The short take: Games need to end. There will be winners, and there will be losers. I won't say "unique", but specifically in this format, there will be an "Ultimate Loser", as in the first player eliminated from a 4-player pod. Nothing you can do will ever change that dynamic. That's why this format is aimed at establishing a casual playing environment, lessens the "feel bads" when everybody's focus is fun over winning.
The longer take: If you don't like to lose, this probably isn't the format for you. If you play to win, this isn't the format for you. If can't identify social nuances within a group of 4-6 people, this isn't the format for you. It sounds like many here are one of those three, or some combination. Well, I hate to break it to you, the format isn't made for you. Believe it or not, cards like T&N and Rise of the Dark Realms, can, and already are, used fairly and within the philosophy set forth by the RC. They just aren't broken game-enders, most of the time they are just grand spells that can do a few things besides just winning. Like bringing you back from the brink, or eliminating a serious threat to the table, or to just put a bow on a well-played game. I have some pretty excellent memories with T&N, most by my casting, but also when it's cast against me. Here is my prime example. Naya deck down to 12 life, turn 15. Facing down a Briamaz Token army with Eldrazi Monument. Another player had Repercussion on the board, and I was showing off my Concordent Crossroads. Well, Naya player top-decked a T&N, grabs Thundermaw Hellkite and Balefire Dragon. Yeah, you see where I'm going with this. Naya eliminated Brimaz player, then I quickly StP his Balefire, and the repercussion player knocked him out on his turn.
I don't want to turn this thread into a SCD, but not a single player was salty after that game. Nobody gripes about T&N, and the worst part was the Naya player had the WeaverThune combo in his deck. He could have just eliminated a player that couldn't intercept, but instead he went for the logical flashy play. A pretty rad memory for the table.
I guess where I'm going with this, is, this format needs epic plays. Also, we as casual players need an "out". There was literally nothing else the above player could have done to survive that onslaught. The haymakers that are routinely brought up in ban discussions shouldn't be vilified, they should be embraced. There is potential for broken interactions, but at the same time, they can create incredibly memorable games regardless what end of the spectrum you come out on.
The games where I am salty, or left with an empty feeling have more to do with what's in the chair, rather than what pops up on the table.
Commander should be treated as the water-cooler. Come around, shoot the breeze, have some laughs, but don't be that guy that brings up politics or relationships. If more people embraced that, you wouldn't need threads like these.
I don't have a problem with Tooth and Nail, or any other tutor or similar card, unless it is used to fetch the same tired combos again and again. The example immediately above is a fine use of TnN, in my opinion. Kiki/Conscripts? Yawn city, man.
Funny for me is losing against something like Tooth and Nail tutoring something like Deadeye Navigator+Palinchron. I like that I need to focus in a game and make sure my opponent doesn't combo through.
Not funny is losing to creature based decks that attacks for the win. Thats just plain boring. If I wanted to die to creature damage I would play 8 player drafts. But the players in my playgroup rarely plays creature decks like that, so I'm fine I guess
...this for me, but the exact opposite. At that point, it's pretty much 100 card legacy/vintage to me.
I can't recall playing against Tooth and Nail but as far as I'm concerned, the problem is less with the ability to tutor a game-ending combo into play as it is that the combo itself (should it arise through that means or through normal play) 'solves' any complex board state and the interesting set of in-play interactions with just "Whatever. I win." The complex interactions don't get to continue, remain unresolved, and the deck vs deck dynamics also just end because the game also ends.
Look at the pattern that various board wipes have in that situation: Every board wipe comes with trade offs that are made at deck-building time that come with different pros and cons, and none of them are perfect for dealing with every possible threat or every possible counterplay. Regeneration, indestructibility, death triggers, threatening non-creature permanents, Ghostway, Boros Charm. And even the aftermath is not 'clean'. Recursion makes the graveyard state matter. Life totals up to that point remain as they were, creating more or less pressure on certain players. And other resources like hand size and mana development remain as they were and will also continue to affect play.
It can certainly be exciting to pull out a combo win when you're about to lose, when it starts happening regularly, it's less exciting because it means those early plays aren't meaningful and it can push metagames in an unhealthy direction. I can understand an argument that some instant-win combo can be a healthy part of metagames for a similar reason that luck of the draw is the same: You always want weaker players to have a chance to win since it will keep them interested in playing, unlike games of pure skill where the winner is almost always the strongest player. However there is a limit.
I don’t buy the idea that if I draw/play TnN everything on the board doesn’t matter cause it equals “I win” at all. I will elaborate later in this post when I talk about my playgroup.
Strategically, yes, it's better to not tap out and to hold open as flexible an answer as you can to whatever possible immediate threats as you can as much of the time as you can. Not knowing if someone is going to untap: win means that strategically, it's better to develop your board more slowly so you can stop someone from going off. However you can't always hold up an answer and you will rarely have the resources to hold open enough answers to stop everything.
If your point is that everyone else should have had their fun by the time Tooth and Nail or fill-in-the-blank combo ends the game, I think that is an unreasonable expectation.
Correct, it isn’t always possible hold up on your resources, but you are not the only player at the table. Furthermore holding up an answer almost means 100 % chance of using that answer before its your turn again, at least in my playgroup. It’s not like it’s possible to just draw-go to turn 9 and then TnN.
People in here make it sound so simple. Last time I tried to cast TnN I lost the game because it gave one of my opponents 7 colorless mana in his next main phase due to Mana Drain (now talk about an insane card, TnN is nowhere near the powerlevel of Mana Drain).
You dont seem to get what I am trying to say. The trip aint the combo. The trip is the other 96 cards in the deck that you chose to put in there to reach the destination. You can play TnN in more than one deck. For you any deck with TnN is the same. Thats nowhere near the case for me. I will play playing a lot differently against a TnN Tasigur, than a TnN Edric. Anyway, I think we are going off-topic, so I will stop it here for my part.
I can't recall playing against Tooth and Nail but as far as I'm concerned, the problem is less with the ability to tutor a game-ending combo into play as it is that the combo itself (should it arise through that means or through normal play) 'solves' any complex board state and the interesting set of in-play interactions with just "Whatever. I win." The complex interactions don't get to continue, remain unresolved, and the deck vs deck dynamics also just end because the game also ends.
Exactly. It's anti-climactic. The game ends with no real drama and no particular payoff for anyone other than the combo player. I am less concerned with whether I win (though, all things equal, I would prefer to win, as would most players) than whether the game is fun and interesting, and I don't feel either applies when the game ends that way. Which is why I go out of my way to avoid including tired "iWin" combos in my decks.
Because for you the “drama” and “payoff” comes in the round where someone wins. For me the payoff comes when I decide whether or not to play Mana Reflection in the hopes that I can protect it, and through that get a massive resource advantage. After that Tasigur becomes quite fun (and political) with his graveyard ability. “If you (Ydris) give me Natures Claim back now, I might be able to stop Breya from comboing through on his next turn, but it’s up to you”.
In my playgroup we consider that fun. The whole game. To hell with the win condition.
I guess where I'm going with this, is, this format needs epic plays. Also, we as casual players need an "out". There was literally nothing else the above player could have done to survive that onslaught. The haymakers that are routinely brought up in ban discussions shouldn't be vilified, they should be embraced. There is potential for broken interactions, but at the same time, they can create incredibly memorable games regardless what end of the spectrum you come out on.
The games where I am salty, or left with an empty feeling have more to do with what's in the chair, rather than what pops up on the table.
Commander should be treated as the water-cooler. Come around, shoot the breeze, have some laughs, but don't be that guy that brings up politics or relationships. If more people embraced that, you wouldn't need threads like these.
But the definition of what an epic play is may vary from playgroup to playgroup. Let me tell you about my playgroup:
At the moment we play as Atraxa (Stax), Breya (Combo/Solitaire), Ydris(Double Strike/extra combat phase -> cascade, cascade, cascade) and me Tasigur (Combo/Villainous Wealth).
When we play, its very rare to see a Grave Titan on the board, cause no one in my playgroup finds a creature that doesn’t do anything funny. However, the whole political system on who is going to counter who and who is going to kill Ydris before he triggers is a hell of fun for us. It's not easy to get a TnN through vs. these opponents, and even if it gets through, all it takes is one instant speed spot removal.
Someone wrote (I think it was JWK) something a long the lines “no one who played the format for more than a month cant seriously think that winning off TnN into Mike/trike or Palin/Deadeye is fun.” I just respectfully disagree, and I don’t like it when someone makes a general statement like this, since the basis on the statement is like listening to Donald Trumps alternative facts.
TL:DR - My whole point was stating that there are players/playgroups like me, who enjoy playing combo decks be it Doomsday, TnN or whatever. Stop trying to sell this as a format where only creatures like Grave Titan and spells like Overrun is good. It might be a casual format where that’s a fact for some, for other it is quite essential that TnN and the likes doesn’t get banned because then there would be no action for us.
You dont seem to get what I am trying to say. The trip aint the combo. The trip is the other 96 cards in the deck that you chose to put in there to reach the destination. You can play TnN in more than one deck. For you any deck with TnN is the same. Thats nowhere near the case for me. I will play playing a lot differently against a TnN Tasigur, than a TnN Edric. Anyway, I think we are going off-topic, so I will stop it here for my part.
I can't recall playing against Tooth and Nail but as far as I'm concerned, the problem is less with the ability to tutor a game-ending combo into play as it is that the combo itself (should it arise through that means or through normal play) 'solves' any complex board state and the interesting set of in-play interactions with just "Whatever. I win." The complex interactions don't get to continue, remain unresolved, and the deck vs deck dynamics also just end because the game also ends.
Exactly. It's anti-climactic. The game ends with no real drama and no particular payoff for anyone other than the combo player. I am less concerned with whether I win (though, all things equal, I would prefer to win, as would most players) than whether the game is fun and interesting, and I don't feel either applies when the game ends that way. Which is why I go out of my way to avoid including tired "iWin" combos in my decks.
Because for you the “drama” and “payoff” comes in the round where someone wins.
You're making a lot of assumptions there, and are incorrect in all of them. As I've said, though I prefer winning to losing - as do most players - what's really important to me is that the game itself be interesting. It isn't all about the round in which someone wins, and I would much rather lose than win a game that I find boring or anticlimactic. I don't like the "I win" combos in large part specifically because the play of the game all along should matter, and when someone just tosses a winning combo out onto the table, essentially nothing else that happened to that point in the game matters; all that matters is whether or not the combo was stopped, and if not, the game is suddenly over in a manner that often has little relevance to what was happening in the game to that point. I like when things go back and forth over the course of a game, with different players gaining and losing advantage and when boardstates change and everyone has an opportunity to impact the course of the game... and finally someone wins in some manner that isn't essentially the exact same win that occurs every other time a particular combo of two cards ends the game.
For you, the excitement of playing is, essentially, "Can I get my combo to stick through everyone else's attempts to stop it?" and "Can I stop everyone else's combo fron going off?" For you "interaction" is apparently mostly about stopping combos. That is the exact opposite of what I want a game of Commander to be about. It is very clear that we have very different visions of this format. Which is fine. We don't have to like the same things. I simply cannot relate to your perspective on the game - yes, I am the person who noted that I can't understand why anyone who has been playing any length of time can possibly find something like Mike/Trike interesting or rewarding at this point - as apparently you cannot relate to mine.
Your playgroup is not the "model" group for EDH, at least how the RC defines the format currently. It's all fine and dandy that your group is fun for you and your pals, but I can assure you that your group is the outlier.
The philosophy is important to this format. It allows for random groups of varying tastes to come together and have a positive experience. The minority of EDH player would enjoy your group, and I'd be willing to throw the "fact" label on that statement. Does that mean your wrong? No, but you should be willing to acknowledge what I laid out above, and understand that very few folks here share your version of "fun". I mean, let's be real here, the average game of EDH will not feature Mana Drain. Great card for sure, but something I just have no interest in deploying against the table.
And as my own personal opinion, your group sounds boring. A deck that goes "solitaire" is the most anti-EDH thing in the world. 1v1, ok, but at a table of 4+? No way.
Infinite combos I don't consider fun losses. As soon as one of those combo starts rolling my brain just switches off along with the enjoyment I was having. As what an infinite combo feels like to me is all this build-up to what amounts to a puff of smoke. Very anti-climatic.
I don't mind losing if I or someone at the table couldn't do anything to prevent it, or if a game is approaching its second or third hour and nothing is happening. Infinite loops are part of the game and, at least, they end games. To that extent, infinite combos are just synergy with an unlimited quantity. Synergy is interesting but infinite locks (Mycosynth Lattice, Darksteel Forge and Nev's Disk) kinda kill the table. The dude playing it usually doesn't get another win, regardless of deck, for the rest of the evening.
Having said the above, I do enjoy seeing interesting synergies and combos but, I'd rather have 4-6 game in a night rather than 1 and half games because of control and board clearing.
I agree with Buffsam about the "Solitaire" type of game, that's why I took apart my Yidris deck - no fun for anyone else to take 20-30 minute turns.
I prefer winning games (or losing) them where I can learn something from the game. Games that end suddenly/abruptly based off of a card being played that couldn't be countered aren't fun. There should be things that are game winning threats, those are necessary to start wrapping things up so it isn't just a death by a thousand cuts deal, but I prefer when the answer has to be somewhat constructed instead of just use it and finish things.
Wow! This is an insanely subjective topic. Not to mention the innate complexity of the factors involved when discussing it...
So... without getting philosophical or writing a small dissertation... I'll just give an abridged point of view (i.e. my 2 cents!).
If you encounter a game loss that quantifies as "Fun" or "Not Fun", it isn't the card (or cards) that caused it. Rather it is due to one (or more) of the people attempting to co-exist in your current pod.
For years I've read (and heard) the argument of... EDH "Casual vs. Competitive". My response to that argument is that EDH is both casual and competitive (and so many other things!), but MOST IMPORTANTLY is a social format!
Keeping an open mind, communicating maturely, embracing a shared vision of what you all want... these are all key! And I can truly sympathize for those who are unable to play EDH under such conditions...
You dont seem to get what I am trying to say. The trip aint the combo. The trip is the other 96 cards in the deck that you chose to put in there to reach the destination. You can play TnN in more than one deck. For you any deck with TnN is the same. Thats nowhere near the case for me. I will play playing a lot differently against a TnN Tasigur, than a TnN Edric. Anyway, I think we are going off-topic, so I will stop it here for my part.
I can't recall playing against Tooth and Nail but as far as I'm concerned, the problem is less with the ability to tutor a game-ending combo into play as it is that the combo itself (should it arise through that means or through normal play) 'solves' any complex board state and the interesting set of in-play interactions with just "Whatever. I win." The complex interactions don't get to continue, remain unresolved, and the deck vs deck dynamics also just end because the game also ends.
Exactly. It's anti-climactic. The game ends with no real drama and no particular payoff for anyone other than the combo player. I am less concerned with whether I win (though, all things equal, I would prefer to win, as would most players) than whether the game is fun and interesting, and I don't feel either applies when the game ends that way. Which is why I go out of my way to avoid including tired "iWin" combos in my decks.
Because for you the “drama” and “payoff” comes in the round where someone wins.
You're making a lot of assumptions there, and are incorrect in all of them. As I've said, though I prefer winning to losing - as do most players - what's really important to me is that the game itself be interesting. It isn't all about the round in which someone wins, and I would much rather lose than win a game that I find boring or anticlimactic. I don't like the "I win" combos in large part specifically because the play of the game all along should matter, and when someone just tosses a winning combo out onto the table, essentially nothing else that happened to that point in the game matters; all that matters is whether or not the combo was stopped, and if not, the game is suddenly over in a manner that often has little relevance to what was happening in the game to that point. I like when things go back and forth over the course of a game, with different players gaining and losing advantage and when boardstates change and everyone has an opportunity to impact the course of the game... and finally someone wins in some manner that isn't essentially the exact same win that occurs every other time a particular combo of two cards ends the game.
For you, the excitement of playing is, essentially, "Can I get my combo to stick through everyone else's attempts to stop it?" and "Can I stop everyone else's combo fron going off?" For you "interaction" is apparently mostly about stopping combos. That is the exact opposite of what I want a game of Commander to be about. It is very clear that we have very different visions of this format. Which is fine. We don't have to like the same things. I simply cannot relate to your perspective on the game - yes, I am the person who noted that I can't understand why anyone who has been playing any length of time can possibly find something like Mike/Trike interesting or rewarding at this point - as apparently you cannot relate to mine.
First: As I said, I don't buy the argument that when TnN is drawn, the player wins. You call TnN and "I win" combo (if used with Mike/Trike or Palin/Deadeye) and a card like that means that the game so far didnt matter. Thats just not true. If I have negate in hand, and someone plays Jace, the Mind Sculpter, I can choose to negate it or not. If I dont the player will gain a massive advantage, if I do counter, I dont have another answer. Now lets say I do counter JtMS, and the next player then plays TnN and wins, how did the game not matter then? I could have let JtMS go through and counter TnN instead, but I didn't, and as such I was reading the game very poorly, since I clearly didn't notice that the TnN was a 9 mana.
Another example is when Edric is on the board, do I tap out and destroy it with Beast Within thus not holding ressources to counter a TnN/doomsday or whatever might be comming. If I dont stop Edric, it will have a very clear impact on the game! So lets say Edric stays, the player with him draws three cards. Another payer at the table also draws cards of Edric because of his wording. Now the last player before me tries to cards TnN/doomsday, I counter. Was this a good play or not? Two players gained massive card advantage and the last player and me gained nothing. Game continues.
For me its all about reading the game and playing it. And of course "the game" matters even if a card like TnN is played. Saying otherwise seems quite ignorant. But we clearly dont agree on this.
We have house rules too. Which means winning with TnN might not be that good because if there is only one opponent left, then there is only 4 point left to get. So beating someone up fast is quite effective when it comes to our point system.
But as I seem to be a minority, I have a question to all in here. How do you determine what is "okay" and what "not okay" to play? If cards like TnN into Mike/Trike or Palin/Deadeye is not okay, then Doomsday shouldnt be either. Then STAX would be seem to be quite good if no one plays control. Maybe this is too strong now. Then we state STAX = not okay. Now Narset, Enlightened Master seems to be the power house. Without STAX and control she would just rip the opponents apart taking 20 turns + on turn 5-7. Now she is not okay, what now?
What I dont understand is, how do you draw the line? I am not trying to bash at your (all of you that doesnt like TnN) opinion. I am trying to understand how you draw the line between "okay" and "not okay".
I don't even have a problem with TnN, so long as it isn't played to grab the same tedious combos. Deadeye/Palinchron, Mike/Trike, Kiki/Conscripts... boring! Some would say grabbing a couple of big finishers that don't make an infinite combo but which do win the game is also boring, but I don't happen to agree with that stance, because finishers are just that, and games do have to end some time. Finishers generally require one to have established and maintained some degree of board state - even Craterhoof Behemoth and Avenger of Zendikar aren't too impressive if you don't have a haste enabler or a bunch of creatures that are ready to attack when they are dropped into play - while tedious combos like Mike/Trike or Kiki/Conscripts can win out of nowhere just by resolving.
There is a competitive subset of players in the local meta who play Doomsday combo and Derevi prison and so forth, but I don't play with them. They recognize that what they want out of the game is different than the sort of game most players are looking for, and they mostly do their own thing. Which is cool. They have fun playing with others who build and play decks at that level, and the other players do their thing playing decks that aren't generally intended to win via combo or infinite turns or whatever. The bunch I play with is less competitive. Nobody plays stuff like Doomsday, and most players avoid infinite or "iWin" combos. Occasionally someone will play something like Narset for one game, then they shuffle up something that isn't just about playing solitaire. I pull out my Nath stax deck for one game, on rare occasions, after letting everyone know what sort of deck it is, and then afterward - whether I win or lose - I move on to my Animar hydra tribal or Surrak Dragonclaw fatty slam or something else entirely.
How do we decide what is okay, and make this work? We take other players' preferences and reactions into account, and we build decks that are interesting to play against, as opposed to simply difficult to pilot successfully through a swarm of counterspells and removal. That's the whole social contract aspect of the format.
Really, it's the difference between playing the format as it was designed to be played, and playing it competitively. They are two very different approaches that exemplify different attitudes and styles of deck building. Note that I'm not saying your way is bad or wrong. It isn't. You and a lot of other players - including a subset of folk in my local metagame - like playing that way, and have fun doing it, which is cool. It's just something entirely different than what the RC has in mind for the game and what most EDH players are looking for when they sit down at a table.
First: As I said, I don't buy the argument that when TnN is drawn, the player wins. You call TnN and "I win" combo (if used with Mike/Trike or Palin/Deadeye) and a card like that means that the game so far didnt matter. Thats just not true. If I have negate in hand, and someone plays Jace, the Mind Sculpter, I can choose to negate it or not. If I dont the player will gain a massive advantage, if I do counter, I dont have another answer. Now lets say I do counter JtMS, and the next player then plays TnN and wins, how did the game not matter then? I could have let JtMS go through and counter TnN instead, but I didn't, and as such I was reading the game very poorly, since I clearly didn't notice that the TnN was a 9 mana.
Another example is when Edric is on the board, do I tap out and destroy it with Beast Within thus not holding ressources to counter a TnN/doomsday or whatever might be comming. If I dont stop Edric, it will have a very clear impact on the game! So lets say Edric stays, the player with him draws three cards. Another payer at the table also draws cards of Edric because of his wording. Now the last player before me tries to cards TnN/doomsday, I counter. Was this a good play or not? Two players gained massive card advantage and the last player and me gained nothing. Game continues.
For me its all about reading the game and playing it. And of course "the game" matters even if a card like TnN is played. Saying otherwise seems quite ignorant. But we clearly dont agree on this.
We have house rules too. Which means winning with TnN might not be that good because if there is only one opponent left, then there is only 4 point left to get. So beating someone up fast is quite effective when it comes to our point system.
But as I seem to be a minority, I have a question to all in here. How do you determine what is "okay" and what "not okay" to play? If cards like TnN into Mike/Trike or Palin/Deadeye is not okay, then Doomsday shouldnt be either. Then STAX would be seem to be quite good if no one plays control. Maybe this is too strong now. Then we state STAX = not okay. Now Narset, Enlightened Master seems to be the power house. Without STAX and control she would just rip the opponents apart taking 20 turns + on turn 5-7. Now she is not okay, what now?
What I dont understand is, how do you draw the line? I am not trying to bash at your (all of you that doesnt like TnN) opinion. I am trying to understand how you draw the line between "okay" and "not okay".
Your gameplay examples show exactly why I hate these kinds of matches.
There are so many situations that reduce the game down to a single "do you have the win now that I am tapped out?" or "Do you have the answer to my win?". This is terrible gameplay to me.
Just because the cards and strategies are strong does not make for a better game. I personally feel quite the opposite, the types of matches that play out like vintage are just dreadful. I think vintage is a horrible magic format with a huge number of games that were never actually games to begin with, because at no point was there going to be any relevant decisions. Only players praying that the obvious plays worked out against the opposing draw. Playing EDH with decks that are as close to vintage as possible results in the same situations. "Did your opener have the right cards?"
By slowing down the decks and the strategies, the better player(s) can try and get gradual political and optimal play advantages that eventually turn into a win, instead of constantly risking not having one of the few answer cards for whatever broken win your opponents are going for, or if they don't have answers, praying that your opponents can't answer your own win. You greatly increase the luck factor of the game because you see so few cards and everything is meant to end the game.
In short, to me:
More decisions that mean less makes for a MUCH better game than a couple decisions that decide the game.
I can't recall playing against Tooth and Nail but as far as I'm concerned, the problem is less with the ability to tutor a game-ending combo into play as it is that the combo itself (should it arise through that means or through normal play) 'solves' any complex board state and the interesting set of in-play interactions with just "Whatever. I win." The complex interactions don't get to continue, remain unresolved, and the deck vs deck dynamics also just end because the game also ends.
Exactly. It's anti-climactic. The game ends with no real drama and no particular payoff for anyone other than the combo player. I am less concerned with whether I win (though, all things equal, I would prefer to win, as would most players) than whether the game is fun and interesting, and I don't feel either applies when the game ends that way. Which is why I go out of my way to avoid including tired "iWin" combos in my decks.
Because for you the “drama” and “payoff” comes in the round where someone wins.
You're making a lot of assumptions there, and are incorrect in all of them. As I've said, though I prefer winning to losing - as do most players - what's really important to me is that the game itself be interesting. It isn't all about the round in which someone wins, and I would much rather lose than win a game that I find boring or anticlimactic. I don't like the "I win" combos in large part specifically because the play of the game all along should matter, and when someone just tosses a winning combo out onto the table, essentially nothing else that happened to that point in the game matters; all that matters is whether or not the combo was stopped, and if not, the game is suddenly over in a manner that often has little relevance to what was happening in the game to that point. I like when things go back and forth over the course of a game, with different players gaining and losing advantage and when boardstates change and everyone has an opportunity to impact the course of the game... and finally someone wins in some manner that isn't essentially the exact same win that occurs every other time a particular combo of two cards ends the game.
For you, the excitement of playing is, essentially, "Can I get my combo to stick through everyone else's attempts to stop it?" and "Can I stop everyone else's combo fron going off?" For you "interaction" is apparently mostly about stopping combos. That is the exact opposite of what I want a game of Commander to be about. It is very clear that we have very different visions of this format. Which is fine. We don't have to like the same things. I simply cannot relate to your perspective on the game - yes, I am the person who noted that I can't understand why anyone who has been playing any length of time can possibly find something like Mike/Trike interesting or rewarding at this point - as apparently you cannot relate to mine.
First: As I said, I don't buy the argument that when TnN is drawn, the player wins. You call TnN and "I win" combo (if used with Mike/Trike or Palin/Deadeye) and a card like that means that the game so far didnt matter. Thats just not true. If I have negate in hand, and someone plays Jace, the Mind Sculpter, I can choose to negate it or not. If I dont the player will gain a massive advantage, if I do counter, I dont have another answer. Now lets say I do counter JtMS, and the next player then plays TnN and wins, how did the game not matter then? I could have let JtMS go through and counter TnN instead, but I didn't, and as such I was reading the game very poorly, since I clearly didn't notice that the TnN was a 9 mana.
Another example is when Edric is on the board, do I tap out and destroy it with Beast Within thus not holding ressources to counter a TnN/doomsday or whatever might be comming. If I dont stop Edric, it will have a very clear impact on the game! So lets say Edric stays, the player with him draws three cards. Another payer at the table also draws cards of Edric because of his wording. Now the last player before me tries to cards TnN/doomsday, I counter. Was this a good play or not? Two players gained massive card advantage and the last player and me gained nothing. Game continues.
For me its all about reading the game and playing it. And of course "the game" matters even if a card like TnN is played. Saying otherwise seems quite ignorant. But we clearly dont agree on this.
We have house rules too. Which means winning with TnN might not be that good because if there is only one opponent left, then there is only 4 point left to get. So beating someone up fast is quite effective when it comes to our point system.
But as I seem to be a minority, I have a question to all in here. How do you determine what is "okay" and what "not okay" to play? If cards like TnN into Mike/Trike or Palin/Deadeye is not okay, then Doomsday shouldnt be either. Then STAX would be seem to be quite good if no one plays control. Maybe this is too strong now. Then we state STAX = not okay. Now Narset, Enlightened Master seems to be the power house. Without STAX and control she would just rip the opponents apart taking 20 turns + on turn 5-7. Now she is not okay, what now?
What I dont understand is, how do you draw the line? I am not trying to bash at your (all of you that doesnt like TnN) opinion. I am trying to understand how you draw the line between "okay" and "not okay".
Personally I draw the line at "Are you trying to win" vs. "Are you trying to enjoy". Nobody has said you are wrong in the way you play, but I would be lying if I said you were playing the format as intended.
The goal shouldn't be optimizing to increase your odds at winning. The goal should be optimizing to play your very favorite cards. If your favorite cards are that of the Stax/Combo/Control variety, then that's perfectly cool, but I'd suggest trying to deploy them in a less competetive manner.
The above outlines the reasons why I don't understand folks distaste for cards like T&N. They always point to infinite creature combos, yet that's not its only use. I've stated before that I've seen it used fairly, and I also use it fairly. Just because it's in your deck doesn't mean you have to A.)Grab the infinite, or B.) Even include those pieces in your deck. The same logic applies to your question. Just because you run Narset, enlightened master doesn't mean you have to cram every Timewalk into your deck. If that's your favorite thing to do, then just make sure your playgroup is on board, otherwise you'll rub folks the wrong way as that's not a reasonable expectation in a 4-player free-for-all commander game.
The only games I don't enjoy are the ones where 1-2 players are playing a totally different game than the rest of the players, the sole reason being that they want to win. Get a few enjoyable games in, and maybe you'll win one of them, if not, maybe it just wasn't meant to be.
Just because you run Narset, enlightened master doesn't mean you have to cram every Timewalk into your deck. If that's your favorite thing to do, then just make sure your playgroup is on board, otherwise you'll rub folks the wrong way as that's not a reasonable expectation in a 4-player free-for-all commander game.
I would love to see a Narset deck that isn't the typical broken-built Narset. So far I've never seen it. Just like I've never seen anyone build a Leovold deck that doesn't include all of the aspects that make people hate Leovold decks. Maybe it's because it's so easy and obvious how to break those generals, they almost always end up broken in that way. Theoretically, it shouldn't be any different than TnN, in that you can choose to play it fairly or play it broken, but I sure haven't ever seen that.
Hm, maybe I should try to do a "fair" Narset deck sometime. An idea to consider, at least.
Did I get to do something interesting in the game? Did i get to cast a giant fatty and at least pose a threat to somebody? If yes to either of these then the actual result does not matter all too much.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH BRGKresh the BloodbraidedBRG, A box of lands and ideas.
Modern: RG Titanshift. A deck made of cards too stupid for EDH.
Retired: Lots. More than I feel you should suffer through or I should type out.
I despise stalemates/clugged board states. It leads to awfully long games and usually favors UGx based decks way too much (remember PoK? Yeah.).
Playing a stax or combo deck once in a while keeps the meta in check. I would like to specify that to me stax is better when its actual taxes and not resource denial. I tried that once and it can be quite unfun.
And I think it goes without saying that the least fun way to lose is the Mana Screw. It's not even a malicious act by your opponent, your deck just sorta... decides it doesn't want to try today.
I can't speak for Yalpe, but I personally detest playing against group hug decks. I craft my decks carefully to provide incremental card advantages, and decks which allow everyone to play a lot of extra lands and/or draw a bunch of cards nullify that advantage, giving everyone more resources to just toss out more threats and/or improving their odds of comboing out quickly. All things being equal, unless there is obviously a much greater threat at the table, I will always use my removal against the key group hug cards and do my best to put the group hug player out of the game ASAP.
On Monday night, I saw two games entirely skewed by the presence of a group hug player. Giving Rashmi more resources to work with and more card draw let the Rashmi player win easily in one game, in another game it did the exact same thing for Breya. The Rashmi player just shook his head as the huggy player kept tossing enablers onto the table, and after the game said "I didn't win that one, you gave it to me."
Unfun losses are those that end the game before it begins (last night was a turn 1 ramp turn 2 draw into Dream Halls, Enter the Infinite, and Omniscience) and games where I have to play 'that' deck to have an outside chance at participating in the game, let alone winning.
Losing because I am the only person in the pod running and attempting answers while everyone races to combo also irks me.
Fun losses are those where everyone gets to play cards and there is give and take throughout the game. People drawing into the second part of even a common combo are fine, because tutors aren't used.
I can't speak for Yalpe, but I personally detest playing against group hug decks. I craft my decks carefully to provide incremental card advantages, and decks which allow everyone to play a lot of extra lands and/or draw a bunch of cards nullify that advantage, giving everyone more resources to just toss out more threats and/or improving their odds of comboing out quickly. All things being equal, unless there is obviously a much greater threat at the table, I will always use my removal against the key group hug cards and do my best to put the group hug player out of the game ASAP.
On Monday night, I saw two games entirely skewed by the presence of a group hug player. Giving Rashmi more resources to work with and more card draw let the Rashmi player win easily in one game, in another game it did the exact same thing for Breya. The Rashmi player just shook his head as the huggy player kept tossing enablers onto the table, and after the game said "I didn't win that one, you gave it to me."
Personally, I don't mind losing to a group hug deck - assuming the deck is designed to be able to make better use of the resources they're handing out (for a very simple example, Howling Mine and friends in a Multani, Maro-Sorcerer deck). Losing because of a group hug deck giving out wins like you describe though is indeed frustrating.
Infinite combos I don't consider fun losses. As soon as one of those combo starts rolling my brain just switches off along with the enjoyment I was having. As what an infinite combo feels like to me is all this build-up to what amounts to a puff of smoke. Very anti-climatic.
What about an infinite combo that's technically a slow-play because you don't know how your graveyard will look like so it takes twenty minutes to find your pieces to finish the game? That's why I don't play my The Gitrog Monster deck anymore. I didn't want to piss people off by playing it. I still enjoy playing combo and playing against it, but that's just my current meta is and how my friends who got me into MtG and EDH played. I do have one non-combo deck that's more about synergy and working on another so I can play games against people like yourself who don't like combos so no one gets upset and the game stays fun for everyone. Whether it's you because you don't like combos or me because I have to pull my punches to make the game more enjoyable. I'm fine with both styles of play, but I'm used to a combo-heavy meta and my decks reflect that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The longer take: If you don't like to lose, this probably isn't the format for you. If you play to win, this isn't the format for you. If can't identify social nuances within a group of 4-6 people, this isn't the format for you. It sounds like many here are one of those three, or some combination. Well, I hate to break it to you, the format isn't made for you. Believe it or not, cards like T&N and Rise of the Dark Realms, can, and already are, used fairly and within the philosophy set forth by the RC. They just aren't broken game-enders, most of the time they are just grand spells that can do a few things besides just winning. Like bringing you back from the brink, or eliminating a serious threat to the table, or to just put a bow on a well-played game. I have some pretty excellent memories with T&N, most by my casting, but also when it's cast against me. Here is my prime example. Naya deck down to 12 life, turn 15. Facing down a Briamaz Token army with Eldrazi Monument. Another player had Repercussion on the board, and I was showing off my Concordent Crossroads. Well, Naya player top-decked a T&N, grabs Thundermaw Hellkite and Balefire Dragon. Yeah, you see where I'm going with this. Naya eliminated Brimaz player, then I quickly StP his Balefire, and the repercussion player knocked him out on his turn.
I don't want to turn this thread into a SCD, but not a single player was salty after that game. Nobody gripes about T&N, and the worst part was the Naya player had the WeaverThune combo in his deck. He could have just eliminated a player that couldn't intercept, but instead he went for the logical flashy play. A pretty rad memory for the table.
I guess where I'm going with this, is, this format needs epic plays. Also, we as casual players need an "out". There was literally nothing else the above player could have done to survive that onslaught. The haymakers that are routinely brought up in ban discussions shouldn't be vilified, they should be embraced. There is potential for broken interactions, but at the same time, they can create incredibly memorable games regardless what end of the spectrum you come out on.
The games where I am salty, or left with an empty feeling have more to do with what's in the chair, rather than what pops up on the table.
Commander should be treated as the water-cooler. Come around, shoot the breeze, have some laughs, but don't be that guy that brings up politics or relationships. If more people embraced that, you wouldn't need threads like these.
I can't really be specific, because every game is different.
...this for me, but the exact opposite. At that point, it's pretty much 100 card legacy/vintage to me.
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
I don’t buy the idea that if I draw/play TnN everything on the board doesn’t matter cause it equals “I win” at all. I will elaborate later in this post when I talk about my playgroup.
Correct, it isn’t always possible hold up on your resources, but you are not the only player at the table. Furthermore holding up an answer almost means 100 % chance of using that answer before its your turn again, at least in my playgroup. It’s not like it’s possible to just draw-go to turn 9 and then TnN.
People in here make it sound so simple. Last time I tried to cast TnN I lost the game because it gave one of my opponents 7 colorless mana in his next main phase due to Mana Drain (now talk about an insane card, TnN is nowhere near the powerlevel of Mana Drain).
Because for you the “drama” and “payoff” comes in the round where someone wins. For me the payoff comes when I decide whether or not to play Mana Reflection in the hopes that I can protect it, and through that get a massive resource advantage. After that Tasigur becomes quite fun (and political) with his graveyard ability. “If you (Ydris) give me Natures Claim back now, I might be able to stop Breya from comboing through on his next turn, but it’s up to you”.
In my playgroup we consider that fun. The whole game. To hell with the win condition.
But the definition of what an epic play is may vary from playgroup to playgroup. Let me tell you about my playgroup:
At the moment we play as Atraxa (Stax), Breya (Combo/Solitaire), Ydris(Double Strike/extra combat phase -> cascade, cascade, cascade) and me Tasigur (Combo/Villainous Wealth).
When we play, its very rare to see a Grave Titan on the board, cause no one in my playgroup finds a creature that doesn’t do anything funny. However, the whole political system on who is going to counter who and who is going to kill Ydris before he triggers is a hell of fun for us. It's not easy to get a TnN through vs. these opponents, and even if it gets through, all it takes is one instant speed spot removal.
Someone wrote (I think it was JWK) something a long the lines “no one who played the format for more than a month cant seriously think that winning off TnN into Mike/trike or Palin/Deadeye is fun.” I just respectfully disagree, and I don’t like it when someone makes a general statement like this, since the basis on the statement is like listening to Donald Trumps alternative facts.
TL:DR - My whole point was stating that there are players/playgroups like me, who enjoy playing combo decks be it Doomsday, TnN or whatever. Stop trying to sell this as a format where only creatures like Grave Titan and spells like Overrun is good. It might be a casual format where that’s a fact for some, for other it is quite essential that TnN and the likes doesn’t get banned because then there would be no action for us.
You're making a lot of assumptions there, and are incorrect in all of them. As I've said, though I prefer winning to losing - as do most players - what's really important to me is that the game itself be interesting. It isn't all about the round in which someone wins, and I would much rather lose than win a game that I find boring or anticlimactic. I don't like the "I win" combos in large part specifically because the play of the game all along should matter, and when someone just tosses a winning combo out onto the table, essentially nothing else that happened to that point in the game matters; all that matters is whether or not the combo was stopped, and if not, the game is suddenly over in a manner that often has little relevance to what was happening in the game to that point. I like when things go back and forth over the course of a game, with different players gaining and losing advantage and when boardstates change and everyone has an opportunity to impact the course of the game... and finally someone wins in some manner that isn't essentially the exact same win that occurs every other time a particular combo of two cards ends the game.
For you, the excitement of playing is, essentially, "Can I get my combo to stick through everyone else's attempts to stop it?" and "Can I stop everyone else's combo fron going off?" For you "interaction" is apparently mostly about stopping combos. That is the exact opposite of what I want a game of Commander to be about. It is very clear that we have very different visions of this format. Which is fine. We don't have to like the same things. I simply cannot relate to your perspective on the game - yes, I am the person who noted that I can't understand why anyone who has been playing any length of time can possibly find something like Mike/Trike interesting or rewarding at this point - as apparently you cannot relate to mine.
Your playgroup is not the "model" group for EDH, at least how the RC defines the format currently. It's all fine and dandy that your group is fun for you and your pals, but I can assure you that your group is the outlier.
The philosophy is important to this format. It allows for random groups of varying tastes to come together and have a positive experience. The minority of EDH player would enjoy your group, and I'd be willing to throw the "fact" label on that statement. Does that mean your wrong? No, but you should be willing to acknowledge what I laid out above, and understand that very few folks here share your version of "fun". I mean, let's be real here, the average game of EDH will not feature Mana Drain. Great card for sure, but something I just have no interest in deploying against the table.
And as my own personal opinion, your group sounds boring. A deck that goes "solitaire" is the most anti-EDH thing in the world. 1v1, ok, but at a table of 4+? No way.
Having said the above, I do enjoy seeing interesting synergies and combos but, I'd rather have 4-6 game in a night rather than 1 and half games because of control and board clearing.
I agree with Buffsam about the "Solitaire" type of game, that's why I took apart my Yidris deck - no fun for anyone else to take 20-30 minute turns.
(W/U)(B/R)GForm of Progenitus, Shape of a Scrubland
BRGJund Tokens with Prossh, the Magic Dragon Foil
URGAnimar, the RUG CleanerFoil
RRRFeldon of the Third Path 2.0 Foil
BG(B/G)Not Another Meren DeckFoil
UR(U/R)Mizzix, Y Control and X Burn Spells
(W/U)(B/R)GHarold Ramos - The 35 Foot Long Twinkie (In +1/+1 counters)
UB(U/B)Dragonlord Silumgar
So... without getting philosophical or writing a small dissertation... I'll just give an abridged point of view (i.e. my 2 cents!).
If you encounter a game loss that quantifies as "Fun" or "Not Fun", it isn't the card (or cards) that caused it. Rather it is due to one (or more) of the people attempting to co-exist in your current pod.
For years I've read (and heard) the argument of... EDH "Casual vs. Competitive". My response to that argument is that EDH is both casual and competitive (and so many other things!), but MOST IMPORTANTLY is a social format!
Keeping an open mind, communicating maturely, embracing a shared vision of what you all want... these are all key! And I can truly sympathize for those who are unable to play EDH under such conditions...
First: As I said, I don't buy the argument that when TnN is drawn, the player wins. You call TnN and "I win" combo (if used with Mike/Trike or Palin/Deadeye) and a card like that means that the game so far didnt matter. Thats just not true. If I have negate in hand, and someone plays Jace, the Mind Sculpter, I can choose to negate it or not. If I dont the player will gain a massive advantage, if I do counter, I dont have another answer. Now lets say I do counter JtMS, and the next player then plays TnN and wins, how did the game not matter then? I could have let JtMS go through and counter TnN instead, but I didn't, and as such I was reading the game very poorly, since I clearly didn't notice that the TnN was a 9 mana.
Another example is when Edric is on the board, do I tap out and destroy it with Beast Within thus not holding ressources to counter a TnN/doomsday or whatever might be comming. If I dont stop Edric, it will have a very clear impact on the game! So lets say Edric stays, the player with him draws three cards. Another payer at the table also draws cards of Edric because of his wording. Now the last player before me tries to cards TnN/doomsday, I counter. Was this a good play or not? Two players gained massive card advantage and the last player and me gained nothing. Game continues.
For me its all about reading the game and playing it. And of course "the game" matters even if a card like TnN is played. Saying otherwise seems quite ignorant. But we clearly dont agree on this.
We have house rules too. Which means winning with TnN might not be that good because if there is only one opponent left, then there is only 4 point left to get. So beating someone up fast is quite effective when it comes to our point system.
But as I seem to be a minority, I have a question to all in here. How do you determine what is "okay" and what "not okay" to play? If cards like TnN into Mike/Trike or Palin/Deadeye is not okay, then Doomsday shouldnt be either. Then STAX would be seem to be quite good if no one plays control. Maybe this is too strong now. Then we state STAX = not okay. Now Narset, Enlightened Master seems to be the power house. Without STAX and control she would just rip the opponents apart taking 20 turns + on turn 5-7. Now she is not okay, what now?
What I dont understand is, how do you draw the line? I am not trying to bash at your (all of you that doesnt like TnN) opinion. I am trying to understand how you draw the line between "okay" and "not okay".
There is a competitive subset of players in the local meta who play Doomsday combo and Derevi prison and so forth, but I don't play with them. They recognize that what they want out of the game is different than the sort of game most players are looking for, and they mostly do their own thing. Which is cool. They have fun playing with others who build and play decks at that level, and the other players do their thing playing decks that aren't generally intended to win via combo or infinite turns or whatever. The bunch I play with is less competitive. Nobody plays stuff like Doomsday, and most players avoid infinite or "iWin" combos. Occasionally someone will play something like Narset for one game, then they shuffle up something that isn't just about playing solitaire. I pull out my Nath stax deck for one game, on rare occasions, after letting everyone know what sort of deck it is, and then afterward - whether I win or lose - I move on to my Animar hydra tribal or Surrak Dragonclaw fatty slam or something else entirely.
How do we decide what is okay, and make this work? We take other players' preferences and reactions into account, and we build decks that are interesting to play against, as opposed to simply difficult to pilot successfully through a swarm of counterspells and removal. That's the whole social contract aspect of the format.
Really, it's the difference between playing the format as it was designed to be played, and playing it competitively. They are two very different approaches that exemplify different attitudes and styles of deck building. Note that I'm not saying your way is bad or wrong. It isn't. You and a lot of other players - including a subset of folk in my local metagame - like playing that way, and have fun doing it, which is cool. It's just something entirely different than what the RC has in mind for the game and what most EDH players are looking for when they sit down at a table.
Your gameplay examples show exactly why I hate these kinds of matches.
There are so many situations that reduce the game down to a single "do you have the win now that I am tapped out?" or "Do you have the answer to my win?". This is terrible gameplay to me.
Just because the cards and strategies are strong does not make for a better game. I personally feel quite the opposite, the types of matches that play out like vintage are just dreadful. I think vintage is a horrible magic format with a huge number of games that were never actually games to begin with, because at no point was there going to be any relevant decisions. Only players praying that the obvious plays worked out against the opposing draw. Playing EDH with decks that are as close to vintage as possible results in the same situations. "Did your opener have the right cards?"
By slowing down the decks and the strategies, the better player(s) can try and get gradual political and optimal play advantages that eventually turn into a win, instead of constantly risking not having one of the few answer cards for whatever broken win your opponents are going for, or if they don't have answers, praying that your opponents can't answer your own win. You greatly increase the luck factor of the game because you see so few cards and everything is meant to end the game.
In short, to me:
More decisions that mean less makes for a MUCH better game than a couple decisions that decide the game.
Personally I draw the line at "Are you trying to win" vs. "Are you trying to enjoy". Nobody has said you are wrong in the way you play, but I would be lying if I said you were playing the format as intended.
The goal shouldn't be optimizing to increase your odds at winning. The goal should be optimizing to play your very favorite cards. If your favorite cards are that of the Stax/Combo/Control variety, then that's perfectly cool, but I'd suggest trying to deploy them in a less competetive manner.
The above outlines the reasons why I don't understand folks distaste for cards like T&N. They always point to infinite creature combos, yet that's not its only use. I've stated before that I've seen it used fairly, and I also use it fairly. Just because it's in your deck doesn't mean you have to A.)Grab the infinite, or B.) Even include those pieces in your deck. The same logic applies to your question. Just because you run Narset, enlightened master doesn't mean you have to cram every Timewalk into your deck. If that's your favorite thing to do, then just make sure your playgroup is on board, otherwise you'll rub folks the wrong way as that's not a reasonable expectation in a 4-player free-for-all commander game.
The only games I don't enjoy are the ones where 1-2 players are playing a totally different game than the rest of the players, the sole reason being that they want to win. Get a few enjoyable games in, and maybe you'll win one of them, if not, maybe it just wasn't meant to be.
I would love to see a Narset deck that isn't the typical broken-built Narset. So far I've never seen it. Just like I've never seen anyone build a Leovold deck that doesn't include all of the aspects that make people hate Leovold decks. Maybe it's because it's so easy and obvious how to break those generals, they almost always end up broken in that way. Theoretically, it shouldn't be any different than TnN, in that you can choose to play it fairly or play it broken, but I sure haven't ever seen that.
Hm, maybe I should try to do a "fair" Narset deck sometime. An idea to consider, at least.
BRGKresh the BloodbraidedBRG, A box of lands and ideas.
Modern:
RG Titanshift. A deck made of cards too stupid for EDH.
Retired: Lots. More than I feel you should suffer through or I should type out.
Playing a stax or combo deck once in a while keeps the meta in check. I would like to specify that to me stax is better when its actual taxes and not resource denial. I tried that once and it can be quite unfun.
Also, grouphug, nonononono.
That was a fun game.
And I think it goes without saying that the least fun way to lose is the Mana Screw. It's not even a malicious act by your opponent, your deck just sorta... decides it doesn't want to try today.
- Rabid Wombat
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
I can't speak for Yalpe, but I personally detest playing against group hug decks. I craft my decks carefully to provide incremental card advantages, and decks which allow everyone to play a lot of extra lands and/or draw a bunch of cards nullify that advantage, giving everyone more resources to just toss out more threats and/or improving their odds of comboing out quickly. All things being equal, unless there is obviously a much greater threat at the table, I will always use my removal against the key group hug cards and do my best to put the group hug player out of the game ASAP.
On Monday night, I saw two games entirely skewed by the presence of a group hug player. Giving Rashmi more resources to work with and more card draw let the Rashmi player win easily in one game, in another game it did the exact same thing for Breya. The Rashmi player just shook his head as the huggy player kept tossing enablers onto the table, and after the game said "I didn't win that one, you gave it to me."
Losing because I am the only person in the pod running and attempting answers while everyone races to combo also irks me.
Fun losses are those where everyone gets to play cards and there is give and take throughout the game. People drawing into the second part of even a common combo are fine, because tutors aren't used.
Cheers!
Krichaiushii on PucaTrade.
Personally, I don't mind losing to a group hug deck - assuming the deck is designed to be able to make better use of the resources they're handing out (for a very simple example, Howling Mine and friends in a Multani, Maro-Sorcerer deck). Losing because of a group hug deck giving out wins like you describe though is indeed frustrating.
What about an infinite combo that's technically a slow-play because you don't know how your graveyard will look like so it takes twenty minutes to find your pieces to finish the game? That's why I don't play my The Gitrog Monster deck anymore. I didn't want to piss people off by playing it. I still enjoy playing combo and playing against it, but that's just my current meta is and how my friends who got me into MtG and EDH played. I do have one non-combo deck that's more about synergy and working on another so I can play games against people like yourself who don't like combos so no one gets upset and the game stays fun for everyone. Whether it's you because you don't like combos or me because I have to pull my punches to make the game more enjoyable. I'm fine with both styles of play, but I'm used to a combo-heavy meta and my decks reflect that.