so overwhelming for players that its impossible to really make the 'correct' play because there is too much to keep track of. A combo is a great way to keep a game honest and not ridiculous and stalled.
If anything attempting to late game combo at usually inspires the hustle to get the game going. I don't mind getting hated out after that and losing because I played the role of big bad wolf if it means avoiding situations I don't enjoy in a game.
In the case of storm combo specifically - it's unlike any other type of deck, and can be a real thinking game to win with, which I find very fun.
The thought process for storm is so fun. Unless you luck into Reiterate + Turnabout (with the right amount of lands and/or doublers) right away. Then it's just "I iterate this combo 50000 times and cast Tendrils".
Of course it's only fun for the person playing the storm deck. It's often agony for the guys waiting 10-20 minutes to see if he gets there.
I have to disagree here - as someone who has been on the receiving end of big combo plays plenty of times I actually find it really exciting to watch to see if my opponent can pull it off. It would suck in a tournament, but in a friendly setting I enjoy seeing such a big play (provided my opponent makes it easy to keep track of things). It's certainly something which comes down to personal preference though.
I'm with you. I love watching huge plays. Especially ones that might not work. But my friends hate it for the most part.
Its also not that bad if you are familiar with the deck.
You can do a lot to speed up the storm process and do all the necessary steps if you know what you are doing.
Interaction and Synergy is the most fun thing in the game for me. Putting 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 pieces together to make some crazy machine that leads to a victory is more fun that simply attacking for me.
I find that 1 1/2 card or 2 card combos are completely lacking in imagination or deck building creativity. So I don't see for even one second how it is a "deckbuilding challenge".
Seriously think about it for a second. How hard is it to play a deck with access to tutors and blue, ala Grixis/Esper, etc.?
You just stuff a bunch of tutors into a deck, fish for your combo pieces, and then win the game.
I mean, hell, most of y'all brag about your "turn 4 kill every game" while you basically sit there and super Paris mulligan or partial Paris that is basically hand sculpting. Gee, if I just went and picked what cards I wanted in my opening hand, I'd win every game too. It's a total joke.
Because of the incredibly absurd mulligan philosophy most combo players seem to have in their playgroups, I don't see how anyone can EVER consider "comboing off" to be some sort of deckbuilding or skill achievement.
The combos that I do find creative are ones that take 4 or more cards to go off. Even 3 cards is too simple imo.
And, on top of the rest of this, at the very foundation of EDH, the game is based on interacting with your opponents, not saying "f*** everyone, I'm going to play solitaire and win." When you sit there and do nothing, but attempt to circumvent all interaction with your opponents and win on turn 4 every game, I feel as though you should just go play Legacy or Vintage.
It's not a matter of casual vs. competitive, it's that combo decks, in their current state, are the LITERAL ANTITHESIS to the spirit of EDH.
Of course, this is my .02, but I fail to see how a combo deck can ever, in any capacity, lead to a positive experience from a playgroup. And if you believe hand-stacking (Paris) is cool, sorry, but you aren't even playing Magic. Have fun in Christmas Land.
Good opponents make combo-ing off all the harder, I don't think it is possible to playing not in the spirit of the format since the format by definition is a means of having better access to a card at all times that synergies well with the other 99 cards in your deck.
If anything to me EDH is a format that is screaming to built out around the commander in fun weird ways that could lead to combo as much as it could anything else.
I find that 1 1/2 card or 2 card combos are completely lacking in imagination or deck building creativity. So I don't see for even one second how it is a "deckbuilding challenge".
Seriously think about it for a second. How hard is it to play a deck with access to tutors and blue, ala Grixis/Esper, etc.?
You just stuff a bunch of tutors into a deck, fish for your combo pieces, and then win the game.
I mean, hell, most of y'all brag about your "turn 4 kill every game" while you basically sit there and super Paris mulligan or partial Paris that is basically hand sculpting. Gee, if I just went and picked what cards I wanted in my opening hand, I'd win every game too. It's a total joke.
Because of the incredibly absurd mulligan philosophy most combo players seem to have in their playgroups, I don't see how anyone can EVER consider "comboing off" to be some sort of deckbuilding or skill achievement.
The combos that I do find creative are ones that take 4 or more cards to go off. Even 3 cards is too simple imo.
And, on top of the rest of this, at the very foundation of EDH, the game is based on interacting with your opponents, not saying "f*** everyone, I'm going to play solitaire and win." When you sit there and do nothing, but attempt to circumvent all interaction with your opponents and win on turn 4 every game, I feel as though you should just go play Legacy or Vintage.
It's not a matter of casual vs. competitive, it's that combo decks, in their current state, are the LITERAL ANTITHESIS to the spirit of EDH.
Of course, this is my .02, but I fail to see how a combo deck can ever, in any capacity, lead to a positive experience from a playgroup. And if you believe hand-stacking (Paris) is cool, sorry, but you aren't even playing Magic. Have fun in Christmas Land.
Well tell us how you feel, why don't ya?
I'm not telling you what to think, but have you considered that there might be some enjoyment to be found when you don't limit yourself to 2/3 of the archetypes in Magic? Lots of play groups enjoy this kind of play, and contrary to your assessment, there are many interesting decision trees when piloting and playing against these sorts of decks.
My .02.
My first real EDH deck was Gave and I eventually built it full of low cmc redundant combo pieces. Despite what everyone said, I liked it, I didn't get bored within a week. It was a very long time before I moved on from that deck. Some people (like myself) just like combo.
It's just an archetype. Some people prefer Aggro or Control, others prefer Combo or Midrange. Also, since Combo is inexistent in the current Standard format, people who like that archetype may want to get their fix in other formats they like, such as Commander. It all comes down to personal preference.
I find that 1 1/2 card or 2 card combos are completely lacking in imagination or deck building creativity. So I don't see for even one second how it is a "deckbuilding challenge".
Seriously think about it for a second. How hard is it to play a deck with access to tutors and blue, ala Grixis/Esper, etc.?
You just stuff a bunch of tutors into a deck, fish for your combo pieces, and then win the game.
I mean, hell, most of y'all brag about your "turn 4 kill every game" while you basically sit there and super Paris mulligan or partial Paris that is basically hand sculpting. Gee, if I just went and picked what cards I wanted in my opening hand, I'd win every game too. It's a total joke.
Because of the incredibly absurd mulligan philosophy most combo players seem to have in their playgroups, I don't see how anyone can EVER consider "comboing off" to be some sort of deckbuilding or skill achievement.
The combos that I do find creative are ones that take 4 or more cards to go off. Even 3 cards is too simple imo.
And, on top of the rest of this, at the very foundation of EDH, the game is based on interacting with your opponents, not saying "f*** everyone, I'm going to play solitaire and win." When you sit there and do nothing, but attempt to circumvent all interaction with your opponents and win on turn 4 every game, I feel as though you should just go play Legacy or Vintage.
It's not a matter of casual vs. competitive, it's that combo decks, in their current state, are the LITERAL ANTITHESIS to the spirit of EDH.
Of course, this is my .02, but I fail to see how a combo deck can ever, in any capacity, lead to a positive experience from a playgroup. And if you believe hand-stacking (Paris) is cool, sorry, but you aren't even playing Magic. Have fun in Christmas Land.
First of all combo doesn't have to be competitive. You can play slow combo or control that just happens to have some combos that can win late. Combo does not by definition mean degenerately competitive. So talking about mulligans and casual vs. competitive really has little bearing on this particular discussion. Leave that to the dozen or so other threads on the topic.
This thread is more about the general archetype.
So on topic, how far do we go with defining combo? Obviously Omniscience + Enter the Infinite is a combo that allows you to play your whole deck.
But what about my new Grixis deck (not the Storm deck in my sig, another deck using much of the same shell)? It doesn't have a standard 2-4 card combo that lets you play your whole deck in a turn but if played right all the synergies, card draw effects, wheels etc...can create a situation where you can cast virtually your whole deck in one turn. You can occasionally do this as early as turn 5. But the point of the deck isn't to do that. More I just want to play a ton of spells without doing much deep into the game. Then if the game is getting boring I'll try to play my whole deck.
Is that combo? I'd say yes. But how is it that different then a battle cruiser deck built to spew it's creatures out ASAP? When you really break it down the only true difference is that I don't turn creatures sideways to win. And that I've taken advantage of synergies to cast more spells in a turn.
I think the main problem some people have with combo is that they are to stuck on the idea of winning games with creatures through combat. Which is silly. This is Magic. The whole initial concept of the game is that you are in a wizard's duel with your opponent. In all the fiction out there and in D&D how powerful are summon creature spells compared to other magic? Weak. Why shouldn't a card game meant to represent that stuff be similar?
Yes combo can be degenerate. Yes combo can be boring (but just as many people find combat boring). But that is the nature of magic in fiction. Why should the card game be different? Why is the combo player evil for actually wanting to be more like the wizards presented in fiction, or more like his D&D characters? Why can't anti-combo people see the hypocrisy in many of their arguments?
You just stuff a bunch of tutors into a deck, fish for your combo pieces, and then win the game.
If you think that's true then you're either talking about a meta where no one runs any answers, and no one notices what the combo player is doing. Combo is a fragile archetype which generally requires a lot of protection to get around opposing answers, particularly in a multiplayer format where the combo player is likely to have 2 or 3 players trying to stop them from hitting their combo. Add in the fact that the combined mana costs of all those tutors and the combo pieces is going to be pretty high, and you're leaving your opponents a large window of opportunity to stop you from comboing off.
I should also point out that that's just one form of combo; as others have mentioned you also have storm decks, which are a completely different type of deck. Rather than resolving some game-winning combo they attempt to cast a large amount of spells and then finish off with either Tendrils of Agony, Empty the Warrens, or Brain Freeze - all of which lose a huge amount of efficiency in EDH due to increased starting life totals and deck size, and the multiplayer nature of the format.
I should point out that, if you read my post, I don't disagree with all forms of combo, far from it. In fact, I specifically said that things that are 4 card combos, etc. are perfectly fine and can be really cool to assemble and see go off. Storm involves playing a lot of cards prior to storming and thus makes it a not simple combo and require thought and setup outside of grabbing 2 cards with tutors and winning.\. Even 3 card combos are fine sometimes, but when people do what is essentially hand-sculpting with their aggressive mulligans, it takes the challenge out of it. So you are put in a situation where you are, more or less, forced to play blue in order to counter the combo unless it involves a permanent at which point, you have to have instant removal of some kind just ready to go. When people go off on turn 4, how many answers are expected to exist? Also, Demonic Tutor, Mystical Tutor, Idyllic Tutor, etc. are all pretty damn cheap. You could tutor for literally anything you needed on turn 1-2 and still go off turn 4. My thoughts on fast combo are below.
First of all combo doesn't have to be competitive. You can play slow combo or control that just happens to have some combos that can win late. Combo does not by definition mean degenerately competitive. So talking about mulligans and casual vs. competitive really has little bearing on this particular discussion. Leave that to the dozen or so other threads on the topic.
This thread is more about the general archetype.
So on topic, how far do we go with defining combo? Obviously Omniscience + Enter the Infinite is a combo that allows you to play your whole deck.
But what about my new Grixis deck (not the Storm deck in my sig, another deck using much of the same shell)? It doesn't have a standard 2-4 card combo that lets you play your whole deck in a turn but if played right all the synergies, card draw effects, wheels etc...can create a situation where you can cast virtually your whole deck in one turn. You can occasionally do this as early as turn 5. But the point of the deck isn't to do that. More I just want to play a ton of spells without doing much deep into the game. Then if the game is getting boring I'll try to play my whole deck.
Is that combo? I'd say yes. But how is it that different then a battle cruiser deck built to spew it's creatures out ASAP? When you really break it down the only true difference is that I don't turn creatures sideways to win. And that I've taken advantage of synergies to cast more spells in a turn.
I think the main problem some people have with combo is that they are to stuck on the idea of winning games with creatures through combat. Which is silly. This is Magic. The whole initial concept of the game is that you are in a wizard's duel with your opponent. In all the fiction out there and in D&D how powerful are summon creature spells compared to other magic? Weak. Why shouldn't a card game meant to represent that stuff be similar?
Yes combo can be degenerate. Yes combo can be boring (but just as many people find combat boring). But that is the nature of magic in fiction. Why should the card game be different? Why is the combo player evil for actually wanting to be more like the wizards presented in fiction, or more like his D&D characters? Why can't anti-combo people see the hypocrisy in many of their arguments?
And I don't disagree with control with combos or slow combo, in fact, I run several of them in my Grimgrin deck. I disagree with the premise and ideology of "fast combo" and turn 4 non-interactive wins every game. There are decks literally designed for it. Is Hermit Druid fun to play against? Or Ad Nauseum? Combo as an archetype can exist in a very fun, still competitive, effective, and prominent role in EDH, but I think fast combo, especially in playgroups that do BS Paris mulligans, laughs in the face of the format's intent.
And I don't disagree with control with combos or slow combo, in fact, I run several of them in my Grimgrin deck. I disagree with the premise and ideology of "fast combo" and turn 4 non-interactive wins every game. There are decks literally designed for it. Is Hermit Druid fun to play against? Or Ad Nauseum? Combo as an archetype can exist in a very fun, still competitive, effective, and prominent role in EDH, but I think fast combo, especially in playgroups that do BS Paris mulligans, laughs in the face of the format's intent.
Ad Naus isn't even very fun to play. I've done it. I imagine Hermit Druid isn't much better.
I am curious why people play combo in commander. Not the late game, eventual maybe combo but the combo-designed deck that goes infinite by turn four to turn six (slackers, going off on turn six).
If there is prize money on the line I feel you, no explanation required. But let's say there is nothing on the line besides the W.
Why do you play combo? What are you trying to accomplish, and why is combo your preferred pathway?
I've known them as this and always will.
-To test my deckbuilding capacities.
-To pop this deck out for tournaments.
-To play this deck against real sore spike-cutthroat people. (EDH is "weirdly", a place filled with arrogance. When someone claims "OMG, Prophet of Kruphix is OP", I can atleast show how the format is way more broken than that. You know, evidence to back my words.)
-Trying to break the format in different ways can be unique. (Ad nauseum and HD aren't the only fast combo boiis out there)
-Fun to pilot
I however, don't play the deck when I know I'm going to eat my opponents every time. I don't advise others to do that either.
(I get no fun out of it, except "showing off")
[Primer] Kozilek, Butcher with Juice.
I respect that
I'd never want to play in a group where the common play is such combo decks (at least I assume so; maybe I'd actually love it), but it is good once in a while.
Otherwise, I don't. There's no sense of achievement if I win or pull it off because once you've been there(in my early days of EDH), I think it's enough.
My dusty Azami wins by infinite turns, or mindslave lock. My Ezuri wins by infinite damage, or infinite LD.
Combos are so good and efficient that one can afford not to tune it with the last 3 blocks of magic and it's still bonkers.
ZZZZZ....
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
Also, combos are one of the things that magic does comparatively well. If I wanted no combos and compelling multiplayer combat action, I'd be playing Shadowfist or L5R.
It goes a bit like this:
Figure out the combo;
Choose the colors needed;
Find a general that has those colors;
Include the combo;
Include tutors;
Include protection;
Include the rest of the cards.
Normally, an edh deck would fill "rest" after having chosen their general/theme/wincon with things that have synergy late game. You are playing a 99 card deck, you will have very few cards in your OP compared to those you draw "late" game, specially compared to a 60/4 deck (there, each card has a 1/15 of being any given card in your op hand, in edh it's 1/99). So you include cards that'd be good topdecks. Stuff with big effects that don't rely too much on other stuff (you end up building goodstuff, or assuming you'll have synergistic cards already).
When making a fast combo, it's not the top decks that matter, it's how the cards work in your opening hand. You want stuff that helps you find your win con or your tutors or protection like cantrips. In regular edh, cantrips are seen as "bad" topdecks. In super edh, they are golden.
It's really a different experience. Try it.
Now.
Marchesa, the Black Rose - I run Kiki-Jiki/Zealous Conscripts, but I've yet to actually get both pieces together. Both cards are good enough in the deck on their own, and I don't intend to use the combo often.
Sachi, Daughter of Seshiro - It isn't technically a combo deck, but the main win condition is Genesis Wave ---> Concordant Crossroads + Craterhoof Behemoth and whatever else I'd flipped off of my library, usually almost all of it. It was supposed to be a silly deck but wins often and can go off fairly early.
Keranos, God of Storms - A Storm deck. It's not fast, and I've made sure that comboing off isn't super reliable. I also don't play it often.
Patron of the Moon - I liked this deck for longer than my other dedicated combo decks, because it had much wider paths to victory. I eventually took it apart out of boredom, but it was good without being too over the top which I liked.
Those are the most recent that I've built, generally if I'm going to build combo it won't be super reliable and there will usually be other ways to win, and it's not a question of if, but when the deck gets pulled apart.
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
I hate board states that get so overwhelming for players that its impossible to really make the 'correct' play because there is too much to keep track of. A combo is a great way to keep a game honest and not ridiculous and stalled.
If anything attempting to late game combo at usually inspires the hustle to get the game going. I don't mind getting hated out after that and losing because I played the role of big bad wolf if it means avoiding situations I don't enjoy in a game.
The thought process for storm is so fun. Unless you luck into Reiterate + Turnabout (with the right amount of lands and/or doublers) right away. Then it's just "I iterate this combo 50000 times and cast Tendrils".
Of course it's only fun for the person playing the storm deck. It's often agony for the guys waiting 10-20 minutes to see if he gets there.
EDH Decks:
WUBOloro, Combo ControlWUB
UBOona Reanimator ComboUB
BRGProssh, Eater of the Blue MageBRG
UBRGrixis StormUBR
Rebuilding Jenara (stealyourstuff.dec)
Pauper Deck:
UBInspired SirenUB
I'm with you. I love watching huge plays. Especially ones that might not work. But my friends hate it for the most part.
EDH Decks:
WUBOloro, Combo ControlWUB
UBOona Reanimator ComboUB
BRGProssh, Eater of the Blue MageBRG
UBRGrixis StormUBR
Rebuilding Jenara (stealyourstuff.dec)
Pauper Deck:
UBInspired SirenUB
You can do a lot to speed up the storm process and do all the necessary steps if you know what you are doing.
Seriously think about it for a second. How hard is it to play a deck with access to tutors and blue, ala Grixis/Esper, etc.?
You just stuff a bunch of tutors into a deck, fish for your combo pieces, and then win the game.
I mean, hell, most of y'all brag about your "turn 4 kill every game" while you basically sit there and super Paris mulligan or partial Paris that is basically hand sculpting. Gee, if I just went and picked what cards I wanted in my opening hand, I'd win every game too. It's a total joke.
Because of the incredibly absurd mulligan philosophy most combo players seem to have in their playgroups, I don't see how anyone can EVER consider "comboing off" to be some sort of deckbuilding or skill achievement.
The combos that I do find creative are ones that take 4 or more cards to go off. Even 3 cards is too simple imo.
And, on top of the rest of this, at the very foundation of EDH, the game is based on interacting with your opponents, not saying "f*** everyone, I'm going to play solitaire and win." When you sit there and do nothing, but attempt to circumvent all interaction with your opponents and win on turn 4 every game, I feel as though you should just go play Legacy or Vintage.
It's not a matter of casual vs. competitive, it's that combo decks, in their current state, are the LITERAL ANTITHESIS to the spirit of EDH.
Of course, this is my .02, but I fail to see how a combo deck can ever, in any capacity, lead to a positive experience from a playgroup. And if you believe hand-stacking (Paris) is cool, sorry, but you aren't even playing Magic. Have fun in Christmas Land.
EDH:
G[cEDH] Selvala, Heart of the StormG
URW[cEDH] Narset, the Last AirmericanURW
GWUSt. Jenara, the ArchangelGWU
UBGrimgrin, Chaos MarineUB
GOmnath, Mana BaronG
URWNarset, Justice League AmericaURW
GWUBAtraxa, Countess of CountersGWUB
GWUEstrid, Enbantress PrimeGWU
If anything to me EDH is a format that is screaming to built out around the commander in fun weird ways that could lead to combo as much as it could anything else.
Well tell us how you feel, why don't ya?
I'm not telling you what to think, but have you considered that there might be some enjoyment to be found when you don't limit yourself to 2/3 of the archetypes in Magic? Lots of play groups enjoy this kind of play, and contrary to your assessment, there are many interesting decision trees when piloting and playing against these sorts of decks.
My .02.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
GWUB 4C Gifts Control
Commander:
GWU Derevi
BGW Ghave
BUG Muldrotha
Tiny Leaders:
BGW Doran
BGU Leovold
First of all combo doesn't have to be competitive. You can play slow combo or control that just happens to have some combos that can win late. Combo does not by definition mean degenerately competitive. So talking about mulligans and casual vs. competitive really has little bearing on this particular discussion. Leave that to the dozen or so other threads on the topic.
This thread is more about the general archetype.
So on topic, how far do we go with defining combo? Obviously Omniscience + Enter the Infinite is a combo that allows you to play your whole deck.
But what about my new Grixis deck (not the Storm deck in my sig, another deck using much of the same shell)? It doesn't have a standard 2-4 card combo that lets you play your whole deck in a turn but if played right all the synergies, card draw effects, wheels etc...can create a situation where you can cast virtually your whole deck in one turn. You can occasionally do this as early as turn 5. But the point of the deck isn't to do that. More I just want to play a ton of spells without doing much deep into the game. Then if the game is getting boring I'll try to play my whole deck.
Is that combo? I'd say yes. But how is it that different then a battle cruiser deck built to spew it's creatures out ASAP? When you really break it down the only true difference is that I don't turn creatures sideways to win. And that I've taken advantage of synergies to cast more spells in a turn.
I think the main problem some people have with combo is that they are to stuck on the idea of winning games with creatures through combat. Which is silly. This is Magic. The whole initial concept of the game is that you are in a wizard's duel with your opponent. In all the fiction out there and in D&D how powerful are summon creature spells compared to other magic? Weak. Why shouldn't a card game meant to represent that stuff be similar?
Yes combo can be degenerate. Yes combo can be boring (but just as many people find combat boring). But that is the nature of magic in fiction. Why should the card game be different? Why is the combo player evil for actually wanting to be more like the wizards presented in fiction, or more like his D&D characters? Why can't anti-combo people see the hypocrisy in many of their arguments?
EDH Decks:
WUBOloro, Combo ControlWUB
UBOona Reanimator ComboUB
BRGProssh, Eater of the Blue MageBRG
UBRGrixis StormUBR
Rebuilding Jenara (stealyourstuff.dec)
Pauper Deck:
UBInspired SirenUB
I should point out that, if you read my post, I don't disagree with all forms of combo, far from it. In fact, I specifically said that things that are 4 card combos, etc. are perfectly fine and can be really cool to assemble and see go off. Storm involves playing a lot of cards prior to storming and thus makes it a not simple combo and require thought and setup outside of grabbing 2 cards with tutors and winning.\. Even 3 card combos are fine sometimes, but when people do what is essentially hand-sculpting with their aggressive mulligans, it takes the challenge out of it. So you are put in a situation where you are, more or less, forced to play blue in order to counter the combo unless it involves a permanent at which point, you have to have instant removal of some kind just ready to go. When people go off on turn 4, how many answers are expected to exist? Also, Demonic Tutor, Mystical Tutor, Idyllic Tutor, etc. are all pretty damn cheap. You could tutor for literally anything you needed on turn 1-2 and still go off turn 4. My thoughts on fast combo are below.
And I don't disagree with control with combos or slow combo, in fact, I run several of them in my Grimgrin deck. I disagree with the premise and ideology of "fast combo" and turn 4 non-interactive wins every game. There are decks literally designed for it. Is Hermit Druid fun to play against? Or Ad Nauseum? Combo as an archetype can exist in a very fun, still competitive, effective, and prominent role in EDH, but I think fast combo, especially in playgroups that do BS Paris mulligans, laughs in the face of the format's intent.
EDH:
G[cEDH] Selvala, Heart of the StormG
URW[cEDH] Narset, the Last AirmericanURW
GWUSt. Jenara, the ArchangelGWU
UBGrimgrin, Chaos MarineUB
GOmnath, Mana BaronG
URWNarset, Justice League AmericaURW
GWUBAtraxa, Countess of CountersGWUB
GWUEstrid, Enbantress PrimeGWU
Ad Naus isn't even very fun to play. I've done it. I imagine Hermit Druid isn't much better.
EDH Decks:
WUBOloro, Combo ControlWUB
UBOona Reanimator ComboUB
BRGProssh, Eater of the Blue MageBRG
UBRGrixis StormUBR
Rebuilding Jenara (stealyourstuff.dec)
Pauper Deck:
UBInspired SirenUB